A new investigative report from the David Horowitz Freedom Center



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Editor's note: In this just-released report on Black Lives Matter, author John Perazzo exposes the BLM movement as a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-family and anti-capitalist attack on the very foundations of American democracy.

Read the report below - and order hard copies HERE.

What’s in a Name?

During the run-up to the war in Iraq in early 2003, a coalition named United for Peace & Justice (UPJ) played a central role in organizing most of the major anti-war demonstrations across the United States. The coalition’s name was deliberately crafted to evoke positive associations in the hearts of the American people. After all, who could possibly oppose such lofty virtues as “peace” or “justice”?

But United for Peace & Justice’s actual purpose had very little to do with either of those virtues. At its core, it was a hate-America coalition that sought to save the regime of one of the monsters of the 20th century, Saddam Hussein, using slogans that relentlessly accused the U.S. of pursuing a “policy of permanent warfare and empire-building” around the world.

The co-chair and principal leader of UPJ was Leslie Cagan, a longtime Communist Party member and a national leader of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism, a self-identified Marxist entity seeking to bring “a 21st Century socialism” to America.  In the Sixties, Cagan was an enthusiastic supporter of the Black Panther Party, a gang that waged armed warfare against the police and engaged in criminality that included drug dealing, pimping, rape, extortion, assault, arson and murder.

Cagan was also a strong supporter of the Cuban dictator  Fidel Castro, whose nation she described as “not an abstract idea of socialism or revolution,” but as a society whose principal hallmark was a type of “humane interaction among people” that she “had never witnessed” in the United States. And she supported the 2002-03 “Not In Our Name” initiative, a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party that seeks to achieve a Communist America by means of a “revolutionary war”—complete with “great bloodshed and destruction”—waged “right within the belly of this most powerful imperialist beast.”

Obviously, the promotion of “peace and justice” could scarcely be described as the true, animating objective of Ms. Cagan and her UPJ coalition.

More recently, another prominent, enormously influential movement—which just happens to be backed by this same Leslie Cagan—has similarly adopted a benign sounding name that resonates quite naturally with people of good will. But that name—Black Lives Matter—deceptively conceals a radical, racist, and horrifically destructive agenda.

An Openly and Proudly Marxist Movement

When BLM was established in 2013, its stated objective was to galvanize a protest movement in response to the July 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, a so-called “white Hispanic” man who was tried for murder and manslaughter after he had shot and killed a black Florida teenager named Trayvon Martin in a highly publicized 2012 altercation. Before long, “Black Lives Matter” became a rallying cry for writers, public speakers, celebrities, demonstrators, and even rioters, who took up the cause of demanding an end to what BLM terms the “virulent anti-Black racism” that “permeates our society.”

BLM gained additional prominence following a white police officer’s fatal shooting of an 18-year-old black man named Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014. Brown’s death, which occurred while he fought with the officer just minutes after having robbed a local convenience store, set off a massive wave of protests and riots that grew into a national movement denouncing an alleged epidemic of police brutality against African Americans.

But BLM’s larger objective went far beyond matters of interracial violence and police misconduct. Its overarching mission was to thoroughly discredit the United States as a detestable and irredeemable nation where black people are “collectively” subjected to “inhumane conditions” in a “white supremacist system” that was originally “built on Indigenous genocide and chattel slavery.” Dedicated to advancing this theme were BLM’s founders, three hardcore Marxist black women. One of them was Alicia Garza, a self-described “queer” social-justice activist who reveres the Marxist revolutionary, former Black Panther, convicted cop-killer, and longtime fugitive Assata Shakur for her contributions to the “Black Liberation Movement.” Garza is likewise a great admirer of such luminaries as Angela Davis (another revolutionary Marxist and former Black Panther) and the late Audre Lorde (a black socialist lesbian feminist).

Another of BLM’s three founders was Patrisse Cullors, who in 2015 openly acknowledged  BLM’s subversive objectives, proclaiming on video: “We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia [Garza] in particular, we’re trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories.” In the same video, Cullors revealed  that for more than a decade she had been a protégé of Eric Mann, who in the 1960s and ’70s was a member of the Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground. Both organizations aspired to topple U.S. democratic institutions by means of violent revolution, remake the nation’s government in a Marxist image, and promote America’s military defeat in Vietnam.

BLM’s third founder was Opal Tometi, who asserts that “the racist structures that have long oppressed Black people” in the U.S. have perpetuated a “cycle of oppression” and a permanent climate of “anti-Black racism.” In 2015, Tometi attended a “People of African Descent Leadership Summit” in Harlem, New York, where she had a warm meeting and photo-op with Venezuela’s Marxist dictator, Nicolas Maduro. During a speech which she delivered at that Summit, Tometi thanked Maduro and his government for having given her an opportunity to speak there. She also used the occasion to condemn “Western economic policies, land grabs, and neocolonial financial instruments like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.” The following year, Tometi praised the Bolivarian Revolution by which Venezuela’s previous Marxist dictator, the late Hugo Chavez—whose policies transformed Venezuela from South America’s wealthiest nation into an economic basket case—had initially come to power.

BLM’s pro-Marxist orientation was articulated with great passion at a BLM protest in July 2016, when Cornell University professor Russell Rickford declared: “We’ve got to build a grassroots, antiracist movement to defeat capitalism altogether, and it’s not going to happen at the ballot box. There can be no human system under capitalism. Capitalism is an anti-human system.”

With chapters in 14 separate U.S. cities and 3 Canadian cities, BLM is closely allied with numerous groups that are fronts for the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), a Marxist-Leninist entity that advocates the overthrow of capitalism. In an article for Accuracy In Media, economist and investigative journalist James Simpson has identified some of these FRSO front groups with BLM ties. They include the National Domestic Workers Alliance; People Organized to Win Employment Rights; the Right to the City Alliance; the School of Unity and Liberation; the Advancement Project; the Movement Strategy Center; Dignity and Power Now; the Black Left Unity Network; Black Workers for Justice; the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance; Causa Justa/Just Cause; Hands Up United; Intelligent Mischief; the Organization for Black Struggle; the Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee; Showing Up for Racial Justice; Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education; and the Labor/Community Strategy Center (headed by former Weather Underground leader Eric Mann).

As evidenced by these numerous links between FRSO and BLM, Black Lives Matter is in essence, as James Simpson puts it, “one of many projects undertaken by the FRSO.” All three of BLM’s co-founders have been employed by, or affiliated with, one or more of FRSO’s aforementioned front groups at various times.

At all of BLM’s public events, demonstrators invoke the words that their “beloved” heroine, Assata Shakur, once wrote in a letter titled “To My People.” Those words are: “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” (The fourth line was drawn from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.) In Shakur’s original letter, she described herself as a “Black revolutionary” who had “declared war” against “the rich who prosper on our poverty,” and against “all the mindless, heart-less robots” who served as police officers.

Rejecting the Traditional Nuclear Family

In a document titled “What We Believe,” BLM candidly affirms its preference for identity politics based on race: “We see ourselves as part of the global Black family.” BLM also proclaims its desire to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement” and replace it with the socialist ideal of “villages” serving as “extended families” that “collectively care for one another.” This is a profoundly significant facet of BLM’s agenda, because it rejects the singular value that, if it were to be embraced, would offer black Americans the tools they most need in order to carve out for themselves a prosperous and fulfilling life. At present, the traditional nuclear family is a statistical rarity in the black community. Fully 69.4% of black babies today are born to unmarried mothers in homes where no father is present. This fact alone has a host of catastrophic implications for those youngsters.

For example, father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of our society’s economic ladder.  As Heritage Foundation research fellow Robert Rector has explained: “Out-of-wedlock childbearing and single parenthood are the principal causes of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S…. Children born out-of-wedlock to never-married women are poor fifty percent of the time. By contrast, children born within a marriage which remains intact are poor 7 percent of the time. Thus, the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent.” Articulating a similar theme many years earlier, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty.”

Much more recently, the left-leaning Brookings Institution has identified three basic requirements for avoiding poverty, regardless of one’s race: “Finish high school, get a full-time job, and wait until age 21 to get married and [then] have children.” “Our research,” says Brookings, “shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class.”

Children in single-parent households are raised not only with economic, but also social and psychological, disadvantages. For instance, they are much more likely than children from intact families to be abused or neglected; to struggle academically; to drop out of school; to have behavioral problems; to experience emotional disorders; to have a weak sense of right and wrong; to be unable to delay gratification; to conceive children out-of-wedlock when they are teens or young adults; and to be dependent on welfare when they reach adulthood.

In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty. Indeed, 70% of juveniles in state-operated reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 70% of long-term prison inmates, 75% of adolescent murderers, and 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger. As Robert Rector once put it: “Lack of married parents, rather than race or poverty, is the principal factor in the crime rate.”

And yet, in spite of all this, BLM openly calls for a complete dismantling of the nuclear family system. Why? Because Marxist ideology demands it. As California State University professor Richard Weikart has explained, Marx and Engels “usually wrote about the destruction, dissolution, and abolition of the family” as a natural outgrowth of “the abolition of private property and the introduction of socialism.” Because Marx and Engels advocated these ideas, BLM dutifully embraces them as articles of faith. This fact alone serves as proof positive that BLM cares nothing about the overwhelming majority of black lives.

The only black people whose lives mean anything to BLM are the infinitesimally small number who happen to die as a result of some type of altercation with a white person, especially a police officer. Those black lives are exceedingly valuable to BLM, because their corpses can be exploited as exhibits to bolster BLM’s claim that white racism poses a grave threat to black Americans. Thus, BLMers are quite adept at reciting, from memory, the names of a handful of blacks who, in recent years, died at the hands of white police in highly publicized incidents. But they are entirely mute vis-à-vis the thousands of blacks whose lives are snuffed out by blackkillers each and every year. Those lives, long forgotten, are of no interest whatsoever to BLM.

BLM’s False Claims About the Police and White-on-Black Crime

Depicting America as a veritable cesspool of “state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism,” BLM claims that blacks in the U.S. today are routinely targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes.” And although this claim has been widely and passionately echoed by supporters of BLM, it is in fact a monstrous lie, as has been demonstrated consistently by decades of hard empirical evidence. Some examples:

A 2011 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study reports that between 2003 and 2009, whites accounted for 41% of all suspects known to have been killed by police during that 7-year time frame. By contrast, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 31.7% and 20.3%, respectively. It is also worth noting that during this same period—when blacks were 31.7% of all suspects killed by an officer—blacks accounted for about 38.5% of all arrests for violent crimes, which are the types of crimes most likely to trigger potentially deadly confrontations with police.

This trend has continued unabated during more recent years. In 2017, for example, blacks were just 23.6% of all people shot dead by police, even though they were arrested for 37.5% of all violent crimes. The following year, blacks were 26.3% of those fatally shot by police, even as they were arrested for fully 37.4% of violent crimes.

In a 2018 working paper titled “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who is African American, reported that: (a) police officers were 47% less likely to discharge their weapon without first being attacked if the suspect was black, than if the suspect was white, and (b) white officers were no more likely to shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites.

A 2019 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. “In fact,” writes Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, the study found that “if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians.” Specifically, Mac Donald adds, the authors of the study compiled a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 and found that 55% of the victims were white, 27% were black, and 19% were Hispanic.

Each and every year, without exception, whites who are shot and killed by police officers in the U.S. far outnumber blacks and Hispanics who meet that same fate. In 2017, for instance, 457 whites, 223 blacks, and 179 Hispanics were killed by police officers in the line of duty. In 2018, the corresponding figures were 399 whites, 209 blacks, and 148 Hispanics. And in 2019, the totals were 370 whites, 235 blacks, and 158 Hispanics.

According to Heather Mac Donald: “The per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed [by anyone] is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops. And an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.”

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018 there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between black and white civilians in the United States. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90.4%, while whites committed just 56,394 of them, or about 9.5%.

When white civilian offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks in 2018, they targeted white victims approximately 97.3% of the time, and they went after black victims about 2.6% of the time. By contrast, when black civilian offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks during that same year, they targeted white victims 58% of the time, and they went after black victims 42% of the time.

City Journal reports that according to Justice Department data, blacks in 2018 were overrepresented among the perpetrators of offenses classified as “hate crimes” by a whopping 50%—while whites were underrepresented by 24%.

There is not even the slightest hint of anti-black racism anywhere in these figures. But when BLMers are confronted with such incontrovertible facts, they simply do not care. Indeed, they invariably react with the intellectual equivalent of a collective yawn.

