wnd--2020-07-03--H.L. Mencken: Misfit in 21st-century America

H.L .
Mencken , a contrarian polemicist and the consummate critic , who wrote prolifically and prodigiously from 1899 until 1949 , may no longer seem relevant , but the fault would not be his .
Mencken was a well-read bon vivant with a taste for Teutonic philosophy and a fidelity to immutable truth .
He was also a brilliant satirist and a writer whose facility with the English idiom and grasp of intellectual history are unsurpassed .
How can a phenom like Mencken appeal in our age , The Age of the Idiot ?
He ca n't : He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Henry Louis Mencken can not appeal to the bumper crops of humorless , dour `` dunderheads '' America is now siring .
He can not resonate with those who are afraid to question received opinion , who can not conjugate a verb correctly , use tenses , prepositions and adjectives grammatically and creatively , or appreciate a clever turn-of-phrase .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester How can Mencken , author of `` The American Language '' ( 1919 ) , be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules of syntax are passé , pronouns are politicized and neutered , torrential prolixity is in , concision and precision are out , and `` editors '' excise nothing , preferring to let mangled phrases and lumpen jargon spill onto the page like gravy over a tablecloth .
Not for nothing did one wag say that the history of ideas is the history of words .
And since Mencken was , first and foremost , a man of ideas ( and hence , words ) , no discussion of Mencken and his ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the language he deployed with such verve and vim .
Thus , when `` a few newspaper smarties protested '' Mencken 's verbal virtuosity , Mencken tartly noted , in his Preface to `` A Mencken Chrestomathy '' ( 1949 ) : `` Thousands of excellent nouns , verbs and adjectives … are still unfamiliar to such ignoramuses .
Let them … leave my vocabulary and me to my own customers , who have all been to school . ''
Written at a considerable level of abstraction , for a prosaic people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` can not grasp an abstraction , '' a Mencken essay is certain to furrow the brow of the above-average American reader , writer and editor nowadays .
Unlike the tracts disgorged by Conservatism Inc. , the least complicated of Mencken 's editorial writings would place excessive demands on the unsupple minds of young activists , who are busy striking a selfie on social media or running to CPUKE conferences .
Indeed , ideas are in retreat ; and the incremental and steady `` closing of the American mind '' is on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bracing originality of his ideas , Mencken is rendered as inaccessible to the American reader as an alien from deep space .
While Mencken 's libertarian acolytes and admirers focus on his disdain for the State as the leitmotif of his writings – Mencken 's war on the `` dishonest , insane , intolerable and tyrannical '' U.S. government was , arguably , the least controversial thread in his voluminous oeuvre .
Mencken 's grasp of government as a predatory , `` regimenting '' force that fleeces the citizen without flinching ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ the individual ] to his hide '' ; a `` gang well-nigh immune to punishment '' – these , nowadays , are the most acceptable of Mencken 's thoughts .
What would make Mencken an outcast to the turgid minds dominating the current marketplace of ideas is his disdain for the `` intellectually underprivileged '' American electorate , whom he called the `` boobs . ''
As Mencken saw it , Boobus Americanus , so easily and reliably `` impressed and enchanted '' by the political scoundrels , was largely to blame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government more secure than in the United States .
Americans were simply the `` most timorous , sniveling , poltroonsish , ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag .
… '' '' A glorious commonwealth of morons , '' Mencken called America .
`` The American moron 's mind '' – this `` mob-man 's '' mentality – is that of a `` violent nationalist and patriot , '' to whom ideas are a menace and who would always opt `` to keep his Ford , even at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
These are all Mencken 's words , not mine .
It was Mencken against America then , to paraphrase the scholar Thomas W. Hazlett .
And it would be Mencken against America today .
More so than his anti-statism and strong , spare prose – so different from today 's insipid , anemic , meandering commentary – Mencken shattered every conceivable totem and taboo of American life .
It is this so-called anti-Americanism that would make Mencken unpalatable and unemployable in our times .
In a word , being a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a misfit among his countrymen .
For , as Mencken saw them , Americans were congenitally and `` implacably hostile to '' the very things that made him tick : `` novel ideas and points of view . ''
`` Everything American , '' mocked Mencken , is characterized by `` a great distrust of ideas '' … and `` a harsh fidelity to a few fixed beliefs , '' most of which Mencken derided .
Let me count the ways .
American exceptionalism ?
Not on your life – except as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show which lays chief stress upon … the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues … clowns in constant practice . ''
`` American values '' ?
Are n't those fit for export ?
Should not America be making the world over in its image ?
Are you fit to be tied ?
Mencken 's conviction was that the `` average American '' is a narrow-minded chauvinist , who is wont to conflate `` differentness '' with `` wrongness '' and immorality .
By extension , America 's habitual manner of dealing with `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – is hypocritical , disingenuous , knavish , and dishonorable . ''
Christianity ?
Not too long ago , gingerly cleaving to Edward Gibbon 's scholarship , this essayist pondered whether Christianity might be considered the Social Justice movement of its day .
How subtle was that compared to Mencken 's reference to Christianity as a `` mob religion '' that `` paves heaven with gold and precious stones , i.e.
, with money '' !
Nevertheless , in his day , Mencken was seen as merely following his métier as an acidic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on most subjects would have earned Mencken a rebuke from a prissy , Fox-empaneled gaggle of schoolmarms , called upon to expatiate about Mean Man Mencken .
On second thought , today , Mencken would have been silenced by `` cancel culture . ''
Mencken 's views on `` monogamous marriage '' and the military broke the American mold as well .
The married man ends up `` making machiavellian efforts to avoid kissing the everyday sharer of his meals , books , bath towels , pocketbook , relatives , ambitions , secrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about as romantic as having his boots blackened . ''
Find me a conservative radio mouth or TV anchor who would forgive the Maestro for that uproariously funny quip .
The American military ?
The `` military caste , '' bemoaned Mencken , in `` Minority Report , '' `` did not originate as a party of patriots , but as a party of bandits . ''
More crucially , Mencken mocked the mighty American military 's fighting prowess .
Who gets away with that today ?
From the riffs of outrage coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` our democracy '' betrayed , infiltrated , even destroyed – you 'd never know that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought .
It 's at its best in Mencken 's diatribe against the democratic doxology .
Mencken was withering about a political dispensation that teaches that `` all moral excellence , and with it all pure and unfettered sagacity , resided in the inferior four-fifths of mankind . ''
Of course , Mencken was not merely politically impolite or incorrect .
Rather , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers , sainted farmers and their subsidies , Jewish money-lenders , blacks and Anglo-Saxons .
Mencken would have infuriated with this verdict about the Anglo-Saxon : He is `` the least civilized of white men and the least capable of true civilization . ''
His blood is `` running thin , '' and `` he fears ideas almost more cravenly than he fears men . ''
Rest assured , too , that for his use of racial epithets , the country 's professional racism-spotters would proceed against Mencken with all their sinecured mediocrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Baltimore Sun 's telling , Mencken did `` more to help black writers – including the likes of W.E.B .
Du Bois , Langston Hughes , and James Weldon Johnson – get into mainstream print than any other white magazine editor of his day . ''
Yes , Mencken helped all talent .
Why so ?
For one , he was secure in his own talent unmatched .
For another , Mencken toiled at a time when merit still mattered .
Today , however , true talent is expunged – treated as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overlords of our slum-dog culture .
Only in America , ventured Mencken , are such `` third-rate men '' in full control of the state and the `` Kulture . ''
More so than in Mencken 's day , the mission of these `` third-rate men , '' today , is to preserve the status quo by warding off `` the menace of ideas . ''
In `` Human Accomplishment , '' Charles Murray evaluates and assesses the events and the individuals , from 800 B.C .
to 1950 , to have inspired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hovels .
His verdict about cultural products in the `` post-1950 West '' : Hardly any of `` the literature , music , and visual arts of the last half century has enough substance to satisfy , over time . ''
Murray 's methodologically sound findings jibe with the case made here .
It is that Mencken – whose career as an American man-of-letters was meteoric , and who made a good living regaling and enraging every segment of American society , would have perished in penury had he peddled his craft in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20th century .
Not prone to hyper-partisan hysteria , this writer sees Mencken as the keenest and cleverest observer of American culture .
Whereas Mencken marshaled exciting , irreverent and powerful thoughts and arguments ; current commentary , by-and-large , serves up self-righteous , `` pious piffle , '' to quote Mencken on the cultural foot-and-mouth of his time .
Right and left , these `` dull fellows '' would rise on their hind legs in protest of Mencken 's systematic , analytical and entertaining evisceration of the alpha-and-omega of American life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the popular magazines or websites , conservative or liberal , he 'd have been reprimanded by a millennial or Generation-Z `` editor '' for being mean-spirited .
He would have been told , `` Thanks , but no thanks , Henry .
We 'll pass . ''
And `` Henry '' would have replied to editorial detractors as he did back in the day : Your newspaper , young pipsqueak , is `` trifling , ill-informed , petty and unfair .
It is full of transparent absurdities .
Its editorials are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written in English full of clichés and vulgarities – English that would disgrace a manager of prize-fighters or a county superintendent of schools . ''

