The Enemy Within

EXCLUSIVE – Terrorism Expert: H.R. McMaster is Endangering U.S. National Security

AARON KLEIN

BREITBART

“We find it hard to understand how someone who clearly has animus toward Israel, who supports the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, who opposes calling out radical Islamist terrorists, who fires Trump loyalists and supporters of Israel and opponents of Iran, who hires those opposed to President Trump’s policies especially on Israel and Iran, who refused to acknowledge that the Western Wall is in Israel, who opposes Israeli counterterrorism measures, and who shuts down joint U.S. counterterrorism programs that are of enormous value to U.S. security, can faithfully serve President Trump as top national security advisor. President Trump made it crystal clear, both before and since his election, that supporting Israel and the U.S.-Israel alliance, abrogating or at least vigorously enforcing the Iran deal while calling out and sanctioning Iran’s violations, confronting radical Islamist terrorism, and draining the Washington swamp were key, distinguishing policies of his administration.”

Click here for the story…

Liberals are easy to spot; their beliefs, policies and actions always run counter to the best interests of America. – The Liberator

Hypocrisy at Charlottesville

ABRAHAM H. MILLER

AMERICAN SPECTATOR

The brutal events in Charlottesville not only reveal a national tragedy but also a national hypocrisy.

We do not have to agree with what the Nazis and white nationalists stand for to defend their constitutional right to assemble and speak. The courts have long ruled that even hate speech is protected speech.

Had there been no counter demonstration and media spotlight, a few hundred racists would have gathered in Charlottesville and had no impact on the national conversation.

Instead, they were met by the ongoing violence of the Antifa and the hate group Black Lives Matter and a police force that stood down, just as the campus police  did when the Antifa attacked people at the University of California, Berkeley.

When James Alex Fields, a twenty-year-old from Ohio, used his car to maul people, he was immediately tagged as a white nationalist and the mainstream media quickly indicted all white nationalists for the vehicular assault.

Yet, when Muslims, who created the vehicular intifada, run down people, the same media immediately cautions us, as it should, not to indict all Muslims.

From what little we know about James Fields, he was allegedly infatuated with the Third Reich, and he was probably discharged from the Army because of mental illness. The two are not unrelated. American Vanguard claims he was never a member of its group.

If we should not indict all Muslims for the actions of the few and the deranged, should we indict all white nationalists for the actions of James Fields?

In the aftermath of Muslim-launched terrorism, the mainstream media expresses concern about a backlash that will harm innocent Muslims. Yet, no similar concern was voiced for the far-right demonstrators in Charlottesville that were not engaged in violence.

And as it is with every major news story, it soon became a story about President Trump, just as his tough words about North Korea overshadowed the actual threat from its dictator, Kim Jong Un, who appears to be a modern version of the psychopathic Joseph Stalin. President Trump was excoriated because he initially condemned all violence in Charlottesville and did not focus on the right.

MoveOn.org launched a petition calling on the president to condemn the far right, but not Black Lives Matter or the Antifa.

Violence from the right is bad, but violence from the left is acceptable?

It did not take long for President Trump to be blamed for the violence in Charlottesville. Yet, President Trump did not invite white nationalists to the White House and give them legitimacy as President Obama did with Black Lives Matter. President Obama’s equating attacks on the police with police brutality certainly provided a justification, if not a motivation, for these attacks.

No one in their right mind will blame the victims of Charlottesville for what happened to them, but in the aftermath of Islamist violence, it is quite common to blame the victims. In the aftermath of 9/11, far too many of my university colleagues blamed “our foreign policy.”

No responsible commentator will say that the manifestations of white hatred, as in the indoctrination of “white privilege,” so evident on our campuses and in our media, are the causes of death and injury at Charlottesville. To do so gives legitimacy, if not license, to violence. It would follow the left’s orientation of blaming the victim when it suits its agenda.

Charlottesville is a university town, and the University of Virginia, like most universities, is constantly looking for justifications for banning speech from the right. Invariably, it will focus on these events to ban the alt-right, but as we know all too well, the definition of alt-right will become more and more fluid and will be used to censor anyone that the campus left finds at variance with its ideology.

