Share This Article with a Friend!


Assault on America, Day 547: Founding Fathers vs. Marxist #BlackLivesMatter, a comparison

George Washington
#BlackLivesMatter’s “movement” doesn’t favorably compare to the Founding Fathers’


As we commemorate another anniversary of the adoption of the premier political separatist document of all time -- otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence -- can we, as Americans, agree that all political violence is bad?

Nope, you say? Some maintain that political violence is an essential tool to bring about compulsory change in repressive governments where citizens are systematically denied basic rights, and, in many cases, common necessities such as food, shelter and clean water. Today, one need only look to Venezuela, North Korea, Iran -- or China -- to get a glimpse of regimes that rule without the consent of the people.

The examples of political violence throughout history are numerous -- sometimes it’s common citizens rebelling against authority -- but most of the time the revolutionaries end up dead in the effort. There’s a reason why empires formed and were sustained century after century by the elites. The winners write the narrative, too. The powerful also tend to be wealthy and in complete control of the means to fight and suppress. It’s why the Right to Bear Arms is God-given and crucial to all free peoples.

Then there’s the case of our own American Revolution, or as it’s referred to in Europe, the War for American Independence. We’ve heard the stories since childhood (or least most of us did), tales of heroic men in funny looking tricorn hats sporting bandages, playing fife and drum, marching with muskets in colorful uniforms and managing, through sheer grit and determination, to win a war against the most powerful monarchy the world had ever known.

If only reality were that simple. It’s a romantic image, isn’t it? Even better -- all we’d have to do to remind ourselves of our forebears’ sacrifice was drive around city squares and gaze at monuments to the great men and women and their grand cause…at least until recently.

There’s another revolution of sorts taking place in America today, a leftist inspired undertaking to rid the country and the world of reminders of that gloried past while simultaneously instituting a new government, by the ballot box -- or otherwise. Ironically, the movers of this cause compare themselves to those who prosecuted the “Shot heard ‘round the world” in the 18th century. Jeffrey Rodack reported at Newsmax last week, “Hawk Newsome, president of the Greater New York Black Lives Matter, [in an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum] reiterated that if the movement doesn’t get what it wants, it will ‘burn down this system.’

“…’If this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.

“[To MacCallum] ‘Wow, it's interesting that you would pose that question like that because this country is built upon violence. What was the American Revolution? What's our diplomacy across the globe? We go in and we blow up countries and we replace their leaders with leaders who we like. So for any American to accuse us of being violent is extremely hypocritical.’”

For the record, military maneuvers shouldn’t be confused with directionless rioting. Just saying.

But yes, Hawk (I originally read it as “Hank,” but it’s no misprint), that’s quite a statement. At the outset I’ll admit I vehemently disagree with your premise, but your claim did force me to reexamine my grasp of American history to decipher whether the colonists’ rebellion -- from roughly 1765 through the Treaty of Paris in 1783 -- was akin to today’s all-too-visible #BlackLivesMatter movement. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize there are few parallels between the two, and it’s not just because the proponents of each are separated by two and a half centuries of days, weeks, months and years.

First, it should be noted, both the American Revolution and the leftist Black Lives Matter causes were bi or multi-racial ventures. Whereas today’s pampered snowflake (not a racial reference, by the way) BLM protests contain a healthy representation from many ethnicities, the same could be said of the colonists’ efforts way back when. 2020’s disgruntled malcontents would be shocked to learn that black soldiers made up a significant percentage of the Continental Army, even with the institution of slavery in practice everywhere at the time. Estimates run as high as one-in-six American fighters was of African descent, and in many cases, they fought for their own freedom.

The Americans forces also included Native Americans (allied tribes waging war independently was the norm), as did the British side. Therefore, white men of European blood fought alongside men of color and natives, too. Just like today!

The similarities seemingly end there, however. It took a long time for 18th century Americans to realize they’d run out of alternatives and the only means left to be free was a war to separate from the Mother Country. Starting with colonies-wide opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765, there were a series of British parliamentary actions (taxes, etc.) and American petitions that failed to bridge the gap between the two viewpoints. At first, the unhappy Americans withheld blame from the king, reasoning that a wayward parliament was behind the callous trampling of their rights. King George III eventually did become the target, but it was years in the making.

BlackLivesMatter, on the other hand, was started less than a decade ago by a small smattering of Marxists who recognized an opportunity to exploit racial divisions and create social havoc. Part organic movement and part community organized leftist activism, BLM is bought and paid for largely by wealthy white liberals such as Nazi-collaborator George Soros, bent on destroying the United States from the inside. Follow the money and you’ll see what it’s all about.

Police forces are at the center of their “movement” even though the vast majority of inner-city cops are under the direct control of elected Democrat legislative bodies, many of which are populated by black or other non-white minorities. The BLM adherents are triggered whenever there’s an incident involving police and a black suspect, deemed all the more outrageous when it’s a white on black encounter due to perceived racism. Because the radicals claim all white cops are inherently racist, even when commanded by black men and women, right?

