Month: January 2018

A Brief History of the Fake News Media


For far too long, I was convinced that the media were, on the whole, reliable purveyors of the news. For nearly three years I freelanced happily at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Music and Public Affairs, never suspecting that the Mothercorp was a hive of Liberal propaganda and an artesian fount of scandalously disingenuous broadcasting. It took 9/11 and the generally extenuating media reports over time, faulting the U.S. and exempting Islam, to shake up my thinking and turn me into a sceptical fact-finder.

The media are especially adept at creating villains out of whole cloth for public consumption to advance a particular and often dubious purpose. How else explain the transformation of significant political figures into synonyms for perfidy and opprobrium. I’m thinking in particular of Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Enoch Powell, all of whom considered themselves patriots and enunciated unpopular or anti-establishment truths, costing them their reputations both in their lifetimes and for posterity.

As Diana West writes of McCarthy, “after more than 60 years of ‘McCarthyism’—the perpetual slander of Joseph McCarthy as a ‘witch-hunter,’ as opposed to an honest accounting of this fearless investigator of deep and widespread infiltration of the US government by Stalin’s secret agents…Americans have been conditioned to…hate, loathe and revile McCarthy…The slander of ‘McCarthyism,’…has had the dire effect of bludgeoning our abilities to detect or even acknowledge the existence of any constitutional enemies, especially ‘domestic.’ ”

Favorable commentators will admit that McCarthy may have been guilty of exaggerations and errors, but as the Venona transcripts have verified, he was right overall. He may have manifested as vindictive, yet he was remorseless in his campaign to isolate Communist sympathizers in government circles who worked to subvert the country. This, of course, made him anathema to a treasonous press and a political establishment that had much to hide, whether their complicity or their negligence.

Barry Goldwater has fared no better. When asked in a July 9, 1964 interview in Der Spiegel about his advocating the use of nuclear weapons to defoliate the jungles in Vietnam, Goldwater replied “About a month‐and‐a­ half ago on a television show I was asked a technical ques­tion, how could you get at the trails through the rain forests of North Vietnam. Well, I served in the rain forests of Burma and I know that the only practical way to get at them is defoliation so an answer to a technical question like this—one pos­sible way of doing it even though I made clear this would never be done, would be the use of low‐yield nu­clear devices” (emphasis mine). As the Daily Mail History section pointed out, “Democrats painted Goldwater as a warmonger who was overly eager to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.” And, of course, with few exceptions like the Daily Mail, the MSM was all over it, painting Goldwater as a nuclear warhawk, a kind of Dr. Strangelove. (The film appeared on January 29, 1964, 10 months before the Johnson-Goldwater election. The writing was already on the wall.)

I was young and shallow at the time and a knee-jerk leftist, so I took it as media gospel that Goldwater was about to launch a nuclear firestorm. Shortly afterward, I was all for LBJ’s Great Society—a socialist term coined by Fabian Society stalwart Graham Wallas—since the press assured me it was a good thing. How could a “War on Poverty” go wrong?  

It was only much later, when I developed some common sense, shook off the political amblyopia which afflicted me, and actually studied the issue, that I realized the Great Society was at best and only in part a qualified success, but ultimately and in many respects a dismal failure: grossly unaffordable, unleashing a pro-Third World immigration nightmare from which we are suffering today, and furnishing an incentive to welfare parasitism. As Ronald Reagan famously remarked, “In the 60s we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.” But Johnson was elected by a landslide and Goldwater, who in my estimation would have made a much better president, relegated to the halls of infamy.

Then there was the infamous newspaper-generated case of Enoch Powell. As I wrote in a previous article, Powell warned in his 1968, so-called “rivers of blood” speech of the imminent and future perils of unchecked immigration. Powell was worried mainly about immigration from the West Indies, which was transforming traditional neighborhoods into violent ghettoes, whose first and second generation inhabitants were not interested in cultural integration.

Powell’s “river of blood” was an allusion to a passage from Book VI of Virgil’s Aeneid in which the Sibyl prophesizes that the “Tiber would flow with blood” as a metaphor for civil discord. As we observe the relentless Islamization of the U.K., can we say he was wrong? Naturally, Powell would today have received the same or worse misuse from the media, which would have tattooed him as a white supremacist, a bigot and an Islamophobe.

Indeed, similar, if somewhat less virulent, treatment has been meted out to London barrister Gavin Boby of “mosque buster” fame. Boby has been the target of media calumny for assisting British homeowners in preparing and filing legal actions to preserve their neighborhoods from the erection of mosques, which collapse property values and render local life increasingly distressing and in many case untenable. Boby has told me stories about severed cables and wires, broken windows, commandeered driveways, residential streets clogged with traffic, harassment of dog owners, pedestrian bullying, forced sales of depressed properties and more, which have driven longtime residents to despair. Boby works pro bono and is strikingly successful, a fact which makes him non grata to the media and the power elites.

Thus, when I think back, I’m appalled at my own naiveté. McCarthy was the devil’s spawn. Goldwater would initiate a nuclear firestorm. Powell  was an irremediable racist. And Islam, of course, is a noble and magnanimous faith. 9/11 changed everything for me and compelled me to embark on a scrupulous five-year program of what I call the indispensable three Rs, Reading, Research and Reflection, which cured me of my media fantasy and culminated in the publication of The Big Lie in 2007/8 and The Boxthorn Tree in 2012. 

The media lie has now acquired epic dimensions. Gary Demar puts it succinctly in an article for Godfather Politics: Obviously, much if not most of what we read in articles and screeds written by liberals “is designed to distort the truth. Some are willing to lie for what they perceive to be their idea of the greater good. Others just put the worst spin on out-of-context statements to elevate the blood pressure of their targeted ultra-liberal audience.”

The Fake News Syndrome, as I’ve stressed, is nothing new. It’s been approximately the case for as long as we can remember. The only discrimination between the MSM and the FNM is that the latter has become effectively coterminous with the former. Previously there were a few, if not many, reasonably impartial news venues; today these are practically non-existent.

Eventually, I realized that the Western media were even more insidious than the Soviet controlled news outfits. Many Russians knew that Pravda and Izvestia were propaganda arms of the Politburo and discounted their stories as rubbish; many Westerners, on the other hand, are readily deceived, believing the press is free from bias and generally principled and reliable. I know now, however belatedly, that our media constitute one of the gravest threats to our democratic traditions and wonder how I could ever have been so gullible.

For far too long, I was convinced that the media were, on the whole, reliable purveyors of the news. For nearly three years I freelanced happily at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Music and Public Affairs, never suspecting that the Mothercorp was a hive of Liberal propaganda and an artesian fount of scandalously disingenuous broadcasting. It took 9/11 and the generally extenuating media reports over time, faulting the U.S. and exempting Islam, to shake up my thinking and turn me into a sceptical fact-finder.

