INTO THE FRAY Biden—The first frightful month

AuthorDr. Martin Sherman
Publication Date01 Mar 2021
Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. – President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

These are among the darkest days of American democracy. With nearly airtight totalitarian uniformity, the American media robotically repeats that there is no possible argument to be made that the 2020 presidential election produced an unjust result-- "Democrats Cling Desperately to Trump Hatred, January 14, 2021.

The following extensive—but far from exhaustive—critique of the first month of the Biden presidency comprises the following paragraphs:

1. Implausible but not impossible

2. Espousing Black supremacy…

3. Confirming & commending anti-Semitism as "indisputably fact-based"

4. Inverting MLK's "I have a dream": Prioritizing color over character?

5. Iran: Ominous omens

6. Iran: Determined to duplicate disaster

7. "Palestine": Perturbing predilections

8. Storm clouds on the horizon?

9. "Falesteen" and the Foggy Bottom folks

10.Ushering in 1984 and "Newspeak"

11."Big Brother is watching you"

12."…police state with KGB-style surveillance"?

13.Militarizing the capital; politicizing the military?

14.Militarizing & politicizing (cont.)

15.Un-American bigotry

16.Egregious executive edicts-- Blurring biology & bigotry

17.Egregious executive edicts—Making America dependent again

18.Egregious executive edicts—Making America Mexico?

19.Biden: The unavoidable outcome

The deed is done! The inauguration of Joseph R. Biden as the 46th President of the United States is now a fait accompli. Indeed, for just over one—ill-omened—month he has now been in office.

Despite this—and the drive to de-legitimize doubt or dissent—the controversy as to the authenticity of the election results and the legitimacy of their outcome refuse to subside.

Implausible but not impossible

Of course, it is not totally beyond the realms of possibility that an insipid challenger and his unpopular running mate amassed almost 83 million votes, outstripping the previous record popular vote cast for the far more vibrant Barack Obama in 2008 by around 12 million votes.

Likewise, it is not entirely impossible that an incumbent president, who:

* oversaw a remarkable economic recovery;

* achieved record low unemployment rates including for ethnic minorities and women;

* provided for the exceptionally swift production of a vaccination for the COVID-19 pandemic—within a time frame initially considered unrealistically short;

* built up the US armed forces without entangling the nation in any further foreign military campaigns; and;

* extended his overall electoral support by over 10% and 7 million votes to attain a popular vote higher than any previous incumbent;

was ousted from office by a lethargic, lackluster opponent and his low profile, evasive and non-committal campaign—after two distinctly unsuccessful attempts (in 1988 and 2008) to win the nomination as his party's presidential candidate.

But even those who believe that Biden won the election "fair and square" without the aid of "underhand" shenanigans, should be able to understand why so many feel that a Biden-Harris victory—especially by such a wide margin—is to, say the least, highly implausible.

A pro-Biden "thumb on the scales"

Adding to the sense that Biden's victory was aided by a heavy "thumb on the scales", was the blatant collusion by major social network firms and mainstream media to refrain from reporting on potentially pertinent negative information on Biden, his family, and their shady business activities with America's chief geostrategic rivals—and thus prevented it from reaching voters before they cast their ballots.

Significantly, The Media Research Center (MRC), a media watchdog group, conducted a survey in seven swing states. It found 1 in 6, or almost 17% of those who voted for Joe Biden would have changed their vote had they known about the events which the national media and social network companies decided not to cover.

But no matter how gullible or skeptical over the electoral outcome one might happen to be, the die has now been cast. The ominous trajectory for the American people—and for much of the world—has been set.

Once again, the perilous pitfalls of political correctness will seize center stage on government policy—both within the American homeland and beyond—and weigh heavily on the American people and on US allies. All we can do for the moment is to brace for their impending impact.

While many may try to find solace in some of Biden's appointments of several bland Obama retreads for senior positions in his administration, a glance at some of his other picks tells a different story altogether—as do the executive orders he hurriedly signed immediately following his inauguration.

Espousing Black supremacy…

Indeed, an ominous omen of things to come was Biden's appointment of Kristen Clarke as head the powerful Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, responsible for enforcing federal statutes that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin.

As was recently revealed, when at Harvard, Clarke espoused—somewhat incongruously given her new appointment—a blatantly racist credo invoking a biochemical claim for…Black supremacy.

In her capacity as the president of the Black Students Association, Clarke wrote a letter to The Harvard Crimson to explain her views on race science: "Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic]."

She continued: "One: Dr Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the 'locus coeruleus,' which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

"Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic].

"Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin -- that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

"Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites [sic].

"Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

Confirming & commending anti-Semitism as "indisputably fact-based"

A few weeks later, Clarke invited the well-known anti-Semite, Tony Martin, to speak on campus. Martin, then a professor at Wellesley College, was the author of a self-published manifesto called "The Jewish Onslaught." In it, Martin chronicled the "escalating Jewish onslaught" against Black people.

In his talk, he attacked both Jews and Judaism as a religion and denounced Jews as the earliest racists in recorded history. He referred to a Jewish student group as "the campus-based shock troops in the ongoing Jewish onslaught against black progress", alleging that Jews dominated the slave trade and controlled the mass media.

During the controversy provoked by the speech, an unapologetic Clarke warmly commended Martin, telling the "Crimson": "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact."—thus suggesting that his incandescent anti-Semitism was likewise indisputably fact-based.

Martin, who died in 2013, spent his final years on the Holocaust-denial circuit, lecturing to like-minded organizations on topics such as "tactics of organized Jewry in suppressing free speech."

For those who might feel that it is unfair to rake up positions articulated by Clarke as a Harvard student, it should be noted that her race-dominated views appear to have endured decades later. Indeed, in a 2018 television interview, Clarke, then the president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, essentially insisted that ability, aptitude and acumen were less important than "diversity" in determining who should be employed—even in positions where lives may depend on the manner in which the job is discharged.

Inverting MLK's "I have a dream": Prioritizing color over character?

Astonishingly—or perhaps not—when asked about whether airline pilots or surgeons should be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT