‘You’re a Murderer!’ Driver Berates Cop as He Calmly Writes Ticket

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Diego Fabian Parra Pabon from Pixabay

Rarely do we hear an individual so thoroughly disgrace themselves as a Los Angeles woman did following a traffic stop by a Latino L. A. County Sheriff’s deputy last month.

She had been pulled over for using her cell phone while driving her son to his therapy appointment. We immediately grasp why her son might be in serious need of therapy.

The deputy approaches the car and tells her, “I pulled you over today because — ”

“Because you’re a murderer,” she says, interrupting him. During their brief encounter, she calls him a murderer eight times. She insists that he call his supervisor because “you’re threatening to kill me and my son.”

The deputy is the model of restraint. He remains calm and polite as she spews her poison.

She concludes by informing him that he will never be white. “You’re always gonna be a Mexican, you’ll never be white, you know that? You’ll never be white which is what you really want to be.”

Her race is unclear, because her image has been blurred.

According to Fox News’ reporter Bill Melugin, who obtained the video, the deputy is a 14-year career officer. He told Melugin that he uses both a department-issued body camera as well as one he purchased privately to “protect himself from false allegations.”

Melugin spoke to L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva who said he was “appalled” by this woman’s behavior. He praised his deputy’s restraint.

Villanueva noted, “She claims to be a teacher. I’m not so sure where she is teaching … but if she represents her profession, is that an indictment on her profession and the caliber of people?”

“You have one incident like George Floyd … but some people want to label the entire profession as if everyone was a Derek Chauvin. It shows you that bigotry, racism comes in all, colors and all ages — that’s proof of that right there. If you want to call all of the deputies murderers, unfortunately, you are doing the exact same thing you’re accusing other people of doing against your own kind.”

Melugin learned that, following this encounter, the woman “called internal affairs and filed a harassment complaint against the deputy” and that she “has a history of making false claims against deputies.”

This is a “grade A example of the kind of animosity that some of the officers out there are encountering on the streets,” Melugin said.

Here are a few responses to Melugin’s Twitter thread about this story:

“Insanity on full display. The scary thing was, she claimed to be a teacher. Does anyone want their kids taught by this woman?”

“If she is a teacher than I feel where ever she teaches should see this video and decide if they want someone that is obviously racist towards Hispanic people and talks to police officer this way teaching children. If she were teaching my children I would be demanding her be axed.”

“She needs to be exposed. No hiding her face and name. She shouldn’t be teaching anyone.”

“If this was a white male cop and the person breaking the law was a drug abusing ex con, the cops name would be released and he would be fired and Lebron would have already put a hit out on him. Let’s return the favor. Release her name so we can call the school and terminate her.”

“They always seem to make it until the very end, and then their true side comes out. Such a piece of garbage. I bet she has a “hate has no home here” sign in her front yard.”

This is what the repeated vilification of police officers does. It gives this woman and countless others like her a license to treat cops as if they were sub-human.

I wrote yesterday about a video recorded by a police officer who had reached the height of his frustration over being painted with the same brush as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

It’s heartbreaking to watch. The officer is exhausted, heartbroken with the state of America. He, like many others, has to go to work every day and face the anti-cop rhetoric that has ripped through the US. Most cops are good. But the good ones have to face hatred every day.

I think most Americans were unanimous in their revulsion toward this woman. Demonizing all police officers because of Chauvin makes about as much sense as tarnishing all teachers because of this woman’s loathsome behavior.

But this is where the left’s campaign against police officers has brought us. It’s a dangerous state of affairs.

Street Justice: Man Trying to Block Car at Antifa ‘Abolish the Police’ Protest Gets a Rude Awakening

Advertisements

 

Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Antifa held an “Abolish the Police” protest in Portland on Thursday which blocked an intersection. As one car followed a truck through the crowd, a protestor tried to punch the driver through his open window.

Another, carrying an umbrella which said “Abolish the Police,” stood in front of the vehicle – which kept going. He wound up on the hood of the car, momentarily, until falling off. The driver then accelerates leaving behind an angry group. One female protestor is heard yelling, “Get it, get it, get it.”

Street justice.

An independent reporter covering the protest took the side of Antifa.

Hey Maranie, maybe people are enraged because they’re tired of being held hostage by antifa groups and others like them. Maybe people have decided it’s time to take our country back.

