You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘radical Left’ tag.

The only consolation for the Labour Party is that, while their party conference was a disaster, the Conservative government experienced one of its worst weeks in living memory.

Brutal fights broke out at a handful of petrol stations while the fuel shortage raged on, ginned up by the media, led by the BBC, as one can see in this poll from YouGov:

Government ministers were few on the ground, leaving the public wondering who was in charge. Dan Wootton of GB News gave this scathing editorial on Tuesday, September 28:

It’s a disaster, especially the lorry driver shortage:

While all of this was going on, Labour Party members descended on the seaside resort of Brighton last weekend for their annual conference, which began on Saturday.

The first few days were taken up with party governance and policy issues. Tuesday and Wednesday featured the big-hitter speeches from shadow cabinet members, culminating with a speech from party leader, Sir Keir Starmer.

The big speeches are what most of the media will pay attention to, however, the early days of the conference revealed the most about who and what defines Labour.

Guido Fawkes and GB News kept a gimlet eye on proceedings throughout.

Fair wages

First of all, there was the question of how much Labour’s conference stewards were being paid. Labour continually talk about raising the minimum wage, but fall far short from implementing it themselves:

Guido’s accompanying post concludes (emphases in the original):

Stewards will be made to work everyday from 25 September through to 29 September from 8:00am to 20:00. Short changing the low paid stewards who will be working the conference floor as they debate a motion calling for £10 per hour minimum wage… 

UPDATE: Richard Holden MP says “This is utter hypocrisy from Labour. As usual, they demand one thing in public but can’t even practice what they preach behind closed doors with their own staff.”

Not only can Labour not implement their own policy, but Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds does not even know what the minimum wage is, as the Daily Mail reported on Tuesday:

Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds was left red-faced today as he floundered over the current level of the minimum wage.

The frontbencher struggled as he was asked for the figure – £8.91 per hour – during a round of interviews.  

Pushed by LBC radio host Nick Ferrari, Mr Thomas-Symonds said: ‘It’s… certainly it’s below £10 er, Nick, I don’t know off the top of my head.’

Challenged that he probably should have checked the figure amid a row with left-wingers who are calling for it to be hiked to £15 an hour, the MP said: ‘Er, perhaps yes. I’m just being quite honest with you.’

Hopeless.

Deputy leader Angela Rayner calls Conservatives ‘scum’

The most memorable event of conference was a fringe event on Saturday, September 25, where deputy leader Angela Rayner called the Conservatives ‘scum’:

I’m sick of shouting from the sidelines, and I bet youse lot are too. We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute pile … of banana republic…Etonian…piece of scum…and I held back a little…that I have ever seen in my life…

She later tried to defend the remark, claiming that calling people ‘scum’ was a term of endearment used in the north of England. However, many Northerners have since said that it is not.

On Sunday, she claimed she was talking only about Boris Johnson:

However, as you can see from the quote above, she used the words ‘bunch of’, indicating that she meant the whole party. In the video above, Trevor Phillips says that she is implicating Conservative voters as well.

He has a point, one with which the new Conservative Party chair, Oliver Dowden MP, agrees:

By Monday, Guido had unearthed more from Saturday night (language alert):

Guido’s post on the subject says:

Presumably Keir will want to have another ‘private conversation’ explaining how Labour getting into government requires them to win over Tory voters, not insult them…

On Monday, Rayner’s colleague Emily Thornberry MP told BBC Politics Live that drink might have been involved:

However, this is not the first time Rayner has called Conservatives scum. On October 21, 2020, she called Conservative MP Chris Clarkson ‘scum’, which, fortunately, he brought to the Deputy Speaker of the House’s attention at the time. I watched the proceedings on television when it happened. Here’s the video:

Rayner later apologised, but outside of the Commons.

Gender identity politics

Another dismal conference memory will be the lingering gender identity controversy. Rosie Duffield MP said she did not feel that the conference would be safe for her to attend. Only three years ago, then-MP Luciana Berger did not attend because of anti-Semitism:

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg once needed a bodyguard at conference.

Hmm. All three are women:

Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Lab) was appalled that Duffield felt she could not attend, but Keir Starmer did not stand up for her:

The gender identity question ran and ran throughout the week.

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves clearly did not want to go there, burbling to LBC’s Nick Ferrari when he asked her an anatomical question about women:

Deputy leader Angela Rayner, who became a grandmother at the age of 35, was not afraid of the topic and clearly does not see the world the way Rosie Duffield does:

Six other MPs took the same line as Rayner, which should ring alarm bells with every woman. David Lammy, pictured below, told the BBC that women insisting on their own spaces were ‘dinosaurs’ wanting to ‘hoard rights’. Here’s the image in full:

Meanwhile, looking on from outside the scenes, a man who transitioned to a woman agrees with Duffield:

By Tuesday, September 28, ministers speaking at related fringe events left early:

Guido pointed out that this did not happen at other fringe events:

Labour LGBT+ have held packed fringe events for the past two days at Conference, and Guido’s noticed a bit of a pattern: the high-profile shadow cabinet panelists (Rayner, Thomas-Symonds, Dodds) have all conveniently left their respective sessions early. Usually just before they’re confronted with awkward questions about Rosie Duffield…

Busy as no doubt they are, this sort of behaviour doesn’t appear to be happening as much at other fringe events; Guido noticed Anneliese Dodds had plenty of time to field questions with the Fabian Society yesterday, and Angela Rayner is, of course, perfectly happy to spend her hours calling the Tories “scum” in front of Labour activists. When it comes to acknowledging the transphobia row in their own party, though, there just aren’t enough hours in the day. Thomas-Symonds did at least offer an anodyne soundbite about standing for trans rights in response to one question yesterday, though he soon left afterwards – the Q&A continued for about another 15 minutes.

Stephen Daisley, writing for The Spectator, has more on how this played out at conference, including a women’s meeting that had to held in secret because of a related protest. Terrible.

Labour staff redundancies on hold

A few months ago, Keir Starmer planned to make 90 workers at Labour HQ redundant. That did not go down well with their union, which threatened a picket at conference.

Starmer backed down …

… as Guido reported on September 3:

Labour general secretary David Evans has avoided the prospect of a picket line at Labour conference, after telling staff this afternoon, “I am pleased to say that at this stage we see no need to consider compulsory redundancies as part of this process”. Many are picking up on the key phrase being “at this stage”. Guido doubts there’s been any notable uptick in Labour’s finances in recent months, suggesting the required 90 sacking are still necessary in the near future – i.e. post-conference. For now, at least, it seems their biggest Brighton headache will be the membership, not the staff…

We’ll see what happens in early October.

Labour members allying with Jeremy Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn lost the 2019 election with the worst results for Labour since 1935.

Keir Starmer succeeded him as party leader in 2020.

Nonetheless, Labour has been divided between Corbynites and Blairites (Starmer).

On Saturday, General Secretary Dave Evans boldly stated that he became a party member because he likes Corbyn:

This is problematic for Starmer.

That same day, The Times reported on solidly middle class Putney in south-west London, which voted Labour in 2019. The paper’s reporter had trouble finding Starmer supporters (emphases mine):

as he embarks on his first party conference at the head of Labour this weekend, with the pandemic finally beginning to fade from the headlines, Starmer is determined to command the nation’s attention.

If the view from Putney is anything to go by, he has a long way to go. It took me three hours on the streets of the southwest London constituency on Thursday afternoon to find anything resembling a Starmerite. Most responses ranged from unmoved to profoundly unimpressed.

“Starmer is just middle of the road,” said Nick Godfrey, 68, a retired brewery operator and lifelong Labour voter. “He gives Boris and his clowns an easy ride. He gets in a few jabs at Prime Minister’s Questions and thinks he’s won the war” …

“A bright light on a dark night” was how the victorious Labour MP Fleur Anderson described Putney in 2019. That was putting it mildly: the seat was the only one Labour managed to wrestle from the Tories in the entire country. As the working-class fiefdoms of the red wall crumbled, Putney showed that metropolitan Labour is alive and well. So if Starmer can’t do well here, he’s probably toast.

That’s certainly the view of Helen and Gemma, two self-described “typical Putney mums” I found chatting over a cappuccino at Hudsons, a popular café. “I had high hopes for him but I think he’s a bit ineffectual,” Gemma said. “This should be Labour’s time really, with a lot going wrong in the country. But I think they need somebody a bit more charismatic. He’s bland, a bit nasal.”

Helen voted Conservative at the last election, but she could be tempted by the right Labour leader. “I thought Starmer might have something to offer, but I don’t think he does,” she said. “He’s weak and a bit insipid. I thought he might be charismatic and he’s not.”

On Monday, World Transformed held a fringe event entitled, ‘Starmer Out?’

It appears to have attracted a lot of Jeremy Corbyn supporters:

Starmer’s Shadow Employment minister quits

On Monday, Starmer’s Shadow Employment minister, Andy McDonald, tendered his resignation:

Guido has the full text of McDonald’s letter, in which the MP expresses his disappointment that Starmer has not done anything to further a £15 minimum hourly wage, neglected his ten pledges as Leader of the Opposition and broke a commitment to socialist policies.