Echoes of the Black Panthers

To improve the allegedly abysmal condition of blacks in the United States, BLM has issued a series of non-negotiable demands that are clearly modeled on elements of the famous “Ten-Point Program” put forth by the Marxist leaders of the Black Panther Party in the 1960s.

   For example, BLM demands “an immediate end to police brutality and [to] the murder of Black people and all oppressed people.” The Panthers used language that was essentially identical, calling for “an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people.”

And whereas BLM has demanded “freedom from mass incarceration and an end to the prison industrial complex,” the Panthers similarly called for “Black people [to] be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.”

But BLM’s demands are not limited merely to matters involving police and the criminal-justice system. They also include overtly socialist and racialist agenda items such as the guarantee of taxpayer-funded entitlements like:

“full, living-wage employment for our [black] people”

“decent housing” for black people

“quality education for all,” including “free or affordable public university” enrollment, with an emphasis on teaching “the rich history of Black people and celebrat[ing] the contributions we have made to this country and the world”

Those demands closely resemble elements of the Black Panthers’ Ten-Point Program, which called for assurances of:

“full employment” or “a guaranteed income” for all of “our people”

“decent housing [for] our Black community”

“education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society [and] teaches us our true history and our role in the present-day society”

In a number of very significant respects, BLM is a modern-day reincarnation of the Black Panthers.

BLM’s Rhetoric & Activities

Routinely smearing white police officers as trigger-happy bigots who are intent upon killing innocent, unarmed black males, BLM activists have become infamous for their incendiary rhetoric and behavior. Some examples:

At a December 2014 BLM rally in New York City, marchers chanted in unison: “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now.”

At a July 2015 Netroots Nation convention in Phoenix, BLM activists led the crowd in the following chant:

If I die in police custody, don’t believe the hype. I was murdered!
Protect my family! Indict the system! Shut that shit down!
If I die in police custody, avenge my death!
By any means necessary!
If I die in police custody, burn everything down!
No building is worth more than my life!
And that’s the only way motherfuckers like you listen!

At a BLM march in August 2015, protesters chanted: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” (“Pigs” was a reference to police officers, and “blanket” was a reference to body bags.)

On August 25, 2015, a radio host affiliated with BLM enthusiastically agreed with a caller who suggested that black people should “find a [white] motherfucker that’s alone, smack his ass, and then fucking hang him from a damn tree, take a picture of it, and send it to motherfuckers…. As soon as one person gets hung, people are gonna have an idea to do that shit some more…. Black people are good at starting trends.”

During a radio broadcast on September 1, 2015, another BLM-affiliated host: (a) laughed at the recent assassination of a white Texas deputy; (b) boasted that blacks were like lions who could prevail in a “race war” against whites; (c) happily predicted that “we will witness more executions and killing of white people and cops than we ever have before”; and (d) declared that “it’s open season on killing white people and crackas.”

A co-founder of BLM’s Toronto branch, Yusra Khogali, once posted the following message on Facebook: “Whiteness is not humxness. infact, white skin is sub-humxn.... White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual.”

In November 2015, a group of approximately 150 BLM protesters shouting “Black Lives Matter,” stormed Dartmouth University’s library, screaming things like “Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” and “Fuck you, you racist shit!”

On June 21, 2016—a few days after a self-proclaimed Muslim jihadist had used an AR-15 rifle to murder 49 people and wound 53 others in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida—BLM posted an article on its website blaming “the conservative right” for the atrocity. “[T]he enemy is now and has always been the four threats of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, and militarism,” said the piece.

In July 2016, a BLM activist speaking to a CNN reporter shouted: “The less white babies on this planet, the less of you [white adults] we got! I hope they kill all the white babies! Kill ’em all right now! Kill ’em! Kill your grandkids! Kill yourself! Coffin, bitch! Go lay in a coffin! Kill yourself!”

At a BLM rally in Dallas on July 7, 2016, a black gunman suddenly opened fire and killed five policemen while wounding seven more. The perpetrator later explained that he had purposefully set out to kill white people—especially white police. In the wake of the carnage, a group of dancing, shouting BLM activists in Dallas taunted uniformed cops who were on duty.

On August 13, 2016, BLM activists in Milwaukee chanted “Black power!” and engaged in highly destructive violence after police in that city had shot and killed a black man with a lengthy criminal record who was carrying an illegal gun that had been stolen in a burglary five months earlier. Black rioters tried to drag white drivers out of their cars and assault them, and they set numerous businesses on fire.

In April 2017, BLM’s Philadelphia chapter banned white people from attending one of its events, explaining that it was being held in a “black only space.”

In November and December of 2017, BLM’s Los Angeles chapter organized a “Black Xmas” initiative that urged African Americans to avoid patronizing white-owned business establishments for the remainder of the calendar year.

In June 2020, BLM activist Shaun King declared that all religious statues and stained glass windows showing a light-skinned Jesus should be destroyed because “they are a form of white supremacy.”

In a June 2020 interview, BLM’s New York chairman Hawk Newsome said: “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.”

On July 15, 2020, Lawrence Nathaniel, the founder of BLM’s South Carolina chapter and a former organizer for Senator Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, defended black television personality Nick Cannon’s recent assertions that: (a) light-skinned people are “a little less” than darker people whose skin possesses more melanin, which is a source of “power,” “compassion,” and “soul”; (b) an insecurity born of melanin “deficiency” has historically caused “Jewish people, white people, [and] Europeans” to become “savages” with a “conquering barbaric mentality” that leads them to “rob, steal, rape, kill, and fight”; and (c) whites are “the true savages” who “are actually closer to animals.” “What Nick Cannon believes in,” Mr. Nathaniel stated, “is the beliefs of Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X who taught the same teachings of what white folks was and how they are and how they treat Black people.... Personally, I didn’t see nothing wrong with his comments at all, I just think that he spoke the truth.”

Saul Alinsky’s Influence on BLM

At a Black Lives Matter conference in Cleveland on July 24, 2015, BLM presented a workshop for radical agitators titled “There’s A Method To The Movement: Examining Community Organizing Methods and Methodologies”. Those in attendance were instructed in the tactics and philosophy of the late Saul Alinsky. Known as the godfather of “community organizing”—a term that serves as a euphemism for fomenting public discontent—Alinsky was a communist fellow traveler who laid out a set of basic strategies designed to help leftist radicals destroy their enemies and transform society into a socialist paradise.

If such radicals were to be successful in remaking society, said Alinsky, they “must first rub raw the resentments of the people” by identifying a particular “personification” of evil and “publicly attack[ing]” it as a “dangerous enemy” of all that is decent. The chief “personification” in BLM’s cross hairs today, of course, is the white police officer.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” Alinsky taught, asserting that the primary task of radicals is to cultivate, in people’s hearts, a visceral revulsion to the mere sight of the target’s face. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.” That is why BLM and its apologists invariably avoid addressing even the most glaring errors in the anti-police, anti-white narratives they seek to advance, and why they turn a deaf ear to anyone who tries to engage them with logic, reason, or empirical data.

Alinsky taught that in order to cast themselves as noble defenders of high moral principles, radical activists should take pains to react dramatically—with greatly exaggerated displays of “shock, horror, and moral outrage”—whenever their targeted enemy errs, or can be depicted as having erred, in any way at all.  Thus, even though American police officers annually have some 375 million civilian contacts in which they behave entirely within the bounds of legality and ethics, BLM chooses to magnify—with choreographed indignation—the significance of a tiny handful of questionable cases, and to characterize those as emblems of supposedly widespread police misconduct.

Alinsky advised radical activists to avoid the temptation to concede that their opponents are not “100 percent devil,” or that they may possess certain admirable qualities. Such concessions, he said, would “dilut[e] the impact of the attack” and would thus amount to “political idiocy.” That is why we never hear BLM praising the police for anything. Instead, it is 100% attack, 100% of the time, against a 100% devil.

Given that the enemy is to be portrayed as the very personification of evil—against whom the use of any and all tactics is fair game—Alinsky taught that an effective radical activist should never give the appearance of being satisfied with any compromise proposed by the opposition. After all, any bargain with the “devil” is, by definition, morally tainted. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at peaceful coexistence, but rather, to completely “crush the opposition” by remaining vigilantly “dedicated to eternal war.” “A war is not an intellectual debate,” Alinsky elaborated, “and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. [T]here can be no compromise. It is life or death.” In perfect fidelity to these principles, BLM’s foot soldiers make it quite clear that they are constantly aggrieved and never satisfied.

Alinsky advised the radical activist to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might someday propose “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving some particular conflict. “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand,” said Alinsky, for such a turn of events would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the radical, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the “struggle” for long-denied justice. If the perceived oppressor extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the radical is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted, because “eternal war,” by definition, must never end.

Alinsky also exhorted radical activists to be entirely unpredictable and unmistakably willing—for the sake of their crusade—to plunge society at large into chaos and anarchy. They must be prepared, Alinsky explained, to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”

One way in which radicals and their disciples could signal their preparedness for this possibility, Alinsky taught, was by staging loud, angry, massive demonstrations denouncing their political adversaries. Such events—like BLM’s signature protests and riots—can give onlookers the impression that an already large movement is in the process of shifting into an even higher gear. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” “The threat,” he added, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Putting it yet another way, Alinsky advised: “Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”

That is exactly what BLM seeks to cultivate in the hearts of its adversaries

Patrisse Cullors, protégé of Eric Mann, spoke the truth when she famously described herself and her fellow BLM co-founder, Alicia Garza, as “trained Marxists” who are “super versed on ideological theories.” Among the most significant of those theories are the teachings of Saul Alinsky, whose call for relentless, uncompromising, “eternal war”—geared toward the destruction of America and the creation of a Marxist utopia—is the spirit that beats in the very heart of the BLM movement.

The Deadly Consequences of BLM’s Rhetoric

In 2013 and beyond, a number of black criminal suspects who had lost their lives in the course of confrontations with police officers joined Trayvon Martin as new, martyred icons of the BLM movement. Prominent among these were Eric Garner (died July 17, 2014 in New York), Michael Brown (died August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri), Tamir Rice (died November 22, 2014 in Cleveland), and Freddie Gray (died April 12, 2015 in Baltimore). High-profile political leaders such as President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and the Democrat mayors of the cities where the aforementioned deaths took place, routinely depicted race as a major underlying factor in those deaths

In December 2014, for instance, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio—explicitly exhorting New Yorkers to remember that “black lives matter”—lamented the “centuries of racism” whose legacy was still supposedly influencing the actions of too many police officers. And in the aftermath of Freddie Gray’s death in April 2015, Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake called on the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct a civil-rights investigation to determine whether Baltimore police may have been engaging in unconstitutional patterns of abuse or discrimination against African Americans.

The anti-police rhetoric of such political figures, coupled with the aggressive, confrontational tactics of BLM agitators, gave rise to a climate of extreme hostility toward law-enforcement officers throughout urban America. With an increasingly militant “criminal element” now “feeling empowered” by this climate, explained St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson, officers became less proactive in apprehending lawbreakers, particularly for low-level offenses. This, in turn, led to dramatic spikes in violent crime and homicide rates in cities across the United States—a phenomenon that Dotson, citing the highly publicized August 2014 death of Michael Brown, dubbed “the Ferguson Effect.” For example:

In 2015, America’s 56 largest cities experienced a 17% rise in homicides.

Twelve cities with large black populations saw their 2015 murder totals spike even more dramatically—e.g., by 54% in D.C., 60% in Newark, 72% in Milwaukee, 83% in Nashville, and 90% in Cleveland.

The incidence of robberies surged in America’s 81 largest cities during the 12 months that followed the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown.

In May 2015, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald wrote at length about the Ferguson Effect and its deadly implications:

“The nation’s two-decades-long crime decline may be over. Gun violence in particular is spiraling upward in cities across America…. The most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months. Since last summer, theairwaves have been dominated by suggestions that the police are the biggest threat facing young black males today. A handful of highly publicized deaths of unarmed black men, often following a resisted arrest … have led to riots, violent protests and attacks on the police….
“President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder … embraced the conceit that law enforcement in black communities is infected by bias. The news media pump out a seemingly constant stream of stories about alleged police mistreatment of blacks…. Almost any police shooting of a black person, no matter how threatening the behavior that provoked the shooting, now provokes angry protests…. Arrests in black communities are even more fraught than usual, with hostile, jeering crowds pressing in on officers and spreading lies about the encounter. Acquittals of police officers for the use of deadly force against black suspects are now automatically presented as a miscarriage of justice.”