Additionally, maybe it’s not a good idea to try to punch a driver or stand in front his car to force to him to stop so a bunch of thugs can beat him to a bloody pulp.

Has this reporter’s common sense left her as it has the rest of the Democratic Party?

What will Antifa do? Report this driver to the police they’re trying to abolish? ‘We tried to punch him, damage his car and block him officer. But he kept moving. We were in danger.’


Idiots.

 

H/T: Town Hall

No, Actually Ma’Khia Bryant’s Death Is NOT a Reminder the US Has a Long Way to Go

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

A widely read CNN op-ed claims that “Ma’Khia Bryant’s death on the day Chauvin was found guilty is a reminder that we have a long way to go.”

As he awaited the Chauvin verdict on Tuesday, University of Texas history professor Peniel Joseph worried that the “U.S. justice system was going to prove, once again, unable to recognize and protect the sanctity of Black life.”

Joseph had been pleasantly surprised by the jury’s decision. But when he later heard that a 16-year-old black girl had been shot by an Ohio police officer shortly before the verdict was announced, the temporary relief he’d felt quickly passed.

The teenager, Ma’Khia Bryant, had tried to stab a girl, and was lunging toward a second girl with a knife in her hand when the officer pulled the trigger.

Joseph writes that “many are openly questioning why this young teenager could not have been subdued with nonlethal force.”

Because given the facts as they have been reported so far, had the officer not acted, Bryant would have plunged a quite large kitchen knife into another girl. So, let’s see, should he have tried to subdue her first? He did offer two verbal warnings. The group of individuals involved in this episode had been unable to deescalate the situation. A member of the group had called the police 12 or more minutes earlier because none of them had been able to subdue her either.

This case has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It has to do with a police officer responding to a call for help because that’s his job. Does Joseph really believe the officer thought, “I’m going to shoot this girl because she’s black?’

Equating Chauvin’s actions to the Ohio police officer’s actions is a reminder that the far left has really gone off the deep end. Mr. Joseph and his ilk are trying to attach Chauvin’s crime to every conservative.

By seeing “systemic racism” everywhere and in everything, and labeling everyone who doesn’t see it as they do as racists, they’ve lost credibility.

It seems that local and state governments care more about property, building and money than people of color. … We need only to point to the outpouring of state and local resources to prevent violence in the event that Chauvin was acquitted. Imagine if the same level of care that Minneapolis officials and law enforcement agencies took in turning the Twin Cities into a military encampment had been directed toward investing in Black communities?

Considering Black Lives Matter members generally react to every perceived slight by burning a building or looting a department store, law enforcement had to be proactive.

While we’re on the subject, doesn’t the professor think that behavior is rather infantile? Does he feel that BLM members are entitled to destroy property because 160 years ago, people none of us knew, thought slavery was a good idea?

Like these people do:

I agree it was a horrendous institution, but sorry, I’m not going to feel any guilt over it.

Next, he addresses the new Georgia voting law. House Judiciary Committee member Burgess Owens, a black Republican from Utah, absolutely destroyed this  talking point on Tuesday. Owens spoke at the “Senate Judiciary Hearing – Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”

Owens grew up in the Deep South and said he has “actually experienced Jim Crow laws” and would “like to set the record straight.” He told colleagues that “any comparison between this law and Jim Crow is absolutely outrageous.”

He said he’d once protested with his friends outside of a movie theater where blacks were not allowed. He spoke about gas stations that had restrooms for white men and white women and then one filthy bathroom in the back for “coloreds.”

“In addition, Jim Crow laws like the poll tax, property tests, literacy tests and violence and intimidation at the polls made it nearly impossible for black Americans to vote.”

He cannot fathom how it’s considered racist to ask for an ID.

“By the way,” he notes, “97% of voters already have a government-issued ID.”

“What I find extremely offensive is the narrative from the left that black people are not smart enough, not educated enough, not desirous enough of education to do what every other culture and race does in this country: Get an ID.”

“True racism is this: this projection of the Democratic Party on my proud race. … It’s called the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

“To call this Jim Crow 2021 is an insult, my friends. … For those who never lived Jim Crow, we are not in Jim Crow.”

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa told colleagues, “These claims about Georgia aren’t about truth, they’re about politics.”