H.L. Mencken, a contrarian polemicist and the consummate critic, who wrote prolifically and prodigiously from 1899 until 1949, may no longer seem relevant, but the fault would not be his.
Mencken was a well-read bon vivant with a taste for Teutonic philosophy and a fidelity to immutable truth. He was also a brilliant satirist and a writer whose facility with the English idiom and grasp of intellectual history are unsurpassed.
How can a phenom like Mencken appeal in our age, The Age of the Idiot?
He can't: He should, but he can't.
Henry Louis Mencken cannot appeal to the bumper crops of humorless, dour "dunderheads" America is now siring. He cannot resonate with those who are afraid to question received opinion, who cannot conjugate a verb correctly, use tenses, prepositions and adjectives grammatically and creatively, or appreciate a clever turn-of-phrase.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
How can Mencken, author of "The American Language" (1919), be relevant in an America in which the rules of syntax are passé, pronouns are politicized and neutered, torrential prolixity is in, concision and precision are out, and "editors" excise nothing, preferring to let mangled phrases and lumpen jargon spill onto the page like gravy over a tablecloth.
Not for nothing did one wag say that the history of ideas is the history of words. And since Mencken was, first and foremost, a man of ideas (and hence, words), no discussion of Mencken and his ideas is complete without a reference to English, the language he deployed with such verve and vim.
Thus, when "a few newspaper smarties protested" Mencken's verbal virtuosity, Mencken tartly noted, in his Preface to "A Mencken Chrestomathy" (1949): "Thousands of excellent nouns, verbs and adjectives … are still unfamiliar to such ignoramuses. Let them … leave my vocabulary and me to my own customers, who have all been to school."
Written at a considerable level of abstraction, for a prosaic people that, by Mencken's estimation, "cannot grasp an abstraction," a Mencken essay is certain to furrow the brow of the above-average American reader, writer and editor nowadays. Unlike the tracts disgorged by Conservatism Inc., the least complicated of Mencken's editorial writings would place excessive demands on the unsupple minds of young activists, who are busy striking a selfie on social media or running to CPUKE conferences.
Indeed, ideas are in retreat; and the incremental and steady "closing of the American mind" is on the march. By virtue of the unsettling, bracing originality of his ideas, Mencken is rendered as inaccessible to the American reader as an alien from deep space.
While Mencken's libertarian acolytes and admirers focus on his disdain for the State as the leitmotif of his writings – Mencken's war on the "dishonest, insane, intolerable and tyrannical" U.S. government was, arguably, the least controversial thread in his voluminous oeuvre.
Mencken's grasp of government as a predatory, "regimenting" force that fleeces the citizen without flinching; that could and does "safely strip [the individual] to his hide"; a "gang well-nigh immune to punishment" – these, nowadays, are the most acceptable of Mencken's thoughts.
What would make Mencken an outcast to the turgid minds dominating the current marketplace of ideas is his disdain for the "intellectually underprivileged" American electorate, whom he called the "boobs." As Mencken saw it, Boobus Americanus, so easily and reliably "impressed and enchanted" by the political scoundrels, was largely to blame for why nowhere in the world was government more secure than in the United States. Americans were simply the "most timorous, sniveling, poltroonsish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag. …"
"A glorious commonwealth of morons," Mencken called America. "The American moron's mind" – this "mob-man's" mentality – is that of a "violent nationalist and patriot," to whom ideas are a menace and who would always opt "to keep his Ford, even at the cost of losing the Bill of Rights."
These are all Mencken's words, not mine.
It was Mencken against America then, to paraphrase the scholar Thomas W. Hazlett. And it would be Mencken against America today.
More so than his anti-statism and strong, spare prose – so different from today's insipid, anemic, meandering commentary – Mencken shattered every conceivable totem and taboo of American life. It is this so-called anti-Americanism that would make Mencken unpalatable and unemployable in our times.
In a word, being a man of ideas is what would render Mencken a misfit among his countrymen. For, as Mencken saw them, Americans were congenitally and "implacably hostile to" the very things that made him tick: "novel ideas and points of view." "Everything American," mocked Mencken, is characterized by "a great distrust of ideas" … and "a harsh fidelity to a few fixed beliefs," most of which Mencken derided.
Let me count the ways.
American exceptionalism? Not on your life – except as the "greatest show on earth … a show which lays chief stress upon … the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues … clowns in constant practice."
"American values"? Aren't those fit for export? Should not America be making the world over in its image?
Are you fit to be tied? Mencken's conviction was that the "average American" is a narrow-minded chauvinist, who is wont to conflate "differentness" with "wrongness" and immorality. By extension, America's habitual manner of dealing with "foreign nations, whether friend or foe – is hypocritical, disingenuous, knavish, and dishonorable."
Christianity? Not too long ago, gingerly cleaving to Edward Gibbon's scholarship, this essayist pondered whether Christianity might be considered the Social Justice movement of its day. How subtle was that compared to Mencken's reference to Christianity as a "mob religion" that "paves heaven with gold and precious stones, i.e., with money"!
Nevertheless, in his day, Mencken was seen as merely following his métier as an acidic critic; today, his heretical words on most subjects would have earned Mencken a rebuke from a prissy, Fox-empaneled gaggle of schoolmarms, called upon to expatiate about Mean Man Mencken. On second thought, today, Mencken would have been silenced by "cancel culture."
Mencken's views on "monogamous marriage" and the military broke the American mold as well.
The married man ends up "making machiavellian efforts to avoid kissing the everyday sharer of his meals, books, bath towels, pocketbook, relatives, ambitions, secrets, malaise and business: a proceeding about as romantic as having his boots blackened." Find me a conservative radio mouth or TV anchor who would forgive the Maestro for that uproariously funny quip.
The American military? The "military caste," bemoaned Mencken, in "Minority Report," "did not originate as a party of patriots, but as a party of bandits." More crucially, Mencken mocked the mighty American military's fighting prowess. Who gets away with that today?
From the riffs of outrage coming from the Democrats and their demos over "our democracy" betrayed, infiltrated, even destroyed – you'd never know that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought. It's at its best in Mencken's diatribe against the democratic doxology. Mencken was withering about a political dispensation that teaches that "all moral excellence, and with it all pure and unfettered sagacity, resided in the inferior four-fifths of mankind."
Of course, Mencken was not merely politically impolite or incorrect. Rather, he pulverized every politically protected group conceivable: soldiers, sainted farmers and their subsidies, Jewish money-lenders, blacks and Anglo-Saxons. Mencken would have infuriated with this verdict about the Anglo-Saxon: He is "the least civilized of white men and the least capable of true civilization." His blood is "running thin," and "he fears ideas almost more cravenly than he fears men."
Rest assured, too, that for his use of racial epithets, the country's professional racism-spotters would proceed against Mencken with all their sinecured mediocrity. This, even though, by the Baltimore Sun's telling, Mencken did "more to help black writers – including the likes of W.E.B. Du Bois, Langston Hughes, and James Weldon Johnson – get into mainstream print than any other white magazine editor of his day."
Yes, Mencken helped all talent. Why so? For one, he was secure in his own talent unmatched. For another, Mencken toiled at a time when merit still mattered. Today, however, true talent is expunged – treated as a mortal threat to the gatekeepers and overlords of our slum-dog culture. Only in America, ventured Mencken, are such "third-rate men" in full control of the state and the "Kulture." More so than in Mencken's day, the mission of these "third-rate men," today, is to preserve the status quo by warding off "the menace of ideas."
In "Human Accomplishment," Charles Murray evaluates and assesses the events and the individuals, from 800 B.C. to 1950, to have inspired humanity and dragged it out of wattle-and-daub hovels. His verdict about cultural products in the "post-1950 West": Hardly any of "the literature, music, and visual arts of the last half century has enough substance to satisfy, over time."
Murray's methodologically sound findings jibe with the case made here. It is that Mencken – whose career as an American man-of-letters was meteoric, and who made a good living regaling and enraging every segment of American society, would have perished in penury had he peddled his craft in the culturally more barren half of the 20th century.
Not prone to hyper-partisan hysteria, this writer sees Mencken as the keenest and cleverest observer of American culture. Whereas Mencken marshaled exciting, irreverent and powerful thoughts and arguments; current commentary, by-and-large, serves up self-righteous, "pious piffle," to quote Mencken on the cultural foot-and-mouth of his time. Right and left, these "dull fellows" would rise on their hind legs in protest of Mencken's systematic, analytical and entertaining evisceration of the alpha-and-omega of American life.
Were Mencken to submit a tract to most of the popular magazines or websites, conservative or liberal, he'd have been reprimanded by a millennial or Generation-Z "editor" for being mean-spirited. He would have been told, "Thanks, but no thanks, Henry. We'll pass."
And "Henry" would have replied to editorial detractors as he did back in the day: Your newspaper, young pipsqueak, is "trifling, ill-informed, petty and unfair. It is full of transparent absurdities. Its editorials are ignorant and without sense. It is written in English full of clichés and vulgarities – English that would disgrace a manager of prize-fighters or a county superintendent of schools."
Amen.