The spike in urban violence continued into 2016. During the first quarter of that year, homicides in the nation’s 63 largest cities increased by 9%, while nonfatal shootings were up 21%.

In January 2017 the Pew Research Center released a 97-page report titled “Behind the Badge,” which—based on the results of a questionnaire that had been sent to thousands of officers in police departments nationwide—confirmed the reality of the Ferguson Effect. It found that 85 to 95 percent of law-enforcement officers in large police departments had become highly reluctant to engage criminals except where absolutely necessary, and had become increasingly concerned about their own personal safety.

But the rise in urban crime was not at all troubling to BLM, because, notwithstanding the movement’s constant professions of concern for black lives, the reality is quite different. What matters most to BLM is finding a spark—e.g., allegations of police vigilantism—that can be used to ignite a race war; to take America back to the “long hot summers” of the 1960s, when criminals were seen as radical “heroes,” police had a bull’s-eye on their backs, and the streets of America’s inner cities ran red with fantasies of “revolutionary violence.”

Support for BLM from President Obama and the Demo-cratic Party

In August 2015, the Democratic National Committee approved a resolution stating that “the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming ‘Black Lives Matter’” and its quest to “condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.” “The American Dream,” added the statement, “... is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy.”

On September 16, 2015, five BLM activists met at the White House with President Barack Obama as well as senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and other administration officials. For one of the activists, Brittany Packnett, this was her seventh visit to the Obama White House. Afterward, Packnett told reporters that the president had “offered us a lot of encouragement,” “told us that even incremental changes were progress,” and exhorted Packnett to “keep speaking truth to power.”

In October 2015, President Obama publicly articulated his support for BLM’s agenda by saying: “I think the reason that the organizers [of BLM] used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives matter. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”

That same month, the DNC invited activists from BLM to help organize and host a town hall forum where the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates could discuss and debate matters related to racial justice. In a letter addressed to BLM leaders, DNC chief executive officer Amy Dacey wrote: “We believe that your organization would be an ideal host for a presidential candidate forum—where all of the Democratic candidates can … address racism in America.”

In a December 2015 interview on National Public Radio, President Obama lauded BLM for shining “sunlight” on the lamentable fact that “there’s no black family that hasn’t had a conversation around the kitchen table about driving while black and being profiled or being stopped” by police.

In January 2016, BLM co-founder Alicia Garza was a special guest of Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee at President Obama’s final State of the Union address.

In February 2016, President Obama welcomed BLM leaders DeRay McKesson and Brittany Packnett to a Black History Month event at the White House. In the course of his remarks, Obama lauded the BLMers for their “outstanding work” which was “making history as we speak” and would eventually “take America to new heights.”

On July 10, 2016, President Obama likened BLM to the abolition, suffrage, civil rights, and other landmark movements of yesteryear, saying: “The abolition movement was contentious. The effort for women to get the right to vote was contentious and messy. There were times when activists might have engaged in rhetoric that was overheated and occasionally counterproductive. But the point was to raise issues so that we, as a society, could grapple with it. The same was true with the Civil Rights Movement, the union movement, the environmental movement, the antiwar movement during Vietnam. And I think what you’re seeing now is part of that longstanding tradition.”

On July 13, 2016—six days after a BLM supporter in Dallas had shot and killed five police officers and wounded seven others—President Obama hosted BLM leaders DeRay Mckesson, Brittany Packnett, and Mica Grimm at a four-and-a-half-hour meeting at the White House. Also invited were such notables as Al Sharpton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

BLM’s Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic Orientation

In January 2015, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors joined other likeminded activists in a ten-day trip to the Palestinian Territories of the West Bank. Their objective was to publicly draw a parallel between what they defined as Israeli oppression of Palestinians in the Middle East, and police violence against blacks in the United States.

In August 2015, Cullors was one of more than 1,000 black activists to sign a statement proclaiming their “solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and commitment to the liberation of Palestine’s land and people”; demanding an end to Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestine”; condemning the Jewish state’s “brutal war on Gaza and chokehold on the West Bank”; denouncing Israel’s “injustice and cruelty toward Palestinians”; imprecating the “colonialism and apartheid” that provided a forum for Israeli “ethnic cleansing, land theft, and the denial of Palestinian humanity and sovereignty”; and urging the U.S. government to cut off all aid to Israel. The statement also “wholeheartedly endors[ed]” the Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that aims to use various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and court rulings to permanently destroy Israel as a Jewish nation-state.

BLM has publicly defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, one of the most outspoken, unrestrained Jew-haters in living memory. With a long, well-documented history of venom-laced references to the “white devils” and Jewish “bloodsuckers” who purportedly torment America’s black community from coast to coast, Farrakhan has referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion” and to Adolf Hitler as “a very great man.” In March 2018, Republican Congressman Todd Rokita introduced a resolution calling on the House of Representatives to condemn Farrakhan for his then-recent assertion that: “White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.” BLM vocally opposed Rokita’s resolution, along with such organizations as the New Black Panther Party and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.

Over  the Shavuot festival on May 30, 2020, BLM members carried out a pogrom in Fairfax, a Los Angeles community largely populated by ultra-orthodox Jews. The BLMers not only vandalized five synagogues and three Jewish schools in Fairfax, but also looted most of the Jewish businesses along the main avenue. Moreover, they chanted “Fuck the police and kill the Jews.”

At a July 1, 2020 demonstration in Washington, D.C.—an event that was billed as a rally supporting the Palestinian Authority’s “Day of Rage” activities against Israel thousands of miles away—BLM protesters repeatedly emphasized that the Palestinian movement is “intrinsically tied to Black Lives Matter.” Chants alternated between “Black lives matter!” and “Palestinian lives matter!” Another popular chant was: “Israel, we know you, you murder children, too.”
At a separate BLM rally of several hundred people in Brooklyn that same day:

Dequi Kioni Sadiki, the wife of former Black Panther Sekou Odinga, said: “The European Jews who occupy, slaughter and continue to force millions of Palestinians onto their killing fields called refugee and concentration camps, are the relatives of the Europeans … who kidnapped, slaughtered and forced millions of Africans and indigenous” peoples into slavery.

Activist Nerdeen Kiswani, who co-organized the rally, said: “The land that Israel exists on is still stolen. The 1948 lands are still stolen—Jaffa, Haifa, Tel Aviv … was stolen. We don’t want to go just back to our homes in Gaza and the West Bank. We want all of it. We don’t want a fake Palestinian state that they give us while Israel still exists.”

BLM’s Support for Fidel Castro

Shortly after former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016, BLM published an article titled “Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante.” Lamenting that “a world without Fidel Castro” would leave many people feeling an “overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety,” the piece stated that “the lessons that we take from Fidel” could help the bereaved to press forward and “build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice.

The article also praised Castro for having taught people “that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity.” “As a Black network committed to transformation,” BLM added, “we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding [the fugitive cop-killer] Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for [cop killers/airplane hijackers] Brother Michael Finney, Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill[;] asylum to [former Black Panther] Brother Huey P. Newton[;] and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era.” The piece closed by stating: “As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!”

Influencing America’s Public Schools

In  2016, BLM took steps to move beyond street protests and began to establish a growing influence in America’s public schools. In October of that year, teachers in Seattle organized a “Black Lives Matter at School Day.” When the National Education Association subsequently adopted a resolution endorsing that measure, “BLM at School Day” was expanded into a full “BLM at School National Week of Action,” to be held annually during the first week of February as part of Black History Month activities. In 2018, school districts in more than 20 major cities incorporated “BLM at School Week” into their curricula.

A key resource for BLM-related lessons is a textbook titled Teaching for Black Lives, whose opening sentence reads: “Black students’ minds and bodies are under attack.” The book is replete with narratives designed to imbue black students with fear, anger, and resentment vis-à-vis “the continuing police murders of black people” whose “lives are meaningless to the American Empire.” The book also includes essays bearing such titles as: “Rethinking Islamophobia: Combating Bigotry by Raising the Voices of Black Muslims”; “Plotting Inequalities, Building Resistance”; and “Racial Justice Is Not a Choice: White Supremacy, High-Stakes Testing, and the Punishment of Black and Brown Students.”

By 2019, “Black Lives Matter at School Week” was being observed by thousands of educators in public school districts across the United States.

Even very young schoolchildren are targeted with BLM propaganda in many classrooms. An early childhood teacher’s guide, for instance, emphasizes the importance of using “age-appropriate language” to help youngsters understand various concepts that are central to BLM’s philosophy. For example, teachers are urged to cultivate “transgender affirming” students by telling them: “Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them.” And to promote what the guide calls “the disruption of Western nuclear family dynamics and a return to the ‘collective village’ that takes care of each other,” teachers are instructed to say: “There are lots of different kinds of families; what makes a family is that it’s people who take care of each other; those people might be related, or maybe they choose to be family together and to take care of each other. Sometimes, when it’s lots of families together, it can be called a village.”

Funding for BLM

Since 2016, Black Lives Matter—which also goes by the name “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation”—has been a fiscally sponsored project of Thousand Currents, a left-wing, California-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. As Robert Stilson of the Capital Research Center explains, this “fiscal sponsorship” arrangement means that BLM “does not have its own IRS tax-exempt status but is operating as a ‘project’ of an organization [Thousand Currents] that does.” As a result, BLM is legally permitted to receive tax-deductible donations. In 2018 and 2019, respectively, Thousand Currents funneled $2,622,017 and $3,354,654 in donor-restricted assets to BLM. Among the philanthropic organizations that have specifically earmarked contributions to Thousand Currents for BLM are the NoVo Foundation ($1,525,000 from 2015 to 2018), the W.K. Kellogg Foundation ($900,000 from 2016 to 2019), and Borealis Philanthropy ($343,000 from 2016 to 2018).

The governing board of Thousand Currents includes Susan Rosenberg, who in the 1970s and ’80s was a Marxist terrorist affiliated with the notorious and violent May 19th Communist Organization. When she was sentenced to prison in the 1980s for terrorist crimes of which she had been convicted, Rosenberg exhorted her ideological comrades to join her in “rededicat[ing] ourselves to our revolutionary principles, to our commitment to continue to fight for the defeat of U.S. imperialism.”

By no means does Thousand Currents represent the only avenue by which donors can support BLM. For example, when people seek to contribute money to the movement via the BLM website, they are transported to the web page of ActBlue Charities, an organization that facilitates donations to “democrats and progressives.” As of May 21, 2020, ActBlue had given $119 million to the presidential campaign of Democrat Joe Biden. The worldwide BLM protests that subsequently erupted in response to a May 25 incident where a black criminal suspect named George Floyd died after being physically mistreated by a white police officer in Minneapolis, sparked a new surge of donations to BLM via ActBlue.

The fact that ActBlue is a major fundraiser that focuses so heavily on supporting the Democratic Party—coupled with the fact that BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors candidly stated in a 2020 interview that BLM’s goal “is to get [President] Trump out” of office—has led to much speculation that donations to BLM may end up in the coffers of the Democratic National Committee and its political candidates. As bestselling author F. William Engdahl wrote on June 16, 2020: “Now major corporations such as Apple, Disney, Nike and hundreds [of] others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a Democrat President Biden.”

Another major contributor to BLM is the multi-billionaire financier George Soros. Through his Open Society Foundations (OSF), Soros in 2014 gave at least $33 million to support already-established pro-BLM groups that, as The Washington Times wrote, “emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson” after the death of Michael Brown. “The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre,” said the Times. 2015 brought more of the same, as Soros’s OSF gave $650,000 to “groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.”

In the summer of 2016, the Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), a six-year pooled donor campaign whose goal was to raise $100 million for the BLM-affiliated Movement For Black Lives coalition. Said the Ford Foundation: “The Movement For Black Lives has forged a new national conversation about the intractable legacy of racism, state violence, and state neglect of black communities in the United States.” The Kellogg Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations also played key roles in helping this new BLMF initiative get off the ground.

On July 13, 2020, the Open Society Foundations, in support of BLM and its allies, pledged to donate $220 million to programs designed to help “build power in Black communities, promote bold new anti-racist policies in U.S. cities, and help first-time activists stay engaged.” The pledge earmarked $150 million in five-year grants for black-led “racial justice” organizations, and $70 million for a range of initiatives such as helping city governments reform policing and criminal justice by “moving beyond the culture of criminalization and incarceration.” “This is the time for urgent and bold action to address racial injustice in America,” said OSF deputy chair Alex Soros, the son of George Soros. “These investments will empower proven leaders in the Black community to reimagine policing, end mass incarceration, and eliminate the barriers to opportunity that have been the source of inequity for too long.”