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said Georgia’s law was “the greatest crisis facing our democracy today.”

Actually Senator, the greatest crisis facing our democracy today is the Democratic Party’s insatiable hunger for power.

Back to Joseph. He spends a lot of time elevating Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California and activist Stacey Abrams to rock star status. I’ve addressed Waters’ actions twice in the last week, here and here, and I have nothing more to say on the subject.

Then, mercifully, Joseph concludes, telling readers: “In the meantime, Black people continue to be shot, to be brutalized and to die at the hands of the police.”

He is gaslighting. He knows that blacks kill other blacks multiple times more often than white officers kill blacks. According to Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather MacDonald, one of the smartest conservatives I know, 0.2 percent of black homicides are the result of unarmed black men being shot by police officers.

MacDonald appeared on Newsmax’ Rob Schmitt Tonight show on Tuesday.

After the Chauvin verdict had been announced, President Biden said, we have to get “systemic racism out of policing.” Schmitt asked MacDonald, “What exactly do the numbers say about ‘systemic racism’?

“The numbers say that it does not exist,” she replied. “The police go where the crime is. We have a crime problem in this country. We do not have a police problem. We have been talking about phantom police racism for the last three decades obsessively so as to continue turning our eyes away from the cultural breakdown that you so rightly spoke about Rob.”

“America does not want to confront the disfunction in the inner city black community.” She said that ten percent of white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by police officers while only three percent of black homicide victims are. “Why,” MacDonald asks. “Because the number of black homicide victims is so huge that it dwarfs anything else. Blacks die of homicide at a rate 13 times that of whites.”

In 2020, MacDonald said there were 18 unarmed blacks killed by police. “Unarmed is defined very liberally, to mean going after an officer’s gun or fleeing in a stolen car with a loaded handgun on the seat next to you. Those 18 unarmed blacks represent 0.2 percent of all blacks who died of homicide last year.”

“The police could end all police shootings and it would have no effect on the black homicide rate. This idea that blacks are being gunned down on a daily basis is an optical illusion,” She explains that this is created by the media which should surprise no one. Watch the whole segment here (starts at 13:30 in the video).

The message from the left is anti-American. It’s disgusting that our president is in on this farce. The left has gone down the rabbit hole.

Call me crazy, but I think it would be difficult to find a country where there are greater opportunities for blacks than in America. I wholeheartedly encourage those who feel life is so unbearable to move. Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing about their perpetual victimhood.

So professor, I’m going to call BS on your attempt to use Ma’Khia’s death to advance your narrative. America does not have a long way to go.

If you’re truly concerned about the sky high homicide rate among blacks, please start with the inner city black communities.

Watch Joe Scarborough Torch DCCC Chair for Refusal to Take Position on Defunding the Police

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Foundry Co from Pixabay

The police shooting in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, of a black man, Daunte Wright, last Sunday sparked a new round of calls from Democrats for defunding the police.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Rep. Sean Maloney of New York joined MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Friday morning and was asked if Democrats support “defunding the police.” Maloney repeatedly evaded the question telling Scarborough, “My argument is what are you doing about racial justice? Our party is going to do something about it.”

“Forgive me for repeating the same question. Maybe I need to say it a different way.” Scarborough asked, “Do Democrats support defunding the police first of all? And secondly, the Cook Political report said that Democrats lost 25 of 25 contested House races in 2020. And I think most analysts believe that, at least in the House races, Democrats badly underperformed expectations. So, again, address those two again and if you could specifically answer the question. Again, it’s not the question I’m asking. It’s a question Republicans will continue to ask: Do Democrats support defunding the police?”

“Right. The answer is no and you are asking the question and you are repeating a Republican talking point for reasons I don’t know,” clearly not happy to have answered.

Scarborough dug in. “You guys did a damn poor job of answering that, such a poor job of answering socialism questions, such a poor job about answering cancel culture questions. That’s why I’m repeating it. Because if you believe that Kevin McCarthy should be Speaker of the House, keep pretending that none of that happened. And keep pretending that the House did a good job in 2020, because they did not. House Democrats did a poor job. So my question is are you going into 2022 with eyes wide open?”

“Right, so as my friend Maxine Waters said to Jim Jordan, ‘You’re ranting again,’ Maloney said chuckling. A stupid joke that deserved to fall flat.

