The Role of Projection in Democrat Politics

Back in the 19th century, famed Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud identified a psychological defense mechanism in human beings that he termed “projection.”

Freud’s concept of projection encompasses the notion that in order to avoid facing uncomfortable feelings about themselves, individuals will impose the same negative characteristics upon another person.

In my assessment, which results from my academic coursework, professional background, and ethics studies, there is another kind of projection that exists, which takes place within the moral realm of human consciousness, one that I term “moral projection.”

Moral projection occurs when an individual experiences feelings of guilt over acts that he or she has committed or omitted. This individual may subsequently find the uncomfortable feelings difficult to confront and/or manage. The conduct, or lack thereof, which evoked the feelings of guilt, also frequently becomes very difficult for an individual to own.

Using the defense mechanism concept, an individual may assign to another individual or group the same attitude and behavior that initially generated his or her own attendant guilt.

In other words, take your blame and pin it on another.

Moral projection has been used extensively by Democrats in their ongoing war against anyone who would get in the way of their agenda du jour. It continues to be wielded as one of their main political and propaganda weapons.

The idea that the concepts of good and evil are mere opinions, which have an elasticity in application that is dependent upon a situation, is often referred to as “moral relativism.”

The infiltration of conceptual moral relativism into our schools has degraded the consciences of generations of students at every educational level.

Simultaneously, it tilled the soil of young minds into fertile fields that were susceptible to the planting of left-wing doctrine. This was one of the ways in which the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our American Republic depends were supplanted.

A significant portion of young people who were infected with the poisonous weeds of moral relativism now endorse the ideas and actions of hate-based radical organizations and violent anti-American groups.

Saul Alinsky, an icon of liberals and leftist extremists, once wrote, “To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.”

The resultant loss of a shared moral sense has enabled and even encouraged the use of political tactics that are devoid of conscience. Moral projection is one of the most blatant.

It is a horrible experience to be accused. For those who adhere to an ethical code, it is what keeps many in check from too freely accusing others.

Here are but a few examples of the moral projection arrows that the Democrats have recently pulled from their quiver and shot at adversaries:

-In order to deflect from the fact that the Democrats and their media allies have for months enabled violence in cities across the country, they falsely claim that the violence was caused by, as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden recently said, “white supremacist groups menacing our communities.”

-In order to distract from candidate Biden’s numerous mental lapses, Democrats publicly accused President Donald Trump of having mental focus issues following his medical treatment for Covid 19.

-Democrats and the complicit media are fomenting fears over whether President Trump will accept the results of the upcoming election, while former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly advises Biden not to do so “under any circumstances” and the campaign hires hundreds of lawyers to go to court to contest election results.

I am not sure where the Democrats and their media cohorts can go to get their consciences back. But I do know where the American people can go to get their country back.

Democrats Lose Their Humanity

Human beings generally have a characteristic response when made aware that a fellow human being, be it a loved one, friend, or stranger, has succumbed to a serious illness or has received an ominous medical diagnosis.

Responses tend to reflect a deep-seated empathy and understanding that are innate in people who maintain a well-balanced psychological, emotional, and spiritual equilibrium. If direct or indirect interaction occurs with a suffering person, encouragement and well-wishes typically flow.

On the other hand, if individuals seem to be indifferent to another’s suffering, in common parlance they are likely to be described as cold, heartless, and/or lacking in compassion. Response to news of another’s misfortunes on the part of these individuals is quite the opposite and may generally fall within the category of psychological dysfunction.

In my assessment, this second description is a wholly appropriate way to characterize the insensitive, uncompassionate, and outright cruel remarks that have been made by several Democrats and their allies in the news media and Hollywood regarding President Donald Trump’s positive COVID-19 test and his subsequent illness.

To put it bluntly, a lack of basic human decency has been on display by many on the left. Since the news first hit that President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 and the president was hospitalized, numerous Democrats and their media mouthpieces actually expressed wishes that the president would depart this life.

“It’s been against my moral identity to tweet this for the past four years, but, I hope he dies,” tweeted Zara Rahim, a former national spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and a staffer in the White House of then-President Barack Obama.

Rahim subsequently ended up deleting the message.

Steve Cox, an Independent congressional candidate running in California’s 39th District, expressed his hope that President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would both die.