This hypocrisy characterizes the tragic events of Charlottesville.

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati.

Barack Obama did more to divide America than any US president in history. Charlottesville is just another example of the “hate America” radical Left’s attempts to dismantle America and rebuild it into their vision of a Utopian paradise where everyone is forced to believe as they do. – The Liberator

Redskins Drop Offensive Name

The Washington Redskins finally agreed to drop the offensive name:  Dan Snyder, owner of the NFL Redskins, announced today that the team is dropping “Washington” from the team name, and it will henceforth be simply known as “The Redskins.” 

It was reported that he finds the word Washington imparts a negative image of poor leadership, mismanagement, corruption, cheating, lying, and graft, and is not a fitting role-model for young fans of football.

Smoke and Fire

By Howard Kunstler

Cue the corn pone Nazis. Enter, stage left. Well, what did you expect?

With the various authorities in this culture incessantly applying “white privilege” noogies to the public’s skull, sooner or later they were sure to provoke a lizard-brain response from the more limbic-oriented low orders of honkeydom. Of course, you couldn’t stage-manage a more stupidly arrant provocative act in the State of Virginia, guaranteed to bring out the raging yahoos, than threatening to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee.

There’s a depressingly tragic overtone to this whole affair that suggests the arc of history itself is driving this story — a dark animus in the national soul struggling to resolve its contradictions. And the Charlottesville incident, which left a woman dead and many others badly injured from a car-ramming, has the flavor of a “first shot” in a new civil war.

The echo civil rights campaign of the moment — a strange brew of Black Lives Matter, “Antifa” (anti-fascist), latest-wave feminism, illegal immigrant sanctuary politics, and LGBTQQ agitation — emanates from the college campuses and creeps through the culture-at-large like a miasma, poisoning group against group, in an orgy of victimization claims of the sort that inevitably lead to violence. This is how tribal and religious wars start in primitive societies.

There is also a funk of phoniness about this campaign that should alert the higher centers of judgment in the brain. The Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, MO, that kicked off the BLM movement was never a convincing case of injustice, but has been widely regarded as if it was, despite state and federal inquiries (under Obama’s DOJ), that concluded otherwise. The figment of “white privilege” is not responsible for the extraordinary black-on-black homicide rates in Chicago and Baltimore or the black teen flash mobs in malls around the country. What is suspiciously at the bottom of it all is the spectacular failure of the original civil rights campaign of the 1960s to alter the structures of poverty in black America, as well as the grinding guilt among white Democratic Progressives over the failures of their own well-intentioned policies — converted perversely into racial self-flagellation.

The latest iteration of feminism comes out of campuses that have been largely taken over by female Boomer pedagogues, especially the non-STEM departments, and is now fait accompli, so that the grievances still pouring out seem manufactured and hysterical. It also has a strong odor of simple misandry, and the whole package of ideology is wrapped in impenetrable grad school jargon designed to give it an intellectual sheen that is unearned and dishonest. The grim fact is that sooner or later even some intelligent men might notice this, and get pissed off about it.

The “Antifa” movement would be funny if it wasn’t itself prone to violence, since it espouses exactly the same kind of despotism against free thought that it pretends to fight against. It wants to shut down and stamp out debate in the public arena and trample over principles that make it uncomfortable, for instance, the First Amendment asserting the right to free speech. It makes a mockery of the battle cry for “diversity” (diversity only for Antifa-approved ideas). That so many current college students subscribe to the movement ought to make thoughtful people very uneasy about the politics of the coming generation. In their black battle garb and masks, they resemble the very fascist mobs of the 1930s that the name “Antifa” supposedly evokes as its enemy.

The illegal immigrant sanctuary movement is just plain insane, starting with the refusal by officials to even make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. There is every reason to think that mayors of “sanctuary cities” and administrators on “sanctuary campuses” should be prosecuted under federal law. It has reached such a pitch in California, where state college deans are shepherding “undocumented” students into special programs, that they are sure to provoke the cutoff of funds and perhaps the destruction of their own institutions. The movement is the very essence of lawlessness and a disgrace to the supposedly thinking class.