Scarborough, who was most definitely not amused, told Maloney, “If you don’t really care whether Democrats win or not in 2022, okay, let our viewers know that.”

“The answer to the question is that Kevin McCarthy is the minority leader and we hold the gavels, Joe,” replied Maloney.

Continuing, Maloney said, “Can we learn from 2020? You bet. You didn’t hear me say everything went well, what I told you is I’m not going to run the other way because on shows like this you insist on repeating these Republican talking points when you know it’s a lie that we want to defund the police. Look at the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.”

“If your point is that we need to communicate better, well fair enough. But do me a favor, please also acknowledge that when you echo and amplify these talking points of the Republican Party, you give them life,” Maloney concluded.

Scarborough said, “I don’t need that reminder.”

I rarely take Scarborough’s side on anything. But Maloney is wrong. Many Democrats have called for defunding the police. And the chorus grows after each police shooting. AOC led the calls to abolish the police, saying it was “an indefensible system.”

Within hours of the Daunte Wright shooting, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted, “It wasn’t an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence. I am done with those who condone government funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.”

Even Democrats believe this position hurt the party in 2020. In a recent interview with Bill Kristol, Democratic strategist James Carville said, “I mean, this defund the police was just a terrible drag on the Democratic Party. It really was. Don’t kid yourself.”

Defunding the police was one of the Democrats’ more extreme positions ahead of the 2020 elections. It could be among their most moderate going into 2022, as the party embraces truly radical positions like open borders, stacking the court, adding two states, eliminating the use of fossil fuels and abolishing the electoral college so that elections can be decided by New York and California, to name a few.

Democrats know they’re likely to lose the House and the Senate majorities in 2022, so they’re going to ram as much of their radical agenda through while they can. But Maloney is kidding himself if he truly believes that Democratic support for defunding the police is just a Republican talking point.

Black Lives Matter Group Marches to Rochester Store Shouting ‘We’re shutting s— down,’ Traps 100 Customers Inside

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Bruce Emmerling from Pixabay

On March 23, 2020, police in Rochester, NY, received a report that a naked man under the influence of PCP was running through town, shouting that he had the coronavirus. When police tried to subdue him, he spit on them which caused them to place a mesh hood, otherwise known as a “spit sock” over his head. The man, Daniel Prude, was placed on the pavement and subdued for two minutes by police.

Prude, who had a history of mental illness, was black.

After Prude became unresponsive, he was resuscitated and brought to a hospital where he died one week later.

“The Monroe County Office of the Medical Examiner ruled Mr. Prude’s death a homicide. The autopsy report concluded he died of asphyxiation ‘in the setting of physical restraint’ and acute intoxication with the hallucinogenic drug PCP,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

In February, a New York grand jury voted against indictment of any of the police officers involved in the case.

Tuesday marked the one year anniversary of this incident, and a group of approximately 200 members of Black Lives Matter gathered for a protest. As they marched toward Wegmans, a popular Rochester grocery store, they shouted, “We have a long walk today. We’re shutting s— down.”

The Washington Examiner reported that, as the group approached the store, the owner locked it down, trapping around 100 customers inside.

The group banged on the glass doors and repeatedly chanted, “Black Lives Matter.”

In a tweet, Rochester journalist and radio host Bob Lonsberry wrote, “Hundreds of people trapped in the East Avenue #ROC Wegmans by this mob, The Rochester Police Department is just watching and letting it happen. I guess fire codes and trespassing aren’t things in Rochester anymore. What an embarrassing day for the city and the PD.”

He continued in a second tweet. “Allowing the mob to shut down the East Ave [Wegmans], trapping at least a hundred people, is an immoral failing by the mayor at @CityRochesterNY and the @RochesterNYPD. To kiss the a– of the mob, the rights of others are trodden, and the city dies even more.”

Rochester based journalist Justin Murphy spoke to one of the BLM protestors who said, “We’re more than just taxpayers in their capitalist system; we’re human beings, and we demand to be treated as such.”

They’re taxpayers? I’ll bet most of them pay little or no taxes. They’re human beings, and they demand to be treated as such? Need I even respond to the irony in that remark?