wnd--2020-07-03--Globalists vs. Americans: The stakes are higher than ever

According to a recent poll , 88 % of Americans feel that our county is in crisis .
Some fear a health crisis from COVID-19 .
Some fear a crisis of racial tension , crime and police misconduct .
And some fear an economic crisis that could destroy the financial security for millions of Americans .
Americans are scared – and the media are feeding that fear .
They are skewing the news to scare Americans into voting against President Trump .
So much is being covered about the virus and race that Americans are ignoring the real dragon on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prior to Trump , everyone in the world was ripping off us Americans .
China took our manufacturing and stole our intellectual property .
Illegal immigrants drove down the wages of average working Americans .
OPEC , Venezuela and Russia ripped us off over oil .
Iran , the World Trade Organization , NATO , the U.N. – they all ripped us off .
And the prior administrations let them .
It all evolved from the Bretton Woods Agreement after World War II and the power of deep state bureaucrats .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders that an interdependent world would lead to a more peaceful world .
From that theory , the Bretton Woods policy of allowing foreign countries to take advantage of the American market , innovations and partnerships became the policy of choice .
The United States allowed it willingly as the `` Christian '' way to bring peace to the world .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester But it all failed .
Germany , Japan , China , Russia , OPEC – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any additional security for Americans .
The Obama Iran deal was in keeping with that policy – billions of dollars to Iran with no return .
We sacrificed our ability to be self-sufficient and independent .
We sacrificed Americans ' jobs for the false security of an interdependent world .
Is Russia any less hostile ?
How about China ?
Iran ?
Germany ?
No .
They all exploit the `` Christianity '' of Americans .
We are the suckers .
This is not dissimilar to how liberals , Black Lives Matter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political ambitions .
Guilt .
Unwarranted guilt to get what they want .
And who profited from American kind hearts ?
Globalists , George Soros , the Rothschilds , world bankers .
U.S. globalists sold out our Arsenal of Democracy for their personal profits : business globalists like GE , Microsoft , Apple and Starbucks ; military globalists like Gen. Mattis and his buddies ( the military industrial complex ) ; intellectual globalists like the liberal media cartel ( NBC , New York Times , Washington Post , MSNBC , CNN , CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ globalists like Brennan , Comey and Clapper .
These entities ' desire to penetrate foreign markets and make deals with our enemies , to be interdependent , was more important to them than the welfare of average working Americans .
Trump ended that … which infuriates those globalists .
If we outsource manufacturing , employment and oil to our enemies , then who provides those items if we need them to defend the U.S. ?
With Trump , ripping off America is done .
It is over .
USMCA .
NATO nations paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration .
Tax reform .
Tariffs on China .
Oil production .
Trump was making America self-sufficient again .
Trump put America first .
The stock market , GDP , employment and wages all hit new records – and that angered globalists so much that they declared war on Trump , an all-out war joined by the media , who spin everything about Trump negatively , thereby deliberately scaring Americans .
When the China virus hit , we artificially shut down the economy .
The stock market dropped 40 % in just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pension plans suffered .
Investments stopped .
American industry stopped .
Unemployment increased , especially for black and Hispanic Americans .
All because of the virus .
Is there any wonder why many Americans feel the United States is in an economic crisis ?
Worse , unemployment made our largest cities a hotbed for crime again .
Idle Americans became criminals again .
All those cities are run by Democrats .
By shutting down the economy , Democrats fostered an increase of violent crime , demonstrations , looting and destruction of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 300 % in some of those Democrat-controlled cities .
We should not have shut down the economy .
The elderly and people with poor health should have sheltered in place , but not all Americans .
Shutting down the economy was a mistake .
The consequences from the shutdown were more dire than those from the virus .
So why do Democrats and media want it to shut down again now ?
Our economy is our strength .
It is the cornerstone fo our security , safety and peace .
Crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
He fixed those problems caused by bureaucrats and Bretton Woods .
He put American workers first .
Black and Hispanic unemployment hit record lows , and so did violent crime .
Our economy is our arsenal of democracy .
Jobs , jobs , jobs will make America great again , just as we were doing prior to the virus .
Now that we are on the road to that recovery in every measurement , globalists are trying to sabotage it .
Trump will again fix the economy – unless liberals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next election .
Americans may feel the nation is in crisis for various reasons .
They may be scared over crime or the China virus – but the economy is the key .
We should all rest assured that Trump is on it despite how Democrats and the media try to scare us .
This election is about either going forward again with the Trump policies , or going back to the Bretton Woods approach .
Will we allow globalists to scare us about Trump when they are to blame for much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our enemies and appeasement to radical groups like Black Lives Mater and Antifa ?
Trump gets it .
Appeasement never works .
Fixing the economy helps all Americans , black , white , young , old , men , women .
`` America first '' helps all Americans .
Whether Americans are scared or merely concerned , they all should ask themselves this question : What happens to jobs , to wages , to religious freedom , to retirement accounts , to pension funds , to taxes and to you if Trump @ @ @ @

According to a recent poll, 88% of Americans feel that our county is in crisis. Some fear a health crisis from COVID-19. Some fear a crisis of racial tension, crime and police misconduct. And some fear an economic crisis that could destroy the financial security for millions of Americans.
Americans are scared – and the media are feeding that fear. They are skewing the news to scare Americans into voting against President Trump.
So much is being covered about the virus and race that Americans are ignoring the real dragon on the horizon: a poor economy.
Prior to Trump, everyone in the world was ripping off us Americans. China took our manufacturing and stole our intellectual property. Illegal immigrants drove down the wages of average working Americans. OPEC, Venezuela and Russia ripped us off over oil. Iran, the World Trade Organization, NATO, the U.N. – they all ripped us off. And the prior administrations let them. It all evolved from the Bretton Woods Agreement after World War II and the power of deep state bureaucrats.
In the 1950s, U.S. bureaucrats convinced our elected leaders that an interdependent world would lead to a more peaceful world. From that theory, the Bretton Woods policy of allowing foreign countries to take advantage of the American market, innovations and partnerships became the policy of choice. The United States allowed it willingly as the "Christian" way to bring peace to the world.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
But it all failed. Germany, Japan, China, Russia, OPEC – all took advantage of that policy without any additional security for Americans. The Obama Iran deal was in keeping with that policy – billions of dollars to Iran with no return.
We sacrificed our ability to be self-sufficient and independent. We sacrificed Americans' jobs for the false security of an interdependent world. Is Russia any less hostile? How about China? Iran? Germany? No. They all exploit the "Christianity" of Americans. We are the suckers.
This is not dissimilar to how liberals, Black Lives Matter and Antifa are exploiting Christians for their selfish political ambitions. Guilt. Unwarranted guilt to get what they want.
And who profited from American kind hearts? Globalists, George Soros, the Rothschilds, world bankers. U.S. globalists sold out our Arsenal of Democracy for their personal profits: business globalists like GE, Microsoft, Apple and Starbucks; military globalists like Gen. Mattis and his buddies (the military industrial complex); intellectual globalists like the liberal media cartel (NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC); deep state bureaucrat globalists like Brennan, Comey and Clapper. These entities' desire to penetrate foreign markets and make deals with our enemies, to be interdependent, was more important to them than the welfare of average working Americans.
Trump ended that … which infuriates those globalists.
If we outsource manufacturing, employment and oil to our enemies, then who provides those items if we need them to defend the U.S.? With Trump, ripping off America is done. It is over.
USMCA. NATO nations paying fair shares. The Wall. Less immigration. Tax reform. Tariffs on China. Oil production. Trump was making America self-sufficient again. Trump put America first. The stock market, GDP, employment and wages all hit new records – and that angered globalists so much that they declared war on Trump, an all-out war joined by the media, who spin everything about Trump negatively, thereby deliberately scaring Americans.
When the China virus hit, we artificially shut down the economy. The stock market dropped 40% in just a couple of weeks. Retirement accounts suffered. Pension plans suffered. Investments stopped. American industry stopped. Unemployment increased, especially for black and Hispanic Americans. All because of the virus. Is there any wonder why many Americans feel the United States is in an economic crisis?
Worse, unemployment made our largest cities a hotbed for crime again. Idle Americans became criminals again. All those cities are run by Democrats. By shutting down the economy, Democrats fostered an increase of violent crime, demonstrations, looting and destruction of our wonderful American history. Violent crime increased more than 300% in some of those Democrat-controlled cities.
We should not have shut down the economy. The elderly and people with poor health should have sheltered in place, but not all Americans. Shutting down the economy was a mistake. The consequences from the shutdown were more dire than those from the virus. So why do Democrats and media want it to shut down again now?
Our economy is our strength. It is the cornerstone fo our security, safety and peace. Crime drops as jobs increase. Trump got that. He fixed those problems caused by bureaucrats and Bretton Woods. He put American workers first. Black and Hispanic unemployment hit record lows, and so did violent crime.
Our economy is our arsenal of democracy. Jobs, jobs, jobs will make America great again, just as we were doing prior to the virus. Now that we are on the road to that recovery in every measurement, globalists are trying to sabotage it. Trump will again fix the economy – unless liberals, globalists and Democrats stop him in this next election.
Americans may feel the nation is in crisis for various reasons. They may be scared over crime or the China virus – but the economy is the key. We should all rest assured that Trump is on it despite how Democrats and the media try to scare us.
This election is about either going forward again with the Trump policies, or going back to the Bretton Woods approach. Will we allow globalists to scare us about Trump when they are to blame for much of our current problems from decades of appeasement to our enemies and appeasement to radical groups like Black Lives Mater and Antifa?
Trump gets it. Appeasement never works. Fixing the economy helps all Americans, black, white, young, old, men, women. "America first" helps all Americans.
Whether Americans are scared or merely concerned, they all should ask themselves this question: What happens to jobs, to wages, to religious freedom, to retirement accounts, to pension funds, to taxes and to you if Trump is not reelected?