The media are especially adept at creating villains out of whole cloth for public consumption to advance a particular and often dubious purpose. How else explain the transformation of significant political figures into synonyms for perfidy and opprobrium. I’m thinking in particular of Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Enoch Powell, all of whom considered themselves patriots and enunciated unpopular or anti-establishment truths, costing them their reputations both in their lifetimes and for posterity.

As Diana West writes of McCarthy, “after more than 60 years of ‘McCarthyism’—the perpetual slander of Joseph McCarthy as a ‘witch-hunter,’ as opposed to an honest accounting of this fearless investigator of deep and widespread infiltration of the US government by Stalin’s secret agents…Americans have been conditioned to…hate, loathe and revile McCarthy…The slander of ‘McCarthyism,’…has had the dire effect of bludgeoning our abilities to detect or even acknowledge the existence of any constitutional enemies, especially ‘domestic.’ ”

Favorable commentators will admit that McCarthy may have been guilty of exaggerations and errors, but as the Venona transcripts have verified, he was right overall. He may have manifested as vindictive, yet he was remorseless in his campaign to isolate Communist sympathizers in government circles who worked to subvert the country. This, of course, made him anathema to a treasonous press and a political establishment that had much to hide, whether their complicity or their negligence.

Barry Goldwater has fared no better. When asked in a July 9, 1964 interview in Der Spiegel about his advocating the use of nuclear weapons to defoliate the jungles in Vietnam, Goldwater replied “About a month‐and‐a­ half ago on a television show I was asked a technical ques­tion, how could you get at the trails through the rain forests of North Vietnam. Well, I served in the rain forests of Burma and I know that the only practical way to get at them is defoliation so an answer to a technical question like this—one pos­sible way of doing it even though I made clear this would never be done, would be the use of low‐yield nu­clear devices” (emphasis mine). As the Daily Mail History section pointed out, “Democrats painted Goldwater as a warmonger who was overly eager to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.” And, of course, with few exceptions like the Daily Mail, the MSM was all over it, painting Goldwater as a nuclear warhawk, a kind of Dr. Strangelove. (The film appeared on January 29, 1964, 10 months before the Johnson-Goldwater election. The writing was already on the wall.)

I was young and shallow at the time and a knee-jerk leftist, so I took it as media gospel that Goldwater was about to launch a nuclear firestorm. Shortly afterward, I was all for LBJ’s Great Society—a socialist term coined by Fabian Society stalwart Graham Wallas—since the press assured me it was a good thing. How could a “War on Poverty” go wrong?  

It was only much later, when I developed some common sense, shook off the political amblyopia which afflicted me, and actually studied the issue, that I realized the Great Society was at best and only in part a qualified success, but ultimately and in many respects a dismal failure: grossly unaffordable, unleashing a pro-Third World immigration nightmare from which we are suffering today, and furnishing an incentive to welfare parasitism. As Ronald Reagan famously remarked, “In the 60s we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.” But Johnson was elected by a landslide and Goldwater, who in my estimation would have made a much better president, relegated to the halls of infamy.

Then there was the infamous newspaper-generated case of Enoch Powell. As I wrote in a previous article, Powell warned in his 1968, so-called “rivers of blood” speech of the imminent and future perils of unchecked immigration. Powell was worried mainly about immigration from the West Indies, which was transforming traditional neighborhoods into violent ghettoes, whose first and second generation inhabitants were not interested in cultural integration.

Powell’s “river of blood” was an allusion to a passage from Book VI of Virgil’s Aeneid in which the Sibyl prophesizes that the “Tiber would flow with blood” as a metaphor for civil discord. As we observe the relentless Islamization of the U.K., can we say he was wrong? Naturally, Powell would today have received the same or worse misuse from the media, which would have tattooed him as a white supremacist, a bigot and an Islamophobe.

Indeed, similar, if somewhat less virulent, treatment has been meted out to London barrister Gavin Boby of “mosque buster” fame. Boby has been the target of media calumny for assisting British homeowners in preparing and filing legal actions to preserve their neighborhoods from the erection of mosques, which collapse property values and render local life increasingly distressing and in many case untenable. Boby has told me stories about severed cables and wires, broken windows, commandeered driveways, residential streets clogged with traffic, harassment of dog owners, pedestrian bullying, forced sales of depressed properties and more, which have driven longtime residents to despair. Boby works pro bono and is strikingly successful, a fact which makes him non grata to the media and the power elites.

Thus, when I think back, I’m appalled at my own naiveté. McCarthy was the devil’s spawn. Goldwater would initiate a nuclear firestorm. Powell  was an irremediable racist. And Islam, of course, is a noble and magnanimous faith. 9/11 changed everything for me and compelled me to embark on a scrupulous five-year program of what I call the indispensable three Rs, Reading, Research and Reflection, which cured me of my media fantasy and culminated in the publication of The Big Lie in 2007/8 and The Boxthorn Tree in 2012. 

The media lie has now acquired epic dimensions. Gary Demar puts it succinctly in an article for Godfather Politics: Obviously, much if not most of what we read in articles and screeds written by liberals “is designed to distort the truth. Some are willing to lie for what they perceive to be their idea of the greater good. Others just put the worst spin on out-of-context statements to elevate the blood pressure of their targeted ultra-liberal audience.”

The Fake News Syndrome, as I’ve stressed, is nothing new. It’s been approximately the case for as long as we can remember. The only discrimination between the MSM and the FNM is that the latter has become effectively coterminous with the former. Previously there were a few, if not many, reasonably impartial news venues; today these are practically non-existent.

Eventually, I realized that the Western media were even more insidious than the Soviet controlled news outfits. Many Russians knew that Pravda and Izvestia were propaganda arms of the Politburo and discounted their stories as rubbish; many Westerners, on the other hand, are readily deceived, believing the press is free from bias and generally principled and reliable. I know now, however belatedly, that our media constitute one of the gravest threats to our democratic traditions and wonder how I could ever have been so gullible.



Source link

Why Democrats should embrace Trump’s DACA framework


Last Thursday, Trump released his proposed framework for a compromise on DACA. The framework offers DACA-eligible illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, in exchange for border security and a number of changes to U.S immigration law.

Democrats, along with the left more broadly, responded with hysterical denunciations of Trump. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi described the proposal as, “part of the Trump administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”

New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez called the bill, “compromise between the far right and the alt-right.”

Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer dismissed the proposal in more diplomatic terms, tweeting, “While @realDonaldTrump finally acknowledged that the Dreamers should be allowed to stay here and become citizens, he uses them as a tool to tear apart our legal immigration system and adopt the wish list that anti-immigration hardliners have advocated for for years.”