Labour are socialist to the core. This is what McDonald wrote:

I joined your frontbench team on the basis of the pledges that you made in the leadership campaign to bring about unity within the party and maintain our commitment to socialist policies.

That’s all you need to know about Labour, comrade.

McDonald also wrote an article for The Tribune about the reasons for his resignation:

It was rumoured that Jeremy Corbyn had a hand to play in this badly-timed resignation for Starmer, but Corbyn denied it:

Corbyn’s advice on winning an election

Amazingly, on Tuesday at a fringe meeting, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader with the worst election results for the party since 1935, was allowed to advise on winning an election:

He was coy when asked about running as an independent candidate for MP.

Some long-time Blairite MPs, such as Barry Gardiner, want Starmer to bring Corbyn back into the party for unity’s sake:

Starmer told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that Corbyn would have to apologise and remove an offensive online post of his:

Getting rid of Starmer is a real preoccupation. Several Corbynite MPs sit in the Commons, such as Zara Sultana:

Keir Starmer’s speech

On Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer gave a closing speech to conference.

Starmer is a lawyer. In the old days, they were paid by the word, so they were verbose.

Times have not changed. Starmer’s speech lasted 90 minutes:

This is most of what one needs to know:

Other words that did not make the speech were ‘comrade’, ‘solidarity’ and ‘Corbyn’:

Starmer’s speech came the day after a union broke away from Labour …

… and the day after The Mirror‘s party for delegates featured Tony Blair’s 1997 campaign song, D:Ream’s 1993 hit, Things Can Only Get Better:

Guido thought that should have been the tune played as Starmer walked up to the podium; it would have driven the Corbynistas mad and boosted Labour five points in the polls.

However, the song played was Fat Boy Slim’s Right Here, Right Now, possibly because he and Starmer took violin lessons together at secondary school.

Starmer was heckled from the get go:

Here’s another, with Sir Keir responding with a joke about Prime Minister’s Questions:

It won a stammering Starmer a standing ovation. He stopped stammering after that, having found his footing.

He delivered a weak one-liner about his father and Boris’s:

Starmer likes to say that his father was a tool maker, making him sound working class. In reality, Starmer’s father owned a tool making company. A working class boy’s parents cannot afford a violin, let alone the lessons.

Tool making was a big theme:

The heckling continued:

Here’s another:

This is the woman:

In addition to the heckling, there was also a silent red card protest:

Starmer’s detractors might have made him look better in the eyes of most delegates — and the public, assuming anyone watched the speech:

Guido has all nine on a short video:

Starmer channelled his inner Blair, who famously said ‘Education, education, education’ in 1997:

Kevin Maguire, a Labour-supporting journalist, rationalised the length of the speech, as last year’s was cancelled because of coronavirus:

I feel sorry for anyone who had to listen to the whole thing:

Regardless of what Starmer said on Wednesday before the party faithful (here’s the full 7,286 word transcript), below is an excerpt of an article he wrote when he was younger (also see page 21 of the July-August 1986 edition of Socialist Alternatives). He discusses revolutionary movements, saying that an economic downturn coalesces young people and the working class in a move away from conservatism:

https://image.vuukle.com/981fa537-b148-41d5-b2e6-01cd1327508e-62e7b38b-c1dd-4faa-83a7-52f2cf87cc39

It is unlikely he has moved too far from that view over the years.

More identity politics

In addition to the sexual identity politics discussed above, there were other issues that popped up during conference, including that of race.

On Sunday, September 26, Mark Ferguson, a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee and of mixed race, told his audience that too many white men had their hands up waiting to ask a question:

Ferguson stated that his instruction pertained to all conference debates, not just that particular one, as GB News reported:

“But I do not want white men to exclusively dominate this or any other debate at this conference and following on from my comrade in the chair this morning, I do wish to see the diversity of the hall reflected.

“I’m not putting anybody on the spot here, but if you want to speak do not be afraid to put your hand up, we want to hear from you, this is an inclusive conference.”

GB News asked for the eminently sensible opinion of Graham Stringer MP, who would make a great party leader. Stringer said that it is the role of the chairman at the podium to regulate the balance, not the delegates themselves:

Yet more identity politics

This lady gave a speech deploring flash photography, a mainstay of party political conferences. It’s always there.

I was waiting for a mention of jazz hands. Clearly, I wasn’t the only one:

She even complained about a clock near the stage. She said it should have been on the left rather than the right:

The young radicals

The media never say that some Labour members are outright Marxists.

I am posting these two speeches because the young radicals making them could one day be sitting in the House of Commons.

Hannah from Edinburgh was raised in Middlesbrough, England, and was upset about her impoverished upbringing. Therefore, she advocates socialism with full enthusiasm:

This chap gave an equally impassioned speech about climate change and an internationalist, socialist approach:

On Monday, conference delegates passed a motion from Young Labour condemning Israel.

LabourList reported:

Delegates at the Labour Party annual conference in Brighton have today passed by a show of hands a composite motion on Israel and Palestine put forward by Young Labour that condemns “Israel’s continuing illegal actions”.

Moving the motion, Young Labour’s Jawad Khan said that the motion would “bring us one step closer to finally ending the shameful century of British complicity and the denial of the right to self-determination, liberation and return”.

Also addressing the annual party gathering ahead of the vote this afternoon, Labour Friends of Israel chair Steve McCabe argued that the motion was “too shouty, too angry, too one-sided and not at all focused on the search for peace”.

He told the conference delegates that it was “completely hostile to the people of Israel”, adding: “If Labour had adopted this approach in Northern Ireland, we would never have got to the Good Friday agreement.”

Guido has more on what Steve McCabe MP, chair of Labour Friends of Israel, said about the motion:

Former MPs the public do not want to see

The conference saw the re-emergence of former MPs the public no longer want to see.

Keith Vaz

Leicester’s Keith Vaz, who, in darker aspects of his private life claimed to be a washing machine salesman, spoke at a Hindus for Labour fringe event on Monday. What were they thinking?

Vaz’s successor is no better, by the way:

Guido’s post on Vaz’s appearance says:

Vaz’s presence comes just four days after a parliamentary investigation found his bullying behaviour to have been “hostile, sustained, harmful and unworthy of a member of parliament”, writing that he “should be ashamed”…

Not only is Keith Vaz still allowed to remain a Labour member, he recently took up a role on the party’s local government committee in Leicester. Not a good look…

John Bercow

John Bercow was Speaker of the House at the time the Brexit debate in Parliament was at its worst. He always took the side of the Remainers. He only stood down once Boris Johnson became Prime Minister.

Bercow came in as Speaker as a notional Conservative, then disavowed himself from the party.

After standing down as Speaker, he joined the Labour Party and spoke at a fringe meeting on Tuesday.

The Daily Mail reported:

Political turncoat John Bercow shamelessly hailed his new Labour ‘comrades’ last night – but insisted he had not quit the Tories in search of a safe Commons seat.

The former right wing Tory MP made his debut at the opposition party’s conference in Brighton by offering advice on how to defeat the ‘worst Government of his lifetime’ at a fringe meeting …

On what the party should do next, he said: ‘The Labour Party has got to excite people. It has got to excite people. It is not good enough to just have a good set of good policies.

‘In fact, I would go as far as to say, that my feeling is that the Labour Party in the next election doesn’t need to have a a vastly, detailed, lengthy manifesto with dozens and dozens of commitments.’

The former Commons Speaker added: ‘The Labour Party has got to thrust to the fore alongside Keir who is a formidable prosecutor, a formidable advocate, and other personalities part of the leadership team, which can reach out to people and persuade people that they are different from and preferable to this shower, which frankly represents the worst government of my lifetime.’

On Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Bercow said he is a ‘good guy’ but that the Labour Party has got to develop a ‘narrative’ and clear policies’.

When asked about Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner, who recently described senior Tories as ‘scum’, Mr Bercow said he would have not chosen that term but insisted people should not get on their ‘moral high horses’ about it.

What Bercow really wants is a seat in the House of Lords. Fortunately, Boris has not deigned to give him that privilege.

Coronavirus caution out the window

On Monday, the conference organisers went against their earlier pledge for a safe environment with regard to coronavirus, especially with vaccine passes.

I went out that day. Although the morning was rainy, the sun shone in the afternoon.

Nevertheless, Labour ditched coronavirus passes, required for large gatherings:

Guido posted a copy of the Labour Party email on the subject and said:

Having spent the weekend insisting attendees show either a vaccine pass or a negative lateral flow result upon entry to the conference, it looks like Labour have now decided it wasn’t worth the hassle. As of this morning, security is no longer checking for passes, instead conducting random spot checks on those already in the venue – long after attendees could have spread Covid around the conference centre. In an email to members they claim “adverse weather conditions” mean it’s just easier to let everyone in and check a few once they’re inside…

When Labour announced the measures last month, they insisted checks were necessary to “reduce risk and to provide reassurance to those attending“, and that they were “working hard” to make sure everyone was safe. Sir Keir even claimed “passports on their own aren’t enough […] It’s got to be passports plus testing.” Mother nature has seemingly put a stop to that – although it’s currently 18 degrees and sunny in Brighton…

If they continue to be holier than thou about mask wearing in the Commons when they return in October, I hope the Conservatives will give them some grief for their hypocrisy:

Conclusion

It is hard to disagree with this summation from Patrick Christys of GB News on the disaster this party conference was:

The ordinary member of the public finds party conferences boring. The main speeches are a lot of hot air. However, what is worth noting are the fringe meetings and the other less significant events, because those reflect the party’s true identity.