The content of statements made by many of President Trump’s political opponents was so heinous Twitter had to issue a warning that the platform would take action against users for tweets that were rooting for the president’s demise. Facebook and other social media platforms followed suit.

Twitter’s announcement was met with immediate criticism from two Democratic congresswomen who are part of a congressional cluster known as “The Squad.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., complained that this policy had not been applied to herself and her colleagues, tweeting the following: “you mean to tell us you could’ve done this the whole time?”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted, “This is messed up. The death threats towards us should have been taking more seriously by [Twitter].”

Twitter vowed to rectify matters.

“We hear the voices who feel that we’re enforcing some policies inconsistently,” Twitter stated in a post. “We agree we must do better, and we are working together inside to do so.”

Meanwhile other Trump-haters went about claiming that the president’s diagnosis was not real.

In a Facebook post, documentary film-maker Michael Moore opined that the president could be lying about having coronavirus as an opportunity “TO PUSH FOR DELAYING/POSTPONING THE ELECTION.”

Moore also used his Twitter account to snidely state, “My thoughts and prayers, too, are with Covid-19.”

At the top of his opening monologue on “Saturday Night Live,” comedian Chris Rock said something similar to Moore.

“President Trump’s in the hospital from COVID, and I just want to say my heart goes out to COVID,” Rock said.

Joy Reid of MSNBC suggested that the president was pretending to be infected so he would be able to “get out of the debates.”

“Here’s how wrecked Trump’s credibility is at this point: I’ve got a cellphone full of texts from people who aren’t sure whether to believe Trump actually has covid,” Reid tweeted.

Other questionable posts by Bette Midler, Patricia Arquette, Kathy Griffin, Rob Reiner, and Michael Rappaport made their way to the social media.

To their credit, Rachel Maddow, Alyssa Milano, Jamie Lee Curtis, and the Biden campaign responded appropriately.

Not so with other high-profile individuals, including a couple of top Democrat political leaders.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hit a new low. She actually blamed the president for getting sick and then tried to soften her comments by tacking on her usual disclaimer: “I’m praying for him.”

And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., carped in a statement that President Trump’s diagnosis is what happens “when you ignore science.”

It is difficult to find words to describe or ways to explain the all-consuming hatred that the left continues to spew out against the president. The 90 percent-plus derogatory coverage he has received from the lopsided media is no doubt a factor.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to hate.

The Democratic Party has spent every day for the past five years devising schemes, first to undermine his candidacy and then to undermine his presidency.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to be distrustful.

The complicit media have name-called, derided, maligned, and outright lied about the president’s person and policies.

Human beings are capable of being programmed to be cynical.

There is a domino effect that can occur when negative emotions are continuously teed up and then given a solid nudge. Discontent can tip into arrogance, arrogance into anger, and anger into vengefulness.

This is the way humanity is lost.

The question is whether Democrats even care.

Democrats Launch Health-Scare Attack on Judge Amy Coney Barrett

It seems as though Democrats have settled on a scheme to undermine the nomination to the Supreme Court of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Apparently already ruled out is a boycott of the hearings by the Democrats. Such a ploy would actually speed up the nomination process, and they look to be hell-bent on doing just the opposite.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his campaign strategists may be coaching Biden’s running mate Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on how to use the proceedings to grab the media spotlight, as was done during the hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently boasted that she and her colleagues have a few “arrows in [their] quiver,” at this point it is unlikely that the Democrats will pursue some of the more off-the-wall options, such as attempting to impeach the president a second time, launching an effort to impeach Attorney General William Barr, or forcing a government shutdown.

It is probable, however, that they will try to delay the proceedings in every way possible. Arcane Senate rules could be employed, as some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have used in the past to gum up the legislative works.

Another delay tactic may be the advancement of a false narrative, suggesting that the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett is somehow illegitimate.

Additionally, the questioning by committee members of Judge Coney Barrett may include an attempt to entrap the nominee into hypothetical predictions about how she might rule in a case that involves one of the more heated topics, such as abortion, discrimination, or immigration.

The primary focus of the Democrats, along with the left-leaning organizations with which they are aligned, has routinely been messaging.

It looks like Democrat leaders have already shown their cards and decided to go the health care route. They are quite experienced in trying to scare the wits out of folks.