Another notable supporter of BLM is the Democracy Alliance, which serves as a funding clearinghouse through which left-wing millionaires and billionaires can funnel enormous sums of money to their favored organizations.

BLM has also received significant backing from Shining the Light Advisors (SLA), a partnership created jointly by the United Way, the A&E television network, and iHeartMedia. SLA is a committee of “nationally known experts and leaders in racial and social justice” that oversees grant disbursements. Among the more noteworthy individuals who have served as advisors to SLA are Van Jones, the communist who once served as President Obama’s “green jobs czar,” and the veteran activist Rinku Sen, who strongly supported the notoriously corrupt, pro-socialist, now-defunct organization ACORN.

In addition, a multitude of major corporations have contributed very large amounts of money to BLM. These include such notables as: 23 and Me, Airbnb, Amazon, Apple, Bad Robot Productions, Cisco, Disney, Door Dash, Dropbox, Etsy, Fitbit, Gatorade, Hourglass Cosmetics, Intel, Microsoft, Nabisco, Nike, Pokemon Company, Savage X Fenty, Scopely, Skillshare, Spanx, Square Enix, Thatgamecompany, Tinder, Ubisoft, and Unilever.

BLM and the George Floyd Riots and Protests

In the aftermath of the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, many U.S. cities were overrun by violent riots in which supporters of BLM and Antifa—the latter of which is a revolutionary Marxist/anarchist militia movement that seeks to bring down the United States by means of violence and intimidation—played a major role. By June 3, at least 200 cities had imposed nighttime curfews in an effort to quell the mayhem, while more than 30 states had activated some 62,000 National Guard personnel to help restore order. 

By June 8, two police officers had been killed in the nationwide riots, while another 700+ officers in 25 states had been injured. In addition, 60 Secret Service agents and 40 U.S. Park Police had also sustained injuries. Fifteen civilians had died in the riots as well.

In early June of 2020, BLM’s New York chairman Hawk Newsome declared: “We pattern ourselves after the Black Panthers, after the Nation of Islam, we believe that we need an arm [firearm] to defend ourselves” against police depredations. Lauding the rioters who were tearing apart so many cities from coast to coast, he added: “People want to destroy because they’re angry and they’re frustrated. They want to go out and grab all those things that America told them that they should have, but they couldn’t have.”

By June 30, at least 14,000 protesters and rioters in 49 separate cities had been arrested. Many of them had attempted to desecrate and/or topple a wide array of federal monuments, memorials, and statues. It is estimated that as of July 3, somewhere between 15 million and 26 million people had participated in the various demonstrations from coast to coast, prompting The New York Times to run a headline that read: “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History.”

By the beginning of July 2020, the so-called George Floyd riots were projected to become—in terms of losses due to theft, fire, vandalism, and other forms of destruction—the costliest sustained acts of civil disorder in American history. The previous high was the $1.4 billion worth of damage (in 2020 dollars) that had resulted from the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Borrowing the Occupy Movement’s Tactics

In early June of 2020, a mob led by activists from BLM and Antifa took over the East Precinct of the Seattle Police Department (SPD). They characterized the department as a “terrorist cell,” threatened to burn it down, and finally renamed it the “Seattle People Department.” The mob also occupied Seattle City Hall and announced the establishment of a “liberated” area called CHAZ (an acronym for Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone), which soon thereafter was renamed CHOP (Capitol Hill Organized Protest). Drawing a parallel between CHOP and the Occupy encampments of 2011, which likewise had been hostile to capitalism and traditional American values, one Seattle observer described the scene at CHOP as follows: “They bar media from entering and screen people coming in. They are walking around fully armed. Talking about making their own currency and making their own flag…. This is just like the Occupy movement. Soon we will have feces and drugs everywhere and people getting assaulted and raped in the encampments.”

Shortly after setting up the CHAZ/CHOP encampment, the radical occupiers issued a series of ultimatums entitled “The Demands of the Collective Black Voices at Free Capitol Hill to the Government of Seattle, Washington.” Among their demands were: (a) the “abolition” of the Seattle Police Department and the elimination of “100 percent” of its funding; (b) “a retrial of all People [of] Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their [nonwhite] peers in their community”; (c) “the abolition of imprisonment,” especially “youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons”; (d) “free college for the people of the state of Washington … as a form of reparations for the treatment of Black people in this state and country”; and (e) a requirement that “the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients.”

Much like the Occupy encampments of 2011, CHOP quickly degenerated into a filthy pigsty replete with graffiti, decaying garbage, drug and alcohol abuse, and violent crime. Finally, on July 1, 2020, Seattle’s Democrat mayor, Jenny Durkan—who initially had hailed CHOP as a place whose “block party atmosphere” heralded a potential “summer of love”—issued an executive order designating the encampment as an unlawful assembly, and it was dismantled by police.

America’s Popular Culture Embraces BLM

As the George Floyd protests and riots gained momentum in the spring and summer of 2020, a large number of celebrities   in the fields of sports, the arts, fashion, and entertainment publicly announced their unwavering support for BLM. Former baseball star Alex Rodriguez and actress Jennifer Lopez, for instance, participated together in a BLM rally in Los Angeles carrying homemade signs that read, “#EnoughIsEnough” and “Let’s Get Loud for Black Lives Matter.” On Instagram, Rodriguez lamented “the senseless way George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis and … the many brutal, unnecessary, ugly murders that came before him.” Other luminaries who likewise stood in solidarity with BLM included Beyoncé, Jane Fonda, Madonna, Trevor Noah, Rihanna, Keke Palmer, Jamie Foxx, Adam Lambert, Gigi and Bella Hadid, Ariana Grande, Harry Styles, Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Drake, Doutzen Kroes, Imaan Hammam, Jaz Sinclair, Ross Lynch, Joe Jonas, and Sophie Turner.

The extent to which BLM’s message had captured the heart and mind of America’s popular culture was on full display in July of 2020, when Major League Baseball announced that its teams would be permitted to stencil “BLM” or “United for Change” on the back of the pitching mounds in each of their respective stadiums. Players would also have the option to wear either of those same slogans on t-shirts, wristbands, or patches affixed to their uniforms.

While Major League Baseball was preparing to implement the measures described in the preceding paragraph, the National Basketball Association announced that it would paint the words “Black Lives Matter” on all the courts that would be used for its upcoming games. Moreover, the league and its players’ union agreed on an array of “social justice messages” which the athletes could wear, instead of their names, on the backs of their jerseys. In addition to “Black Lives Matter,” the approved slogans included:

some that emphasized black victimization: “I Can’t Breathe” (words spoken by Eric Garner and George Floyd during their altercations with police); “Say Their Names” (a reference to the names of blacks killed by police); “Say Her Name” (the names of females killed by police); Enough”; and “How Many More?”

some that represented pleas for the type of respect that African Americans were purportedly being denied: “See Us”; “Hear Us”; “Respect Us”; “Love Us”; “Anti-Racist”; and “Justice Now”

some that urged political activism: “Vote” (for Democrats); “Liberation”; and “Si Se Puede” (Spanish for “Yes We Can,” a slogan with a long history as a rallying cry for Latino leftists)

some with pro-socialist themes: “Power to the People” (a slogan rooted in the radical, anti-establishment politics of the 1960s); and “Group Economics” (a term connoting either a conscious decision to support black-owned businesses in particular, or an increased redistribution of wealth as a means of uplifting the large “group” of America’s poor)

“The Ferguson Effect” All Over Again

During the spring and summer of 2020, BLM’s police-hating rhetoric, coupled with the violence of the George Floyd riots, led to a resurrection of the so-called “Ferguson Effect” cited earlier. Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald dubbed it alternately the “Ferguson Effect 2.0” and the “Minneapolis Effect,” in light of the fact that the latest round of anti-police riots had started in Minneapolis. Specifically, political leaders nationwide reacted fearfully to BLM’s tactics and began to pledge a variety of police reform and defunding measures as gestures of appeasement. Meanwhile, law-enforcement officers—worried that their lives and reputations could be permanently destroyed at any moment by frivolous charges of racism—became highly reluctant to engage criminal suspects except where absolutely necessary. The result was a massive increase in violent crime and homicide throughout urban America. Consider, for instance, the case of Chicago:

On Sunday, May 31, 2020, eighteen homicides were committed in Chicago, breaking the city’s previous one-day record of thirteen, set 29 years earlier. In fact, over the course of that same weekend as a whole, Chicago police responded to at least 73 incidents in which 92 people were shot, including 27 who died as a result. “We’ve never seen anything like it at all,” said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the University of Chicago Crime Lab. “I don’t even know how to put it into context. It’s beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before.”

In another astonishing wave of gunfire during Father’s Day weekend, June 19-21, Chicago saw more than 100 people shot—14 of them fatally.

During the last weekend of June, 63 people were shot in Chicago, 16 of them fatally.

On July 21, Chicago Fraternal Order of Police president John Catanzara lamented that the city was experiencing a veritable “bloodbath in the street.”

New York City was likewise turned into a cauldron of violence by BLM hatred:

In a 28-day period from mid-May through mid-June of 2020, the incidence of murder, burglary and grand larceny auto crimes in New York spiked dramatically when compared to the same period in 2019. Particularly alarming was the homicide count—38 murders in 28 days—a total twice as high as the corresponding figure from the year before.

From June 16-22, the number of shootings in New York City increased by some 358% compared with the same time frame in 2019.

Between June 15 and July 2, shootings in New York City soared by 205% above the corresponding figure for the same period in 2019, while gunshot injuries increased by 238%. All told, June 2020 became New York’s bloodiest month in 24 years.

The NYPD’s Chief of Department, Terence Monahan, blamed these trends largely on the fact that “the animosity towards police has been absolutely unbelievable.” “The violence, the shootings are up,” he said. “We haven’t seen this many [during a comparable time period] since 1996.” One dispirited police officer described the situation as “complete lawlessness.”

And because the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio was highly sympathetic to the protesters and rioters—as evidenced by de Blasio’s fulfillment of a BLM demand calling for a $1 billion cut to the NYPD’s annual budget—many New York City officers decided that it was time to get out while they could. During the 30-day period from May 25 through June 24, 2020, no fewer than 272 uniformed NYPD cops announced that they were retiring—a 49% increase over the 183 officers who had filed for retirement during the same period in 2019.

The atmosphere in Milwaukee was equally grim. According to Milwaukee inspector Leslie Thiele: “Our homicides are way up. We haven’t seen these numbers since 1991. We have 86 homicides this year, compared to 37 to this point last year—so we have a 132% increase.” Thiele’s fellow Milwaukee inspector Terrence Gordon said: “Morale [among police] is terrible.... [I]t’s because they’re afraid that nobody in this community is going to stand up for them. In 25 years, I’ve never seen it like this.”

The hearts of police officers were likewise torn asunder in Washington, D.C., as evidenced by the fact that in a June 2020 press release, the city’s Metropolitan Police Union reported that 71% of the members it surveyed were considering leaving the department. Of those, nearly 40% were planning to leave law enforcement entirely.

On July 21, 2020, The New York Times reported that nearly 200 officers in Minneapolis—roughly one-fifth of the city’s police force—had officially filed paperwork to leave their jobs, citing post-traumatic stress. “It’s almost like a nuclear bomb hit the city, and the people who didn’t perish are standing around,” said veteran officer Rich Walker Sr. regarding the department’s low morale. “I’m still surprised that we’ve got cops showing up to work, to be honest.”

Meanwhile, there were strong signals that Democrat-run cities from coast to coast were in danger of losing vast numbers of residents, and that their respective tax bases would soon be fleeing to safer environs. For instance, the Minneapolis manufacturing company 7-Sigma, Inc.—one of 400+ local businesses that were heavily damaged during the George Floyd riots—announced in early June that it would be moving, as quickly as possible, out of the city where it had been headquartered since 1987. Other Minneapolis businesses said that they full intended to follow suit.


Black Lives Matter’s name is a carefully crafted deception, designed to draw attention away from the fact that BLM is a hardcore Marxist movement whose overriding mission is to raze American society and its traditions to the ground, and to erect a Communist utopia upon those ruins. Toward that end, BLM works tirelessly to discredit the United States as an irredeemably racist wasteland founded upon nothing but slavery, genocide, and all manner of oppression.