The LGBTQQ movement, an offshoot of Feminism 3.0, seeks to erase biology itself as applied to human mammalian sexuality, at the same time that it wants to create new special social and political entitlements — based on various categories of sexual desire that they insist are biologically-driven, such as the urge of a man to equip himself via surgery to behave like a woman. The movement has now gone so far as to try to shame people who place themselves in the original biological categories (“cis-gender,” another grad school metaphysical jargon clot), and especially heterosexual men. Everybody else gets brownie points for being “cutting edge.” One really has to wonder how long this nonsense goes on before it provokes a reaction among the biology-literate.

If we’re entering a new civil war, don’t make the mistake of thinking that it is the product solely of extreme right-wing yahooism. These Nazi and KKK bozos are rising up because the thinking-enabled people of the center have been too cowardly to stand up against the rising tide of idiocy festering at both ends of the spectrum, and particularly on the Left with its direct wiring to the policy-making centers of American life, dictating how people must think and act, and what they should care about.

What we can’t really tell yet is whether these battles will remain joined and even escalate after the financial clusterfuck that the nation is sleepwalking into, or if the financial crisis will overwhelm them like a tsunami and leave all the stupid, tattered battle flags washed up on a lonely beach.

Self-loathing liberals spend every waking moment pointing fingers of blame at every single group that dares disagree with them and are then shocked when attacked for their blamestorming. – The Liberator

Inside the Progressive Mind

By N. A. Halkides

The Progressive believes in precisely two things:  his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force.  In combination, they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal dictator.  Where the productive man dreams of the things he might create if only left alone by his fellows, the Progressive dreams of the world he could create if only the lives and property of his fellows were at his disposal.  The roots of his pathology lie in that oldest and most destructive of all human vices, the desire for the power to rule over other men.

As naked power-lust is a rather ugly motive, the Progressive rationalizes his desire to rule as a concern for human welfare, seeing himself as a great humanitarian, far superior morally to the lesser beings who pursue merely “materialist” ends such as their own prosperity and who frequently object to his program for achieving Utopia.  This assumed moral superiority spills over into fields of practical accomplishment, and the Progressive imagines himself capable of allocating resources and even directing entire industries far more efficiently than a free market, often despite not even having any business or scientific experience.  But despite what the Progressive believes about himself, the desire to compel others to obey his orders is what drives him forward.  To satisfy this desire, there is ultimately no limit to what actions he will take, for he respects none of the restrictions on government officials intended to guarantee individual freedom that have been developed and set forth in written or unwritten constitutions.

It is easy to make the mistake of judging Progressivism by its earlier and less-severe manifestations and to conclude that its petty and paternalistic restrictions, for example New York Mayor Michael “The Nanny” Bloomberg’s recent crusade against large-size soda drinks, are simply bothersome annoyances.  In fact the transformation from irritating but superficially benevolent nanny to ruthless dictator not only occurs rather quickly, it is a logical consequence of the Progressive’s zeal to usher in Utopia and of the means he must use to achieve the smallest of his goals – brute force.  We should recognize the following principle:  Once the Progressive is permitted to intrude however slightly into matters that are properly beyond the sphere of government, then all aspects of the individual’s life may be subjected to control.  Once any degree of coercion is permitted, then no level of force is out of bounds.

Let us see how this principle applies to the Bloomberg soda ban.  First, if the government has an interest in regulating the individual’s behavior in the name of assuring his health, no private decision the individual makes which could affect his health is beyond its power to control.  (If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the “broccoli” argument that was raised in the court challenge of Obamacare by twenty-six states).  Second, since the government is to be permitted to use force to override the individual’s will, then it may use as much force as necessary to compel his obedience.  The punishment of merchants who refused to obey the Bloomberg ban was to be a $200 fine, which on the surface would probably not be thought of as extreme.  Note, however that this fine would probably have been sufficient to cause most restaurants to toe the line, and if it had proved inadequate there is no reason to believe Bloomberg would not have increased it to the point that no one would risk violating his edict.