Some Democrat strategists are of the opinion that the Democrats were successful in gaining a majority in the House of Representatives during the 2018 mid-term elections by talking about the imminent loss of health care coverage for pre-existing conditions at the hands of the Republicans.

Well they’re at it again. Health care seems to have become the main attack angle with which Democrats are going to try and harm, pump the brakes on, and/or completely halt Judge Coney Barrett’s confirmation.

Specifically, Democrats are using an upcoming case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court shortly after the election, that involves the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a., Obamacare.

In a letter to Senate Democrats, Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., provided some of the details of the sly Dem plan to de-rail Judge Coney Barrett’s nomination.

There will apparently be an attempt to convince Senate Republicans to forestall a vote on the Supreme Court nominee until after the election.

According to Sen. Schumer, in order for this to be accomplished “public pressure on Senate Republicans” must be exerted. Lo and behold, the minority leader surmises that “health care remains the best way to keep the pressure up.”

Sen. Schumer followed his own wily advice and did so with some reckless rhetoric. Here are some of his recent over-the-top statements:

–“By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Trump has once again put Americans’ healthcare in the crosshairs.”

–“A vote for Amy Coney Barrett is a dagger aimed at the heart of the healthcare protections Americans so desperately need and want.”

Democrats themselves have frequently cautioned against the use of language that could potentially prompt on the part of those so inclined hostility and/or aggressive behaviors toward others.

Use of loaded words such as “arrows,” “quiver,” “crosshairs,” “dagger,” and the like evoke an ugly imagery that may oftentimes precede acts of violence.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi focused on “pre-existing conditions,” declaring that Judge Barrett’s “nomination threatens the destruction of life-saving protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions together with every other benefit and protection of the Affordable Care Act.”

Former Vice President Biden’s campaign managed to additionally tie the coronavirus to the nominating process, saying, “If President Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19, like lung scarring and heart damage, could become the next deniable pre-existing condition.”

Regarding another facet of the health care-related scheme, Democrats are zeroing in on a book review by Judge Coney Barrett, written in 2017, in which she agreed with the author of the book that Chief Justice John Robert’s legal reasoning in the 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld Obamacare was faulty.

It is important to point out that the above-referenced was a book review, not a court decision or ruling. She has not opined from the bench about the health care law in her capacity as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

The single passage that Senate Democrats will likely cite from the book review has no predictive value in determining how Judge Coney Barrett would potentially rule on an individual case that has not yet been argued in front of the High Court, including the one that will be heard in November.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Legislation to Ban Ballot Harvesting

Ballot harvesting is a voting related practice that allows paid political operatives to collect an unlimited number of ballots and subsequently deliver them into the hands of election officials.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, recently introduced legislation called The Election Fraud Prevention Act, which if passed would effectively slow down or even put a halt to ballot harvesting.

The legislation could potentially be in effect in time for November’s all-important 2020 presidential election.

When Rep. Gabbard made a run for the Oval Office during the Democratic presidential primaries, the public learned that she was a proud member of the Army National Guard, having served in two Middle East deployments. Currently, she is a major in the Army Reserves.

Rep. Gabbard’s proposed legislation, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-IL, would amend a 2002 act, and if passed would deny certain federal payments to states that permit ballot harvesting.

This type of reform could go a long way in helping to prevent a particularly heinous kind of corruption of the electoral process.

If ballot harvesting remains in place, or worse, if its use becomes widespread across the country, special interest groups that are aligned with a particular candidate or political party may be able to manipulate the results of legitimate elections.

As Rep. Gabbard noted in a statement, “While some states have prohibited vote harvesting, many states lack any regulations that would stop third-parties from fraudulently collecting and mishandling ballots as has occurred in recent elections.”

The bi-partisan bill, if passed, will incentivize states to prevent political parties or outside special interest groups from, in Rep. Gabbard’s words, “interfering with our sacred right to vote.”

The bill would still allow voters in need of assistance to obtain it from household members, relatives, and caregivers, as well as election officials and mail carriers who are acting in an official capacity.

Ballot harvesting is one-half of a voting scheme that Democrats have already used to effect election outcomes. Universal mail-in voting completes the insidious circle.

Both practices involve the use of unreliable and erroneous voter rolls, which are then used to send out ballots that can eventually be picked up by paid harvesters.