Trump’s framework contains four “pillars.” The first pillar increases spending on border security and immigration enforcement. The second pillar grants illegal immigrants who arrived as minors a limited amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. The third pillar eliminates the visa lottery, which awards 50,000 green cards at random to a pool of applicants from around the world. Finally, the fourth pillar phases out “family preference” visas.

It was Trump’s last two pillars that provoked the most outrage, particularly his last pillar. The bulk of legal immigrants to the United States arrive as relatives of U.S. citizens. U.S. law divides these immigrants into two groups, immediate relatives and family preferences. Immediate relatives includes the spouses and under-21 children of U.S. citizens, along with the parents of under-21 U.S. citizens. Family preferences includes siblings of U.S. citizens, over-21 children of U.S. citizens, and parents of over-21 U.S. citizens.

While U.S. law allows for an unlimited number of immediate relative visas each year, it sets strict numeric caps on the various “family preference” visas. Because of these limits, those applying for family preference visas often spend decades waiting on line, arriving as middle-aged adults.

Trump proposed that the U.S. phase out family preference visas, processing the existing applications but not accepting new ones. Because of this, the effect on legal immigration would not be felt for years. Currently, the expected wait time for the sibling of a Filipino immigrant is nineteen years.

Trump’s third pillar, elimination of the visa lottery, also sparked controversy. The Congressional Black Caucus wants to keep the lottery because 44% of lottery visas go to immigrants from African countries.

The core truth of American Immigration policy is that far more people want to come here than politicians in either party want to allow in. Numbers matter, and the American people have a definite limit on how many immigrants they will accept.

Given that upward limit, immigration really is a zero-sum game. The more family preference visas we issue, the fewer employment visas we issue (for example). Trump’s policy zeroes in on the immigrants who have the strongest claim to be here and devotes our resources to helping them. Specifically, those who came here illegally as children, and those who have waited patiently for family preference visas.

Opposition to Trump’s plan arises because his critics fail to realize that the American public has a limited appetite for immigration. Given this reality, aiding the DACA kids means cutting immigration elsewhere. Trump’s compromise accomplishes this in the most painless and fair way possible, avoiding draconian cuts later on.

Far from being a hardline restrictionist plan, Trump’s framework represents the best hope for a compromise on this issue. A hardline plan would be Ann Coulter’s total immigration moratorium. To impose a total ban on immigration we would have to eliminate the largest category of immigrants; spouses and children of U.S. citizens. Further, it would mean mass deportations of illegal immigrants.

Immigration is the most explosive political issue of the twenty-first century; opposition to immigration brought Trump to power and took the UK out of the EU. If Democrats and pro-immigration Republicans miss this opportunity for compromise, they may find themselves pining for the days of Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Tom Cotton.

Last Thursday, Trump released his proposed framework for a compromise on DACA. The framework offers DACA-eligible illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, in exchange for border security and a number of changes to U.S immigration law.

Democrats, along with the left more broadly, responded with hysterical denunciations of Trump. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi described the proposal as, “part of the Trump administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”

New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez called the bill, “compromise between the far right and the alt-right.”

Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer dismissed the proposal in more diplomatic terms, tweeting, “While @realDonaldTrump finally acknowledged that the Dreamers should be allowed to stay here and become citizens, he uses them as a tool to tear apart our legal immigration system and adopt the wish list that anti-immigration hardliners have advocated for for years.”

Trump’s framework contains four “pillars.” The first pillar increases spending on border security and immigration enforcement. The second pillar grants illegal immigrants who arrived as minors a limited amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. The third pillar eliminates the visa lottery, which awards 50,000 green cards at random to a pool of applicants from around the world. Finally, the fourth pillar phases out “family preference” visas.

It was Trump’s last two pillars that provoked the most outrage, particularly his last pillar. The bulk of legal immigrants to the United States arrive as relatives of U.S. citizens. U.S. law divides these immigrants into two groups, immediate relatives and family preferences. Immediate relatives includes the spouses and under-21 children of U.S. citizens, along with the parents of under-21 U.S. citizens. Family preferences includes siblings of U.S. citizens, over-21 children of U.S. citizens, and parents of over-21 U.S. citizens.

While U.S. law allows for an unlimited number of immediate relative visas each year, it sets strict numeric caps on the various “family preference” visas. Because of these limits, those applying for family preference visas often spend decades waiting on line, arriving as middle-aged adults.

Trump proposed that the U.S. phase out family preference visas, processing the existing applications but not accepting new ones. Because of this, the effect on legal immigration would not be felt for years. Currently, the expected wait time for the sibling of a Filipino immigrant is nineteen years.

Trump’s third pillar, elimination of the visa lottery, also sparked controversy. The Congressional Black Caucus wants to keep the lottery because 44% of lottery visas go to immigrants from African countries.

The core truth of American Immigration policy is that far more people want to come here than politicians in either party want to allow in. Numbers matter, and the American people have a definite limit on how many immigrants they will accept.

Given that upward limit, immigration really is a zero-sum game. The more family preference visas we issue, the fewer employment visas we issue (for example). Trump’s policy zeroes in on the immigrants who have the strongest claim to be here and devotes our resources to helping them. Specifically, those who came here illegally as children, and those who have waited patiently for family preference visas.

Opposition to Trump’s plan arises because his critics fail to realize that the American public has a limited appetite for immigration. Given this reality, aiding the DACA kids means cutting immigration elsewhere. Trump’s compromise accomplishes this in the most painless and fair way possible, avoiding draconian cuts later on.

Far from being a hardline restrictionist plan, Trump’s framework represents the best hope for a compromise on this issue. A hardline plan would be Ann Coulter’s total immigration moratorium. To impose a total ban on immigration we would have to eliminate the largest category of immigrants; spouses and children of U.S. citizens. Further, it would mean mass deportations of illegal immigrants.

Immigration is the most explosive political issue of the twenty-first century; opposition to immigration brought Trump to power and took the UK out of the EU. If Democrats and pro-immigration Republicans miss this opportunity for compromise, they may find themselves pining for the days of Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and Tom Cotton.



Source link

Subverting the Electoral Process


In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln reminded Americans that they were uniquely privileged to have a new birth of freedom that was contingent on “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” That was then. What about now?

Every week brings new revelations and details about a cabal in the federal government whose actions border on conspiracy. The evidence suggests that specific high-level officials in the Justice Department and the FBI colluded together to violate the law in unprecedented ways for the singular purpose of subverting the will of the people both before and after the 2016 election.

The United States is now at a defining moment. Will there be a restoration of the rule of law, or will Washington’s elite continue to give cover and a pass to fellow members of the Ruling Class (in the sense used by Angelo Codevilla)?

The question: Is there sufficient decency and courage in the midst of Washington’s swamp to compel the pursuit of justice wherever in the Ruling Class it leads and then to prosecute the lawbreakers — whoever they are?