It is immensely significant that BLM’s principal heroine is Assata Shakur, the Marxist revolutionary and former Black Panther who brutally murdered a New Jersey state trooper in the 1970s and has spent the past 41 years as a fugitive protected by Communist Cuba. It is equally noteworthy that the late totalitarian dictator of that island nation, Fidel Castro, is yet another revered figure in the pantheon of BLM icons.

A number of BLM’s demands are very clearly modeled on elements of the famous “Ten-Point Program” put forth by the murderous Black Panther Party in the 1960s. These include such overtly socialist and racialist agenda items as the guarantee of taxpayer-funded housing, education (through the college level), and “living-wage employment” for all black people.

BLM openly rejects “the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” advocating instead the socialist ideal of “villages” serving as “extended families” that “collectively care for one another.” In other words, BLM repudiates the singular value that, if it were to be embraced, would offer black Americans the principal tools they need in order to create for themselves a prosperous and fulfilling life.

BLM is infested with Jew-hating anti-Semites who falsely accuse Israel of such abominations as “colonialism,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “land theft,” and “the denial of Palestinian humanity.” It also supports the Boycott, Divestment, & Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that aims to use various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and court rulings to permanently destroy Israel as a Jewish nation-state.

BLM’s anti-police rhetoric and violent activities have had devastating consequences for black Americans as a whole. In the aftermath of protracted BLM protest/riot campaigns in 2015 and again in 2020, for example, police officers in many U.S. cities—fearful of having their lives and reputations permanently destroyed by frivolous charges of racism—became highly reluctant to engage criminal suspects except in cases where absolutely necessary. As a result, the incidence of homicide and other violent crimes skyrocketed across urban America. And the vast majority of both the victims and perpetrators of such crimes were black.
The only black lives that matter to BLM are the infinitesimally small number that are ended by the actions of white people, particularly white police officers. Meanwhile, the thousands of blacks whose lives are terminated by black killers each and every year are never mentioned by BLM—no matter how brutally, mercilessly, or senselessly those lives may have been snuffed out.

It is indeed a tragedy that a movement so evil and so ruinous has been able, with the help of a compliant mainstream news media, to dupe millions of Americans into embracing it as a crusade for “racial justice.” In reality, BLM is the very embodiment of Marxism, anti-Semitism, and racism—a trifecta of wickedness capable of destroying any society.

John Perazzo is the editor of and author of The New Shame of the Cities.

*Editor's note: This pamphlet includes footnotes that are not present in the version above, but can be found in the hard-copy of the pamphlet itself. Order hard copies HERE.


Homeland Security head admits “we know that there is organization”, as videos of agitators chanting ‘Death to America’ emerge

DHS Head: DOJ Is investigating Leaders Of BLM, Antifa, And Financers



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The acting head of the Department of Homeland Security declared Monday night that the Department of Justice is “targeting and investigating” the leaders of Black Lives Matter and Antifa over violence and rioting in US cities.

Appearing on Tucker Carlson’s show, Chad Wolf also claimed that the feds are going after those paying for the organisation of the rioting.

When asked by Carlson “Why haven’t we seen the leaders of Antifa and BLM arrested and charged with conspiracy under RICO?”, Wolf said he had spoken to the Attorney General personally about the matter.

“I know that they are working on it. Look, we have seen about 300 arrests across this country regarding civil unrest and protesting, violent protesting and I would say, criminal protesting,” Wolf said.

“I know the Department of Justice has charged about 74, 75 individuals there in Portland with different federal crimes,” Wolf continued.

“We will continue to see how those investigations are going. Department of Justice is also targeting and investigating the head of these organizations, the individuals that are paying for these individuals to move across the country,” he added.

Wolf also repeated information from police reports indicating that most people arrested for rioting in Kenosha, Wisconsin were from other cities.

“What we know, Tucker, is that we have seen groups and individuals move from Portland to other parts of the country,” Wolf said.

“We had about about 175 arrests in Kenosha, almost 100 of them were from out of state. So, we know they are moving around. We have seen them in D.C., in Sacramento, and elsewhere. They are organized. We have seen similar tactics being used from Portland and other cities across the country as well. So, we know that there is organization, I know the Department of Justice is also looking at that as well,” Wolf urged.

Amid the violence, videos have emerged of BLM and Antifa agitators in Kenosha and Oakland, California, marching and chanting ‘Death to America’:


Wolf also noted that Joe Biden must be “delusional” for threatening that there will be more violence if Trump is re-elected.

President Trump is scheduled to visit Kenosha Tuesday, after ignoring a request from Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers who said “I am concerned your presence will only hinder our healing.”



Biden identified what Pope Francis stands for as 'generosity to other people,' 'reaching out,' and 'making it a point to understand that we are our brother’s keeper.'


Featured Image



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.

UNITED STATES, August 12, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pro-abortion former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has released another campaign video touting his supposed Catholic faith and friendship with Pope Francis.

The short video released last week shows Biden and Pope Francis smiling and greeting each other, while a voiceover of Biden speaks about an occasion when the two men met at the Vatican.

Biden goes on to praise Pope Francis and identify his presidential campaign with the values displayed in Francis’ pontificate.

Biden says that he met a group of nuns after leaving his meeting with Pope Francis. To Biden, the nuns “epitomize everything Pope Francis talked about in his homily and what he stands for.”

Biden identified what Pope Francis stands for as “generosity to other people,” “reaching out,” and “making it a point to understand that we are our brother’s keeper.”

“We are our brother’s keeper,” Biden says. “We have an obligation. I think that’s the way, the only way, we’re going to make the world better and safer.”

Last month, Biden promised if elected president, he will reinstate the Obama administration’s birth control mandate forcing Catholic nuns to participate in the provision of contraception.

Earlier this year Biden released another campaign video featuring Pope Francis in which Biden says that he goes to Mass and says the rosary and that faith is what has helped him through the most difficult moments in his life.

Biden has made taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and enshrining into lawthe many demands of the LGBT lobby a key part of his 2020 presidential platform. 

He has said that if he wins the election, he will direct the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state laws that place any restriction on abortion, including parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis, when restrictions were placed on various medical services, Biden said abortion is an “essential health care service” and that it is necessary “to ensure that women have access to all health services during this crisis.”

In June Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion business, endorsed Biden for president and later that month Biden affirmed his support of abortion “under any circumstance.” Last month, Biden promised to restore domestic and overseas funding to the abortion industry, and undo the Trump administration’s efforts not to finance abortions with federal money. Yesterday he announcedvehemently pro-abortion Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his partner on the Democrat presidential ticket.

During her time as Attorney General of California, Harris played a key role in defending Planned Parenthood over its sale of aborted baby parts (which violated multiple federal laws, according to undercover video of abortion industry personnel). Most of the footage was taken in California, yet Harris announcedshe would investigate the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) journalists rather than Planned Parenthood, and went on to raid the home of CMP head David Daleiden while accepting the abortion giant’s donations for her Senate run. 

“By selecting a running mate who is staunchly pro-abortion and anti-religious liberty, Joe Biden has once again made it clear that his self-styled ‘Catholic identity’ is something which can be cast aside whenever it's politically expedient,” commented Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote. “Like Joe Biden himself, Kamala Harris favors radical abortion policies including late-term abortion paid for by taxpayers, as well as forcing Catholic religious orders like the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide abortion drugs in their healthcare plans.”

Burch added, “In November 2018, Harris ruthlessly criticized Brian Buescher, a Catholic federal district court nominee from Nebraska, about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. It is clear that a Biden-Harris ticket threatens the values Catholics in this country hold most dear.”

Earlier this year, Biden said on social media that “transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.”

As vice president, the first “wedding” Biden officiated was between two men.

Last month several well-known U.S. Catholics priests said that because of Biden’s pro-abortion stance and LGBT activism that Catholics cannot support him.

But last year, Biden told a PBS interviewer that Pope Francis gives him Communion, after a Catholic priest followed Church law and denied him Communion because of his public support for abortion.

Pope Franics has never publicly criticized Biden, but last year compared Trump’s border security to the Berlin Wall that divided communist East Germany from freedom in the West. In December, Pope Francis appeared to draw a comparisonbetween Herod and Trump.

In February 2016, during the Republican presidential primaries, Pope Francis commented on Trump while on the papal plane returning from Mexico. 

“A person who only thinks about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” he said, according to a transcript of his remarks. In the same press scrum, Pope Francis said that he would not comment on Italy’s same-sex civil union legislation “because the Pope is for everybody and he can’t insert himself in the specific internal politics of a country.”


Pro-abortion Joe Biden touts Catholic faith, papal visit in new campaign video

At one point in the video, Biden says: 'I go to Mass and I say the rosary. I find it to be incredibly comforting.'

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

February 20, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Pro-abortion former vice president and 2020 Democratic hopeful Joe Biden has released a new campaign video featuring Pope Francis in which Biden says he goes to Mass and says the rosary and that faith is what has helped him through the most difficult moments in his life.

Last year, Biden told a PBS interviewer that Pope Francis gives him Communion, after he was denied Communion by a Catholic priest because of his public support for abortion.

Biden says in the new video: “Faith is what has gotten me through difficult times in my life,” which include the deaths of his first wife and eldest daughter in a car accident in 1972 and his son’s death from brain cancer in 2015.

At one point in the video, Biden says: “I go to Mass and I say the rosary. I find it to be incredibly comforting.”

Biden is shown in the video attending Mass, speaking from church pulpits, and praying with a number of different people. He is also shown meeting Pope Francis, with both men appearing to be smiling in the image.


Biden’s 2020 presidential platform includes taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and enshrining into law the many demands of the LGBT lobby.

He has said that if he wins election, he will direct the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state laws that place any restriction on abortion, including parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.

Last month he said on social media that “transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.”

As vice president, the first “wedding” Biden officiated was between two men.

The Obama-Biden administration notably tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate in the provision of abortion-inducing drugs and contraception and threatened schools with the loss of federal funding if they wouldn’t let boys in girls’ bathrooms and vice versa, among other things.

Biden was the frontrunner during much of the Democrat primary campaign but has now slipped to second place behind Bernie Sanders. According to the current RealClearPolitics polling average, Biden now has a 17.8% of the vote, 10% behind Bernie Sanders and less than 2% more than late entry Michael Bloomberg.



Los Angeles County To Terminate Parking Lot Lease With John MacArthur's Grace Church "Los Angeles County is retaliating against Grace Community Church for simply exercising their constitutionally protected right to hold church and challenging an unreasonable, unlawful health order. In America, we have a judicial system to ensure that the executive branch does not abuse its power, and Grace Community Church has every right to be heard without fear of reprisal. The Democrats' message to Americans is clear--if you don't bow to every whim of tyranny, the government will come after you. The Church has peacefully held this lease for 45 years and the only reason the County is attempting eviction is because John MacArthur stood up to their unconstitutional power grab. This is harassment, abusive, and unconscionable." - Jenna Ellis, Special Counsel to Thomas More Society Link to document-



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Grace Community Church and its pastor, John MacArthur, have chosen to defy an unconstitutional order banning indoor church services in the name of fighting the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. Los Angeles County has engaged in ridiculous court shenanigans to force the church to shut its doors but to no avail. So on Friday, the county’s Department of Public Works unilaterally decided to cancel the church’s lease agreement for a large portion of the church’s parking lot.

“Los Angeles County is retaliating against Grace Community Church for simply exercising their constitutionally protected right to hold church and challenging an unreasonable, unlawful health order,” Jenna Ellis, who is representing MacArthur and the church, and is a personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, said in a statement. “In America, we have a judicial system to ensure that the executive branch does not abuse its power, and Grace Community Church has every right to be heard without fear of reprisal.”

“The Democrats’ message to Americans is clear—if you don’t bow to every whim of tyranny, the government will come after you,” Ellis added. “The Church has peacefully held this lease for 45 years and the only reason the County is attempting eviction is because John MacArthur stood up to their unconstitutional power grab. This is harassment, abusive, and unconscionable.”

The lease concerns a large portion of the church’s parking lot, and has been in place since 1975. Under the terms of the rental agreement, either the church or the county can terminate the agreement if it gives 30-days notice. While the Department of Public Works letter giving the church notice does not cite a reason for the lease’s termination, it seems virtually certain that the move is a form of retaliation amid the religious freedom battle.

The religious freedom battle

Both Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and the County of Los Angeles have health orders prohibiting indoor church services. MacArthur and his church have challenged those orders in court while continuing to meet in person, and LA County has tried — no fewer than four times — to convince judges to issue restraining orders preventing the congregation from gathering to worship God in church.