wnd--2020-07-03--'But Gorsuch' is still Trump's best argument

This week , the Supreme Court struck down a Montana constitutional provision barring religious schools from benefiting from the state 's tax dollars .
There are similar now-unconstitutional laws on the books across the nation – many of them borne of anti-Catholic bigotry – that subvert religious liberty and further empower government , rather than parents , to make educational choices for their kids .
In most cases , those laws are now dead .
Some of us happen to believe that this development is more consequential than another tax cut or better trade policy .
For us , school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty are non-negotiable .
Would you know this from listening to the press ?
Voters who took a completely rational view of the transactional nature of American politics , and who pulled the lever for Donald Trump as a result , are ridiculed with the derisive phrase , `` But Gorsuch . ''
Some liberals , such as Bill Scher , make the argument explicit , contending that `` the GOP traded its principles for conservative judges .
It was a bad deal . ''
They misunderstand conservative priorities .
You 'll notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betray `` principles '' ; rather , they engage in pragmatism when supporting flawed candidates .
I hate to break the news to them , but backing a corrupt and philosophically vacant charlatan like Hillary Clinton , who had no problem `` wooing '' Vladimir Putin and a slew of other authoritarians , was also an unprincipled choice .
It 's just one they 're comfortable with .
Still , whatever the choice , `` But Gorsuch '' is literally correct .
Trump 's judicial picks will transcend his tweets and his anarchic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the speed with which the mainstream left has abandoned elementary republican governance , the courts may well be the only way to preserve our traditional constitutional order – at least , in the short term .
One reason the courts exist is to temper the excesses and vagaries of crude majoritarianism .
There is no reason whatsoever to shy away from demanding that courts uphold the law as written – which is not the same as judicial activism , though liberals gleefully conflate the two .
Scher argues that , historically speaking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither unique nor impressive , and that his loss might well pave the way for more liberal judges .
That 's certainly one way to look at it .
Another way to look at it is that Trump 's improbable win interrupted a potential 16-year string of anti-constitutional appointments and , to some degree , balanced the ideological disposition of the courts moving forward .
The idea that Democrats would n't have waged the same war on the judiciary if Clinton had won – after they had blown up the judicial filibuster – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They just thought they were going to win again .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester '' But Gorsuch '' also had immediate implications .
Without Gorsuch , there is no Janus v. AFSCME , and unions would still be forcing workers to pay dues to organizations that participate in political causes they do not support .
Without Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – who , say what you will about Trump , was unlikely to have sustained the support of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation battle – states such as Colorado would still openly be destroying the lives of Americans over thought crimes .
A Supreme Court with two Hillary Clinton appointees would be whittling away the free speech protections of Citizens United .
It would be hammering the Second Amendment protections that were reaffirmed by Heller and McDonald .
Roberts may view himself as a Solomonic strategist and stickler for precedent , but his liberal colleagues have little problem dispensing with it whenever convenient .
It 's true that Republican presidents often flub their picks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new protections for LGBT workers .
Roberts , a George W. Bush appointee , will be a perpetual disappointment , I 'm sure .
Yet , both are worlds better than the alternative .
You do n't need to look any further than the Montana school-choice decision to understand why .
The lesson gleaned from recent history is n't that Republicans have gotten a `` bad deal , '' but rather that Republicans should fight harder to seat more jurists like Clarence Thomas and fewer like John Roberts .
There is no `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is just constant struggle .
Conservatives , as their name indicates , rack up unappreciated victories by hindering the progress of bad ideas and preventing them from coagulating into law .
Was Gorsuch worth it ?
Counter-histories are most often a waste of time .
Perhaps Trump 's election damaged the long-term prospects of conservative causes .
Perhaps Democrats would n't have radicalized as quickly had Clinton been president .
It does n't really matter now .
There are plenty of reasons a person may have not to vote for Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments for `` But Gorsuch '' are stronger than ever .

This week, the Supreme Court struck down a Montana constitutional provision barring religious schools from benefiting from the state's tax dollars. There are similar now-unconstitutional laws on the books across the nation – many of them borne of anti-Catholic bigotry – that subvert religious liberty and further empower government, rather than parents, to make educational choices for their kids. In most cases, those laws are now dead.
Some of us happen to believe that this development is more consequential than another tax cut or better trade policy. For us, school choice and the meaningful protection of religious liberty are non-negotiable. Would you know this from listening to the press?
Voters who took a completely rational view of the transactional nature of American politics, and who pulled the lever for Donald Trump as a result, are ridiculed with the derisive phrase, "But Gorsuch." Some liberals, such as Bill Scher, make the argument explicit, contending that "the GOP traded its principles for conservative judges. It was a bad deal." They misunderstand conservative priorities.
You'll notice, first off, that Democrats never betray "principles"; rather, they engage in pragmatism when supporting flawed candidates. I hate to break the news to them, but backing a corrupt and philosophically vacant charlatan like Hillary Clinton, who had no problem "wooing" Vladimir Putin and a slew of other authoritarians, was also an unprincipled choice. It's just one they're comfortable with. Still, whatever the choice, "But Gorsuch" is literally correct. Trump's judicial picks will transcend his tweets and his anarchic time in office. Moreover, considering the speed with which the mainstream left has abandoned elementary republican governance, the courts may well be the only way to preserve our traditional constitutional order – at least, in the short term.
One reason the courts exist is to temper the excesses and vagaries of crude majoritarianism. There is no reason whatsoever to shy away from demanding that courts uphold the law as written – which is not the same as judicial activism, though liberals gleefully conflate the two. Scher argues that, historically speaking, Trump's record on judges has been neither unique nor impressive, and that his loss might well pave the way for more liberal judges. That's certainly one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that Trump's improbable win interrupted a potential 16-year string of anti-constitutional appointments and, to some degree, balanced the ideological disposition of the courts moving forward. The idea that Democrats wouldn't have waged the same war on the judiciary if Clinton had won – after they had blown up the judicial filibuster – is, of course, baloney. They just thought they were going to win again.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"But Gorsuch" also had immediate implications. Without Gorsuch, there is no Janus v. AFSCME, and unions would still be forcing workers to pay dues to organizations that participate in political causes they do not support. Without Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – who, say what you will about Trump, was unlikely to have sustained the support of any other Republican president through such a malicious confirmation battle – states such as Colorado would still openly be destroying the lives of Americans over thought crimes.
A Supreme Court with two Hillary Clinton appointees would be whittling away the free speech protections of Citizens United. It would be hammering the Second Amendment protections that were reaffirmed by Heller and McDonald. Roberts may view himself as a Solomonic strategist and stickler for precedent, but his liberal colleagues have little problem dispensing with it whenever convenient.
It's true that Republican presidents often flub their picks. Gorsuch disappointed social conservatives when helping invent new protections for LGBT workers. Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, will be a perpetual disappointment, I'm sure. Yet, both are worlds better than the alternative. You don't need to look any further than the Montana school-choice decision to understand why.
The lesson gleaned from recent history isn't that Republicans have gotten a "bad deal," but rather that Republicans should fight harder to seat more jurists like Clarence Thomas and fewer like John Roberts. There is no "winning" in politics, after all, there is just constant struggle. Conservatives, as their name indicates, rack up unappreciated victories by hindering the progress of bad ideas and preventing them from coagulating into law.
Was Gorsuch worth it? Counter-histories are most often a waste of time. Perhaps Trump's election damaged the long-term prospects of conservative causes. Perhaps Democrats wouldn't have radicalized as quickly had Clinton been president. It doesn't really matter now. There are plenty of reasons a person may have not to vote for Donald Trump, yes. But the underlying arguments for "But Gorsuch" are stronger than ever.