Labour have not changed a bit. The socialists still want to run this country down.

It’s unlikely many of my readers are old enough to remember transactional analysis (TA), a method of psychoanalytical therapy from the 1960s and 1970s which involved role-playing mind games.

The Canadian psychiatrist Eric Berne developed it in the 1950s. Ultimately, the goal was to produce in the patient the outlook of ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’.

In a comments section on one of the many blogs I read, someone linked to an article from 2016, ‘American Narratives: The Rescue Game’, which posits that today’s identity politics involve TA mind games. The topic discussed is racism in the United States, although, as the author John Michael Greer says, it can be done with any identity politics cause.

Excerpts follow, emphases mine.

Greer describes what is called the Rescue Game:

There’s a school of psychology called transactional analysis, which focuses on interactions between people rather than the vagaries of the individual psyche. Transactional analysis covers a lot of ground, but I want to focus on just one of its themes here: the theory of interpersonal games.

An interpersonal game, like most other games, has a set of rules and some kind of prizes for winners. In a healthy interpersonal game, the rules and the prizes are overt: that is, if you ask the players what they are, you can pretty much count on an honest answer. As this stops being true—as more of the rules and prizes become covert—the game becomes more and more dysfunctional. At the far end of the spectrum are those wholly dysfunctional games in which straight talk about the rules and payoffs is utterly taboo.

The accepted mainstream narrative about race in America today can best be described as one of those latter category of wholly dysfunctional games. Fortunately, it’s a game that was explored in quite a bit of detail by transactional analysts in the 1960s and 1970s, so it won’t be particularly difficult to break the taboo and speak about the unspeakable. Its name? The Rescue Game.

There are three roles in the Rescue Game — Victim, Persecutor and Rescuer:

The first two roles are allowed one move each: the Victim’s move is to suffer, and the Persecutor’s move is to make the Victim suffer. The Rescuer is allowed two moves: to sympathize with the Victim and to punish the Persecutor. No other moves are allowed, and no player is allowed to make a move that belongs to a different role.

That may seem unduly limited. It’s not, because when a group of people is assigned a role, all their actions are redefined as the move or moves allotted to that role. In the Rescue Game, in other words, whatever a Victim does must be interpreted as a cry of pain. Whatever a Persecutor does is treated as something that’s intended to cause pain to a Victim, and whatever a Rescuer does, by definition, either expresses sympathy for a Victim or inflicts well-deserved punishment on a Persecutor. This is true even when the actions performed by the three people in question happen to be identical. In a well-played Rescue Game, quite a bit of ingenuity can go into assigning every action its proper meaning as a move.

What’s more, the roles are collective, not individual. Each Victim is equal to every other Victim, and is expected to feel and resent all the suffering ever inflicted on every other Victim in the same game. Each Persecutor is equal to every other Persecutor, and so is personally to blame for every suffering inflicted by every other Persecutor in the same game. Each Rescuer, in turn, is equal to every other Rescuer, and so may take personal credit for the actions of every other Rescuer in the same game. This allows the range of potential moves to expand to infinity without ever leaving the narrow confines of the game.

Even worse:

There’s one other rule: the game must go on forever. The Victim must continue to suffer, the Persecutor must continue to persecute, and the Rescuer must continue to sympathize and punish. Anything that might end the game—for example, any actual change in the condition of the Victim, or any actual change in the behavior of the Persecutor—is therefore out of bounds. The Rescuer also functions as a referee, and so it’s primarily his or her job to see that nothing gets in the way of the continuation of the game, but all players are expected to help out if that should be necessary.

Sadly, politicians and social activists play this game with real issues and real people who are enduring real problems.

Greer describes how the game plays out, something we read about or see every day in the media:

Like most games, this one has an opening phase, a middle period of play, and an endgame, and the opening phase is called “Pin the Tail on the Persecutor.” In this initial phase, teams of Victims bid for the attention of Rescuers by displaying their suffering and denouncing their Persecutors, and the winners are those who attract enough Rescuers to make up a full team. In today’s America, this phase of the game is ongoing, and a great deal of rivalry tends to spring up between teams of Victims who compete for the attention of the same Rescuers. When that rivalry breaks out into open hostilities, as it often does, the result has been called the Oppression Olympics—the bare-knuckle, no-holds-barred struggle over which group of people gets to have its sufferings privileged over everyone else’s.

The middle phase:

is called “Show Trial.” This has two requirements, which are not always met. The first is an audience willing to applaud the Victims, shout catcalls at the Persecutors, and cheer for the Rescuers on cue. The second is a supply of Persecutors who can be convinced or coerced into showing up to play the game. A Rescue Game in which the Persecutors don’t show quickly enters the endgame, with disadvantages that will be described shortly, and so getting the Persecutors to appear is crucial …

However their presence is arranged, once the Persecutors arrive, the action of the game is stereotyped. The Victims accuse the Persecutors of maltreating them, the Persecutors try to defend themselves, and then the Victims and the Rescuers get to bully the Persecutors into silence, using whatever means are allowed by local law and custom.

At some point, either there are no more Persecutors or people get bored with the game and leave it. The game then enters a new, and final, phase:

At this point the action shifts to the endgame, which is called “Circular Firing Squad.” In this final phase of the game, the need for a steady supply of Persecutors is met by identifying individual Victims or Rescuers as covert Persecutors. Since players thus accused typically try to defend themselves against the accusation, the game can go on as before—the Victims bring their accusations, the newly identified Persecutors defend themselves, and then the Victims and Rescuers get to bully them into silence.

We recognise the pattern, which is a daily narrative for current affairs outlets, turning real issues that require real solutions — e.g. race — into some sort of gamesmanship.

Greer gives two more uses of the Rescue Game — in sexual identity and Marxist politics:

I first encountered the concept of the Rescue Game, in fact, by way of a pamphlet lent to my wife by her therapist sister-in-law, which used it as the basis for an edgy analysis of class conflicts within the lesbian community. From there to the literature on transactional analysis was a short step, and of course it didn’t hurt that I lived in Seattle in those years, where every conceivable form of the Rescue Game could be found in full swing. (The most lively games of “Circular Firing Squad” in town were in the Marxist splinter parties, which I followed via their monthly newspapers; the sheer wallowing in ideological minutiae that went into identifying this or that party member as a deviationist would have impressed the stuffing out of medieval scholastic theologians.)

Nationwide, the Rescue Game looks like this:

With impressive inevitability, in fact, every question concerning privilege in today’s America gets turned into a game of “Pin the Tail on the Persecutor,” in which one underprivileged group is blamed for the problems affecting another underprivileged group, and some group of affluent white people show up to claim the Rescuer’s role. That, in turn, leads to the third issue I want to consider here, which is the question of who benefits most from the habit of forcing all discussion of privilege in today’s America into the straitjacket of the Rescue Game.

Ultimately, there is only one winner in any form of these Rescue Games, and that is the Rescuer:

It’s only fair to note that each of the three roles gets certain benefits, though these are distributed in a very unequal fashion. The only thing the people who are assigned the role of Persecutor get out of it is plenty of negative attention. Sometimes that’s enough—it’s a curious fact that hating and being hated can function as an intoxicant for some people—but this is rarely enough of an incentive to keep those assigned the Persecutor’s role willing to play the game for long.

The benefits that go to people who are assigned the role of Victim are somewhat more substantial. Victims get to air their grievances in public, which is a rare event for the underprivileged, and they also get to engage in socially sanctioned bullying of people they don’t like, which is an equally rare treat. That’s all they get, though. In particular, despite reams of the usual rhetoric about redressing injustices and the like, the Victims are not supposed to do anything, or to expect the Rescuers to do anything, to change the conditions under which they live. The opportunities to air grievances and bully others are substitutes for substantive change, not—as they’re usually billed—steps toward substantive change.

The vast majority of the benefits of the game, rather, go to the Rescuers. They’re the ones who decide which team of Victims will get enough attention from Rescuers to be able to start a game. They’re the ones who enforce the rules, and thus see to it that Victims keep on being victimized and Persecutors keep on persecuting. Nor is it accidental that in every Rescue Game, the people who get the role of Rescuers are considerably higher on the ladder of social privilege than the people who get given the roles of Victims and Persecutors.

Greer ends his article with this:

Perhaps, dear reader, you find it hard to imagine why affluent white people would want to keep everyone else so busy fighting one another that they never notice who benefits most from that state of affairs. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that giving the underprivileged the chance to air their grievances and engage in a little socially sanctioned bullying is a great deal less inconvenient for the affluent than actually taking action to improve the lives of the underprivileged would be. Such thoughts seemingly never enter the minds of most Americans; I’ll leave it to you to figure out why.

Speaking from personal experience, everyone I know who empathises with similar Rescue Games in the UK is in line for a whopping great pension, often from the public sector, and lives in a large house, often in a gated community.

It’s time we, the general public, ignored all of these media-fuelled narratives, which only serve the Rescuers’ purposes, and focus on creating a better world for our fellow citizes, in whatever small way we can.