First, it’s vital to understand that when you give a pass — or worse, you give multiple successive passes — to lawbreakers, you not only protect those who violated the law, but you empower and encourage would-be lawbreakers to do the same or worse. Second, when laws are not enforced, they cease to have meaning. And that’s when your nation finds itself on a slippery slope of arbitrary and subjective rule and cronyism, which ends in ruin… such as no borders, the hollowing out of protections in the Bill of Rights, and the politicization of government agencies, to name a few.

The importance of the rule of law for civil society can be traced back to Moses in the 13th Century B.C. and later the ancient philosopher Aristotle and the Roman political theorist Cicero. In the Middle Ages, the Magna Carta was drafted in England in 1215 A.D. to force the king and all future sovereigns and magistrates to live and rule under the law. Those foundational roots would be carried into the U.S. Constitution, which was given shape by the Bible and the greatest philosophic minds — both political and legal.

In 1644 Samuel Rutherford published the The Law and the Prince. Refuting the theory of the “Divine Right of Kings,” Rutherford argued that if the king violated the law of nature, he should be deposed and punished as a criminal. John Locke’s father was a close acquaintance of Rutherford and was a member of the Puritan forces that fought against King Charles I. The impression and inspiration provided by Rutherford no doubt influenced young John Locke, who would later write The Second Treatise of Government in 1690.

While Locke is generally considered to be the chief source in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, the Founders actually cited Oxford legal scholar, William Blackstone, twice as often as they cited Locke. In fact, Blackstone’s four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in 1765, became more of a sensation in the American colonies than in England, ironically giving justification for the American colonists to revolt against King George. Prior to the Revolutionary War, more copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries were sold in America than in England, which had three times as many inhabitants.

America’s Founders were also deeply influenced by French political philosopher Baron Charles de Montesquieu, whose De l’esprit des lois (The Spirit of the Laws) made the unique contribution of the doctrine of separation of powers — which explained that liberty is best protected when government distributes executive, legislative, and judicial power among three branches of government so no one branch can exercise too much power and control of the other branches and so that corruption and abuse of power is checked.

The fact that the U.S. Constitution (less the Bill of Rights) was drafted in less than four months by 42 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in the heat of a Philadelphia summer in 1787 is a miracle in and of itself — a testimony to the hand of Providence on the debate between disparate contributors from 12 of the 13 original states and on guiding the drafting of the most profound blueprint for successful democracy the world has ever known.

The U.S. is unique in human history being the only nation founded solely on moral ideas and principles and a noble vision of man’s potential for good, but also a recognition of his sinful propensities for selfishness and abuse of power.

America was founded in revolution against oppression, and then tested, forged, and reaffirmed by bloody sacrifice in civil war and successive foreign wars right up to the present — fought to uphold the cause of freedom and its attendant rights and duties inexorably tied to natural and civil law. If we give a pass to a cabal of lawbreakers in today’s Ruling Class, we betray our heritage, our ideals and vision, and the blood of so many patriots.

This kind of lawbreaking — the attempt to subvert the will of the American people in the 2016 election and its aftermath — is the highest crime and misdemeanor, akin to treason. So what to do?

Boldness is needed and there is simply no more important or cathartic action to take to restore faith in our system, equality before the law and to rein in cronyism and double standards, than the indictment and prosecution of “high crime and misdemeanor lawbreakers” irrespective of position or party affiliation — from the previous administration or in government today.

It’s time to indict and prosecute key figures in the Clinton political crime syndicate and their protectors, which would include those involved in weaponizing U.S. Government agencies to conduct unmasking and surveillance operations against American citizens in violation of their sacred 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects…”

Failing to hold Ruling Class lawbreakers accountable is not an option, for the next stage of ruin on that slippery slope we’ve been on looks more like a police state than a country club.

Scott Powell is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle. Reach him at scottp@discovery.org

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln reminded Americans that they were uniquely privileged to have a new birth of freedom that was contingent on “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” That was then. What about now?

Every week brings new revelations and details about a cabal in the federal government whose actions border on conspiracy. The evidence suggests that specific high-level officials in the Justice Department and the FBI colluded together to violate the law in unprecedented ways for the singular purpose of subverting the will of the people both before and after the 2016 election.

The United States is now at a defining moment. Will there be a restoration of the rule of law, or will Washington’s elite continue to give cover and a pass to fellow members of the Ruling Class (in the sense used by Angelo Codevilla)?

The question: Is there sufficient decency and courage in the midst of Washington’s swamp to compel the pursuit of justice wherever in the Ruling Class it leads and then to prosecute the lawbreakers — whoever they are?

First, it’s vital to understand that when you give a pass — or worse, you give multiple successive passes — to lawbreakers, you not only protect those who violated the law, but you empower and encourage would-be lawbreakers to do the same or worse. Second, when laws are not enforced, they cease to have meaning. And that’s when your nation finds itself on a slippery slope of arbitrary and subjective rule and cronyism, which ends in ruin… such as no borders, the hollowing out of protections in the Bill of Rights, and the politicization of government agencies, to name a few.

The importance of the rule of law for civil society can be traced back to Moses in the 13th Century B.C. and later the ancient philosopher Aristotle and the Roman political theorist Cicero. In the Middle Ages, the Magna Carta was drafted in England in 1215 A.D. to force the king and all future sovereigns and magistrates to live and rule under the law. Those foundational roots would be carried into the U.S. Constitution, which was given shape by the Bible and the greatest philosophic minds — both political and legal.

In 1644 Samuel Rutherford published the The Law and the Prince. Refuting the theory of the “Divine Right of Kings,” Rutherford argued that if the king violated the law of nature, he should be deposed and punished as a criminal. John Locke’s father was a close acquaintance of Rutherford and was a member of the Puritan forces that fought against King Charles I. The impression and inspiration provided by Rutherford no doubt influenced young John Locke, who would later write The Second Treatise of Government in 1690.

While Locke is generally considered to be the chief source in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, the Founders actually cited Oxford legal scholar, William Blackstone, twice as often as they cited Locke. In fact, Blackstone’s four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in 1765, became more of a sensation in the American colonies than in England, ironically giving justification for the American colonists to revolt against King George. Prior to the Revolutionary War, more copies of Blackstone’s Commentaries were sold in America than in England, which had three times as many inhabitants.

America’s Founders were also deeply influenced by French political philosopher Baron Charles de Montesquieu, whose De l’esprit des lois (The Spirit of the Laws) made the unique contribution of the doctrine of separation of powers — which explained that liberty is best protected when government distributes executive, legislative, and judicial power among three branches of government so no one branch can exercise too much power and control of the other branches and so that corruption and abuse of power is checked.