wnd--2020-07-03--We must decide whether we want to save America

America is in crisis .
Her destiny is on the line , and she will survive only if we still love her .
A battle rages in the streets , in academia , in the culture , and in the hearts and minds of the American people over whether America was and remains a good and great nation .
I have always believed that America is the greatest and most benevolent nation in history , that its Constitution is , in the words of former British Prime Minister William Gladstone , `` The most wonderful work ever struck off at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose of man . ''
That 's primarily because the Constitution was crafted to maximize man 's liberty – not just by paying flowery lip service to the concept on hallowed parchment but by containing concrete limitations on government to ensure its realization .
Over time , anti-libertarian forces have chipped away at the document 's integrity and its guaranteed freedoms .
Today , those destructive forces are ascendant and emboldened .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester Years ago , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution .
On one such occasion , a female African American law student , after hearing my glowing endorsement of the document , asked how she could be expected to revere a government charter that condoned slavery .
I admit to providing an inadequate answer for my good-faith questioner , but I have given much thought to this important and increasingly relevant question since .
The immorality of slavery is undebatable , but the constitutional provisions dealing with it are more complex and deserve more than a short column .
For now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's better angels fought a devastating Civil War largely over the issue and worked , especially in the last half-century , to ensure equal opportunity for all people under law .
Going forward , we must decide whether we want to heal or persist in endless conflict and racial acrimony .
We ca n't legislatively purge evil from men 's hearts – but we can and must pray to the God of all creation and of all precious human beings to expunge racial conflict and distrust from our souls , and to heal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made enormous strides on racism , and let 's not allow the naysayers to take that away from us .
Some continually call for a national conversation on race .
Others maintain we 've been having that conversation for decades .
We have , in a sense , but it has been more a shouting match than a dialogue and has been riddled with sinister partisan motives rather than harmonious longings .
If we 're going to converse , let 's allow all views to be aired instead of censoring certain opinions with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center of this discussion should be the question of whether we believe now – not in 1776 or 1791 – that the American dream applies to all Americans .
We will waste our time unless we still believe that America is exceptional and has the greatest system of government ever devised by man .
Do we still embrace the American dream ?
That is , could we all agree that America 's federalist structure , its scheme of checks and balances , its separation of powers , its express guarantees of God-given rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government system including all strains of socialism , Marxism , totalitarianism and monarchy ?
Should we foster a spirit of forgiveness among all Americans and all races , or do we seek to incite conflict for political gain ?
Do we support policies that improve the lives of all people including minorities , or would we prefer to remain mired in hate and bitterness ?
Will we encourage colorblindness and loving one another as God 's creatures in a truly integrated society , or yield to those who would revert to color consciousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honor Martin Luther King Jr. 's legacy ?
We can debate whether the framers built obsolescence for slavery into the Constitution or whether the Civil War and civil rights laws were enough to atone for this brutal institution , but should n't we get about the business of living in harmony and striving to ensure the American dream is available for all ?
Do we want to advance an agenda that treats all people equally and is better suited to lift everyone up , or would we rather be perpetually angry and paralyzed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poisonous notion that the stain of slavery permanently taints our system of government , which still offers the last best hope for all Americans to be free , to pursue happiness and to succeed .
We must fervently resist societal pressure to tear down all remnants of our history , because eliminating the bad will also eliminate the good – and increase the likelihood of repeating the bad .
Do n't believe for a second that the anarchists who have hijacked peaceful protests are conflicted on this issue .
They want to tear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say can not be fixed .
Understand that if you buy into that lie , you are joining forces with those who will uproot all that is good and sabotage the system in exchange for the inevitable unfolding of totalitarianism in which only a very limited few will be free and thrive .
History amply demonstrates the corruptive folly of the road we are traveling .
Conservatives must confront the pernicious narrative that America is evil and patriots who are intent on preserving it are racist .
Precisely the opposite is true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and if we lack the moral courage to fight for our principles , America as founded will disappear .
Only if we save this nation will the people for whom the destructive forces claim to be fighting prosper .
I pray God will heal and unite us , and that we will work together to preserve and reinvigorate this still-wonderful nation .

America is in crisis. Her destiny is on the line, and she will survive only if we still love her.
A battle rages in the streets, in academia, in the culture, and in the hearts and minds of the American people over whether America was and remains a good and great nation.
I have always believed that America is the greatest and most benevolent nation in history, that its Constitution is, in the words of former British Prime Minister William Gladstone, "The most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."
That's primarily because the Constitution was crafted to maximize man's liberty – not just by paying flowery lip service to the concept on hallowed parchment but by containing concrete limitations on government to ensure its realization.
Over time, anti-libertarian forces have chipped away at the document's integrity and its guaranteed freedoms. Today, those destructive forces are ascendant and emboldened.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Years ago, I was invited to give talks on the Constitution. On one such occasion, a female African American law student, after hearing my glowing endorsement of the document, asked how she could be expected to revere a government charter that condoned slavery.
I admit to providing an inadequate answer for my good-faith questioner, but I have given much thought to this important and increasingly relevant question since.
The immorality of slavery is undebatable, but the constitutional provisions dealing with it are more complex and deserve more than a short column. For now, let me say that the American people's better angels fought a devastating Civil War largely over the issue and worked, especially in the last half-century, to ensure equal opportunity for all people under law.
Going forward, we must decide whether we want to heal or persist in endless conflict and racial acrimony. We can't legislatively purge evil from men's hearts – but we can and must pray to the God of all creation and of all precious human beings to expunge racial conflict and distrust from our souls, and to heal this land. I believe we've made enormous strides on racism, and let's not allow the naysayers to take that away from us.
Some continually call for a national conversation on race. Others maintain we've been having that conversation for decades. We have, in a sense, but it has been more a shouting match than a dialogue and has been riddled with sinister partisan motives rather than harmonious longings.
If we're going to converse, let's allow all views to be aired instead of censoring certain opinions with false charges of bigotry.
At the center of this discussion should be the question of whether we believe now – not in 1776 or 1791 – that the American dream applies to all Americans. We will waste our time unless we still believe that America is exceptional and has the greatest system of government ever devised by man. Do we still embrace the American dream?
That is, could we all agree that America's federalist structure, its scheme of checks and balances, its separation of powers, its express guarantees of God-given rights are far superior to any other conceivable government system including all strains of socialism, Marxism, totalitarianism and monarchy?
Should we foster a spirit of forgiveness among all Americans and all races, or do we seek to incite conflict for political gain? Do we support policies that improve the lives of all people including minorities, or would we prefer to remain mired in hate and bitterness? Will we encourage colorblindness and loving one another as God's creatures in a truly integrated society, or yield to those who would revert to color consciousness and segregation? Will we repudiate or honor Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy?
We can debate whether the framers built obsolescence for slavery into the Constitution or whether the Civil War and civil rights laws were enough to atone for this brutal institution, but shouldn't we get about the business of living in harmony and striving to ensure the American dream is available for all?
Do we want to advance an agenda that treats all people equally and is better suited to lift everyone up, or would we rather be perpetually angry and paralyzed by guilt?
We must shed the poisonous notion that the stain of slavery permanently taints our system of government, which still offers the last best hope for all Americans to be free, to pursue happiness and to succeed. We must fervently resist societal pressure to tear down all remnants of our history, because eliminating the bad will also eliminate the good – and increase the likelihood of repeating the bad.
Don't believe for a second that the anarchists who have hijacked peaceful protests are conflicted on this issue. They want to tear down the entire system, which they say cannot be fixed.
Understand that if you buy into that lie, you are joining forces with those who will uproot all that is good and sabotage the system in exchange for the inevitable unfolding of totalitarianism in which only a very limited few will be free and thrive. History amply demonstrates the corruptive folly of the road we are traveling.
Conservatives must confront the pernicious narrative that America is evil and patriots who are intent on preserving it are racist. Precisely the opposite is true. We want the best for all people, and if we lack the moral courage to fight for our principles, America as founded will disappear. Only if we save this nation will the people for whom the destructive forces claim to be fighting prosper.
I pray God will heal and unite us, and that we will work together to preserve and reinvigorate this still-wonderful nation.


wnd--2020-07-02--'Minneapolis effect': Crime spike follows anti-cop push

Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald coined the term `` Ferguson Effect '' after documenting the spike in violent crime that followed the decrease in policing in response to protests of the death of Michael Brown in an altercation with a white police officer .
Now , a `` Minneapolis Effect '' already is evident following the demands to defund police in the wake of the death of George Floyd , Mac Donald points out in a column for her think tank .
She cited a a Minneapolis Star Tribune analysis showing shootings in Minneapolis have more than doubled this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all those shootings have occurred since George Floyd ’ s death on Memorial Day , May 25 .
`` Today ’ s violent-crime increase – call it Ferguson Effect 2.0 or the Minneapolis Effect – has come on with a speed and magnitude that make Ferguson 1.0 seem tranquil , '' she wrote .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester '' George Floyd 's death at the hands of Minneapolis police in late May was justly condemned — but the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the pillars of law and order that has no precedent in American history , '' said Mac Donald .
`` Every day , another mainstream institution – from McDonald ’ s to Harvard – denounces the police , claiming without evidence that law enforcement is a threat to black lives . ''
She explained that Brown 's death in August 2014 -- which was found by a jury and by Barack Obama and Eric Holder 's Justice Department to be the fault of the black teen -- triggered local riots and `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
`` Officers backed off proactive policing in minority neighborhoods , having been told that such discretionary enforcement was racially oppressive , '' she said .
`` By early 2015 , the resulting spike in shootings and homicides had become patent and would lead to an additional 2,000 black homicide victims in 2015 and 2016 , compared with 2014 numbers . ''
In Chicago , 18 people were killed and 47 wounded in shootings last weekend , Mac Donald pointed out .
Through the first six months of the year , 329 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an increase of about 34 % during the same period last year .
Some 78 % of the victims were black while blacks comprise less than a third of the population .
In Baltimore , which experienced depolicing after the death of Freddy Gray , the homicide rate is ahead of last year 's pace , which ended with a record high .
New York City ’ s homicide rate is at a five-year high , with the number of shooting victims up more than 42 % through June 21 compared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Milwaukee have increased 132 % .
`` In 25 years , I 've never seen it like this , '' a Milwaukee police inspector told the Police Executive Research Forum .
Indianapolis shows similar increases , and other cities are likely to show the same when their data is published , Mac Donald said .
She warned that the spikes in violent crimes `` are no longer the warning signs of a possible breakdown of civilized life . ''
`` That breakdown is upon us .
If local and national leaders are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our most basic institutions from false and inflammatory charges of racism , they have forfeited their right to govern , '' she said .
`` Unless new leaders come forth who understand their duty to maintain the rule of law , the country will not pull back from disaster . ''
Organizations that avocate for policy safety and their well-being say that amid the calls to defund police , officers are feeling `` abandoned '' and `` betrayed , '' and their stress levels are `` going through the roof . ''
Randy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lieutenant who now leads the organization The Wounded Blue , told Fox News officers are suffering from the `` atmosphere of hate , distrust , having their own political leadership turn against them , the calls for defunding , the calls for dismantling . ''
`` They are feeling more under siege now than I think any time in history , '' he said .
New York City , under pressure from defund-police activists , slashed $ 1 billion from its 2021 police budget late Tuesday night .
The 2020 budget for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation 's largest , was nearly $ 6 billion .
Despite the deep cut , some city lawmakers and allied protesters still were n't happy , CNN reported .
In Los Angeles on Wednesday , School Police Chief Todd Chamberlain announced his resignation , one day after the district school board approved a 35 % cut to its school police force .
`` After humbly serving my communities , departments and personnel over 35 years in law enforcement , I have been placed in a position that makes my ability to effectively , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Chamberlain said in written a statement .
He said he could not `` support modifications to my position , the organization and most importantly , the community – students , staff and families – that I believe will be detrimental and potentially life-threatening . ''
The LAUSD Board of Education 's vote shifted $ 25 million from the police budget to staffing that specially serves the needs of black students and a task force to study campus safety , reported KABC-TV in Los Angeles .

Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald coined the term "Ferguson Effect" after documenting the spike in violent crime that followed the decrease in policing in response to protests of the death of Michael Brown in an altercation with a white police officer.
Now, a "Minneapolis Effect" already is evident following the demands to defund police in the wake of the death of George Floyd, Mac Donald points out in a column for her think tank.
She cited a a Minneapolis Star Tribune analysis showing shootings in Minneapolis have more than doubled this year compared to last. Nearly half of all those shootings have occurred since George Floyd’s death on Memorial Day, May 25.
"Today’s violent-crime increase – call it Ferguson Effect 2.0 or the Minneapolis Effect – has come on with a speed and magnitude that make Ferguson 1.0 seem tranquil," she wrote.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"George Floyd's death at the hands of Minneapolis police in late May was justly condemned — but the event has now spurred an outpouring of contempt against the pillars of law and order that has no precedent in American history," said Mac Donald. "Every day, another mainstream institution – from McDonald’s to Harvard – denounces the police, claiming without evidence that law enforcement is a threat to black lives."
She explained that Brown's death in August 2014 -- which was found by a jury and by Barack Obama and Eric Holder's Justice Department to be the fault of the black teen -- triggered local riots and "a national narrative about lethally racist police."
"Officers backed off proactive policing in minority neighborhoods, having been told that such discretionary enforcement was racially oppressive," she said. "By early 2015, the resulting spike in shootings and homicides had become patent and would lead to an additional 2,000 black homicide victims in 2015 and 2016, compared with 2014 numbers."
In Chicago, 18 people were killed and 47 wounded in shootings last weekend, Mac Donald pointed out. Through the first six months of the year, 329 people have been killed in the city, an increase of about 34% during the same period last year. Some 78% of the victims were black while blacks comprise less than a third of the population.
In Baltimore, which experienced depolicing after the death of Freddy Gray, the homicide rate is ahead of last year's pace, which ended with a record high. New York City’s homicide rate is at a five-year high, with the number of shooting victims up more than 42% through June 21 compared with the same period in 2019. Homicides in Milwaukee have increased 132%.
"In 25 years, I've never seen it like this," a Milwaukee police inspector told the Police Executive Research Forum.
Indianapolis shows similar increases, and other cities are likely to show the same when their data is published, Mac Donald said.
She warned that the spikes in violent crimes "are no longer the warning signs of a possible breakdown of civilized life."
"That breakdown is upon us. If local and national leaders are unable to summon the will to defend our most basic institutions from false and inflammatory charges of racism, they have forfeited their right to govern," she said. "Unless new leaders come forth who understand their duty to maintain the rule of law, the country will not pull back from disaster."
Abandoned and betrayed
Organizations that avocate for policy safety and their well-being say that amid the calls to defund police, officers are feeling "abandoned" and "betrayed," and their stress levels are "going through the roof."
Randy Sutton, a former Las Vegas police lieutenant who now leads the organization The Wounded Blue, told Fox News officers are suffering from the "atmosphere of hate, distrust, having their own political leadership turn against them, the calls for defunding, the calls for dismantling."
"They are feeling more under siege now than I think any time in history," he said.
New York City, under pressure from defund-police activists, slashed $1 billion from its 2021 police budget late Tuesday night.
The 2020 budget for the New York City Police Department, the nation's largest, was nearly $6 billion. Despite the deep cut, some city lawmakers and allied protesters still weren't happy, CNN reported.
In Los Angeles on Wednesday, School Police Chief Todd Chamberlain announced his resignation, one day after the district school board approved a 35% cut to its school police force.
"After humbly serving my communities, departments and personnel over 35 years in law enforcement, I have been placed in a position that makes my ability to effectively, professionally and safely impact those groups unachievable,'' Chamberlain said in written a statement.
He said he could not "support modifications to my position, the organization and most importantly, the community – students, staff and families – that I believe will be detrimental and potentially life-threatening."
The LAUSD Board of Education's vote shifted $25 million from the police budget to staffing that specially serves the needs of black students and a task force to study campus safety, reported KABC-TV in Los Angeles.


wnd--2020-07-03--L.A. Times publishes Beijing-funded propaganda

The Los Angeles Times ran a paid insert over the weekend from China Daily , a news agency controlled by the Chinese Communist Party that has forked out millions of dollars to American newspapers as part of Beijing ’ s foreign influence operations .
The eight-page advertorial , called “ China Watch , ” was tucked towards the back of the paper ’ s 61-page Sunday edition .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester With articles designed to look like legitimate newspaper columns , the insert presents a rosy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses .
The advertorial also included stories suggesting that the United States and China should maintain a positive relationship despite diplomatic and economic tension surrounding the coronavirus pandemic .
Absent is any critique of the Chinese government ’ s handling of the pandemic , which originated in Wuhan last year and has spread across the globe .
“ Decoupling supply chains imprudent , say experts , ” reads one story in the insert , which argued against a push from some U.S. policymakers to make American businesses less reliant on Chinese companies for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story in the insert headlined “ Conflicted we fail , connected we succeed , ” quotes David Firestein , the president of the George H.W .
Bush China Foundation .
Firestein touted the organization ’ s role in procuring medical equipment from China to provide to American hospitals to fight coronavirus .
He also offered a subtly critical view of U.S. policymakers ’ s outlook towards China .
He called the recent breakdown in relations between China and the U.S. “ very short sighted and very unfortunate.
” The insert discloses that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is published by China Daily without editorial input from the LA Times .
U.S. newspapers have cited those disclosures to defend publishing what is widely viewed as a form of foreign propaganda .
Experts who track China ’ s foreign influence activities say the communist regime uses the inserts to push subtle messages to American audiences who may be unaware that they are reading content created at the direction of the Chinese government .
“ The trained reader notices the ‘ health warning label ’ about a ‘ paid advertisement , ’ but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are pure Communist Party propaganda , ” reads a June 2018 report from the Hudson Institute regarding China ’ s foreign influence operations .
“ The ads bring in substantial revenues , which may make it difficult for cash-strapped U.S. news companies to wean themselves off this parasitic relationship.
” Freedom House , a pro-democracy think tank , also addressed the communist regime ’ s use of the paid inserts in a January 2020 report titled , “ Beijing ’ s Global Megaphone.
” “ Chinese state media have also used more unusual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign media outlets , ” the report says .
“ Chinese officials and state media documents have referred to this practice as ‘ borrowing the boat to reach the sea . '
” “ One of the most prominent examples is the periodic inclusion of a paid news-like advertising supplement from China Daily called China Watch in the print editions of papers like the Washington Post , the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal , and the Los Angeles Times.
” The Trump administration has designated eight Chinese media outlets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign missions.
” The classification means that the news agencies must disclose information about their employees and real estate holdings .
The Justice Department requires China Daily and other agencies , including CCTV and CGTN , to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act .
As the Daily Caller News Foundation reported last month , China Daily Distribution Corp. disclosed in a June 1 filing that it has paid American newspapers nearly $ 20 million since late 2016 on advertising and for printing services .
The company paid The Wall Street Journal nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 4.6 million in that time span , mostly for “ China Watch ” inserts .
China Daily paid $ 657,523 to The Los Angeles Times , according to the filing .
The propaganda mill also paid for advertising in several other newspapers , including The New York Times , Foreign Policy , The Des Moines Register and CQ-Roll Call .
It spent a total of $ 11,002,628 on advertising in U.S. newspapers , and another $ 265,822 on advertising with Twitter .
There is no direct evidence that the newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Beijing-controlled news organs has shaped overall news coverage in the American outlets .
While many conservatives have accused establishment media outlets of giving the Chinese government a free pass on its early response to coronavirus , officials in Beijing earlier this year ordered reporters from The New York Times , Washington Post and Wall Street Journal out of the country over those outlets ’ reporting on the pandemic .
The LA Times published a critical account of China ’ s education system in its Sunday edition .
The report , “ China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targets , ” told the story of Chinese educators who have been reprimanded for teaching dissenting views about the government and the Cultural Revolution , launched by Chairman Mao Zedong in the 1960s .
The Los Angeles Times did not respond to a request for comment on how much China Daily paid for the insert .
The advertorial also highlights how Chinese media outlets rely heavily on American foreign policy experts and businessmen to advocate for Beijing ’ s position vis-à-vis the U.S .
In addition to quoting Firestein , the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included an article from Jeffrey Sachs , a Columbia University professor who supports closer ties between Beijing and Washington .
Another article quoted the communications director for the U.S.-China Business Council .
Neil Bush , a son of the former president and chairman of the George H.W .
Bush China Foundation , is also an oft-cited American voice for Chinese propaganda agencies .
While Bush was not cited in the L.A. Times insert , he has featured in “ China Watch ” advertorial that The Wall Street Journal published in 2018 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his support for more U.S. tariffs against China .
“ It likely will backfire .
He ’ s terribly unpopular among the general population .
It will be a tough November for the Republican Party , ” Bush said .
“ There is propaganda and demagoguery in the US political process that misleads everyone , including my Chinese friends , that there is a giant dependence on Chinese goods in the US , ” he added .
Bush has drawn scrutiny over the years for his business dealings in China .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese real estate development company , and also a founder of the Great Texas Regional Center , a firm that helped wealthy Chinese nationals obtain green cards in exchange for investments in U.S. businesses .
China ’ s news agencies have most recently quoted Bush criticizing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong .
“ My first question would be , what freedoms are you seeking that you don ’ t already enjoy ?
What setbacks have you incurred , ” Bush said in a Dec. 6 , 2019 interview with CGTN , another Beijing-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside forces were behind the protests .
“ It makes you wonder whether there is something driving this movement , because people aren ’ t out on the streets in some educated way , as far as I can tell , ” he said .
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email @ @