At the weekend, demonstrations took place across Europe protesting lockdown and other continuing coronavirus restrictions. Most of those were peaceful.

Meanwhile, in Bristol, on Sunday, March 21, 2021, a violent group of rioters took exception to the proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill making its way through Parliament. It passed its second reading last week and goes into committee for further debate this week.

It has been a long time since such violence has touched our shores. It was as if poison had come from across the pond, so to speak.

Having seen videos of what happened, millions of people living in England will now hope that the proposed legislation makes it through Parliament and the Lords with few amendments.

On Monday, March 22, Chief Constable Andy Marsh of Avon and Somerset Police detailed the damage and injury for Sky News. A number of officers had to be sent to hospital, two with injuries that required immediate treatment. One of those officers had a punctured lung, another a broken arm. Chief Constable Marsh said that every one of them is doing well and are out of hospital. Twelve police vans were also destroyed. Police have arrested seven people but the Chief Constable says that he will need the public’s help in the coming days to arrest more:

You can see the police vans being set alight in this video:

Here is a burnt-out police car:

And who will pick up the tab for replacements? Taxpayers:

The riot’s name was Kill the Bill. On the face of it, it was about the legislation, however, the police are also known colloquially in England as ‘the Bill’, for many reasons, one of which was that they used to carry a Bill of Parliament with them to certify their authority:

It is attempted murder when you look beyond the name of the riots….’kill the bill’…..nothing to do with the ‘bill’ passed in Parliament.

No doubt Bristol’s authorities thought they saw the last of their problems once they started acquiescing to demonstrators’ demands last summer. But the radical left always want more:

ITV News has a video of a police van being rocked back and forth. It also includes the broken windows at Bristol’s Bridewell Police Station. Bristol residents quickly disowned the gratuitous vandalism:

Police tried to do the right thing last summer, but the ‘softly, softly’ approach does not work in the long run. Think Seattle. Think Portland:

This is what happened Sunday afternoon:

This is what happened on Sunday night:

According to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California), rioters are attempting to achieve peace through violence. Sounds like the Bolsheviks of a century ago:

The British public are understandably unhappy:

Note the reaction to this tweet from Home Secretary Priti Patel:

Yes, the English will want rioters brought to book and properly sentenced:

Some think that Bristol’s Labour council might be onside, just as Democrat-controlled cities were with American protests last year:

Labour MPs also opposed the proposed legislation last week, even though the principles of the bill, not specifics, were being discussed.

As much as we support the police, they, too, need to rethink their optics and their tactics.

Only a week ago, the public saw this in London during the vigil for Sarah Everard:

Just days later, police in England went after soft targets at pro-democracy rallies but appeared seemingly helpless when confronted by anarchists:

It’s not a good look.

By and large, the British support the police but find their modus operandi confusing, to say the least. No new laws will help that.

The incoming Biden administration, headed by an Irish Catholic male who is proud of his origins, has promised that, as a result of the coronavirus crisis:

This did not go down well with all Biden voters:

Agreed.

However, a few hundred miles away from Washington, DC, another conflict took place in New York City.

Tara Szczepanski, an American journalist who is part Polish and part Filipina, had an unfortunate brush with leftist radicals:

The New York Police Department offered no help. They told her to stay six feet away:

This took place on Sunday, January 10, 2021.

Gateway Pundit reported:

Antifa domestic terrorists marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday claiming to own the public space, chanting, “Our motherf*ckin streets!”

A Trump rally was allegedly being held near Columbus Circle in the heart of Manhattan.

For whatever reason, this young woman was attacked:

Antifa goons surrounded a female journalist on 25th and Broadway, hit her with umbrellas and knocked her camera out of her hand.

The left-wing terrorists threw eggs on the woman’s head as she screamed for help.

This is what happened:

Apparently, she sinned for being an alleged Trump supporter. It’s unclear if that is even true:

Regardless, America is supposed to be the land, constitutionally, where one has freedom of speech and association.

At the same time, on the West Coast, Andy Ngô, the intrepid independent journalist tracking Antifa, has written a book which radicals want to see banned:

Andy Ngô has risked life and limb over the past few years in his quest to expose the radical Left.

My thoughts go out to him in Oregon and to Tara Szczepanski in New York.

Biden and Harris will have a lot of uniting and reconciling to do.

In case you missed it, yesterday’s post was a thorough one on John MacArthur’s biblical thoughts about the current protests.

It’s worthwhile reading that, if you haven’t already, before moving on to recent protest scenes in the United States, where young and old are railing against each other while the coronavirus pandemic rages on.

Our first stop is The Villages in Florida, a conurbation of retirement settlements for the well-heeled middle class. In 2008, many residents supported John McCain. In 2012, many went for Mitt Romney. In 2016, many supported then-candidate Donald Trump.

This was the scene late last week, as Trump supporters and Democrats waged a shouting war against each other. Strong language in the second video. I’m glad she’s not my mayor:

This is our future. Remember, these people have grandchildren, who are young adults.

In a sense, it’s amusing for some onlookers …

… but there can be serious problems, such as STDs among this age group. Coronavirus could be there as well:

Hmm. How many of these people were politically active back in the 1960s?

Let’s leave Florida and travel a few hundred miles north to Raleigh, North Carolina, where a BLM protest took place with 100% white people. Two black conservatives turned up by chance as spectators:

I really wish there had been more interaction here. I’ll get to that shortly.

One wonders if it would have gone like this:

Well, when you’re in your 20s, you know everything. I know I did at the time, like this woman’s niece:

Yet, many of us in our 40s and beyond (I’m at the latter end), were raised to be colour blind and adopt the teachings of Martin Luther King on character. I remember the civil rights era. My parents and many others were shocked at what went on in the South. Yet, that has now been forgotten. Millions had sympathy for the plight of American blacks who could not truly vote (without jumping through hoops, figuratively) until … 1965, with Democrats being the main objectors to that legislation. Once again, Republicans led the way to equality. Since then, further legislation has helped to bring different races to further equality in unemployment and housing.

No one who lived through the civil rights era ever forgot it, so it is unclear why these protesters are so angry. One would have thought the lessons of the recent past would have been transmitted to the next generation. Perhaps not.

Interestingly, Benji Irby’s friend on the day, Shemeka Michelle, filmed a much longer video of the protest:

She said that it seemed the whites protested in order to feel better about themselves.

Perhaps it is some sort of atonement.

Oddly, only one of the protesters there to support black lives bothered to speak to her:

After the protest, she says the other whites avoided her and Benji Irby and went on their way.

Maybe the protesters have never lived amongst people of another race? Maybe they feel bad about it. Well, that’s no reason to take it out on everyone else:

Perhaps it is about control.

Our last stop is across the country in the Pacific Northwest: Portland, Oregon.

Protesters want to take down the monument to the Oregon Trail:

Precisely.

If missionaries had not organised the Oregon Trail after Lewis and Clark’s expedition to the Pacific Northwest, someone else would have. The British tried it and were unsuccessful.

The move westward had been laid out by President Thomas Jefferson in 1803. From Wikipedia:

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson issued the following instructions to Meriwether Lewis: “The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by its course & communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado and/or other river may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce.”[1] Although Lewis and William Clark found a path to the Pacific Ocean, it was not until 1859 that a direct and practicable route, the Mullan Road, connected the Missouri River to the Columbia River.

As I remember learning about it in history class more than once, it was a big deal in terms of trade. To begin with, there was fur. Later there was gold.

The plan was called the Manifest Destiny, as History.com explains:

By the 1840s, the Manifest Destiny had Americans in the East eager to expand their horizons. While Lewis and Clark had made their way west from 1804 to 1806, merchants, traders and trappers were also among the first people to forge a path across the Continental Divide.

A merchant, Nathan Wyeth, led the first group of missionaries who settled in Idaho in 1834.

Marcus Whitman, a Methodist missionary from the state of New York, made the first successful crossing to what we know as the state of Washington in 1836. His wife, Narcissa, kept a diary of their perilous journey:

The party made it to the Green River Rendezvous, then faced a grueling journey along Native American trails across the Rockies using Hudson Bay Company trappers as guides. They finally reached Fort Vancouver, Washington, and built missionary posts nearby—Whitman’s post was at Waiilatpu amid the Cayuse Indians.

Whitman’s small party had proved both men and women could travel west, although not easily. Narcissa’s accounts of the journey were published in the East and slowly more missionaries and settlers followed their path which became known as the Whitman Mission Route.

In 1842, the Whitman mission was closed by the American Missionary Board, and Whitman went back to the East on horseback where he lobbied for continued funding of his mission work. In the meantime, missionary Elijah White led over 100 pioneers across the Oregon Trail.

Whitman led another expedition of settlers in 1843, destined for what we know as Oregon:

The group included 120 wagons, about 1,000 people and thousands of livestock. Their trek began on May 22 and lasted five months.

It effectively opened the floodgates of pioneer migration along the Oregon Trail and became known as the Great Emigration of 1843.

Unfortunately, the settlers brought measles with them, infecting the Cayuse. Whitman did try to help cure those infected:

After a measles epidemic broke out in 1847, the Cayuse population was decimated, despite Whitman using his medical knowledge to help them.