Meanwhile, leftists completely ignore the presence of black on black crime in poor urban neighborhoods and they aren’t the least bit bothered that nearly three-in-ten abortions involve black babies. That’s an awful lot of lives that apparently didn’t matter enough for leftist mobs to crawl out of their hiding places to march, shout, accuse and threaten. Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy to rise up over the albeit tragic loss of a few black lives but ignore the deaths of millions of others?

Further, back in the eighteenth century, there was no such thing as organized American political parties. Men and women from all regions of the country recognized the diminution of their rights as Englishmen and gathered and protested -- independently through legitimate representative means -- in a non-partisan manner. The adherents of Black Lives Matter almost exclusively support local and national Democrats, and vice versa. Though there are exceptions -- how about Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney matching his fellow protesters stride for stride a few weeks ago!

Conservatives and Republicans support black lives the same as they value all lives, regardless of age, ethnicity, social status, income classification, national origin, political affiliation, etc. Because Black Lives Matter is a radical separatist leftist movement, however, to claim that all lives matter takes focus away from their main aim, to undermine every legitimate institution in the western world (not just in the U.S.).

The colonists were fighting for different things than Black Lives Matter, too. The Declaration of Independence specifies in detail the justifications for leaving Great Britain. To name a few, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them… He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

I counted at least twenty-five motives in all (in the whole document), and the declaration was signed by 56 elected representatives. In other words, the American Revolution wasn’t a piecemeal rebellion brought about by mob rule and perpetrated by participants who probably couldn’t spell “Black Lives Matter” if it weren’t already scribbled for them on a card purchased by George Soros. The American cause was intellectual at its core, not a knee-jerk reaction to events; instead, it was a philosophical break with the ruling class that took time to hone and perfect.

It's almost like a great spaghetti sauce. The Founders’ movement was mixed together with many different ingredients, set on simmer and stirred for hours before anyone even thought about tasting it. In contrast, the current leftist BLM “cult” is like Ragu hastily tossed in a microwave bowl and then poured over undercooked noodles. In contrast to the leftist separatists, the colonists did not want to extinguish history, they copiously studied it -- and learned from it.

What is #BlackLivesMatter about? Probably a number of things, but they seem to center on assaulting the notion of institutional policing. The demands of the miscreants in Seattle’s infamous CHOP (Capitol Hill Occupied Protest) zone are as ridiculous as they are untenable.

According to Wikipedia, “On June 9, a blog post containing a list of 30 demands appeared on Medium, including abolition of the Seattle Police Department and the court system; defunding the SPD and reallocating those funds to community health; banning police use of firearms, batons, riot shields, and chemical agents; immediately releasing prisoners serving time for marijuana-related offenses or resisting arrest, with expungement of their records; mandatory retrials for people of color who are serving sentences for violent crimes; and prison abolition. Other demands included reforming education to increase the focus on black and Native American history; free college; and free public housing. There was reportedly internal debate within the area over how many demands the commune should be putting forward, as some believed that the protests were the start of a larger revolution while others believed police brutality should stay the immediate focus.”

Best of luck getting them to all agree on a defined list. History demonstrates that not all political violence is bad. But if it’s instigated and executed by an emotion-based mob, there can only be ruinous results. The Continental Congress took days/months/years to arrive at a call for Independence. The ink was cold and dry by the time the Founders signed the parchment, too. They weren’t merely shouting behind an iron gate and demanding the leaders remove -- or defund -- themselves.

#BlackLivesMatter ain’t in the same category. Remember this the next time some media idiot equates them with the patriots of the American Revolution.

Historic marker vandals can run but (maybe) they can’t hide

Social media isn’t always beneficial in today’s strangely interconnected world. But if you’re a Black Lives Matter supporter and hope to further the cause by taking down historical statues and markers, you’d better be prepared to face the consequences. Dave Boyer reported at The Washington Times, “President Trump tweeted an FBI ‘wanted’ poster Friday of 15 suspects sought for vandalizing the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square near the White House.

“’MANY people in custody, with many others being sought for Vandalization of Federal Property in Lafayette Park. 10 year prison sentences!’ the president said.

“The FBI’s poster shows photographs of the 15 suspects, 11 of whom were wearing masks. They’re being sought for defacing the statue on June 22, saying the vandalism was a felony.”

After witnessing the hateful destruction of so many of America’s vaunted historic commemoratives, it’s about time somebody spoke up for the eternally silent in this situation. History isn’t always pretty, but it’s instructive. Removing the past doesn’t make it go away and it certainly doesn’t make the present any better.

Let’s hope the feds catch and punish the vandals. They deserve everything they get.

In normal times, Independence Day was something all Americans would honor if not celebrate. But as has been demonstrated a lot recently, there are many in this country who seek to trash and remove the past. We can’t allow them. The proponents of Black Lives Matter are nothing like the Founding Fathers. Now more than ever, we recognize it.

Share this