In the tweet below, Monroe County legislator Rachel Barnhart makes an equally stupid comment. “Reasonable people can debate tactics and messaging. It’s normal to be annoyed or inconvenienced if the grocery store is blocked off by protesters. But I care more about Black lives than Wegmans. The protest will end. The store will reopen. The injustice will go on.”

Barnhart’s comment is even more egregious than Carson’s, if possible. One would expect such an inane remark from a member of BLM. I am not a lawyer, but here’s a county legislator who overlooks the obvious crimes being committed, entrapment and threatening, for starters.

And she views the shoppers trapped inside as being “annoyed or inconvenienced” rather than frightened. BLM has a long history of violence. Any reasonable person in that situation would feel some degree of fear.

America defeated Nazi Germany and Japan’s Imperial Army. How do we fight the enemy from within? Especially now that they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. The Democratic Party is fast becoming the greatest foe this nation has ever faced.

The Democrats are trying to destroy America. It’s as if they’re in command of our ship and they’re aiming it right for an iceberg at flank speed.

Tell me again how Jan. 6 was the most shameful day in America’s history..

Minnesota Judge Reinstates Third-Degree Murder Charge Against Derek Chauvin in George Floyd Case

Advertisements

Jury selection began on Tuesday in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Chauvin had been charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.

On Thursday morning, however, a Hennepin County, Minnesota judge reinstated a third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, according to a CNN report.

The report said that “Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill dismissed the [third-degree murder] count in October, saying it did not apply to this case.” CNN explains how that charge came to be reinstated.

An appeals court ruling in February in the case against former Minneapolis Police officer Mohamed Noor opened the door to reinstating the charge against Chauvin, and the state subsequently filed an appeal of Cahill’s ruling.

In court on Thursday, Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that Noor’s case was factually and procedurally different than Chauvin’s interactions with Floyd, in which he knelt on Floyd’s head and neck area for an extended period. However, prosecutors argued that the judge was bound to follow the appeals court’s precedent in Noor.

Judge Cahill ruled Thursday morning that he accepted the appeals court’s ruling that the opinion in Noor’s case immediately set a precedent, and he ruled to reinstate the charge.

He added that the third-degree murder charge only applied to Chauvin and that the potential to reinstate the charge for the three other officers charged in Floyd’s death will be addressed at a later date.

“This charge has not come out of left field,” Cahill said Thursday. “It was originally charged. I think the defense has been aware that the state will take every opportunity to try and add it back.”

If convicted, Chauvin could face up to 40 years in prison for second-degree murder, up to 25 years for third-degree murder, and up to 10 years for second-degree manslaughter.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ordered Cahill to reconsider the motion to reinstate the charge last week. On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused a request by Chauvin’s attorney to block the appellate court’s decision, clearing the way for Cahill to reinstate the charge.

Chauvin has pleaded not guilty to all three charges.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement (on Thursday) which read: “The charge of 3rd-degree murder, in addition to manslaughter and felony murder, reflects the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Chauvin. We look forward to presenting all three charges to the jury.”

Hmmm.

In light of the underreported developments that many of us just learned about this week, one has to wonder if the reason the third-degree murder charge has been reinstated is because prosecutors are worried that second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges might be too difficult to prove.

It’s clear that Ellison and many others desperately want to convict Chauvin for something in this case.

Days after the video of Chauvin pressing his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes went viral last May, Chauvin was charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. I posted about this here.

On Wednesday, I presented excerpts from an article written by The Spectator’s Roger Kimball. It turned out that at the time of Floyd’s death, he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.

Kimball noted that rather than being St. George, Floyd was a “drug addict, a woman abuser and a career criminal.” He wrote:

First, the video clip that horrified the world was heavily edited. We see Floyd, pinned to the ground by Chauvin, piteously crying ‘I can’t breathe.’ Conclusion? That he can’t breathe because Chauvin is pressing on his windpipe. But a look at the police bodycam footage shows that Floyd was complaining that he couldn’t breathe before he was restrained by the police. Why? Because, as the FBI’s interview with the local medical examiner on July 8, 2020 revealed, Floyd was suffering from pulmonary edema, i.e., his lungs were full of fluid. And why was that? Partly because of an underlying heart condition, partly because Floyd was full to the gills with fentanyl, a drug known to affect respiration and cause pulmonary edema.