In the ongoing conflict, Whitman, his wife and some of the mission staff were killed; many more were taken hostage for over a month. The incident sparked a seven-year war between the Cayuse and the federal government.

We can say what we like in the 21st century, but travelling from coast to coast involved a lot of planning and expense:

Emigrants had to sell their homes, businesses and any possessions they couldn’t take with them.

They could not take a lot of possessions, because they had to ensure that their covered prairie schooner wagons could accommodate their families and their food. There weren’t any real settlements at the time, so everything had to be purchased in advance. There were no restaurants, cafés or grocery stores along the way. Wives had to make every meal from scratch. The most common meat was bacon. Imagine how limited their meals were day to day for five months. How awful.

So they put up with that. Then they had to endure a) the weather and b) the terrain:

There were slightly different paths for reaching Oregon but, for the most part, settlers crossed the Great Plains until they reached their first trading post at Fort Kearney, averaging between ten and fifteen miles per day.

From Fort Kearney, they followed the Platte River over 600 miles to Fort Laramie and then ascended the Rocky Mountains where they faced hot days and cold nights. Summer thunderstorms were common and made traveling slow and treacherous.

It’s a wonder anyone was able to make the journey. The major landmark along the route was in Wyoming at Independence Rock:

The settlers gave a sigh of relief if they reached Independence Rock—a huge granite rock that marked the halfway point of their journey—by July 4 because it meant they were on schedule. So many people added their name to the rock it became known as the “Great Register of the Desert.”

After leaving Independence Rock, settlers climbed the Rocky Mountains to the South Pass. Then they crossed the desert to Fort Hall, the second trading post.

From there they navigated Snake River Canyon and a steep, dangerous climb over the Blue Mountains before moving along the Columbia River to the settlement of Dalles and finally to Oregon City. Some people continued south into California.

There was also a lot of disease, possible conflicts with native Americans — and death:

According to the Oregon California Trails Association, almost one in ten who embarked on the trail didn’t survive.

Most people died of diseases such as dysentery, cholera, smallpox or flu, or in accidents caused by inexperience, exhaustion and carelessness. It was not uncommon for people to be crushed beneath wagon wheels or accidentally shot to death, and many people drowned during perilous river crossings.

Travelers often left warning messages to those journeying behind them if there was an outbreak of disease, bad water or hostile American Indian tribes nearby. As more and more settlers headed west, the Oregon Trail became a well-beaten path and an abandoned junkyard of surrendered possessions. It also became a graveyard for tens of thousands of pioneer men, women and children and countless livestock.

With the advent of the railroads in 1869, covered wagons gradually became obsolete.

The westward migration continued — more comfortably. You can read more here.

So, one wonders what these protesters in Oregon are angry about. Perhaps they should live elsewhere?

As John MacArthur says (see yesterday’s post), these protests are built on lies, helping no one.

John MacArthur has given sermons about the protests and riots we have been seeing over the past several weeks.

A big thank you goes to my reader John in Cheshire for telling me about them recently.

The first one is a short video wherein MacArthur says that every life matters and that, if black lives matter, then why is it that Planned Parenthood aborts a thousand little black lives every day:

The next two are much longer but well worth watching. In fact, time will go by very quickly as MacArthur goes through many verses in the Bible to explain why violent protests are not the answer.

Here is the first one, discussing who is to blame for the riots. The video clip above comes from this sermon:

Here is the transcript. Excerpts follow, emphases mine:

We are obviously living in very bizarre times that have produced massive fear and confusion. On top of that, our society is drowning in a sea of lies, lies about virtually everything, and lies on top of fear and confusion create an almost fatal insecurity and a devastating chaos. We have little confidence in believing what politicians say or what health officials say or what social activists say or what university professors say or what media says or, frankly, what religious leaders say. We have been lied to so constantly. And there is One to whom we can turn and always hear the truth: that is to the living God who has revealed Himself on the pages of Scripture, the one true living God. And Scripture says, “Let God be true and every man a liar.” God is the God of truth. The Son of God is the way, the truth, and the life. “Satan, the prince of this world,” – said Jesus in John 8:44 – “is a murderer and a liar.” And the whole world lies in the lap of the Evil One, and is therefore bent on killing and lying.

So we’re in a time of chaos and lies. We have only one place to turn that we can trust, one who is faithful, and that is God in His word. Jesus said in John 17 to the Father, “Your word is truth. Your word is truth.” So let’s look at the truth and find out what the truth is about who’s to blame for the riots. We can start in … the book of Isaiah, way back in the first chapter.

Seven hundred years before the Lord Jesus Christ, God was confronting another nation, the nation of Israel, steeped in sin and transgression, having rejected their God and on the brink of judgment. And in chapter 1, the Lord speaks to Israel in verse 2: “Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth; for the Lord speaks, ‘Sons I have reared and brought up, but they have revolted against Me. An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, My people do not understand.’ Alas, sinful nation, people weighed down with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away from Him.

“Where will you be stricken again as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick, the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, not softened with oil. Your land is desolate, your cities are burned with fire.” This is the desolation of a people that turn against God.

In the fifth chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy there is a specific indictment among all of the sins that were part of Israel’s rebellion against God. Here is one that substantially defines their true condition. Verse 20 of Isaiah 5: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” Essentially that’s the sin that signals the coming of judgment. Turning truth and righteousness and virtue upside-down.

Israel was headed for a devastating divine judgment. They had turned against God, they had flipped truth and morality on its head, and in Isaiah 28:17, Isaiah says they found refuge in lies, they found refuge in lies. Isaiah 59, Isaiah says to them in verses 3 and 4, “For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly. They trust in confusion and speak lies; they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity.”

This is where humanity in every generation and in every nation tends to lean toward the reality of the very things that were true of ancient Israel. Humanity leans in the direction of calling evil good and good evil, substituting darkness for light, light for darkness, substituting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. This is the nature of all of us, to believe lies, to follow the father of lies, to overturn right and wrong, and the current situation in which we live is just another historic manifestation and picture of the perversion of humanity.

So confusing. It’s essential to keep harmless working people locked down at home, kept away from their jobs and businesses so they don’t get the flu. But it’s also essential, in fact, more essential to let people bent on doing harm run free in the cities destroying the very places people earn their living. Lock up the weak and the fearful and let the strong and violent run loose to create havoc. Call on all forces, grind the world to a halt to stop a virus, then remove all restraint when a far more deadly virus sets out to destroy a whole nation. Demand justice when a man’s life is taken, and then applaud lawless mobs of criminals attacking the police. Put the police in a position where they can’t act to protect property, but rebel mobs are allowed to destroy it.

You can’t shop in a store, but you can loot it. You can’t work, but you’re free to steal. You can’t attend church, but you can burn it down. You can’t eat in a restaurant, but you can demolish it. Now we’re seeing charges being brought in these riots, not against the rioters, but against the police. We see leaders who totally control the weak with fear of the flu, but can’t control the strong because they’re afraid. And by the way, if you worship the god of anger, the god of hate, or the god of vengeance, you can have church anywhere, anytime, indoors or outdoors, without any rules. You’re completely free to worship the god of mayhem, and the perverted solution to this is to abolish the police, those who are the protectors of the good and the punishers of those who do evil.

What is wrong? What is wrong is exactly what is stated in Isaiah 5:20, “Woe” – that’s a divine curse – “on those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

We need the truth, and the truth is in the Word of God. It’s not my task nor my interest to give you any human opinion, mine or anybody else’s, but you do need to hear from God. I want to help you to understand who’s to blame. We’ll start in Romans chapter 3, Romans chapter 3 and verse 10. Here we have a summation of human nature. This summation, running down through verse 18, is basically drawn from the Old Testament. These are all statements made in the Old Testament – all of them except one from the Psalms and one from Isaiah.

So God hasn’t changed His moral standards, nor His definition of humanity. There has been no improvement in the seven hundred years between Isaiah and the hundreds of years between the Psalms and the present situation that Paul addresses in Rome in the time of our Lord and after. There’s no change. What was true of man in the ancient times was true of man in New Testament times. And here you have the foundational understanding that is essential to know what’s wrong in the world. And summing it up, this is what the Scripture says.

“As it is written,” – and that means in the Old Testament drawn from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, here is a definition and description of the pathology of humanity. Four times the word “none” is used, and three times “all” is used. “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” That’s a pathology that would make a sensible psychologist go get a job at a gas station. That’s what you’re dealing with; lots of luck

I hear people saying Black lives matter; and they do. God knows they do; they matter just as much as any other life. But if they matter so much, how is it that Planned Parenthood can support Black Lives Matter when there are a thousand little Black lives being aborted every day

Proverbs 16:6 says, “By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.” Mark it down. “By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.” And that’s why Proverbs 23:17 says, “Be in the fear of the Lord at all times.” Where there is no fear of God, where there is no sense of transcendent and eternal culpability, guilt, and punishment, you free humanity to be what they are

Now beyond the absence of the fear of God is the rejection of God. It’s not just that they don’t fear God, that’s a negative. They do more than that. They actually reject God. Go back to Romans 1. This is a very familiar passage. Paul is describing what is also true of man, personally and collectively. “The wrath of God” – verse 18 – “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” That’s what they do. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. What truth? “That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” …

Verse 21 says this is characteristic of humanity. “They knew God,” – that is they knew God existed, that’s reason – “they didn’t honor Him as God or give thanks. They became empty in their speculations, their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. They exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man, birds, four-footed animals, crawling creatures.”

That’s what I was saying earlier. They reject the true God. Reason would lead them to the true God. Reason would define the true God in terms of His creation, what they know about His creation, and what they know about His law written in their hearts. They reject all of that. They run from the true God, and they run to false gods as a way to escape the true God.

So what does God do in response? This is one of the most profound passages in the Bible. “God gave them over,” verse 24. That is a legal term: handed them over to punishment, handed them over to execution, handed them over to sentence. “God gave them over.” Verse 26, “God gave them over.” Verse 28, “God gave them over.”

Three times God says, “You’re guilty of rejecting Me, rebelling against Me. I turn you over.” To what? “He gave them over” – verse 24, first of all – “to lust of the hearts to impurity, so their bodies would be dishonored among them.” When God gives a people over there’s a sexual revolution. Immorality becomes acceptable, and you will find a culture swimming in a septic tank of pornography.

And when God gives them over, secondly, verse 26, “He gives them over to degrading passions, and women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the same way also men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their persons the due penalty of their error.” When God turns a society over because it has rejected Him, there will be, first of all, a sexual revolution, followed by a homosexual revolution.

And finally, the third phase in this judgment, “God gave them over” – verse 28 – “to a depraved mind,” a mind that doesn’t function. They can’t think straight. That’s when you have a political party that builds its party platform on killing infants in the womb, destroying the family, elevating homosexuality, transgender perversion, and they’re proud about it. “That’s when you become filled” – verse 29 – “with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossips, slander, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and though they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they do not only do the same, but they give hearty approval to those who practice them.” They elect them to office.

On top of the natural sinfulness is the added reality of divine judgment on those people who have rejected God and those nations who have rejected God. So the corruption is systemic. It is not social, it is systemic and it is personal, and nobody escapes. It’s not related to a lack of opportunity. It’s not related to a lack of money. It’s not related to a lack of privilege, a lack of education. Man naturally is a sinful beast who rejects God, rejects His law, rebels, does not fear God. We were all born with that internal wretchedness that corrupts and defiles. It scars beauty, it darkens wisdom, it defiles love, it robs purity, and it steals peace

So how does a person shut down conscience? Two ways: misinform it. Conscience is not a law, conscience is a mechanism. You can shut down pain, right? You can shut down pain; just take drugs. Mask pain. If you mask pain, you mask the reality that you’re doing some damage. You can mask conscience by misinforming it. How do you do that? You take the true law of God, which is written in Scripture and written in the human heart, and you basically eliminate it, denounce it, diminish it, remove it, and replace it with another law; and if you do this generationally you’ll eventually raise generations of people whose conscience is now informed by lies.

This is what propaganda is. Propaganda is lies. And you see people and you say, “Well, how could they be so zealous? How can Islamic terrorists be so zealous? Don’t they have a conscience?” Their conscience is informed by whatever law they have come to believe. And if you believe all the lies that are thrown around about our society and all the issues, if you believe those, if you got the university and they pound those into your mind with all of their ideological instruction, if you buy into all those lies, your conscience will cease to function because it will be misinformed. If you have a society that says, “Let’s get rid of the Bible,” that’s the first step in having an entire generation of people misinformed about what’s right and what’s wrong. And now, where are we? We’re in Isaiah 5:20, everything is upside-down: right is wrong and wrong is right.

The other thing you can do to shut down the conscience is just think you shouldn’t feel guilty. Let psychology take you off-the-hook: “You shouldn’t feel bad about yourself. You’re wonderful. You’re the best. You can be anything you want to be. You’re heroic. You’re a good person. You ought to be able to do whatever you want. You live any way you want. Don’t let anybody make you feel guilty for anything.” Just keep driving all efforts against the normal work of the conscience and misinform the conscience and you’ve turned the beast loose. This society in which we live today has been doing that damage for decades, for decades.

Where’s the conscience of these people? Where is the conscience of these who do damage, these who overturn everything? Oh, ha, it’s been informed. It’s been informed with lies, and it’s now controlled by lies. And it’s been told again and again and again that it ought to feel good about itself, that every person is his own master, master of his own fate. Every person is his own god. There is no god, you’re god. You shouldn’t feel guilty, everybody should bow to you. And if that’s not working, get drunk, take drugs.

The second restraint God has put into human society is the family, the family. Deuteronomy 6, God says, “Teach His law to your children.” Ephesians chapter 6, “Raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” What is a family? Father and a mother in a union. Family is a divinely created institution for – listen to this – family is the divinely created institution for the formation of restrained sinners

There’s a third provision that God has made and it’s government. So we talked about personal authority in the conscience, parental authority in the family. Government is the social authority. The prime role of government is not material welfare. That is not the prime role of government. The prime role of government, according to Paul in Romans 13 as he speaks on behalf of the Lord Himself who designed government, Romans 13, very, very important portion of Scripture, verse 1: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there’s no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” No authority may be perfect, but every authority is ordained by God. No family is necessarily perfect, no father or mother, but they’re ordained by God. No one’s knowledge of the law of God or conscience is necessarily perfect, but they are designed by God even with a measure of imperfection to restrain this beast.

So, verse 2, “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God.” What you’re seeing in the streets is people opposing God. I don’t care what their ideological issues are. I don’t care what it is that they think is unfair or unjust. They are flying around opposing the authority that God has ordained, and they are opposing God. And by the way, they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. God keeps accounts; you don’t get away with it

There’s one more restraint: that’s the church. And just saying that, I feel a pain in my heart, because a lot of these people that are rioting in the streets are rioting right in front of churches. A lot of churches in the communities of all these major cities, what have they been saying? It’s more likely that some of the people in those churches would be joining them than trying to stop them. But the church, critical: the last stand

And this is why I say this is a sad thing for me because church after church, after church, after church is not salting the culture with godliness. False teachers abound: charlatans with religious Ponzi schemes taking money from poor people on the promise of miracles and wealth; pastors whose lives are unholy and immoral; entertainment centers trying to make sinners feel good about themselves, denying, in many cases, whole denominations, denying the veracity of Scripture, denying the deity of Christ, denying the gospel; popular megachurches just entertaining sinners. Little concern for holiness, godliness, virtue, righteousness; it’s not their message. They don’t confront sin. They don’t call for holy living. That would empty the place. So we have to say that Satan’s done some serious damage to the conscience, to the family, to the government, and to the church

Who’s to blame for the riots? Who’s to blame? Sinners, all of them, everybody, all of us; families who failed to raise virtuous, disciplined children in loving marriages; weak government leaders who fail to protect the good, punish those who do evil; and false churches not full of godly people, transformed hearts, living righteous lives.

So what’s the answer? How do we fix this? Well, restore the law of God so the conscience can be informed. Restore the family so restrained children can be the next generation. Restore the government to its role of true justice. And restore the church …

Sad times. And yet if we take the steps of restoration, sometimes in the past God has allowed such revivals, such times of restoration. If we go back to the Word of God, back to ordered families, back to just government, back to sound faithful godly churches, it can change. Apart from that, it grows worse, until we are taken, the final restraint, and judgment falls. And Christ will then come, bring that judgment to its end and establish His glorious kingdom. By the way, we’ll come back with Him – amen? – in that kingdom …

The following week, he gave another sermon on the protests, this one being the Christian response to them:

Fortunately, he has a transcript of this sermon, too. Excerpts follow:

Laws basically are made to protect us from each other. You get that? Laws are made to protect me from you and you from me. But I don’t need those laws if I love you. What is missing in the human heart is this kind of love. There’s no love for God, there’s no love for others that satisfies God. So in light of this reality, we are to love. We are to love God so that we obey His word; and His word says, “We are to love others as ourselves. We are to do no injustice, take no vengeance, do no harm to anyone ever.”

So as a Christian, I’m looking at the world today and I’m watching all kinds of things going on with regard to injustices and suffering. There’s no question about it, there’s lots of injustice in the world. It’s everywhere. Nobody has a corner on it and no group of people have a corner on it. So what are my options in the current situation? Let me be specific and give you some that have been suggested.

First of all, one option would be to join Black Lives Matter, join their cause, because, after all, Black lives do matter; of course, they do – created in the image of God. And those who have suffered deserve our support, and they do; and they have suffered injustice, and they have. So should we just join Black Lives Matter to affirm these things? “Can we join out of sympathy? Can we join out of compassion?” That’s not really the question. The question is, “Can we join, and in joining express love to God?” because whatever we do for our neighbor is subsumed under loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind. “Can I join Black Lives Matter? Can I be a part, if not a member; can I be a part of their function?” They are disruptive. They are rebellious. They are radical. They are anti-authority. They are Marxists. They are atheistic.

What are their guiding principles? Let me read them to you. In their own document we read this: “Black Lives Matter is transgender-affirming. We make space for transgender siblings. We do the work required to dismantle cisgender”which means biological sex – “and uplift transgender Black folk, especially transgender Black women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans antagonistic violence.” They are transgender-affirming. According to Deuteronomy 22:5, transgender behavior is an abomination to God.