Rather than enforcing the existing health order, which imposes a fine of $1,000 and jail time, the county has sought court orders, ostensibly to shift blame to the court but also to penalize the church further. The county has asked a judge to find MacArthur and his church in contempt of court, which would cost the church more than $20,000 and attorney’s fees. Courts repeatedly rejected these shenanigans.

Gov. Newsom has reportedly threatened to cut off power to any church that continues to meet in-person. Yet he is facing a large movement of civil disobedience. A network of California churches sued him last month and many churches throughout the state have vowed to hold in-person worship services despite the state ban on gatherings.

Charles LiMandri, one of MacArthur’s lawyers, noted that California “has given free rein to protestors, and is not similarly restricting marijuana dispensaries, large retail outlets and factories, and abortion providers.”

“Nothing about this is truly about health. It’s an unconstitutional power grab,” Ellis told PJ Mediaearlier this month.

IT’S ON: John MacArthur Sues Newsom for Banning Church While Encouraging Protests

Why the attack on churches?

In a powerful Daily Wire op-ed last week, MacArthur explained why his church is facing this aggressive prosecution. He noted that in the wake of post-structuralist (deconstructive) reasoning, most Americans believe that each person has a different “truth” based solely on experience, so “it’s impossible to know anything with settled certainty” which means Americans “can’t really believe anything, either.”

MacArthur also quoted Romans 1, in which Paul warns what happens to people who embrace sin and reject God. “Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:28-32).

The pastor warned that the shapers of culture in music, the arts, the academy, and the media “have indoctrinated recent generations to accept and even encourage every imaginable kind of depravity and radical ‘alternative lifestyle.'”

“We’re not supposed to notice the overtly self-destructive nature of popular moral deviancies or the aberrant subcultures they spawn,” MacArthur noted. So the mainstream media “will, for example, portray months of lawlessness and rioting as legitimate expressions of free speech — insisting that it has been ‘mostly peaceful,’ even though the destructive result is clearly evident to anyone with eyes to see.”

“Meanwhile, nothing is more politically incorrect than religious belief. Genuine faith in God is commonly represented as a dangerous, disqualifying disorder,” the pastor argued. “Just this week, for example, former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking live on a national news network, suggested that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo does not qualify to serve in public office because he is ‘overtly religious … which in itself is problematic.'”

Government policies regarding the coronavirus pandemic offer “more stunning examples of how far our culture has gone in losing its religion. States and counties across the nation have classified places like casinos, abortion clinics, liquor stores, and massage parlors as essential businesses, permitting them to remain open — while churches are commonly categorized as ‘nonessential’ and kept closed. The governor of California and county officials in Los Angeles have shown a determination to keep our church closed, even while encouraging massive political protests by angry people in the streets.”

The attack on religious faith ultimately traces back to human sin and America’s normalization of it. Church is essential, and not just for psychological health amid the dangers of a pandemic and riots. The foundational truths of Judaism and Christianity are the bedrock for western civilization and modern freedom and prosperity.

In attacking religious freedom, Newsom and LA County are attacking the roots of America’s civilization. While this legal battle is a matter of justice, it is also more important than just John MacArthur and Grace Community Church.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

COVID Bullies Aimed to ‘Impose Punitive and Outrageous Sanctions’ on John MacArthur. It Backfired.
California Bans ‘Singing and Chanting’ in Churches, Mosques, Synagogues
How Early Christians Saved Lives and Spread the Gospel During Roman Plagues
Anti-Christian Bigotry Unmasked During Coronavirus







republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
President Donald Trump warned during his acceptance speech that the Second Amendment is in jeopardy in this fall's elections. (Screen snip, YouTube, C-SPAN)

USA – -( President Donald Trump made it clear during his acceptance speech on the White House lawn that a Joe Biden victory in November will be bad news for American gun owners and the Bill of Rights.

“If the left gains power,” the president warned, “they will demolish the suburbs, confiscate your guns and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment and other constitutional freedoms.”

It was one of two references Trump made about the right to keep and bear arms during his speech on the final night of the virtual Republican National Convention. Writing for the Detroit Free Press, reporter Todd Spangler described the speech as “long on exaggerated claims and fear-mongering.”

But even a cursory glance at Biden’s “plan to end gun violence” suggests the president wasn’t exaggerating at all. AmmoLand News took a hard look at the Biden plan here, which the establishment media apparently hasn’t done.

In the audience of about 1,500 people was Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Trump reminded his audience and viewers across the country about his success in filling federal court vacancies, soon to be 300+, including two seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. A second term would allow him to possibly fill one or two more high court positions.

By no small coincidence, Gottlieb referred to the president’s court appointments in a CCRKBA news release on the first day of the convention.

“Donald Trump,” Gottlieb observed, “has fulfilled one of his most important campaign pledges to America’s 100 million gun owners. The president has been filling federal court vacancies with experienced, constitutional judges who understand the Second Amendment means what it says.”

Underscoring this point was the opinion issued just days ago in the California case of Duncan v. Becerra, striking down the state’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” as a violation of the Second Amendment. The opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee, a Trump appointment.

While Trump’s speech is being savaged by the establishment media, it should be noted that, once again, the president made a point of mentioning the Second Amendment and the importance of protecting it.

He habitually refers to the amendment in public appearances, typically noting it is under constant threat from the political Left.

Near the end of his one hour and ten-minute speech, the president stated, “And if we don’t win, your Second Amendment doesn’t have a chance. I can tell you that. I have totally protected it.”

The president made a comment that could become the lightning rod slogan for his campaign.

“Tonight I ask you a simple question,” he challenged from a stage largely backed and flanked by American flags. “How can the Democrat party ask to lead our country when it spends so much time tearing down our country?”

That observation brought a standing ovation, one of many by the audience during the late evening acceptance speech.

Trump quickly followed the question with a blunt assessment.

“In the left’s backward view,” he stated, “they do not see America as the most free, just and exceptional nation on earth. Instead they see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins. Our opponents say that redemption for you can only come from giving power to them. This is a tired anthem spoken by every repressive movement throughout history.”

While it was long—a fact on which most observers agree—Trump’s acceptance speech hit the right tone with his base, and pulled no punches in its contrast with what a Democrat victory in November could mean. President Trump predicted the nation will suffer if Biden and his running mate, anti-gun Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) win Nov. 3.

What it will mean to gun owners and the Second Amendment seems clear. Filling federal court vacancies with conservative judges will cease. If there are vacancies on the Supreme Court, they would be filled with liberal justices. New restrictive gun regulations could be signed into law, including a permanent ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

The campaign will shift into high gear following the Labor Day weekend, not just for the White House, but for the U.S. House of Representatives, several seats in the U.S. Senate, and nearly all state legislatures and some governorships.

The critical involvement of gun owners is underscored by the creation of “Gun Owners for Trump,” launched just days ago as part of the overall Trump re-election campaign.

There are 18 members on the board including CCRKBA’s Gottlieb, plus Barrett Firearms President Ronnie Barrett, Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode, competition shooters Gabby Franco and Lanny Barnes; Rick Ector, CEO at the Firearms Academy of Detroit; Amy Robbins, CEO at Alexo Athletica and TV host; retired Army Sgt. Major Kyle Lamb; Eye on the Target radio host Amanda Suffecool; author and motivational speaker Marsha Petrie Sue; Neil Hogue, with Hogue Knives and firearms accessories, along with Matthew Gomez, Thibault Bowman, Mia Rhode, Barbara Rumpel, Esther Schneider, Beth Walker, and Linda Walker.

Their primary mission will be to get out the “gun vote” in November, an effort also being pushed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

About Dave WorkmanDave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Ever since a multiracial group of Minneapolis cops kneeled on George Floyd’s neck as he died three months ago, there have been riots in American cities every single night. At first our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters in the media just gaslighted us about it. They looked right into their cameras and told us it wasn’t happening. It’s not actual violence, y’know, the bad kind of violence. It’s “mostly peaceful protest.”

MSNBC’s Ali Velshi gave us the perfect example of this sort of propaganda:

Then Velshi went back to his luxurious home.

But the people in that neighborhood are still there, in the ruins. Velshi and his ilk don’t care what happens to them, because it doesn’t fit liberals’ view of the world and it’s bad for their preferred political party. They don’t care what happens to people like this Minneapolis resident, after rioters destroyed her neighborhood:

You have the right to be angry about the death of a black man in police custody. But why is shebeing punished for it? Doesn’t her life matter too? How is this #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd?

“A-ha,” exclaims the liberal in good standing. “Allow me to retort. Maybe you rednecks have never heard of a little thing called… insurance??? It’s just property. It’s just stuff. It can be replaced. George Floyd’s life can’t!”

Yeah, well, about that…

Jeffrey Meitrodt, Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

One day after rioters destroyed the Sports Dome retail complex in St. Paul, a construction crew hired by the city knocked the building down because it was dangerously unstable.

Then the city presented the property owners with a $140,000 bill for what it would cost to haul away the debris.

“We were really upset about that,” said property owner Jay Kim, whose insurance policy covers a maximum of $25,000 in demolition costs…

Like dozens of other investors whose properties were severely damaged in the May riots, the Kim family was stunned to discover that the money it would collect from its insurance company for demolition won’t come close to the actual costs of doing the job. Most policies limit reimbursement to $25,000 to $50,000, but contractors have been submitting bids of $200,000 to $300,000. In many cases, the price of the work is not much lower than the actual value of the property, records show.

In other words, those places are totaled. Those neighborhoods are dead. All those burned-out buildings will just stay the way they are, for who knows how long. All those jobs are gone and they’re not coming back. Nobody’s going to wave a magic wand and bring back what was destroyed by these lawless rioters.

Why would anybody want to stay there if they can afford to move? And what happens to the people who can’t afford to move?

Minneapolis is controlled, at every level, by Democrats. If you think that’s just a coincidence, you just keep on thinking that. And go ahead and blame the insurance companies, instead of the rioters who actually destroyed those businesses.

The destruction in Minneapolis is astonishing. It took Minneapolis authorities two months to stumble upon a charred corpse inside a burned-down pawnshop. A man named Montez Terrill Lee is currently awaiting trial for committing the arson, but the deceased is still unidentified. The national media just shrugged and moved on. They’re not demanding answers. Al Sharpton hasn’t shown up for another nationally televised funeral. Only certain lives matter.

Some guy woman person just wrote a book defending looting, and got a sympathetic interview on NPR. PolitiFact actually “fact-checked” the arson of a car dealership in Kenosha because it didn’t burn down the church next door with a “Black Lives Matter” sign out front. Yeah, the car dealership was completely destroyed, but the church is fine. Nobody needs to learn anything from what happened, because PolitiFact and NPR and the rest tell us so.

Hell, libs are even bailing out violent rioters, with the help of none other than:

But that was then. Now that the RNC is over, Trump didn’t say anything worse than usual, and the polling numbers have come in, all the Democrats suddenly realize that they can’t deny the reality of this nationwide rioting anymore. Our problem is suddenly their problem too, because November is coming.

Nobody believes that this is “mostly peaceful protesting,” except the hardcore libs who are terrified that someone might think they’re MAGA-heads if they admit reality. So the Dems are panicking. They’ve instantly flip-flopped from “There are no riots” to “The riots are Trump’s fault.” They didn’t care about all the chaos and destruction as long as they thought it was politically useful. Those lives didn’t matter.

Now they do, because the election is coming up and the only thing standing between them and four more years of Drumpf is a decrepit old career politico and his newly hired Visiting Angel. If your business burned down in a riot, why would you vote for the people who’ve ignored you for months? Why would you find common cause with a political party that wants you to shut up about your ruined life because you’re making them look bad?

This violence has consequences. It’s destroying people’s lives. If you’ve chosen to ignore that for months because you hate Trump, and now you’re actually trying to blame him for it, you’ve sold your soul. I hope that whatever you end up getting out of it is worth the price.


Dan Bongino Slams Media; Provides Chilling Account of Left-Wing Rage Mob after RNC (video)



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Media commentator Dan Bongino recounted his experience of the last night of the Republican National Convention culminating when participants were forced to face the rage mob waiting outside the gates of the South Lawn of the White House.