Data show serious problems with existing voter rolls. There are 24 million ineligible or inaccurate voter registrations on state voter rolls; this according to the Pew Research Center.

There is also the question of the reliability of the post office in its capacity to promptly, accurately, and effectively deliver the ballots. According to federal election data, during the six years between 2012 and 2018, more than 28 million mail-in ballots went missing.

Ballot harvesting lays out a virtual blueprint for voter fraud.

There is a built-in disregard for the time-honored secret ballot. There are multiple opportunities for ballots to be filled out under untoward influence, duress, and/or even coercion, all at the hands of unaccountable harvesters.

In the event voters happen to be of a different party than their assigned harvesters, it becomes easy for any number of ballots to be collected but never rightfully delivered.

Californians, of which I am one, can recount for all who are willing to listen the shocking scenario of the 2018 mid-term elections.

In 10 congressional races, Republican candidates were the clear election night winners. Then within days, or for some races weeks, the results of all 10 races were reversed, and the Democrat candidates were proclaimed to be the winners. This was the first time ballot harvesting was used in the Golden State, and its reverberations are still being felt.

Ballot harvesting used to be illegal everywhere. In a sign that there’s still hope for our cherished system, the state of Utah has made the practice a crime. And recently a federal judge upheld a Michigan law that disallowed ballot harvesting. A Democrat aligned super PAC, Priorities USA, had filed suit to preserve the corrosive practice.

However, things are different in Nevada, where a new ballot harvesting provision was recently passed along with a universal mail-in voting system.

Every state, including Nevada, had previously prohibited any non-family member from turning in another individual’s absentee or mail ballot. But The Silver State’s Democrat-controlled legislature used a night session and party-line vote to pass a measure that allows a ballot harvester to actually sign ballots on behalf of another.

Nevada’s new legislation also allows vote counting to continue for a period of up to three days after Election Day, giving paid harvesters additional time to go out on a ballot gathering spree.

Nevada’s Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak signed the misguided legislation into law.

Making himself look even worse, Gov. Sisolak summarily rejected a request by Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske that would have required anyone who was collecting and turning in ballots for more than 10 voters to register and provide their contact information.

So go California and Nevada, so goes the nation?

Not if enough people make their voices heard and show support for the legislation that Rep. Gabbard has introduced.

The Church of Woke

skiy9lstr8g83rx5qdlxazqldkahaaf0pdv4htoc_cw

All of us need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are uniquely made, that we are here on this earth for a purpose, and that our lives have transcendent meaning.

If these innate characteristics go unfulfilled, or if life’s trials simply wear us down, our hearts become hardened and our spirits flaccid.

Wittingly or unwittingly, we find ourselves on a quest for the seemingly elusive someone or something that has placed these components deep within us.

We instinctively know that whoever or whatever is the originator of these inner sensibilities is greater than ourselves.

What we are not always cognizant of, though, is the fact that also built into us is the need to bow down to a power that is greater than ourselves.

And bow down we all do.

Like it or not, we all serve somebody. So who do you serve?

Some of us have the peace of always having had the answer to that question. Others have drifted in and out of certainty. And then there are those who don’t think that any of the things described above pertain to them.

But of course they do, as hopefully they will someday be able to recognize in themselves.

At the present time, a newfound spiritual group has assembled together. Members of the group have populated the social media with a creed of sorts, establishing a religion that could aptly be called “The Church of Woke.”

The fledgling church exhibits attributes of religious institutions that have come before it. However, its belief system is antithetical to the time-honored faiths of our country and of the world.

Members of The Church of Woke claim to seek a world in which no inequality exists and everything is paid for without anyone ever having to work. Rather than comparing our nation to other countries, they compare it to the utopia that their religion claims to offer.

The Church of Woke is dead set on disparaging, demeaning, and destroying all things related to traditional religious institutions. It adamantly rejects what it views as archaic absolute standards. Above all else it embraces moral relativism, which has no philosophical leg to stand on. No reasoning allowed, just sheer emotion. According to The Church of Woke, the only way forward is to tear down everything.

Adherents harbor a fierce hatred for America. This is because the notion that our country is the repository of evil has been drilled into their heads. The whole Western World is viewed as having a sinister history, ideology, and political bent. Wrongs are categorized as “systemic” and are therefore incapable of ever being corrected.

