Menacing White Supremacist Terrorizes Berkeley

The city of Berkeley was on alert. Barriers were erected to stop violent protesters. Bank of America boarded up windows. Police were authorized to use pepper spray if merited. Traumatized UC Berkeley students were offered counseling if needed. A campus crowd chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, white supremacists have got to go.” And a large sign read, “We say no to white supremacist b-s.”

What was causing this disturbance? Why the massive disruption? As tweeted by Tariq Nasheed, “Suspected white supremacist Ben Shapiro, who tries to mask his racist rhetoric by claiming to be jewish, is in Berkeley now #BenAtBerkeley.”

Yes, the well-known, physically intimidating, white supremacist, Ben Shapiro, had invaded the formerly safe confines of Berkeley to deliver a hate-filled, Trump-lauding, neo-Nazi, racist screed that would doubtless lead to an orgy of on-campus violence. Oh, the thought of it! And those poor, terrified students! What did they do to deserve such a fate?

Unfortunately for the radical left, none of this is true – except that Ben Shapiro gave a talk at Berkeley on Thursday night, speaking against “campus thuggery” and violence in political discourse. Everything else in this description is complete fantasy – oh yes, other than that many students were no doubt traumatized by Ben’s presence, having been whipped into hysteria by the lies and propaganda of the radical-left misinformation machine.

To be sure, I enhanced some of the anti-Shapiro rhetoric a little, just to round out the picture. But the substance of it is what many now believe. And that is a scary thought.

A brilliant, articulate, and fair-minded conservative millennial has been turned into a monster by the hate-spewing, violence-inciting left. Who will be next on their list? Who will be the next target of radical-left hysteria? And does this hysteria have even the slightest interest in truth?

For the record, Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jewish, 33-year-old, very-well-accomplished, lawyer, journalist, radio host, and New York Times bestselling author. He’s the editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, and to my knowledge, he has never uttered a racist, white-supremacist syllable in his life. He has been one of Donald Trump’s consistent critics, and he abhors everything neo-Nazis and the alt-right stand for.

But in the realm of radical-left fantasy, articulated so well in the Tariq Nasheed tweet, Ben is a “suspected white supremacist” who “claims” to be Jewish. How nefarious indeed. Not only is he dangerous, but he is deceitful as well, cloaking his racism in a bogus claim to be Jewish.

And people actually believe this drivel, to the point of sparking protests and mass upheaval.

Does it matter that Ben is a constant target of the alt-right? Does it matter that he exposes the bankruptcy of both Antifa and White Supremacists? Does it matter that even a New York Times op-ed spoke up in his defense? And does it matter that he gave a talk at UC Berkeley on April 2016, without major incident? What changed between then and now?

Not Ben Shapiro. Not the facts.

What changed was the atmosphere at Berkeley, an atmosphere charged with hostility, intolerance, and hatred, the vast majority of it coming from the radical left.

Is it true that, across the country, a dangerous spirit of white nationalism is on the rise? Absolutely, and it has helped trigger an equally ugly response from the left (along with a dangerous black nationalism). Again, all of these are ugly and to be denounced.

Is it true that Ben’s rhetoric can sometimes be acerbic, as he ridicules his ideological opponents in strongly derogatory terms? Yes, that is certainly his style, which I do not defend.

But that is not the primary reason he is being attacked. Rather, it is his ideas that pose such a threat – his conservative, sometimes even-biblically inspired ideas. And he is right to expose the “snowflake” mentality of many of our college students today.

How did we reach this extremely low point? How did the older generation fail to prepare the younger generation for handling the challenges of life and the diversity of worldviews? How did we create such a self-centered, “You hurt my feelings!” mindset? How did “tolerance” become so intolerant and “inclusivism” become so exclusive? How did “love” become so hateful?

I took a long hard look at these questions when writing Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation, with chapters including, “Reclaiming Our Schools and Learning How to Think Again” and “Putting an End to the Blame Game and Saying Goodbye to the Entitlement Mentality.”

And as I prayerfully analyzed some of our nation’s biggest problems, problems that cut across generational lines, it became clear that our greatest challenges are not just abortion and pornography and extreme debt and social injustice and family breakdown and compromise in the church. Instead, some of our greatest challenges are internal, many of them traced back to the mindset that, “It’s all about me.”

That’s why the second to last chapter of the book is titled, “The Universe Does Not Revolve Around Me.” And that’s why I also address the culpability of Christian leaders who have fed into this self-exalting mentality by preaching a “What’s in it for me?” gospel message – which is no gospel at all.

Put another way, what we saw at Berkeley last night is just a symptom of a much bigger cultural ill, one that infects both the right and the left. But as I argue in Saving a Sick America, offering specific details and guidelines, the cure for this ill is found in the Bible, in particular, in the words and example of Jesus.

That’s the good news.

The bad news – or should I say, the sobering news – is that the cure is quite radical. How many will dare even try it?

I personally hope that many millions of Americans will make an effort to “taste and see” that God’s ways are best. Yes, the radical, Jesus-based cure to our self-centered, narcissistic mentality is life-giving, liberating, and even culture-transforming.

Can we afford not to fill the prescription?

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEJo7x9y3D4

And, today, my contribution is from John Quincy Adams’ “Jubilee” of the Constitution Address in New York City - April, 1839, an excerpt from which is quoted below:

From time to time , the question arises as to whether this Constitution structured a “democracy” or a “republic.” Many generally understand the difference, but on this day, we might explore that question again—especially for the benefit of our youth.

What if we had an answer on the “democracy/republic” question from an original source who actually lived through the Revolutionary Period? What if that source also provided the Framers’ rationale for the underlying principle and the reason for Benjamin Franklin’s purported response to the question as to what kind of government they had given us. His response, “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

John Adams’ son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.

In 1839, John Quincy was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the “Jubilee” Address (www.lonang.com) honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. After all, he had served in many capacities under that Constitution, including Ambassador, Sec. of State, President, and Congressman. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of “democracy” and “republic” throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:

“Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.

“It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-

“1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.

“2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitled them.

“3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.

“4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.

“5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.

“6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.

“7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.

“8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.

“9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.

“10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.

“11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.

“And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide.”

In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
“But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained.”

______________________ (End of excerpt)

And, finally, an Excerpt from the “Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon” (1886) (of Declaration of Independence) by a Black Ohio Legislator and A.M.E. Bishop Benjamin W. Arnett on “The Greatness of America” - Note that this Sermon is delivered only a few years after the end of the Civil War by this outstanding scholar/legislator/Bishop.

“Let us see what it is that makes us so great; wherein lies our strength. What has made us one of the greatest powers of the earth, politically and intellectually? Have we come to the conclusion that it is Righteousness that exalteth a nation? We have met to-day at the request of the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, and also the Governor of our beloved State, Rutherford B. Hayes. For what? Why call us from our homes? Why come to the house of God? Why not go to the hall of mirth and to the places of amusement to-day? No that is not what they want us to do. We are commanded to go to our ‘several places of worship, and there offer up thanks to Kind Providence which has brought our nation through the scenes of another year, and blessed the land with peace, plenty and prosperity.’ Then as Americans we have reason to rejoice and congratulate ourselves on the greatness of our beloved country; at this the close of the first hundred years of experimental government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To be a citizen of this vast country is something, and to share in its privileges and duties is more than something.” - Dr. Benjamin W. Arnett, 1876 “Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon” - Library of Congress - African-American Section

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.