The fact that the U.S. Constitution (less the Bill of Rights) was drafted in less than four months by 42 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in the heat of a Philadelphia summer in 1787 is a miracle in and of itself — a testimony to the hand of Providence on the debate between disparate contributors from 12 of the 13 original states and on guiding the drafting of the most profound blueprint for successful democracy the world has ever known.

The U.S. is unique in human history being the only nation founded solely on moral ideas and principles and a noble vision of man’s potential for good, but also a recognition of his sinful propensities for selfishness and abuse of power.

America was founded in revolution against oppression, and then tested, forged, and reaffirmed by bloody sacrifice in civil war and successive foreign wars right up to the present — fought to uphold the cause of freedom and its attendant rights and duties inexorably tied to natural and civil law. If we give a pass to a cabal of lawbreakers in today’s Ruling Class, we betray our heritage, our ideals and vision, and the blood of so many patriots.

This kind of lawbreaking — the attempt to subvert the will of the American people in the 2016 election and its aftermath — is the highest crime and misdemeanor, akin to treason. So what to do?

Boldness is needed and there is simply no more important or cathartic action to take to restore faith in our system, equality before the law and to rein in cronyism and double standards, than the indictment and prosecution of “high crime and misdemeanor lawbreakers” irrespective of position or party affiliation — from the previous administration or in government today.

It’s time to indict and prosecute key figures in the Clinton political crime syndicate and their protectors, which would include those involved in weaponizing U.S. Government agencies to conduct unmasking and surveillance operations against American citizens in violation of their sacred 4th Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects…”

Failing to hold Ruling Class lawbreakers accountable is not an option, for the next stage of ruin on that slippery slope we’ve been on looks more like a police state than a country club.

Scott Powell is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle. Reach him at scottp@discovery.org



Source link

No Breaks for Israel


Israel’s red lines in Syria’s civil war have included returning fire against any entity that fires into Israel (whether Syrian, rebel, Hizb’allah, or Iranian); not permitting Iran or Hizb’allah or any of their Shiite proxies in Syria to establish permanent bases within a specific distance of the Israeli Golan border; and not permitting weapons beyond a certain level of lethality and sophistication to move from Syria to Hizb’allah. To enforce those lines, the Israeli Air Defense Force is suspected of carrying out attacks on a “scientific research center,” artillery positions, a “munitions factory,” and more. The Israeli government rarely confirms such strikes, but acknowledges that the Russians are informed of Israeli activity when necessary in an agreed-upon effort to limit the damage and not engage Russian forces themselves.

This has morphed into one of the most quietly effective relationships in the Middle East. Not an alliance, certainly, but the pragmatic leaders of both countries have concluded that each benefits by coordinating with the other.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a full agenda this week, as he went to Moscow for a five-hour meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin after their meeting in Davos. High on the list was Israel’s growing concern about the expansion of Hizb’allah missiles and missile production facilities in Lebanon – facilitated by Iran. “It’s no longer a transfer of arms, funds or consultation. Iran has de-facto opened a new branch, the ‘Lebanon branch.’ Iran is here,” wrote IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis. “In Lebanon, Hezbollah does not conceal its attempt to take control of the state.”

But on this and other issues, Russia, Syria’s longtime ally, is looking to reduce its exposure. As the shape of the Syrian war changes, Israel may find its working relations with Russia undermined by Moscow’s desire to exercise influence in Syria generally from afar, and by its shifting relations with Iran.

Since the start of the civil war in 2011, Moscow has enhanced its political position in Damascus and across the region. It has also strengthened its security position by upgrading its naval bases at Tartus and Latakia, while acquiring an airbase at Hmeimim. Russia is leery of committing troops to the war (Afghanistan looms large here), and there are, in fact, very few Russian soldiers on the ground. Now, as fighting on some fronts wanes, the Russians want to pull even those back. Visiting Syria last month, Putin said he would withdraw most of the troops while maintaining the bases. According to Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, Putin told assembled Russian troops, “Friends, “the homeland awaits you.”

He had earlier said the military operation in Syria “is indeed in its final stages,” and the political process will begin to take precedence.

But while Russia makes plans to reduce its military presence in Syria, Iran is making plans to expand its influence — not in restricted air bases or naval bases on the coast, but in the Sunni heartland.

For Iran, Syria is part of the “Shiite Crescent,” the land bridge from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. Not only is it crucial in terms of controlling and supplying Shiite revolution across the region, it serves as a “lid” stretching across the northern borders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel — providing a means of harassing all three through proxies. But Syria is an awkward partner in the “Crescent,” being only 15-20% Shiite — and on top of that, Alawite, a heterodox branch of Shiism. In order to control Syria for the long term, Iran has to be on the ground in force.

As early as 2016, as the Syrian Armed Forces disintegrated, U.S. sources said there were more than 80,000 militia fighters controlled by Iran. Confirming the number last week, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said there were 3,000 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), 9,000 members of Hizb’allah, and 10,000 “violent Shia militias recruited from across the Mideast, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The rest are Syrian.

As for Lebanon, Mohammad Raad, a Hizb’allah leader poured gasoline on that fire, claiming Hizb’allah “has capabilities that can destroy the Israeli army,” and warning Israel against “doing something foolish… that will be destructive.” He called Israel “regionally and internationally isolated.” Other Hizb’allah leaders, seeking to cool the situation, denied Manelis’s assertion of Iranian control.

Israel is far from “regionally isolated.” In fact, Iran’s greatest concern at the moment is the burgeoning rapprochement between Israel and the Sunni Gulf States — especially Saudi Arabia. Israel is further bolstered by Vice President Mike Pence’s assertion that the U.S. won’t “let Iran dominate the region.” But movement by Russia out of Syria, leaving the ground game to Iran, could change the shape of Israel’s immediate neighborhood — to its detriment.

Israel’s red lines in Syria’s civil war have included returning fire against any entity that fires into Israel (whether Syrian, rebel, Hizb’allah, or Iranian); not permitting Iran or Hizb’allah or any of their Shiite proxies in Syria to establish permanent bases within a specific distance of the Israeli Golan border; and not permitting weapons beyond a certain level of lethality and sophistication to move from Syria to Hizb’allah. To enforce those lines, the Israeli Air Defense Force is suspected of carrying out attacks on a “scientific research center,” artillery positions, a “munitions factory,” and more. The Israeli government rarely confirms such strikes, but acknowledges that the Russians are informed of Israeli activity when necessary in an agreed-upon effort to limit the damage and not engage Russian forces themselves.