Bongino explained what was happening outside as Republicans were listening to the speeches at the RNC:

“You were sitting there on the south grounds [of the White House] and you were listening to these speeches from these amazing Americans…and you know what was playing in the background? On the streets? The lunatic mob was gathering. You didn’t hear that from the media, did you? You didn’t hear that from CNN – that they were outside with bullhorns, air horns, honking horns, playing…rage music outside – trying to interrupt the event…”

Mr. Bongino described that the people listening to the speeches surely must have started to realize that they would soon be facing the mobs right outside the gates.

“There was a tension I could feel growing amongst the crowd as the night wore on and we closed in on 11:00 because the sounds outside got louder. Put yourself in our shoes. We’re all sitting there, and you’re hearing these screaming and these yelling, and these raving lunatic banshees outside getting louder and louder and louder and you know you got to walk back to your hotel…”

Bongino explained that there was no option for people other than to walk through the mob. “There were no cabs waiting outside,” he said. “You were walking through that,” he said. “And you knew you were going to run that gauntlet. And by the end of the night, I’m telling you everyone knew they were going to run that gauntlet.”

Further, Mr. Bongino explained that in addition to the tension in the air over the knowledge that they would be facing the lunatic rage mob, participants understood that in Washington, D.C., the leftist government was not exactly interested in protecting the RNC participants. While he did not blame police at all for this, he did stress that “…it is clear that their leadership – their political leadership – Muriel Bowser – had no intentions of keeping this event as secure as it needed to be.”

Indeed, Senator Rand Paul, who was also targeted by the left-wing mob, wrote:

“My wife Kelley and I were attempting to leave the White House event. We were staying at a hotel directly across the street, maybe 50 yards from the gates of the White House. But as we went to leave, it became apparent there was no safe exit out the gates and through the unruly mob that had gathered there.

Why? Because another Democratic-run city had decided it would bow to lawless rioters instead of protecting its citizens. Mayor Muriel Bowser was asked by the Secret Service to allow wider and better protection for those leaving the White House Thursday night, but she refused.”

Dan Bongino tweeted some video footage of himself and his wife facing the mob:

As reported at RAIR Foundation USA, the abhorrent media coverage of the RNC focused on “social distancing” and the fireworks display held at the event, completely ignoring the Democrat-Aligned rage mob.

Watch Mr. Bongino’s show, and subscribe on YouTube.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here:





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Shortly after it was reported that the Kenosha County Board of Supervisors formally requested Governor Tony Evers “to accept 2,000 more National Guardsmen deployed by President Trump,” the President Tweeted that the governor of Wisconsin “agreed to accept federal assistance.”

The move finally came after multiple offers for assistance from the Trump administration were turned down. Police officers also asked for help, but the Democrat governor turned them down as well.

The violence in Kenosha reached a fever pitch last night, as rioters assaulted innocent people and set fires to local businesses ostensibly due to the police-involved shooting of Jacob Blake, the latest justification for left-wing violence ignored by the mainstream media.

In some cases, armed private citizens came to the aid of small businesses, thwarting Black Lives Matter / Antifa rioters.

See Tweets that document the violence:

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here:





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In the following RAIR Foundation USA exclusively translated video, German Doctor Guido Hofmann, discusses the introduction of a global dictatorship under the guise of an alleged pandemic.

Germans have long known that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has totalitarian instincts. Many Germans have feared that If given the chance, Merkel would try to establish total control over society. Could their fears be coming to fruition?

Is Merkel using the virus to prepare the ground for a totalitarian dictatorship?

Read more RAIR features on Germany and the Chinese Coronavirus crisis:

Video Transcript: many thanks to Miss Piggy

Good morning, friends.

I’m only a medical doctor with a small practice on the outskirts of town.

I actually don’t know what I should say about what is happening in Germany right now.

I can really sum it up as a medical doctor, as a vaccination doctor, and as someone
who has for his whole life treated people with upper respiratory infections.

I can only say it again and again, “IT HAS NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL, TO DO WITH A VIRUS, 

It is… and it is WORLDWIDE.

The introduction of a WORLD DICTATORSHIP, unfortunately you have to put it that way.

I’ve spent 1,500 hours in the past few months on this, because I knew it wasn’t medical.
I could never figure out the agenda, since the goals are so intertwined.

And last week in Speyer I was asked, before, don’t know, around a thousand people, I spoke —
I’ve never spoken to people before, neither dared nor brave enough to do it

But now it is like…that we…

It’s so unbelievable what’s going on, and they’re all playing along with
…and if… whoever still doesn’t believe… that we have a dictatorship, you can’t 
put it any other way, of course it is disguised, of course it is installed bit by bit.

But that people who are now opposed to excessive measures and go for the reintroduction, 
reinstatement of our practically basic rights onto the streets.

The forefathers of our Constitution wrote this into the Constitution as well.

And what they are doing right now, many will still not notice it, and will 
say “What’s the point of this?”

I can only say: COURAGE… anger… and a big heart.

That’s what unites us, and it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a virus.




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In the below RAIR Foundation USA exclusively translated video, German lawyer Markus Haintz slams the Infection Protection Act, which threatens parents with child confiscation if they do not comply with ludicrous isolation restrictions if their children are found positive for the Chinese coronavirus, or even if they came into contact with someone who tested positive. Haintz believes that the overtly tyrannical nature of the legislation was designed “to create fear.”

“This is child abuse,” he declared during an interview with journalist Margarita Bityutski. As reported at RAIR, Germans are appalled at the ways the German government is using the coronavirus to impose arbitrary policies having nothing to do with sound science echoing trends throughout the West.

The attorney, who represents citizens through a non-profit legal organization, states that the law as written allows for very little legal recourse for parents, whose children can be removed and placed in “forced isolation” in a government facility. “Of course I don’t think it is legally acceptable in any way and it is completely excessive,” Haintz stated. “It leaves one speechless and I’m not sure if the authorities are aware of what they have done,” he continued.

The attorney further stated that the testing itself is “non-validated,” yet determines whether children will be put in forced isolation in their homes. If parents are told to isolate their children, the government has granted itself the ability to enter the homes of the children to make sure they are isolated whenever they deem fit.

To emphasize this point, Haintz read from a letter given to parents whose children were found to be in contact with someone who tested positive for the coronavirus:

“Your child is being summonsed by the public health department. You can also be summonsed together with your child. Furthermore, you are obligated to allow the health department’s representative to enter your residence for the purpose of questioning or examinations and to provide information upon request for any circumstances concerning their state of health.”

“If you do not comply with the orders concerning your isolation, the isolation will be done by force with suitable accommodation in a locked facility. The basic right to freedom of a person can be restricted in this respect.”

“That it has come to this in Germany, so quickly, even shocks me,” he said.

Watch the RAIR Foundation exclusively translated video:


Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here:

Many thanks to Miss Piggy for the translation!

You have to think about what is stated there: “If you don’t comply, we’ll take your kids away”.

This may be the shock of a lifetime for the child. It is so unlawful that it has nothing to do with the practice of an official constitutional state. This is, at best, coercion.

For me, it’s a completely different kind of crime that’s being committed. Actually, something like this is in fact child abuse. This is child abuse.

I hope these people working for the authorities will have to answer for what they are doing.

That it has come to this in Germany, so quickly, even shocks me.

Mr. Haintz, you are a lawyer. I would like to discuss with you the legal side of a matter which is now occupying many parents in Germany. Based on the Infection Protection Act, health authorities can require families to isolate children suspected of having Corona within the family, and if this is not done, children can even be placed in closed facility.

What do you say as a lawyer?

Yes, that’s what the authorities are demanding in some cases.

Whether they can demand that, now that’s perhaps a completely different question, because I think it is legally untenable. My most prominent case was in Bruchsal near Karlsruhe, where a teacher tested positive who taught in two classes.

Following that, 46 students or their parents received letters with the corresponding forced isolation under the threat of severe punishment, including removing the children and forced isolation in a government facility.

Of course I don’t think it is legally acceptable in any way and it is completely excessive. It leaves one speechless and I’m not sure if the authorities are aware of what they have done. This probably will not stand in court, but the problem we have is for the parents.

Of course, legally, they are the first who have to pay, in advance. Sometimes they don’t even know what their rights are. That’s where I see the main problem, because if the authorities do something grossly illegal, you can still defend yourself legally. Which probably would have been possible in this case. Now however, with the Infection Protection Act, and the way it is formulated, it is simply being abused by many. There is no other way to formulate it.

It is actually written within the German constitution, I mean, in the Infection Protection Act.

At the moment, it seem to be almost as valid as the constitution. So, it actually states this and these threats are justified in this way. I also have a letter which was handed out to parents of children who were in contact with a person who had Corona. It was in the county of Ludwigslust-Parchim in Mecklenburg Vorpommern.

I can just briefly quote to you what is written. It’s actually severe, what is written here. It seems more like a summons for serious criminals. I will quote a few sentences.

“Your child is being summonsed by the public health department. You can also be summonsed together with your child. Furthermore, you are obligated to allow the health department’s representative to enter your residence for the purpose of questioning or examinations and to provide information upon request for any circumstances concerning their state of health.”

Furthermore it says: “If you do not comply with the orders concerning your isolation, the isolation will be done by force with suitable accommodation in a locked facility. The basic right to freedom of a person can be restricted in this respect.” So it says it right there.

How would you comment on this as a lawyer?

It is an unbelievable scandal.

It’s so illegal, that it leaves one speechless. Just recently I spoke with a doctor from Italy, and he suggested a comparison, which I didn’t really want to repeat, but the way those who test positively are being dealt with there, well, yes, it brings to mind a time from the past.

People are being deliberately excluded because they have some kind of characteristic.

This characteristic is currently the positive Corona test or rather a positive result from Dr. Drosten’s non-validated test. The authorities’ writing such a letters is blackmail.

It is coercion, and not only from a legal point of view. This is so illegal and it has nothing to do with how a functioning constitutional government works. I can’t imagine that this will stand up in court. However, nowadays there remains concern. Once a legal basis has been established, and some time passes, let’s say five, six, seven, months later, this is the result.

That it has come to this in Germany, so quickly, even shocks me.

There is no legal basis to enforce it in this way. It’s necessary to examine everything. So if a teacher enters the room, after having a test that hardly works anyway, for which even Dr. Drosten himself says that results are coincidental, and then to threaten parents with such severity. The parent and the children will be traumatized. This is, at best, coercion.

For me, it’s a completely different kind of crime that’s being committed.

Well, it has nothing to do with a constitutional state.

Can you imagine why the authorities would write such letters?

These authorities are still people, though.

The Infection Protection Act actually provides the wording for these kinds of threats. There could also be fines, which would at least be a lesser punishment.

Why would they choose to go the severe way? What do you think?

Because they want to create fear.

They said from the very beginning that they want to create fear and panic. That was clearly exposed in the leaked letters from the Ministry of the Interior. [SEE RAIR’S REPORTING HERE AND HERE] The government, its ministries and departments cause massive fear.

This fear by way of panic propaganda is wanted, and was wanted from the beginning.

Of course it affects the lower levels of government. There’s always government employee here and there who still believe that there’s a deadly killer virus out there that surpasses anything that has ever been seen before. That’s just not the case. This has apparently not yet been accepted by all authorities and unfortunately not by all the courts.

Therefore, they believe they can take children away from their parents. All I can do is warn these authorities against implementing such an order. It will only create a huge level of escalation. Not just legally, but socially as well. It will no longer be containable.

You have to think about what is stated there: “If you don’t comply, we’ll take your kids away.”

In this manner, it is just unbelievable. If this is implemented, it has nothing to do with a democracy. Period.

When they take this too far, aren’t they shooting themselves in the foot? Even as a journalist, I normally always try to behave very neutrally. However, I have to say, it’s not possible to react neutrally in this case. Isn’t it almost stupid for them to do something like this?

I actually asked myself with my case in Bruchsal and the letters that were written, if it is wasn’t perhaps someone who was from “our side”. I don’t have to be neutral, and I’m not, because I defend democracy, and others want to abolish it. So I think, if I worked for the authorities and sent something like this came out, then it might be to create a certain reaction. That means, by writing such a letter, I knew that someone would really overreact. I think the school authorities or the school in Bruchsal were somewhat horrified about what was going on, because parents reacted accordingly. As a result, the authorities were under pressure and even received threats. I don’t approve of that, but I can understand it very well, because parents were being threatened with having their children taken away.

I believe some government employees simply ignore their common sense and then think they can do whatever they want. So what’s happening here right now is that those who have tested positive are treated like lepers. They are interned, and the choice of words is carefully chosen, but used deliberately.

Some child protection agencies have reacted with shock and have already spoken out.