By Chuck Ross
Daily Caller News Foundation
The Los Angeles Times ran a paid insert over the weekend from China Daily, a news agency controlled by the Chinese Communist Party that has forked out millions of dollars to American newspapers as part of Beijing’s foreign influence operations.
The eight-page advertorial, called “China Watch,” was tucked towards the back of the paper’s 61-page Sunday edition.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
With articles designed to look like legitimate newspaper columns, the insert presents a rosy view of the Chinese economy and its businesses. The advertorial also included stories suggesting that the United States and China should maintain a positive relationship despite diplomatic and economic tension surrounding the coronavirus pandemic.
Absent is any critique of the Chinese government’s handling of the pandemic, which originated in Wuhan last year and has spread across the globe.
“Decoupling supply chains imprudent, say experts,” reads one story in the insert, which argued against a push from some U.S. policymakers to make American businesses less reliant on Chinese companies for raw materials and other supplies.
A story in the insert headlined “Conflicted we fail, connected we succeed,” quotes David Firestein, the president of the George H.W. Bush China Foundation.
Firestein touted the organization’s role in procuring medical equipment from China to provide to American hospitals to fight coronavirus. He also offered a subtly critical view of U.S. policymakers’s outlook towards China.
He called the recent breakdown in relations between China and the U.S. “very short sighted and very unfortunate.”
The insert discloses that it is an advertising section and that it is published by China Daily without editorial input from the LA Times. U.S. newspapers have cited those disclosures to defend publishing what is widely viewed as a form of foreign propaganda.
Financially-strapped @latimes includes @ChinaDaily China Watch advertising supplement (8 page standalone insert) in today’s edition. pic.twitter.com/Y0NzUJfYVG — Clayton Dube 杜克雷 (@claydube) June 28, 2020
Experts who track China’s foreign influence activities say the communist regime uses the inserts to push subtle messages to American audiences who may be unaware that they are reading content created at the direction of the Chinese government.
“The trained reader notices the ‘health warning label’ about a ‘paid advertisement,’ but others might not notice that the inserts are pure Communist Party propaganda,” reads a June 2018 report from the Hudson Institute regarding China’s foreign influence operations.
“The ads bring in substantial revenues, which may make it difficult for cash-strapped U.S. news companies to wean themselves off this parasitic relationship.”
Freedom House, a pro-democracy think tank, also addressed the communist regime’s use of the paid inserts in a January 2020 report titled, “Beijing’s Global Megaphone.”
“Chinese state media have also used more unusual and arguably more opaque methods to exploit foreign media outlets,” the report says. “Chinese officials and state media documents have referred to this practice as ‘borrowing the boat to reach the sea.'”
“One of the most prominent examples is the periodic inclusion of a paid news-like advertising supplement from China Daily called China Watch in the print editions of papers like the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times.”
The Trump administration has designated eight Chinese media outlets, including China Daily, to be “foreign missions.” The classification means that the news agencies must disclose information about their employees and real estate holdings.
The Justice Department requires China Daily and other agencies, including CCTV and CGTN, to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
As the Daily Caller News Foundation reported last month, China Daily Distribution Corp. disclosed in a June 1 filing that it has paid American newspapers nearly $20 million since late 2016 on advertising and for printing services.
The company paid The Wall Street Journal nearly $6 million and The Washington Post more than $4.6 million in that time span, mostly for “China Watch” inserts. China Daily paid $657,523 to The Los Angeles Times, according to the filing.
The propaganda mill also paid for advertising in several other newspapers, including The New York Times, Foreign Policy, The Des Moines Register and CQ-Roll Call.
It spent a total of $11,002,628 on advertising in U.S. newspapers, and another $265,822 on advertising with Twitter.
There is no direct evidence that the newspapers’s relationships with China Daily and other Beijing-controlled news organs has shaped overall news coverage in the American outlets.
While many conservatives have accused establishment media outlets of giving the Chinese government a free pass on its early response to coronavirus, officials in Beijing earlier this year ordered reporters from The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal out of the country over those outlets’ reporting on the pandemic.
The LA Times published a critical account of China’s education system in its Sunday edition. The report, “China’s teaching elites are its latest targets,” told the story of Chinese educators who have been reprimanded for teaching dissenting views about the government and the Cultural Revolution, launched by Chairman Mao Zedong in the 1960s.
The Los Angeles Times did not respond to a request for comment on how much China Daily paid for the insert.
The advertorial also highlights how Chinese media outlets rely heavily on American foreign policy experts and businessmen to advocate for Beijing’s position vis-à-vis the U.S.
In addition to quoting Firestein, the president of the Bush China Foundation, the insert included an article from Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor who supports closer ties between Beijing and Washington. Another article quoted the communications director for the U.S.-China Business Council.
Neil Bush, a son of the former president and chairman of the George H.W. Bush China Foundation, is also an oft-cited American voice for Chinese propaganda agencies.
While Bush was not cited in the L.A. Times insert, he has featured in “China Watch” advertorial that The Wall Street Journal published in 2018. The insert quoted Bush criticizing President Donald Trump over his support for more U.S. tariffs against China.
“It likely will backfire. He’s terribly unpopular among the general population. It will be a tough November for the Republican Party,” Bush said.
“There is propaganda and demagoguery in the US political process that misleads everyone, including my Chinese friends, that there is a giant dependence on Chinese goods in the US,” he added.
Bush has drawn scrutiny over the years for his business dealings in China. He is a co-founder of CIIC, a Chinese real estate development company, and also a founder of the Great Texas Regional Center, a firm that helped wealthy Chinese nationals obtain green cards in exchange for investments in U.S. businesses.
China’s news agencies have most recently quoted Bush criticizing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
“My first question would be, what freedoms are you seeking that you don’t already enjoy? What setbacks have you incurred,” Bush said in a Dec. 6, 2019 interview with CGTN, another Beijing-controlled news agency.
He also suggested that outside forces were behind the protests.
“It makes you wonder whether there is something driving this movement, because people aren’t out on the streets in some educated way, as far as I can tell,” he said.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-07-03--Author says Epstein's friends 'terrified' after Maxwell arrest

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) -- Washington Free Beacon senior investigative reporter Alana Goodman told `` Tucker Carlson Tonight '' Thursday @ @ @ @ @ arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell , Jeffrey Epstein 's ex-girlfriend and alleged madam , were `` @ @ @ @ @ There were rumors of all different places that she was supposedly at , '' said @ @ @ @ @ A Convenient Death : The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein . ''
`` I mean @ @ @ @ @ [ Maxwell was in ] Paris .
I mean , people had spotted her in @ @ @ @ @ about London .
There were claims about , like , the Israeli embassy and things @ @ @ @ @ added .
`` There 's been some pretty wild speculation , but I think generally @ @ @ @ @ she was out of the country . ''