This has morphed into one of the most quietly effective relationships in the Middle East. Not an alliance, certainly, but the pragmatic leaders of both countries have concluded that each benefits by coordinating with the other.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a full agenda this week, as he went to Moscow for a five-hour meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin after their meeting in Davos. High on the list was Israel’s growing concern about the expansion of Hizb’allah missiles and missile production facilities in Lebanon – facilitated by Iran. “It’s no longer a transfer of arms, funds or consultation. Iran has de-facto opened a new branch, the ‘Lebanon branch.’ Iran is here,” wrote IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis. “In Lebanon, Hezbollah does not conceal its attempt to take control of the state.”

But on this and other issues, Russia, Syria’s longtime ally, is looking to reduce its exposure. As the shape of the Syrian war changes, Israel may find its working relations with Russia undermined by Moscow’s desire to exercise influence in Syria generally from afar, and by its shifting relations with Iran.

Since the start of the civil war in 2011, Moscow has enhanced its political position in Damascus and across the region. It has also strengthened its security position by upgrading its naval bases at Tartus and Latakia, while acquiring an airbase at Hmeimim. Russia is leery of committing troops to the war (Afghanistan looms large here), and there are, in fact, very few Russian soldiers on the ground. Now, as fighting on some fronts wanes, the Russians want to pull even those back. Visiting Syria last month, Putin said he would withdraw most of the troops while maintaining the bases. According to Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, Putin told assembled Russian troops, “Friends, “the homeland awaits you.”

He had earlier said the military operation in Syria “is indeed in its final stages,” and the political process will begin to take precedence.

But while Russia makes plans to reduce its military presence in Syria, Iran is making plans to expand its influence — not in restricted air bases or naval bases on the coast, but in the Sunni heartland.

For Iran, Syria is part of the “Shiite Crescent,” the land bridge from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. Not only is it crucial in terms of controlling and supplying Shiite revolution across the region, it serves as a “lid” stretching across the northern borders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel — providing a means of harassing all three through proxies. But Syria is an awkward partner in the “Crescent,” being only 15-20% Shiite — and on top of that, Alawite, a heterodox branch of Shiism. In order to control Syria for the long term, Iran has to be on the ground in force.

As early as 2016, as the Syrian Armed Forces disintegrated, U.S. sources said there were more than 80,000 militia fighters controlled by Iran. Confirming the number last week, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said there were 3,000 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), 9,000 members of Hizb’allah, and 10,000 “violent Shia militias recruited from across the Mideast, including Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The rest are Syrian.

As for Lebanon, Mohammad Raad, a Hizb’allah leader poured gasoline on that fire, claiming Hizb’allah “has capabilities that can destroy the Israeli army,” and warning Israel against “doing something foolish… that will be destructive.” He called Israel “regionally and internationally isolated.” Other Hizb’allah leaders, seeking to cool the situation, denied Manelis’s assertion of Iranian control.

Israel is far from “regionally isolated.” In fact, Iran’s greatest concern at the moment is the burgeoning rapprochement between Israel and the Sunni Gulf States — especially Saudi Arabia. Israel is further bolstered by Vice President Mike Pence’s assertion that the U.S. won’t “let Iran dominate the region.” But movement by Russia out of Syria, leaving the ground game to Iran, could change the shape of Israel’s immediate neighborhood — to its detriment.



Source link

The Urgent Case for Legislation against Facebook and Google


Having been one of the early targets of social media censorship on Facebook, YouTube et al, I have advocated for anti-trust action against these bullying behemoths. It is good to see establishment outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review coming to the same conclusion, or at least asking the same questions.

Just this week, Facebook launched its latest of many attacks on my news site, the Geller Report. It labeled my site as “spam” and removed every Geller Report post — thousands upon thousands of them, going back years – from Facebook. It also blocked any Facebook member from sharing links to the Geller Report. The ramping up of the shutting-down of sites like mine is neither random nor personal. The timing is telling. The left is gearing up for the 2018 midterm elections, and they mean to shut down whatever outlet or voice that helped elect President Trump, the greatest upset in left-wing history.

In fighting this shutdown, we had to go back to the drawing board in our lawsuit against these social media giants. The basis of our suit was challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

Facebook and Google take in roughly half of all Internet ad revenue. According to the Wall Street Journal:

In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; and Amazon.com Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems.

Both companies routinely censor and spy on their customers, “massaging everything from the daily news to what we should buy.” In the last century, the telephone was our “computer,” and Ma Bell was how we communicated. That said, would the American people (or the government) have tolerated AT&T spying on our phone calls and then pulling our communication privileges if we expressed dissenting opinions? That is exactly what we are suffering today.

Ma Bell was broken up by the government, albeit for different reasons. But it can and should be done.

It’s not a little ironic that, according to Breitbart:

AT&T has called for an “Internet Bill of Rights” and argued that Facebook and Google should also be subjected to rules that would prevent unfair censorship on their platforms.


AT&T, one of the largest telecommunications companies, called for Congress to enact an “Internet Bill of Rights” which would subject Facebook, Google, and other content providers to rules that would prevent unfair censorship on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or AT&T as well as content providers such as Facebook and Google.


AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson wrote, “Congressional action is needed to establish an ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ that applies to all internet companies and guarantees neutrality, transparency, openness, non-discrimination and privacy protection for all internet users.”


Stephenson posted the ad in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other national news outlets on Wednesday.

We must get behind this — all of us — and fast. Because what is happening is being engineered at the government level. A chief officer from a major American communications company went to the terror state of Pakistan to assure the Pakistani government that Facebook would adhere to the sharia. The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan, who called on Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Facebook has reiterated its commitment to keep the platform safe and promote values that are in congruence with its community standards.”

Why the block? Because under Islamic law, you cannot criticize Islam. Facebook adhering to the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth should trouble all of us, because Mark Zuckerberg has immense power. He controls the flow of information.

Early last year, I wrote: “The US government has used anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. They ought to break up Facebook. Section 2 of the Sherman Act highlights particular results deemed anticompetitive by nature and prohibits actions that ‘shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.’ Couldn’t the same be applied to information? The United States government took down Standard Oil, Alcoa, Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company and many others without nearly the power that Facebook has.”

NRO has come to that same conclusion:

Tech companies such as Google and Facebook are also utilities of sorts that provide essential services. They depend on the free use of public airwaves. Yet they are subject to little oversight; they simply make up their own rules as they go along. Antitrust laws prohibit one corporation from unfairly devouring its competition, capturing most of its market, and then price-gouging as it sees fit without fear of competition. Google has all but destroyed its search-engine competitors in the same manner that Facebook has driven out competing social media.

Clearly Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and Jeff Bezos are contemporary “robber barons.” So why are they not smeared, defamed, and reviled like the robber barons of yesteryear? Says NRO:

Why are huge tech companies seemingly exempt from the rules that older corporations must follow? First, their CEOs wisely cultivate the image of hipsters. The public sees them more as aging teenagers in T-shirts, turtlenecks, and flip-flops than as updated versions of J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, or other robber barons of the past. Second, the tech industry’s hierarchy is politically progressive.