The Church of Woke is enlisting new members every day and converting them to the “correct” way of thinking. Services have taken the form of street protests, and prayers, the endlessly repeated worn-out chants of radicals past.

Followers of The Church of Woke consider themselves to be today’s chosen people. No way do they have to follow traditional rules of law. They are completely free to express any degree of hostility toward anyone they wish. They are also allowed to punish anyone who fails to bow to them.

Yes, we all serve somebody. And the reality is, the choice of whom we serve has clearly become a binary one.

The Roots of the Riots

2e7cba03-8187-409e-a46e-af276f2d6b61-large16x9_grandrapids

A peculiar phrase recently became a trending topic on Twitter. Its words read as follows: “Attack and Dethrone God.”

These same words were displayed on a graphic during a segment that had previously aired on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle.”

Language contained in the graphic was intended to be a backdrop for a guest of host Laura Ingraham named Terrie Turchie, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.

Turchie was discussing ideas that had once been fostered by a violence-based group from our nation’s past, the Weather Underground.

In his appearance, Turchie drew parallels between the recent rioting and mayhem that plagued urban areas across America and the insidious activities in which the notorious 1960s group had engaged.

As Turchie noted, in the wake of its efforts the Weather Underground had left an intriguing package behind, which took the form of a book-length manifesto.

If all went according to a warped wish list, the manifesto would be adopted as a blueprint for future like-minded radicals to use. Its title, “Prairie Fire.”

“They had a major goal, and that goal was to form a communist revolution,” Turchie stated.

Authors of “Prairie Fire,” which include the familiar subversive names of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, referenced the goal of bringing down the United States government.

“We are a guerrilla organization,” the authors wrote. “We are communist women and men.”

As the Fox guest distilled six strategies that the Weather Underground had laid out in its manifesto, a graphic appeared on the screen with the following objectives listed:

–Destroy Capitalism

–The Weapon of Choice – Systemic Racism and Police Racism

–Identify the Victim Classes

–Organize the Victim Classes

–Engage in International Solidarity with the Global Movement

–Attack and Dethrone God.

The resemblance to the rhetoric used by today’s activist organizations and their allies is, to say the least, highly disturbing.

Back in the day, the Weather Underground used a benign-sounding term to summarize its approach. It turns out to be the same not so benign-sounding term now that leftist activists have been using since President Donald Trump was elected—resistance.

Following Turchie’s appearance, trolls on Twitter took to the internet speedway. The many salient points that Ingraham and Turchie had made were ignored altogether. However, the last phrase that Turchie cited would trigger the dropping of an anvil of snarky social media hate. It dared to mention the Creator of the Universe.

Some in the antagonistic media slid down the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole of fact checking, going on to dismiss the anti-religion phrase and muttering about how the words on the graphic were not actually in the Weather Underground document, at least not those identical words.

For those who are still able to peer into the non-flipped side of the looking glass, the similarities between the Weather Underground and the Antifa movement are striking. This was observed by heralded scholar of the left Noam Chomsky, who happens to be one of the few “progressive” voices who has warned about Antifa.

Back in 2017, Chomsky described Antifa to the Washington Examiner as “a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were.” He also described the group as “a major gift to the Right.”

Chomsky additionally said, “What they do is often wrong in principle…and is generally self-destructive.”

“There’s some limited similarity to the Weather Underground,” Chomsky noted, pointing out that the historical context was different and implying that Antifa was more prone to harming people than the “Weathermen,” who committed their acts “almost always against property, in intent at least.”

There are other things about the two groups that appear to be markedly similar. Both seem to view themselves as possessing the purity of true communist revolutionary beliefs. Both advocate violence, particularly against law enforcement. And both embrace a communist worldview, which requires a fundamental presupposition of a materialistic conception of history, making religion antithetical to communist thought.

Marxist theorist Leon Trotsky wrote, “Religiousness is irreconcilable with the Marxian standpoint.”

Communist co-creator Vladimir Lenin similarly cited atheism as “an inseparable element of the materialist view of life…a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist.”

Founder of communism Karl Marx infamously dismissed religion as “the opium of the people” and argued that religion prevents a better communist existence from becoming reality.

The attempt to Dethrone God has been part and parcel of communism from its inception. Atrocities that have been committed against religious people and institutions reflect the hatred for all things relating to the Almighty.