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) -- Washington Free Beacon senior investigative reporter Alana Goodman told "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Thursday that the circumstances of the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend and alleged madam, were "very bizarre."
"There were rumors of all different places that she was supposedly at," said Goodman, co-author of "A Convenient Death: The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein."
"I mean, some people claimed maybe [Maxwell was in] Paris. I mean, people had spotted her in Paris. There were claims about London. There were claims about, like, the Israeli embassy and things like that," Goodman added. "There's been some pretty wild speculation, but I think generally the idea was people assumed she was out of the country."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-07-03--San Diego police release video of shooting dispelling claims man was unarmed

Lately , it seems protest mobs are just waiting to pounce any time a police officer fires his weapon , always ready to instantly vilify the officer while canonizing the suspected criminal .
Such was the case after San Diego police shot Leonardo Hurtado Ibarra on Saturday , sparking anti-police protests in the area , according to The San Diego Union-Tribune .
The two officers involved in the shooting were driving in the city Saturday evening when they spotted Ibarra , whose face tattoos fit the description of a suspect in a robbery days prior , as he emerged from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ibarra on foot , but when he spotted the police , the suspect dropped the parcels in his hand and reached into his waistband for a revolver , which he pointed at officers as he attempted to flee .
The officers then opened fire .
Police cuffed the wounded suspect and administered first aid , but Ibarra ultimately died from his injuries Monday , according to KNSD-TV .
TRENDING : 'You got something to say , little boy ? '
: See woman shame protester Almost immediately , the virtue-signaling began with skeptical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all information to the public .
`` I join with my Council colleague , and the community in asking for police transparency , '' San Diego City Councilmember Monica Montgomery wrote .
The Democrat shared fellow Councilmember Chris Ward 's tweet Saturday urging the San Diego Police Department to be `` forthcoming with this incident . ''
The department had released a still image from one of the surveillance cameras and a photo of the suspect 's revolver lying in camo-patterned fabric it was bundled in , but protestors were already out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usual narratives and assumptions without any facts .
Some reportedly chanted “ Hands up , don ’ t shoot , ” alluding to the police killing of Michael Brown in 2014 as he surrendered ( which has since been debunked ) .
And in the now-usual way , demonstrators knelt on the concrete and lit votive candles in a makeshift shrine to Ibarra as some held signs and crowded the sidewalk near the scene at the Justice 4 Leo rally Sunday .
`` We 're out here because somebody died and the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anybody , '' San Diego State University student Simran Jain said .
`` And they act like this is something that was necessary , but even if everything that they said was true , even if he had a gun , even if he was guilty , none of that should really matter , '' she said .
Instead , Jain thought `` police should have been able to de-escalate ; that is literally their job , '' and she went on to say she found reports that the gun was planted `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police have committed on record . ''
`` I 'm tired of black , brown , any kind of color you can say , tired of them getting mistreated , harrassed , and cops getting away with it , '' a woman identified only as Vanessa said .
Brian Krohne , with his toddler daughter , Esther , seated on his shoulders , held a sign that said `` Defund the Police '' with the Black Lives Matter fist symbol .
`` We need to defund the police department because they 're not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a city .
Use that money to fund other of the agencies that can de-escalate situations without violence , '' Krohne said .
WARNING : The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive .
But despite the insinuations that Ibarra was unarmed , amid all the talk about `` de-escalation '' and painting the suspect as a victim , footage released just the day after the incident showed that Ibarra was in fact armed and attempting to shoot at police officers .
The San Diego Police Department compiled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a streetlight camera , stills from a security camera , and enhanced footage that all corroborated that fact .
The most compelling was the audio accompanying Officer No .
1 's body camera .
As the suspect continued to walk away from the officer , he clearly told Ibarra `` stop '' at least three times , and said , `` Let me see your hands '' as the suspect ignored him and reached into his waistband , pulling out the gun .
The same can be heard in the footage from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ibarra from the side and also said , “ Hey , let me see your hands ” -- to no avail .
Both cameras showed that only after the suspect failed to comply and pulled a weapon did they open fire on the suspect , and they quickly administered first aid .
WARNING : The following video contains graphic violence that some viewers will find disturbing .
The department could not have been more transparent , with the footage clearly showing that there was indeed a weapon and that reasoning with the suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims .
The whole incident unfolded in mere seconds , and the officers made the instantaneous but correct decision to take down the suspect who was ready to kill or be killed .
Sure , it would be nice if there were some way to rationalize with a man about to fire a gun , or if there were some expert who could `` de-escalate '' a situation where a suspect is pointing a gun , but all of the wishful thinking and pontificating from protesters wo n't make it so .
Ibarra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or for the color of his skin ; he died because he ignored police commands and attempted to fire at officers .
Because of Ibarra 's actions that day , someone was likely to die .
Had one of the officers been killed instead of Ibarra , how many of those protesters would be holding a vigil ?
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

Lately, it seems protest mobs are just waiting to pounce any time a police officer fires his weapon, always ready to instantly vilify the officer while canonizing the suspected criminal.
Such was the case after San Diego police shot Leonardo Hurtado Ibarra on Saturday, sparking anti-police protests in the area, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.
The two officers involved in the shooting were driving in the city Saturday evening when they spotted Ibarra, whose face tattoos fit the description of a suspect in a robbery days prior, as he emerged from a building.
They attempted to approach Ibarra on foot, but when he spotted the police, the suspect dropped the parcels in his hand and reached into his waistband for a revolver, which he pointed at officers as he attempted to flee. The officers then opened fire.
Police cuffed the wounded suspect and administered first aid, but Ibarra ultimately died from his injuries Monday, according to KNSD-TV.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Almost immediately, the virtue-signaling began with skeptical local politicians clamoring for authorities to release all information to the public.
"I join with my Council colleague, and the community in asking for police transparency," San Diego City Councilmember Monica Montgomery wrote.
The Democrat shared fellow Councilmember Chris Ward's tweet Saturday urging the San Diego Police Department to be "forthcoming with this incident."
I join with my Council colleague, and the community in asking for police transparency. https://t.co/VZbNpFz3Cq — Councilmember Monica Montgomery (@CD4Monica) June 28, 2020
The department had released a still image from one of the surveillance cameras and a photo of the suspect's revolver lying in camo-patterned fabric it was bundled in, but protestors were already out on the street, armed only with the usual narratives and assumptions without any facts.
Some reportedly chanted “Hands up, don’t shoot,” alluding to the police killing of Michael Brown in 2014 as he surrendered (which has since been debunked).
And in the now-usual way, demonstrators knelt on the concrete and lit votive candles in a makeshift shrine to Ibarra as some held signs and crowded the sidewalk near the scene at the Justice 4 Leo rally Sunday.
"We're out here because somebody died and the police don't have a right to kill anybody," San Diego State University student Simran Jain said.
"And they act like this is something that was necessary, but even if everything that they said was true, even if he had a gun, even if he was guilty, none of that should really matter," she said.
Instead, Jain thought "police should have been able to de-escalate; that is literally their job," and she went on to say she found reports that the gun was planted "completely believable considering all these crimes that police have committed on record."
"I'm tired of black, brown, any kind of color you can say, tired of them getting mistreated, harrassed, and cops getting away with it," a woman identified only as Vanessa said.
Brian Krohne, with his toddler daughter, Esther, seated on his shoulders, held a sign that said "Defund the Police" with the Black Lives Matter fist symbol.
"We need to defund the police department because they're not the best response that we can have as a city. Use that money to fund other of the agencies that can de-escalate situations without violence," Krohne said.
WARNING: The following video contains graphic language that some viewers will find offensive.
But despite the insinuations that Ibarra was unarmed, amid all the talk about "de-escalation" and painting the suspect as a victim, footage released just the day after the incident showed that Ibarra was in fact armed and attempting to shoot at police officers.
The San Diego Police Department compiled footage from both officers' body cameras, a streetlight camera, stills from a security camera, and enhanced footage that all corroborated that fact.
The most compelling was the audio accompanying Officer No. 1's body camera. As the suspect continued to walk away from the officer, he clearly told Ibarra "stop" at least three times, and said, "Let me see your hands" as the suspect ignored him and reached into his waistband, pulling out the gun.
The same can be heard in the footage from Officer No. 2, who approached Ibarra from the side and also said, “Hey, let me see your hands” -- to no avail.
Both cameras showed that only after the suspect failed to comply and pulled a weapon did they open fire on the suspect, and they quickly administered first aid.
WARNING: The following video contains graphic violence that some viewers will find disturbing.
The department could not have been more transparent, with the footage clearly showing that there was indeed a weapon and that reasoning with the suspect was impossible, which destroys protesters' claims.
The whole incident unfolded in mere seconds, and the officers made the instantaneous but correct decision to take down the suspect who was ready to kill or be killed.
Sure, it would be nice if there were some way to rationalize with a man about to fire a gun, or if there were some expert who could "de-escalate" a situation where a suspect is pointing a gun, but all of the wishful thinking and pontificating from protesters won't make it so.
Ibarra didn't die because of police brutality or for the color of his skin; he died because he ignored police commands and attempted to fire at officers.
Because of Ibarra's actions that day, someone was likely to die.
Had one of the officers been killed instead of Ibarra, how many of those protesters would be holding a vigil?
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.