Repealing the American Revolution

As Americans celebrate the 248th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is startling to realize that progressives, an influential political grouping that dominates the Democratic Party, Hollywood, most of the media, and even education, would have sided more with King George III rather than George Washington.

Their attitude towards the Revolution, its beliefs and even its symbols which brought about the greatest advance in human freedom in history, is disdainful. They have rejected the concept of individual rights, preferring that edicts from unelected bureaucrats from federal agencies take precedence over most aspects of our daily lives. They believe that expressions of beliefs should be subjected to partisan officials who will determine what is and is not “disinformation,” really just a code word for censorship. They believe that the right of self-defense, so valiantly displayed at the fields at Lexington and Concord where the Revolution began, should be repealed.

Today, the battlefields are in stores and streets, where innocent civilians and store owners get in more trouble for defending themselves from robbers and rapists than the criminals perpetuating heinous acts.

They reject the basic attributes of Independence itself. They endorse the concept that international treaties have more weight than the Bill of Rights. The open borders so vehemently commenced by President Biden in violation of existing laws, is really a rejection of American sovereignty itself. Their belief that the U.S. must provide for the world population is really a statement that American citizenship is an illusion. Throughout the nation, the stunning cost of feeding, housing, medicating, and educating illegals have bankrupted cities, sharply diminished services and public safety, and ejected American veterans from homeless shelters, and American children from parks.

In a number progressive jurisdictions, moves are being made to grant noncitizens the right to vote, the ultimate rejection of American nationhood.

The heroes of the Revolution are under constant attack. Just one example: The New York City Council’s statue of Thomas Jefferson was removed, a decision made by the municipality’s Public Design Commission at the urging of progressives.

The symbols of the Revolution are under no less assault. President Obama demanded that the Famous “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, a symbol of defiance by the colonists against foreign domination, be removed from Naval vessels. In recent days, another Revolutionary war banner, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, was removed from the San Francisco Civic Center Plaza. According to National Review, the banner dates “back to 1775 [and] was flown on George Washington’s ships during the Revolutionary War. It was formally adopted for the Massachusetts navy’s use a year later.

In some American schools, Marxist screeds such as Howard Zin’s text on American History and the “1619 Project” have been placed in curriculum, ignoring or downplaying objective texts on the Revolution. Historian Larry Schweikart argues that many history textbooks now employed by progressive educators distort Revolutionary war history to push a progressive agenda. He argues that as a result, students graduate from high schools with “twisted beliefs” about America’s origin and the foundations of the Republic.

The concept of a nation founded on the principle of individual rights was a startling change in the course of the human story. Monarchs, emperors, dictators, military strongmen and more had been the norm. Only a few times had only a very limited version of individual rights even been tried. The American Revolution changed that to a stunning degree. As the progressive philosophy of collectivism over personal freedom gains greater influence, the guiding philosophy of personal rights that the Revolution succeeded in achieving becomes a target.

Once more, the American people have to decide on American Independence.

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

War, Diplomacy and Human Relations

Have humans become less or more “tribal” in recent years? What are the implications for war, peace, and diplomacy? Watch our discussion with Professor John M. Ellis, author of “A Short history of Relations Between Peoples.” The stay tuned for a fascinating debate on the Ukraine crisis with Douglas Ernest, author of The Spirit of a True Patriot: The Inspiring story of Ret. Captain Douglas Ernest.” If you missed the program on your local station, watch it here: https://rumble.com/v5reraw-the-american-political-zone-november-19-2024.html