In brilliant marketing fashion, the Internet, laptops, tablets, and smartphones have meshed with the hip youth culture of music, television, the movies, universities, and fashion. Think Woodstock rather than Wall Street. Corporate spokesmen at companies such as Twitter and YouTube brag about their social awareness, especially on issues such as radical environmentalism, identity politics, and feminism. Given that the regulatory deep state is mostly a liberal enterprise, the tech industry is seen as an ally of federal bureaucrats and regulators. Think more of Hollywood, the media, and universities than Exxon, General Motors, Koch Industries, and Philip Morris.

The groovy t-shirt-turtleneck vibe may keep the great unwashed under their spell, but it’s the shared political ideology with the left that keeps these corporate managers free from accountability. The WSJ writes that antitrust regulators have a narrow test: Does their size leave consumers worse off? Surmising that if that’s the test, “there isn’t a clear case for going after big tech.”

I disagree. The consumer is far worse off. If we are not free to speak and think in what is today’s Gutenberg press, than we could not be worse off.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

Having been one of the early targets of social media censorship on Facebook, YouTube et al, I have advocated for anti-trust action against these bullying behemoths. It is good to see establishment outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review coming to the same conclusion, or at least asking the same questions.

Just this week, Facebook launched its latest of many attacks on my news site, the Geller Report. It labeled my site as “spam” and removed every Geller Report post — thousands upon thousands of them, going back years – from Facebook. It also blocked any Facebook member from sharing links to the Geller Report. The ramping up of the shutting-down of sites like mine is neither random nor personal. The timing is telling. The left is gearing up for the 2018 midterm elections, and they mean to shut down whatever outlet or voice that helped elect President Trump, the greatest upset in left-wing history.

In fighting this shutdown, we had to go back to the drawing board in our lawsuit against these social media giants. The basis of our suit was challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

Facebook and Google take in roughly half of all Internet ad revenue. According to the Wall Street Journal:

In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; and Amazon.com Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems.

Both companies routinely censor and spy on their customers, “massaging everything from the daily news to what we should buy.” In the last century, the telephone was our “computer,” and Ma Bell was how we communicated. That said, would the American people (or the government) have tolerated AT&T spying on our phone calls and then pulling our communication privileges if we expressed dissenting opinions? That is exactly what we are suffering today.

Ma Bell was broken up by the government, albeit for different reasons. But it can and should be done.

It’s not a little ironic that, according to Breitbart:

AT&T has called for an “Internet Bill of Rights” and argued that Facebook and Google should also be subjected to rules that would prevent unfair censorship on their platforms.


AT&T, one of the largest telecommunications companies, called for Congress to enact an “Internet Bill of Rights” which would subject Facebook, Google, and other content providers to rules that would prevent unfair censorship on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or AT&T as well as content providers such as Facebook and Google.


AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson wrote, “Congressional action is needed to establish an ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ that applies to all internet companies and guarantees neutrality, transparency, openness, non-discrimination and privacy protection for all internet users.”


Stephenson posted the ad in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other national news outlets on Wednesday.

We must get behind this — all of us — and fast. Because what is happening is being engineered at the government level. A chief officer from a major American communications company went to the terror state of Pakistan to assure the Pakistani government that Facebook would adhere to the sharia. The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan, who called on Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Facebook has reiterated its commitment to keep the platform safe and promote values that are in congruence with its community standards.”

Why the block? Because under Islamic law, you cannot criticize Islam. Facebook adhering to the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth should trouble all of us, because Mark Zuckerberg has immense power. He controls the flow of information.

Early last year, I wrote: “The US government has used anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. They ought to break up Facebook. Section 2 of the Sherman Act highlights particular results deemed anticompetitive by nature and prohibits actions that ‘shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.’ Couldn’t the same be applied to information? The United States government took down Standard Oil, Alcoa, Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company and many others without nearly the power that Facebook has.”

NRO has come to that same conclusion:

Tech companies such as Google and Facebook are also utilities of sorts that provide essential services. They depend on the free use of public airwaves. Yet they are subject to little oversight; they simply make up their own rules as they go along. Antitrust laws prohibit one corporation from unfairly devouring its competition, capturing most of its market, and then price-gouging as it sees fit without fear of competition. Google has all but destroyed its search-engine competitors in the same manner that Facebook has driven out competing social media.

Clearly Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and Jeff Bezos are contemporary “robber barons.” So why are they not smeared, defamed, and reviled like the robber barons of yesteryear? Says NRO:

Why are huge tech companies seemingly exempt from the rules that older corporations must follow? First, their CEOs wisely cultivate the image of hipsters. The public sees them more as aging teenagers in T-shirts, turtlenecks, and flip-flops than as updated versions of J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, or other robber barons of the past. Second, the tech industry’s hierarchy is politically progressive.


In brilliant marketing fashion, the Internet, laptops, tablets, and smartphones have meshed with the hip youth culture of music, television, the movies, universities, and fashion. Think Woodstock rather than Wall Street. Corporate spokesmen at companies such as Twitter and YouTube brag about their social awareness, especially on issues such as radical environmentalism, identity politics, and feminism. Given that the regulatory deep state is mostly a liberal enterprise, the tech industry is seen as an ally of federal bureaucrats and regulators. Think more of Hollywood, the media, and universities than Exxon, General Motors, Koch Industries, and Philip Morris.

The groovy t-shirt-turtleneck vibe may keep the great unwashed under their spell, but it’s the shared political ideology with the left that keeps these corporate managers free from accountability. The WSJ writes that antitrust regulators have a narrow test: Does their size leave consumers worse off? Surmising that if that’s the test, “there isn’t a clear case for going after big tech.”

I disagree. The consumer is far worse off. If we are not free to speak and think in what is today’s Gutenberg press, than we could not be worse off.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.



Source link

Inventing the Political Center


I’ve just been reading in the New York Post about the need for “centrist” politics in our polarized society. Post columnists, John Podhoretz and Seth Lipsky have both deplored an eroding center in American political life. Podhoretz compares the rampaging anti-Trump Left to the Tea Party, since both have made immoderate demands on our political leaders. Supposedly the Left “is becoming everything it hated,” by coming to resemble Republican extremists. Lipsky,  in his defense of the center, points to Michigan Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who in a recent biography by Hendrik Meijer is shown to be the quintessential Republican moderate. Lipsky pairs Vandenberg with “a member of my favorite endangered species, the centrist Democrat,” a type that he finds embodied in Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who is upset by “the collapse of bipartisanship in Washington.” 