Also, this is their declaration: “We are womanists rather than feminists.” Quote: “We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments where men are centered.” End quote. Transgender-affirming and wanting to pull down the leadership of men. According to the Word of God, man is the head of the woman, as God is the head of Christ. The man has the responsibility of leadership. That’s an anti-God idea. Another paragraph – and there are many more: “We are queer-affirming. We gather to free ourselves from the tight grip of the belief that all are heterosexual.” They gather to put an end to the notion that everybody needs to be heterosexual.

In he same book of Leviticus, where the Lord says, “I am the Lord; be holy,” chapter 18, verse 22 say, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. In the next verse it says it’s the same as having intercourse with an animal. Chapter 20 of Leviticus, verse 13, exactly the same thing. Romans chapter 1.

Here’s a quote from Black Lives Matter: “We are intentionally amplifying that the particular experience of violence that Black queer transgender, gender nonconforming women and intersex people face, there can be no liberation for the Black people if we do not fight for these people.” This is an organization designed by Satan to use the suffering of some people as the means to destroy their lives, to destroy morality, conscience, the family, and even the church, and replace it with behavior that is immoral, perverse, abominable, soul-destroying, family-destroying, marriage-killing, and culturally disastrous. Bottom line: those documents are anti-God, anti-Scripture, anti-Christ. This is an organization that is the enemy of God. Do you really believe that going down that path is going to do anything to lift up a culture? It has nothing to do with the color of anybody’s skin. Go down that path and it’s the path of absolute total destruction. Wipe out the law of God in the heart, give people immorality as a standard, destroy the family, take the message of the gospel out of the church, and the only possible restraint left is the police to try to stop the flood.

I can’t be a part of that because 2 Corinthians is very, very straightforward. Listen to what the Lord says, 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you, and I’ll be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.”

So that leads to chapter 7, verse 1: “Therefore, having these promises,” – of being sons and daughters to God – “beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” We’re back to Leviticus again. You can’t be a part of something that is designed by Satan to destroy the only institutions that can uphold sanity in a society. Are we surprised that since that philosophy, that worldview, has assaulted the law of God, assaulted the family, has corrupted the church that now they want to get rid of the only remaining restraint which is the police?

So you say, “Well, okay, you can’t be a part of that. But can you join the protests? Is that an option? Can I mingle in a crowd of the lawful and the lawless, lovers of people and haters of people?” Look at Ecclesiastes chapter 8, this is very instructive, Ecclesiastes chapter 8. And I’m just looking for answers in Scripture. Chapter 8, verse 1: “Who is like the wise man and who knows the interpretation of a matter? A man’s wisdom illumines him and causes his face to beam.” You want to be wise? You want to have a happy life? Verse 2: “I say, ‘Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. Do not be in a hurry to leave him. Do not join in an evil matter, for he will do whatever he pleases.” You put yourself in jeopardy if you rebel against the authorities.

“Since the word of the king is authoritative,” – in verse 4 – “who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?’ He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart knows the proper time and procedure. There is a proper time and procedure for every delight, though a man’s trouble is heavy upon him. If no one knows what will happen, who can tell him when it will happen?” So you start a rebellion, you get involved in a rebellion, and you don’t know what’s going to happen; but it may turn out very badly

What value is there in being part of rebellion against authority? Paul also speaks in regard to that in Romans 13; let me remind you of it – and we’re going to get back to Ecclesiastes in a minute. Romans 13, verse 1: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” So you not only have the issue of Ecclesiastes where you’re acting in some kind of a protest against the authority, you don’t know how it’s going to end up; but you could lose your life because you can’t control the wind or the day of your death.

Not only that, not only do you have to deal with that reality, but you oppose authority, you oppose the ordinance of God, and you fall under His condemnation. “For rulers are not a cause for fear of good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it doesn’t bear the sword for nothing.” – and that’s a terminal weapon – “It is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” It’s necessary then to be in subjection …

But things happen in a society that aren’t fair. Listen to the words of Peter, 1 Peter 2:13, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake; I am the Lord. Submit yourselves” – be holy – “to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors that’s sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.” Do right. Do right. And part of doing right is to submit.

Verse 17: “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Even servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also who are unreasonable.” You have an unreasonable boss; submit. “For this finds grace, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.” So you suffer unjustly? Guess what: welcome to the world. Welcome to life in a fallen world.

“This finds grace.” You put yourself in a position of divine grace when you suffer unjustly. “For what credit is there” – verse 20 – “if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure, this finds grace with God.” So you suffered, you suffered unjustly. As a child of God, you have been given grace in that occasion.

Here’s the great example, verse 21: “You’ve been called for this purpose.” What? Yes. “You’ve been called to suffer unjustly, since Christ also suffered for you, not only in a redemptive way, but as an example for you to follow in His steps.” Suffering unjustly, He committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; and while being unjustly reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.” That’s our example. So you suffer, you suffer unjustly. What do you do? You do what a believer is called to do: you commit no sin, no deception; you don’t strike back; you utter no threats; you just entrust yourself to the one who judges righteously.

“And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” When Christ suffered unjustly, He accomplished the greatest work ever in history. By suffering unjustly, He provided redemption for the human race.

God has His purposes in our suffering. Peter says in 1 Peter 5:10, “After you’ve suffered a while, the Lord makes you perfect.” Paul says, “There was a thorn in the flesh, and I prayed three times for the Lord to remove it, and the Lord kept saying to me, ‘My strength is perfected in your weakness.’”

And here’s my problem with the protests. We are people of the truth. First of all, I have to embrace the suffering the Lord brings into my life because through it He is perfecting me, and He is extending to me grace.

Secondly, in everything, I have to be a person of the truth. The protests? Sure. They have some grievances; obvious, we get it. But they have covered the truth with lies. They have gone way beyond an injustice or several injustices to conclude that there is systemic racism, White hatred, widespread police brutality. Those are lies, those are not true. I can’t, I can’t join the protest without being part of the lies. Proverbs 19:22 says, “It’s better to be a poor man than a liar.” And, “Satan” – John 8:44 – “is the father of lies.” So if you have a satanic system, you expect lies – all goes together.

You say, “Well, okay, I can’t join the Black Lives Matter Association. I can’t really join the protest because I have to embrace whatever I might suffer. And I can’t be a part of lies and deception that is attempting to bring down the last restraint, the authority of the police, government. Thirdly, then, “Could I work to change laws? Could I work to change policies? Is that an option?” Better laws: great. Better policies: we would all appreciate that. But here’s the problem: no matter how many laws you make, you can’t change the sinner, the law-breaker.

Titus 3 is a really often overlooked description of the natural man. Verse 3: “For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.” Now what do you think laws are going to do to that person? They don’t deal with the disobedience, the deception, the enslavement, the malice, the envy, the hate.

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” The problem is, you can make a lot of laws, and you can change a lot of policies, but there’s a principle that Paul lays out in Romans 8; and you are familiar with it. Let me read it to you: “For what the Law could not do,” – and this is the law of God, which is reflected in human law, – “what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh.” That’s the problem: the law has no power. “What the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh.”

Verse 5: “Those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh.” Verse 6: The mind set on the flesh is death.” Verse 7: “The mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; it doesn’t subject itself to the law of God, it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” God laid out a lot of commandments in Scripture; sinners cannot submit to those laws. They are, by nature, haters injurious. Sinners can’t keep the law. So we can keep adding laws, changing policies, and never get to the issue.

Well, maybe there’s a fourth option. “Should I seek to change the people in power?” Black Lives Matter’s opening statement in their documents says, “We want power.”

“Okay. Is that an option? Do we just swap new sinners for the old ones? Do we just flip this? Let’s put out of power the people who are in power and replace them with lawless people who are trying to overthrow them and assume that’ll be better. We’ll swap sinners.”

Well, the problem with that, we saw also last time, “There’s none righteous, not even one; there’s none who understands; there’s none who seeks for God; they’ve all turned aside, together they have become useless; none who does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave, their tongues keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths, the path of peace they haven’t known. There’s no fear of God before their eyes.” Hmm. None righteous, no, not one. So swapping the current sinners for some other sinners doesn’t make a lot of sense.

As I told you last time, God has put restraints in the world: the law of God written in the heart in the conscience. This culture has completely destroyed that. The second restraint is the family and the authority of parents and the discipline that parents bring to restrain sin in children; and this culture has destroyed that. And the church has fallen on very hard times with its pragmatism and its desire to entertain sinners and make them feel comfortable, so it no longer comes with any force against sin. And we’re not at all surprised that the next restraint and the final one standing is the police; and they’re under assault

It was back of the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth, in the early 1900s before World War I, there was a lot of social issues in America: child labor, poverty, the things that come along with poverty. There was a Baptist pastor by the name of Rauschenbusch who decided that the church ended to shift away from the Bible and the gospel and work on social issues. At the turn of the century they had began to do that. The church started to preach what was called the social gospel. Before they were done, every major denomination in this country had abandoned the Bible, abandoned the gospel, abandoned the cardinal truths of Scripture. All their schools were corrupt, all their universities were corrupt, all their seminaries were corrupt, and now you have vestiges of those denominations that are nothing but rockpiles on corners in old cities. It wiped out every denomination. It’s back again, back again about hundred years later, and it’s beginning again to wipe out churches. When you get caught up in the stupidity and foolishness of trying to fix the world, you’re striking a blow against God’s will and God’s purpose, and you’re violating His commands.