They all say the same thing. They say that it’s not proportionate and that children’s rights must always have priority.

Do you think that the statements of the child protection agencies could have any effect on the government?

I think, with regard to our government, or those governing, that they are largely resistant to receiving any advice.

So you really have to exert massive pressure. We’re doing that with our fund-sharing lawsuits.

We take action by submitting suits by the hundreds and thousands, so people can defend themselves. Right now the government is implementing grossly illegal orders and instructions, and whatever else, laws and regulations. The first problem people have is how to defend themselves legally.

We’re now turning the table on the game a bit. We’re trying to ensure a level playing field.

It’s unacceptable that a single mother is blackmailed by the government or state authorities, and is unable to defend herself, so she has to be afraid of going to prison and that her children will be taken away. That’s simply a crime. If something like this stands up in court, then I’ve really come to the point where i have to say Germany is no longer a democracy. I’m not sure if it will stand up in court. I don’t know yet.

Actually, something like this is in fact child abuse. This is child abuse. I hope the people doing this for the authorities will have to answer for what they are doing.

You spoke briefly about Klage (lawsuit fund-sharing). Can you briefly explain what that is? Who participates in it, who supports it, and how does it work?

It is a non-profit association which we’ve restructured in order to create a level playing field in the courts. This is how it works. We’ve taken advantage of digitization to simplify the process to a great extent. The facts of the case can be recorded digitally. This has led to lower costs. Following that, the case is then given to individual lawyers.

This way, for example, just recently we pressed criminal charges against Ms. Esken.

We have a written draft that could be put into the software, so everyone can enter their data and send it directly to their own prosecutor’s office. Normally what would cost 400 to 500 Euros in the past by going to a lawyer. We accomplish this now by collecting donations, which come from supporting members.

That’s how we provide sample letters, for example, so people can become active themselves. So that they can defend themselves. It’s the same thing when a lawsuit is necessary. Very much of the process is digital, which is then forwarded directly to the responsible lawyers.

It is simply a way to lower the costs. You can also make donations. It is a non-profit organization helping anyone who cannot afford legal assistance. This way we can create a level playing field, which is urgently necessary.

You just mentioned Saskia Esken. You must be referring to her statement in which she called demonstrators “Covid idiots”. How many lawsuits have been filed now? Do you know? And do you think it will help?

I believe we’ve had two to three thousand downloads so far, without really having advertised it. I assume that there are umpteen thousand criminal charges being filed. In this case, there wasn’t a lawsuit filed. Of course, the authorities have to process all these charges. This has an affect and it is meant to have an affect. The government should take notice.

We’ll drive up the costs for the government. They’ll rise astronomically for these illegal measures.

If we should win a declaratory judgment, for example, regarding the demonstration in Berlin on August 1 [SEE RAIR’S REPORTING], we could possibly have everybody who attended sue against the illegal interruption of the demonstration. This way, we manage to create immense costs for the Government that conducted this illegal enforcement of injustice. That is exactly our objective.

So if the city of Berlin has to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of euros, perhaps at some point they will have to talk to us. It’s simply a method to finally give citizens the opportunity to defend themselves, because that’s what is missing at the moment.

Are there other lawsuits related to Corona measures?

At the moment the most frequent cases concern the right to demonstrate. Currently, the way it works now, if you don’t have a good lawyer with you, the authorities have a relatively easy job.

That doesn’t mean it’s like that in every city, but I was in a negotiation meeting, and we were told: ‘We will enforce the mandatory mask ordinance.’ To which I said, that’s not negotiation. They just replied that they would do it their way. In the end, we were able to change that, but only with lawyers. That’s why we also made this digital now. So every initiative knows, first of all, how they can do things themselves, where they are. We only have to intervene later, If necessary. Now people have the opportunity to defend themselves in this area too.

Another big issue is the mandatory masks. At schools for example. [SEE RAIR’S REPORTING] Another big issue is discrimination due to mandatory masks. Stores that thrown people out. Discrimination against people and criminal procedures in connection with that topic.

In other words, everything that in any way has to do with masks, because it leads to many disputes.

And then of course possibly in the future, the forced PCR-test [polymerase chain reaction]. What do I have to do, and what not? What can I refuse to do ? There are very many cases concerning the labor laws.

I was fired because I attended a demonstration. In all these areas in which Corona plays into it, this is where we are carried into. So lawsuits are one aspect, but what about acute situations?

Just to get back to the situation with the children, let’s say the health department is standing in front of my door with the police, who want to take my child with them?

What does one do in such a situation?

In that case I would immediately call a lawyer and I would even call the police, because someone is trying to illegally rob the child of freedom. In this case, I would react drastically. Even when the government acts illegally, I can ask the government for help. Whether I receive that help, is another question.

In this case, call a law firm. Once someone is on the phone, ask them to come immediately. When in doubt, I would also call the police. Ask them to come right away, because your child is being illegally deprived of liberty.

That’s where I would play hardball. Inform the neighborhood.

Set the emotional hurdle as high as possible for this gross injustice. If a lawyer is involved, you just have to get a temporary injunction in court. You must act immediately. It might be such a shock for your child that it will be difficult to recover from.

When you speak about the law, it seems like the Infection Protection Act is above the normal law. Does the normal law still exist? Is the Infection Protection Act now the law above the law? What’s the current situation?

In legal terms, constitutional law is still above normal law, and above constitutional law stands European law as well.

That’s where we still have much to do and will. The Infection Protection Act is there to restrict basic rights that can be restricted. The right to assembly, to be able to leave your residence,

Article 2, the general freedom of movement and so on. These basic rights can be restricted by law, and that’s what is happening at the moment. As a layperson, one has the impression that the law of the land is the Infection Protection Act. That’s understandable.

When I watch how the authorities react, they don’t appear interested in the basic law any longer.

They also admit it quite often. They’ll say: “We’re interrupting this demonstration illegally and you can go to court against it.” The policeman or citizens in uniform, as I call them, say they’ll do what they want and also say they don’t care. They’ll say: “You can take it to court.”

They say themselves that they are acting illegally. They don’t recognize basic right any longer.

It is clearly a reduction of fundamental rights protection.

Do you think that this is a permanent restructuring of the legal system?

That’s a good question. That’s where we are now.

Of course, the best legal system is of no use if no one follows it. So yes, we should have had courts that should be checking the parameters of the Robert Koch Institute.

We have legislation that could be looked at more critically, especially by the opposition, but also by the government. So theoretically, we have a separation of powers, but it doesn’t work as it should at the moment. If you want to get around this or secure it for the future, you have to create mechanisms for when the government declares a lockdown, that it isn’t also responsible for deciding the measure to be taken later.

That would create a very, very high hurdle in the constitution. By calling a state of emergency, the government would disempower itself and someone else decides about it. Concerning the justice system, for example, in criminal law, in no other European country is a judge who set the charges also the judge that decides the verdict. Of course, there’s bias.

Such mechanisms can be changed. They need to be changed urgently to avoid the situation of not always having to justify one’s own decisions, be it as a judge or as a government.

There are plenty of ideas that have to be implemented urgently.

Mr. Haintz, thank you very much for these insights. It was very interesting and I really thank you for this interview.

I thank you. Any time.





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A super PAC founded by Clinton aides invited the thugs who harassed Senator Rand Paul and his wife after the Republican National Convention at the White House on August 27, 2020.

Other prominent Republicans exiting the RNC were also confronted by a leftist rage mob organized by the Party Majority PAC, as well as the Revolutionary Communist Party‘s front group “Refuse Fascism,” whose cult-like leader Bob Avakian endorsed Joe Biden earlier this month, and a Democratic Socialists of America-aligned group called Shut Down DC.

Party Majority PAC

An individual holding a sign that says “Good Trouble” with the hashtag #ThePeoplesHouse is highlighted in the featured photo. If one checks out the hashtag, one is led to a website, where an invitation to a protest the White House is prominently featured.

Attendees were told to meet at the ACLU, according to the invitation. A corresponding ActBlue solicitation for “air horns” was connected to the invitation. The “contribution,” according to the invitation, “will benefit Party Majority PAC.”

The Party Majority PAC was founded by Mike Lux and Adam Parkhomenko according to a 2017 article posted at NBC News. Mike Lux, the co-founder of the group, has been a card-carrying Democratic Socialists of America member. NBC News described him as “a former aide to President Bill Clinton who has helped build a series of progressive organizations over the last two decades.” Those organizations include the Soros-funded groups: Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and the Center for American Progress.

The Party Majority PAC “will fill in holes to make sure activists on the ground have the resources they need to be successful, working with existing organizations both new and old to ensure resources are used effectively,” Mike Lux was quoted as saying.

Parkhomenko, on the other hand, “served as director of grass-roots engagement on Clinton’s presidential campaign and is currently a paid adviser to Clinton…” Parkhomenko has been hired for Hillary Clinton’s “Onward Together” group, which works very much like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations in giving grants to subversive organizations.

Ironically, a trending hashtag during the last night of the Republican National Convention was #DrownOutTrump, which also appears to be associated with #ThePeoplesHouse protest.

It is almost as if Twitter is aligned with the hard left activist groups.

Notice the signs are the same as the one that was being held over Senator Rand Paul in the featured photo:

Revolutionary Communist Party

Refuse Fascism, a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party, was also in attendance. Their invitation is too idiotic to post, but can be read here. While the mainstream media interviews and posts images of Marxist agitators, they do not bother to explain their radical connections.

The Joe Biden-endorsing leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party is Bob Avakian, seen below praising Mao Zedong, as he sits with his comrade Marxist Cornel West.

The Refuse Fascism signs are distinctive and can be easily picked out of a crowd.


Imagine if the mainstream media actually reported in these connections?

Media Response

In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Senator Rand Paul and his wife by the violent leftist mob that gathered during the Republican National Convention, the mainstream media was silent. After being forced to report on the story that was blasting through social media, the media tried a new tactic. Instead of reporting what Americans could plainly see with their own eyes, the headlines were that Senator Rand Paul “claimed” to be attacked, or “said” he was attacked.

This nuance diminishes the actual attack on the Senator and his wife and was not lost on prominent social media users.

Here are some examples of the coverage:

As documented at RAIR Foundation USA, many innocent people were targeted and intimidated by a leftist rage mob as they exited the Republican National Convention. Watch a powerful account of the tense situation by Dan Bongino. Clearly, the complicit mainstream media is not interested in reporting about the deep left connections to the mobs in D.C., and around the country.





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A white male was shot and killed during a counter-protest against antifa and Black Lives Matter in Portland on Saturday night. The young man was seen in a photo wearing a Patriot Prayer hat. The Oregonian reports that he wore camouflage gear with “Infidel” and “Thin Blue Line” patches.

Early this morning, Donald Trump took to Twitter to express his outrage at Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who continues to refuse to ask for federal help in quelling the violence, now four months old.

Wheeler’s “open letter” is a masterpiece of smirking ignorance, partisan buffoonery,  and lies.

Fox News:

Wheeler shared his open letter to Trump on Friday, as protests and violence in his city had already been going on for 90 days.

“On behalf of the City of Portland: No thanks,” Wheeler wrote in an open letter to Trump Friday. “We don’t need your politics of division and demagoguery.”

The letter continued: “Portlanders are onto you. We have already seen your reckless disregard for human life in your bumbling response to the COVID pandemic. And we know you’ve reached the conclusion that images of violence or vandalism are your only ticket to reelection.”

Those “images of violence” have a source, moron. And they’re your fault.

On Friday night, the Black Lives Matter activists were busy. They occupied the lobby of Ted Wheeler’s condo building and pledged not to leave until they spoke with him.

After the shooting of the Patriot Prayer counter-protester, Black Lives Matter celebrated his death.

KOIN 6 News has a description of the murder.

KOIN 6 News witnessed two men yelling and having an altercation near SW 3rd and Alder around 8:45 p.m. Someone sprayed mace and then someone pulled out a gun. KOIN 6 News heard shots fired. A wounded man was seen on the ground and the suspect took off running, according to witnesses.

Police confirmed just before 9:30 p.m. that the victim, who was shot in the chest, had died and a homicide investigation was underway.

We bandy about words like “civil war” without really thinking what they mean. “Civil war” means death, maiming, destruction, misery, mourning, tears, and sorrow. And more. When you begin to see your fellow countryman as an enemy and celebrate his death, civil war moves one step closer to reality.

This could very well be an “eye for an eye” situation where someone decided they took out one of ours in Kenosha so we’ll take out one of theirs here. I hope not. As we all know, an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.