But thankfully, people who have the gift of knowledge that flows from the Spirit know the truth.

No one can ever take the throne from the King of the World.

Woodstock: From Liberty to Lockdown

original

Said, I’m going down to Yasgur’s Farm, Gonna join in a rock and roll band, Got to get back to the land and set my soul free…”

The year was 1969. A music festival would set up shop on a rural farm in Bethel, New York. The event would become legendary in stature. But it would also become a signpost of a dramatic change that was about to occur in the American culture, and the displacement of a worldview that had been the foundation of our society for centuries.

The festival would ultimately draw a crowd of more than 400,000 people. The music would play for three days amid births, deaths, and some undesirable elements of nature. Miraculously, peace would hold and love would prevail, despite the numbers that gathered.

The lyrics cited above and below are from a tune written by Joni Mitchell and recorded by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. The song generated a solid hit for both the songwriter and the group. Predictably, an anthem was born for part of a generation that would fall in love with leftist ideology.

These would be the folks who would grow up thinking that they were thoroughly “progressive-minded.” They would have families of their own, but they would raise their children much differently than parents of past generations had, both in manner and substance.

They would also take over the reins of power in all of the institutions that make up the pillars of a once-envied society—educational, political, medical, legal, and religious.

And maybe it’s the time of year, Yes and maybe it’s the time of man, And I don’t know who I am, But life is for learning…”

A gigantic experiment was taking place without much of society’s knowledge or willingness. The counterculture of the 1960s was rebellious in nature, longing to be supposedly unshackled from traditional modes of authority, while still seeking an ideal new interpretation of “The American Dream.”

Something went terribly wrong, though.

It seems as if it would take an eternity to try and figure out what has actually occurred over these past decades as the result of an aggressive segment bulldozing an unassuming one. Time is a luxury we can ill afford, so for now the puzzle pieces will have to remain scattered.

An article dealing with Woodstock recently triggered a number of media outlets. The article about the iconic rock festival, titled “Woodstock occurred in the middle of a pandemic,” was published by the American Institute for Economic Research and written by Jeffrey Tucker.

As the article’s title indicates, the gist is that a very well attended, seminal rock festival took place smack in the middle of the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu pandemic.

According to the CDC, the Hong Kong flu was estimated to have caused 1 million deaths globally and 100,000 in the United States. Symptoms included coughing, fever, and shortness of breath. Most of the victims of the illness were over 65 years of age and had additional underlying medical conditions.

The government monitored the outbreak. People washed their hands and sought medical attention if they were ill. There were no masks, no lockdowns, no stay-at-home orders, and no prisoners released from jail. The press for the most part ignored the whole thing.

As for social distancing, Tucker wrote that the entire notion of using social distancing and public lockdowns is a relatively new one. The first time it came up was in a 2006 study by scientist Robert J. Glass, who got the idea from his teenage daughter’s science project. Two doctors who were working in the Bush administration suggested that government-enforced social distancing should be used in the next pandemic.

Tucker’s Woodstock article was not received well by the dominant media, likely because its content is at odds with the narrative that is being spun by a majority of the elite.

Reuters news service, which had initially classified Tucker’s article as True, apparently felt the need to fact-check itself. The news service downgraded its rating to Partially True and then downgraded its designation a third time to Misleading.

Reuters claimed that the pandemic came in two waves, and Woodstock took place in between the two waves, so therefore the rock festival did not take place “during” the pandemic.

Interestingly, Woodstock’s organizer Michael Lang was aware of the danger of the pandemic. He was quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in August of 1969, specifically stating that a medical team was brought into the festival in the event an outbreak occurred. This came to light thanks to economic and political historian Phil Magness’s Twitter account.

Magness also revealed that the Altamont Speedway festival, or as it was known at the time, the “Woodstock of the West,” was held in December 1969, almost exactly when the second wave of the Hong Kong flu outbreak was peaking.

It is literally shocking that leftists of today who espouse the philosophical worldview of the 1960s are the same individuals who are now utilizing authoritarian tactics to strip away freedoms and stifle expression.

Ironically, they have become everything they never wanted to be.

We are stardust, we are golden, We are caught in the devil’s bargain, And we got to get ourselves back to the garden…”