We submit to Him, to His providence. We love Him and we love our neighbors as ourselves. This is reconciliation. Sinners must be reconciled to God, and only then can they be reconciled to each other. Once you become reconciled to God through Christ, you become reconciled to every other Christian because we’re all one in Him.

So what do we do? We do what we always do. We live godly lives in the world. We live quiet, peaceful lives in the world. We proclaim the law of God, which is to love Him with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. We proclaim the family: fathers, mothers, raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We declare the support of those who are in authority over us because God has ordained government. We honor them, we respect them. We do nothing to diminish their authority because that is God’s institution. And then, we let the church be the church and not turn into some social agency caught up in trying to do what is designed by Satan to be folly instead of wisdom. And as we go living these lives, we live quiet, peaceable, God-honoring, Christ-exalting lives; and we are ambassadors, proclaiming Jesus Christ is Lord, proclaiming the gospel in His holy name. We are ambassadors, begging people to be reconciled to God, 2 Corinthians 5 says. We are ambassadors for God

In an era when so many churches are closing or empty, John MacArthur’s church is full every Sunday.

These sermons explain why.

Preach the Gospel, not the social gospel.

An American named Chaziel Sunz used to belong to Black Lives Matter some years ago.

In 2017, he made a 15-minute video about the movement having been ‘infiltrated’ and controlled by ‘Soros and Clinton’. He warned blacks not to play into the desire of them and the Democrat Party who want a civil war.

He said that left-wing movements, such as BLM and Antifa, are ‘bogus’ and are preying upon people’s emotions. Those in charge of them want a fully divided right and left. He also said this is another reason why gun control is such a big deal with the Democrats. They want everyone unarmed for a reason.

Sunz asked that people put any race issues they have to a side and approach this issue with a clear head: don’t fall into the trap of a civil war.

He also said that the Las Vegas attack, which had taken place on October 1 that year, was a far-Left act, purposely against those attending the country music festival.

I only saw this video a few days ago. Apparently, it’s been taken down several times since 2017:

If this is removed, Gateway Pundit have another copy of it with this key quote:

Chaziel Sunz: They got us working for them. How they get us is they playing us emotionally… They getting anybody who basically doesn’t like Donald Trump to fight for war that is being started on American turf very, very soon. And they want us to be a part of their side. What I’m trying to get the black population to understand, and this is critical, is the movement has been compromised… BLM is not actually a black organization and never was… If you have any kind of brain you know BLM is endorsed by the Soros and Clinton family.

Chaziel Sunz made another video earlier that year, just after the Manchester bombing in England in May. Even though it’s three years old, now is an apposite time to watch it. He accuses the media of ginning up falsely emotional reactions to news events. Again, he asks us not to get too emotional about these things. If we want to pray, fine, but he said that a lot of people are making money out of false sympathy when these attacks occur:

He’s not a Trump fan, in case anyone is wondering.

He does want unity in a time when manipulation is rife.

I hope he has been talking with community groups about his experiences and knowledge from his time as a left-wing activist.

As was true with coronavirus, Trump’s impeachment, Brexit and everything else, the media are driving their own narrative with the protests and riots concerning the death of George Floyd.

Let’s remember that the US Constitution has not changed. Here’s President Trump’s newish press secretary Kayleigh McEnany:

Oddly, the New York Times agrees:

Yet, in general, the media are standing up for, if not promoting, violence on streets across the United States:

Politely put.

In addition to the media, we have public officials, such as the Chair of New York City Council health committee. Here are a few of his tweets, which include coronavirus commentary:

Earlier in the year, he tweeted about Chinese New Year, in spite of the coronavirus threat, which he downplayed at the time:

The governor of North Carolina joined a local protest but had the gall to tell President Trump that, for social distancing purposes, he would have to downsize the already-booked Republican National Convention this summer:

Then there are those defending America — National Guardsmen — who feel compelled to take a knee for the protesters, so they can be left alone. Or is it that they would rather not be there?

And that sort of thing leads to this (too sad to post). It took place in London, encouraged by a mother who should know better.

I am glad someone posted about that video. He has a long thread about this and has added two more videos. Excerpts follow:

He drops a name in his thread, then continues:

He should have briefed them before they went out that day — and obeyed the rules himself.

Continuing with the thread:

Kneel before no one, especially when they might be lawbreakers:

Well said.

Perhaps you have seen scenes like this on the news during the past several days:

In fact, yes, someone did hurt a dog — a rescue puppy in Memphis. Unthinkable:

Some equally unbelievable things happened with regard to law enforcement and justice:

Active and retired policemen have been shot and, in some cases, killed in these riots.

I hope this officer recovers:

At least they made an arrest:

Sadly, this retired police captain from St Louis died. He was working in his friend’s pawn shop at the time:

Then there were the Catholic and Episcopal clergy upset with President Trump. I won’t go into the Episcopal side of things in this post, but the Catholic archbishop was outraged that the First Couple went to visit the Shrine of Pope John XXIII.

Such visits are normally booked well in advance for security reasons. It’s unlikely the Trumps just turned up.

But, there’s a little more to the archbishop’s story — hypocrisy:

As for the visit to St John’s Episcopal Church in Lafayette Square, it turns out that the Pentagon advisor who resigned is a Democrat donor:

Tucker Carlson has called out the rest of the media for spinning these ‘protests’ like crazy when many of them turn into riots and looting:

Indeed.

Fortunately, the public are getting clued up:

Indeed, messaging will be key this year.

Meanwhile, let’s stop trusting our media outlets.

I’ll have more on the protests tomorrow.

Betty and Jorge Rivas have been Trump supporters since 2016.

They live in Tucson and own Sammy’s Mexican Grill.

On February 19, 2020, they attended President Trump’s rally in nearby Phoenix.

Someone spotted Mrs Rivas in the audience. Since then, their Facebook page has been littered with negative reviews.

On March 1, Fox Business reported:

That hurt business for several days, co-owner Jorge Rivas told “FOX & Friends” Sunday, but he said Saturday was a “very good day” for sales.

President Trump tweeted his support for the couple. He meant to say Tucson:

Even though business is booming, supporters of Sammy’s Mexican Grill, in the Catalina district of Tucson, are planning a lunch gathering on Saturday, March 7. If I lived there, I would definitely go. The address is in the second tweet, along with the organiser’s phone number. It’s probably a good idea to give him a call before showing up. He might be making reservations:

I like that law enforcement always eats free of charge. Excellent.

The Fox Business article said that Mr and Mrs Rivas received abuse by telephone in 2016, when then-candidate Trump invited Mrs Rivas on stage:

It’s not Trump’s first interaction with the restaurant owners. During a 2016 campaign rally, Trump called Betty Rivas onto the stage as she held a “Latinos for Trump” sign.

She said at the time that she took criticism then, too …

Nonetheless, a photo of Rivas and Trump has hung on a wall in the restaurant since then.

Here’s the life-size cut out of President Trump. Jorge Rivas explains what happened after the Phoenix rally. His wife adds a message in Spanish:

He had more to say about his unwavering support for the president and how happy he is to be an American. He also believes that a strong America is essential for the next generation. He and his wife have two sons:

Well, even if you can’t make lunch on Saturday, please remember Sammy’s next time you are in the Tucson area.

I wish the Rivases continued success with their business and in their family life.

In closing, I do not understand how the Left’s harassment of their political ‘opponents’ — i.e. normal people — is going to get said opponents on their side. Do they think the Rivases are just going to say one day, ‘Yeah, all the abuse was worth it. We’ll be voting Dem from now on’?

What a nonsensical ‘strategy’ unhinged leftists have.

British journalist and television presenter Piers Morgan recently gave an interview to Ben Shapiro about the Left.

He says:

The Left have become unbearable.

This video, which is subtitled and runs just under two minutes and thirty seconds, is excellent. I am not necessarily a Piers Morgan fan but agree with everything he says here:

Being in media, he begins with comedians hosting awards shows. Because people cannot make — and take — jokes anymore, said shows lack hosts or are being cancelled.

Even it that is no big deal, Morgan takes the totalitarian measures of the Left further, calling them a type of ‘fascism’ (his word). He says that if you do not live your life in the way leftists dictate, they go after you in a number of ways, from personal abuse to making sure you lose your job.

Consequently, he says, ordinary people are rebelling by electing populist — he says ‘popularist’, possibly purposely — politicians who are willing to confront the Left. He cites President Trump and says this is happening in Europe, too. (Incidentally, Hungary’s Viktor Orban became prime minister long before Trump was elected. Orban assumed office in 2010, six years before the American president was elected. That said, western Europe has seen a continuing drift towards conservative and populist political parties.)

Here’s the interview in full:

In conclusion, it would be good if Piers Morgan and millions of other people would stop using the word ‘liberal’ to describe leftists. Liberal refers to classical liberalism: free markets and small government.

Let’s call these people what they are: leftists — the most illiberal of people.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

October 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,661,223 hits