By the way, I say that FBI report ‘revealed’ this extenuating evidence, but it was evidence that the prosecution withheld from public scrutiny until the end of October 2020, by which time Minneapolis and many other cities across the country had been torched by Black Lives Matter rioters demanding ‘justice’ for George Floyd.

Here’s something else. Although Chauvin’s restraint looks brutal, it was actually part of the standard Minneapolis police protocol for dealing with persons exhibiting ‘excited delirium,’ a dangerous, often fatal, condition brought about by too much fentanyl with one’s afternoon tea. According to the medical examiner, Chauvin did not appear to have obstructed Floyd’s airway — Floyd would not have been able to speak if he had — and Floyd did not die from strangulation. Bottom line, George Floyd died from the effects of a self-administered drug overdose, effects that might have been exacerbated by his interactions with the police, i.e., his exertions in resisting arrest. For their part, the police were trying to help Floyd. It was they who called the ambulance because they recognized that Floyd was in extremis.

It just may be that Ellison and his colleagues, who are far more familiar with the details of this case than anyone else, are acutely aware of its vulnerabilities.

Although I am not a lawyer, CNN’s explanation for the reinstatement of the third-degree murder charge doesn’t make sense to me.

I recall vividly that many people were deeply disappointed by the third-degree charge and exerted tremendous pressure upon the powers that be to upgrade the charge to second-degree murder. And on June 3, prosecutors announced the elevated charge.

With the highly partisan Ellison in charge of the case, it remains to be seen if Chauvin will get a fair trial.

Victor Davis Hanson: ‘We have become an absurd society obsessed with race’

Advertisements

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a military historian, a columnist, a former classics professor, and one of the smartest conservative commentators ever.

In his latest column at American Greatness, he asks if America is (hopefully, finally) hitting woke herd immunity as two recent polls suggest. He begins:

Two recent polls suggest wokism is beginning to recede on a variety of fronts, from less trust in Black Lives Matter and more confidence in the police, to suspicion that the Capitol “insurrection” account is being used to unfairly suppress political expression while Antifa, increasingly, is seen as a terrorist organization whose violence has been ignored improperly by authorities.

There are tens of millions of Americans who either have been stung, or turned off by McCarthyite wokeness (and thus have anti-wokeness antibodies). More have been vaccinated from its latest virulent strains by their own values of judging people as individuals, not as racial or gender collectives. So lots of Americans have developed peremptory defenses against it. The result is that daily there are ever-fewer who are susceptible to the woke pandemic. And it will thus begin to fade out—even as the virus desperately seeks to mutate and go after more institutions.

Peak wokeness is nearing also because if it continued in its present incarnation, then the United States as we know it would cease to exist—in the sense that 1692-93 Salem or 1793-94 Paris could not have continued apace without destroying society. Woke leftism exists to destroy and tear down, not to unite and build. It is not designed to play down and heal racial differences, but to accentuate and capitalize on them.

Dr. Hanson says “the shark was jumped” with last week’s cancellation of Dr. Seuss books.

But what are to be the new standards of Trotskyization as we go forth? Can the Governor of New York be excused for months of policies that led to nearly 15,000 unnecessary deaths, but not for inappropriate kisses and touching of women? Or will he, as an Emmy-winning woke official, be exempt from punishment for both types of transgressions?

There are no logical standards that dictate who is and who is not canceled. For now, all we know about the rules of wokeness is that living leftists are mostly not canceled by the woke mob for the thought crimes that ruin both the non-Left or the generic dead.

There is a price to be paid for “wokeness.”

Wokeness is siphoning off billions of dollars from a productive economy through a sort of value-subtracted tax. We are spending a great deal of labor and capital for merit to be replaced in college admissions, in hiring, in grants, in publication, in the selections of awards, and in movies and videos, in everything—as racial, ethnic, and sexual identity considerations replace meritocratic, literary, artistic, and technological criteria, rather than just augment, them.

Americans also are investing lots of capital in preempting wokeness—writing/saying/acting in ways that are not productive, but simply defensive. Diversity oaths, and diversity applications, pledges, and statements take some time to read and digest. It will not be long before insurers will sell “woke insurance,” the premiums adjusted upward for those more conservative and of the wrong genealogy. It won’t be long before we all carry cards certifying that “At no time, did I say, hear, or think anything . . . .”

Our economy will soon mimic the totalitarian ones of old. Our commissars are like those of the old Red Army—ordering Soviet commanders’ counter-offensives during the Great Patriotic War to ensure that tank battalions were advancing ideologically correctly rather than just tactically or strategically soundly.

If that sounds overly dramatic to some, Dr. Hanson reminds us that at the height of the riots last May and June, then-President Donald Trump considered bringing in federal troops to maintain order. It was then that “280 former generals, admirals, and national security officials signed a letter warning that if Trump” were to do so, “he should be considered a dictatorial threat.” The letter read, “There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be for some.”

Yet when Democrats insisted on bringing in 25,000 National Guard troops after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, this “group remained mute.”

No society can long exist if it believes that its own founding principles, its customs and traditions, its very origins are evil and must be erased. Tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, and redefining 1776 and 1787 as 1619, are many things, but one thing they are not is coherent. Trump was considered nutty when he warned that the statue topplers would go from Confederate monuments to Washington and Jefferson—and then when they did just that he was further ridiculed for being prescient.

Who were the long-dead men who devised a system whose natural and eventual fruition is what attracts indigenous people from Oaxaca, the destitute from Somalia, or the politically oppressed from Vietnam? If evil white people founded an evil system solely for their own evil purposes, why would anyone nonwhite dare risk his life to eat from the alluring fruit of the inherently long-ago poisoned tree?

If Americans are to accept that their Declaration of Independence and Constitution were frauds, abject falsifications of the real unspoken founding of 1619, then again what is to replace them? Whose statues are to rise, which books are we to be authorized to read, whose science are we to turn to?

“Everyone has feet of some clay,” Dr. Hanson reminds us. “Is there no adultery, or unkind treatment of women or plagiarism in the past of Martin Luther King, Jr? No violence or criminality in the life of Malcolm X? Did Cesar Chavez never send his goons to the border to beat back illegal aliens? Was Margaret Sanger only a sometimes advocate of eugenic abortion? Are the written biographies of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be freed of anti-Semitism and petty corruption? Is Louis Farrakhan an ecumenical leader in the way FDR was not? Was JFK really our first feminist?”

Are we to look to those who erased our supposedly awful past for guidance?

Is it to be the architect of the 1619 Project? Long ago the ecumenical Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world . . . The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community.”

Last summer, he points out, “Hannah-Jones bragged that, yes, it would be ‘an honor’ if the summer rioting—700 police officers injured, 40 deaths, and billions in property damages and hundreds—be called henceforth ‘the 1619 riots.'”

She also said, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. … Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” He wondered if the Times considered Hannah-Jones “inflammatory?”

Moreover, he asks how we “ascertain who is and is not white or black or brown?”

Most illiberal societies in the past that tried such stigmatization of race, ethnicity, or religion did not end so well—from the Ottomans and the Third Reich to the former Yugoslavians, Rwandans, and Iraqis. One eighth, one fourth, or one half makes one a person of color—or not color? Shall we seek knowledge of one-drop of tell-tale bloodlines from the archived jurisprudence of the antebellum South?

If Peruvian George Zimmerman had only used his matronymic, and Latinized his first name, then would a Jorge Mesa have become a sympathetic character who lost a fair fight with Trayvon Martin rather than reduced by the New York Times to a strange category of “white Hispanic” hoodlum, with the additional odor of a Germanized patronymic.

Why does class bow to race, since the former seems to trump the latter. If we forget percentages for a moment, and also forget that we are individuals, not anonymous cogs of vast racial wheels, in absolute numbers, there are roughly (in some studies) more poor white people—both those earning incomes below the poverty level and those with no income at all—than all other commensurate poor minorities combined. Were these supposed to be the targets of Barack Obama’s “clingers” remarks, or Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” John McCain’s “crazies,” or Joe Biden’s “dregs,” “chumps,” and “Neanderthals”?

Predicating wokism on race is a tricky business, even if one could define and identify race, quantify its role in determining class status, and convince millions that it is moral to judge people by how they look.

Like the Salem witch trials and the McCarthyite hysteria, when wokism fades, we are likely to see its real catalysts revealed. And they will not be found to be misplaced idealism, nor heartfelt desire for a more ecumenical society, but mostly the age-old, narcissistic destructive road to career enhancement, fueled by customary ancient fears, envies, and hatreds.