If Bloomberg’s soda ban had been upheld (it was set aside by a judge during a rare moment when sanity prevailed in New York), the city could then have logically gone on to fine obese individuals or incarcerate them in “fat farms” where they would be forced to reduce, since nothing in principle would prevent this, and only the degree of public resistance might stand in the way of the ambitious politician determined to bring about these “superior health outcomes” – to use the modern technocrat’s jargon.  What specifically the Progressive attempts to control depends on his personal inclinations and just how far he senses he can push the general public.  Any weakness or lack of determination by the average citizen in resisting the nascent tyrant encourages him to push even further, whereas a determined resistance will often convince him to micro-manage some other aspect of our lives until a more propitious moment arrives to advance his original plan.  But in no case is the Progressive held back by any trace of self-restraint.

Now, packing unwilling citizens off to fat farms is only an example of how the Progressive might begin to move from “soft” to “hard” tyranny.  Do we have any examples in contemporary American politics in which Progressives have actually attempted something this obnoxious to personal liberty?  Consider the following characteristics of a “hard” tyranny such as Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union, or Communist China today:

[1] Press Censorship – all media state controlled and opinions of which the government does not approve become punishable offenses.

[2] Complete Gun Control – only agents of the state are permitted to possess arms.

[3] One-Party Rule – this means an enforced hegemony, where if opposition parties are permitted to exist at all they are placed at such an extreme disadvantage they cannot truly challenge the ruling party.

[4] Control of the Nation’s Economy.

Let’s take these four one at a time and see what, if anything, Progressives have attempted along those specific lines.

[1] Press Censorship – in 2012, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats proposed gutting the First Amendment by removing its protections from citizens who band together to form corporations. This means that while an individual citizen might still literally get on his soap box and attack the government, publishers of newspapers, magazines, books, and web sites could be shut down by the ruling party.

[2] Complete Gun Control – while some of the more radical Progressives within the Democrat Party openly call for complete confiscation (New York Governor Andrew Cuomo considered the possibility in the run-up to the State’s infamous SAFE Act), most recognize the political danger that such a stand would put them in, and therefore advocate what they soothingly refer to as “common-sense” regulations meant to get us to the point of confiscation in slow and easy steps.  For example, Barack Obama pretends to believe in the 2nd Amendment, although we may well doubt that his views have changed from his days as an adjunct lecturer at the University of Chicago where he told John Lott that he didn’t believe Americans should be able to own guns.  Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.

[3] One-Party Rule – Progressive Democrats have not moved to officially ban other political parties, but the fact that in many cities and states Republicans can no longer win control of either the legislative or executive branches of government under any foreseeable circumstances is extremely troubling.  A full analysis would be too lengthy to present here, but it appears that in at least some of these places, Democrats have secured a permanent governing majority in every election by means of special favors and income redistribution.  Republicans cannot match Democrats there except by playing the same game and in effect becoming Democrats themselves.  Under such conditions, there is no need to officially ban the GOP.

[4] Control of the Nation’s Economy – the purpose of Obamacare was plainly to take control of one-sixth of the nation’s economy rather than improve health care or health insurance.  The other major bill the Democrats passed when they had the chance early in Obama’s first term was Dodd-Frank, which increased the Federal Government’s control of the financial sector to a degree unprecedented in our nation’s history.  Given the opportunity, there can be little doubt that Progressive Democrats would bring additional areas of the economy under the control of the government.

Let me reiterate that once government is permitted to use force at all in a given matter, any degree of force is allowed.  Bloomberg’s $200 “big gulp” fine, as noted earlier, may not seem draconian, but turning an innocent citizen into a felon for merely possessing a standard-size gun magazine certainly does.   We can only guess at what penalties Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Progressives would have imposed on those bold enough to criticize them had they been successful at sweeping away the First Amendment, but as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (an earlier attempt to limit free speech) provided for both fines and imprisonment, it is safe to say those penalties would have been quite heavy enough, and that inside every Progressive beats the heart of a true fascist.  And what is perhaps most frightening of all is that in the age of Obama, they’re not even trying very hard to hide it any more.

Silicon Valley’s Libertarian Paradise Lost

DANIEL J. FLYNN