Joe Manchin has indeed voted more often than any other Democratic senator for Trump’s cabinet nominees, and even approved Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. But with regard to Trump’s landmark legislation, like the recently passed tax bill and the attempted repeal of ObamaCare, Manchin has predictably voted with the Democrats. This legislator, according to Lipsky, may be thinking about hanging it all up but not necessarily for the idealistic reason that Lipsky gives. Manchin comes from a state in which Trump is quite popular, and in all likelihood the electorate in West Virginia will vote in the majority for a Republican to succeed their current Democratic Senator. 

Arthur Vandenberg did in fact practice bipartisanship in foreign policy after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which meant cooperating with the Democratic administrations of FDR and Truman. Moreover, Vandenberg followed this course until his death in 1951. For years he was the Democrats’ favorite Republican senator; and he was instrumental in winning congressional support for the Marshall Plan and for aid to Greece against Communist efforts to take over that country after the Second World War. Domestically, however, the Michigan senator was a fairly traditional Republican and as Lipsky admits, highly critical of the New Deal. He famously stood in opposition to the National Labor Relations Act in 1936 and objected to other New Deal measures undertaken by Roosevelt during his second term.

Although I agree that Vandenberg was a fine fellow, I’m at a loss for what relevance he has for today’s politics. Would he have taken a “moderate” view on sanctuary cities? What about anti-fascist demonstrators or people asking for visas from countries infested with Islamicists? I for one doubt that Vandenberg, Truman, or anyone else in American national politics in the late 1940s would have yielded on these issues. On social questions there was no significant difference between the two national parties in the 1940s and 1950s. By current standards both were reactionary and insensitive. I’ve also no idea how one can be a “centrist” on much of what today divides us. What is the centrist position for requiring transgender restrooms in all public facilities? What about requiring Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for gay nuptials?

The call for centrist politics seems endemic to “Never-Trump conservatives,” like John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and the editorial staffs of some of our authorized conservative publications. Still, it is worth asking whether these advocates of centrism are serious in their application of this term to themselves. Some self-described American political centrists remind me of how the Catholic Zentrumspartei (Center Party) approached parliamentary politics in late 19th-century Imperial Germany. Factions in the Center Party spanned the socioeconomic spectrum in the Reichstag from being pro-capitalist to being open to the economic programs advanced by the socialists. What held them together, however, were loyalty to the Catholic Church and determination to maintain the Church’s structure of authority in the German Empire. The Center Party could embrace its own brand of diversity, providing that the deputies and party leadership were agreed in their dedication to upholding the interests of the Church.

Similarly our would-be centrists and Never-Trump conservatives (by now the two terms may be mostly interchangeable) present different views on some things but also predictable loyalties. In their hatred for Trump, exuberant support for Doug Jones in the Alabama senatorial race, and drumbeat support for amnestying and granting citizenship to the DACA recipients and their families, these folks stand with the establishment. And this shouldn’t surprise us. We are talking about people who live and breathe the same air as their liberal friends and colleagues. If they’re looking for social acceptance, it’s not the folks in flyover country whose acceptance they crave. They are centrist in the sense that they are centered on an unchanging source of authority, namely, on how their liberal friends and the WaPo assess them as people. They also believe in the essential goodness of the political establishment, even if not all of them go quite so far as Bill Kristol in affirming fidelity to the “deep state.”

Centrism is not about occupying a vital center between two extremes, although our centrists sometimes claim they’re doing this. But they are characterizing themselves correctly in one critical respect. They wish to occupy the juste milieu as defined by the socially respectable Left and by fans of an expanding administrative state.  Although their efforts to fit in may not benefit our country, those who call themselves “centrists” are making defensible career decisions. At the very least they won’t be attacked by their peers at cocktail parties as riffraff.

 

I’ve just been reading in the New York Post about the need for “centrist” politics in our polarized society. Post columnists, John Podhoretz and Seth Lipsky have both deplored an eroding center in American political life. Podhoretz compares the rampaging anti-Trump Left to the Tea Party, since both have made immoderate demands on our political leaders. Supposedly the Left “is becoming everything it hated,” by coming to resemble Republican extremists. Lipsky,  in his defense of the center, points to Michigan Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who in a recent biography by Hendrik Meijer is shown to be the quintessential Republican moderate. Lipsky pairs Vandenberg with “a member of my favorite endangered species, the centrist Democrat,” a type that he finds embodied in Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who is upset by “the collapse of bipartisanship in Washington.” 

Joe Manchin has indeed voted more often than any other Democratic senator for Trump’s cabinet nominees, and even approved Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. But with regard to Trump’s landmark legislation, like the recently passed tax bill and the attempted repeal of ObamaCare, Manchin has predictably voted with the Democrats. This legislator, according to Lipsky, may be thinking about hanging it all up but not necessarily for the idealistic reason that Lipsky gives. Manchin comes from a state in which Trump is quite popular, and in all likelihood the electorate in West Virginia will vote in the majority for a Republican to succeed their current Democratic Senator. 

Arthur Vandenberg did in fact practice bipartisanship in foreign policy after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which meant cooperating with the Democratic administrations of FDR and Truman. Moreover, Vandenberg followed this course until his death in 1951. For years he was the Democrats’ favorite Republican senator; and he was instrumental in winning congressional support for the Marshall Plan and for aid to Greece against Communist efforts to take over that country after the Second World War. Domestically, however, the Michigan senator was a fairly traditional Republican and as Lipsky admits, highly critical of the New Deal. He famously stood in opposition to the National Labor Relations Act in 1936 and objected to other New Deal measures undertaken by Roosevelt during his second term.

Although I agree that Vandenberg was a fine fellow, I’m at a loss for what relevance he has for today’s politics. Would he have taken a “moderate” view on sanctuary cities? What about anti-fascist demonstrators or people asking for visas from countries infested with Islamicists? I for one doubt that Vandenberg, Truman, or anyone else in American national politics in the late 1940s would have yielded on these issues. On social questions there was no significant difference between the two national parties in the 1940s and 1950s. By current standards both were reactionary and insensitive. I’ve also no idea how one can be a “centrist” on much of what today divides us. What is the centrist position for requiring transgender restrooms in all public facilities? What about requiring Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for gay nuptials?

The call for centrist politics seems endemic to “Never-Trump conservatives,” like John Kasich, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and the editorial staffs of some of our authorized conservative publications. Still, it is worth asking whether these advocates of centrism are serious in their application of this term to themselves. Some self-described American political centrists remind me of how the Catholic Zentrumspartei (Center Party) approached parliamentary politics in late 19th-century Imperial Germany. Factions in the Center Party spanned the socioeconomic spectrum in the Reichstag from being pro-capitalist to being open to the economic programs advanced by the socialists. What held them together, however, were loyalty to the Catholic Church and determination to maintain the Church’s structure of authority in the German Empire. The Center Party could embrace its own brand of diversity, providing that the deputies and party leadership were agreed in their dedication to upholding the interests of the Church.

Similarly our would-be centrists and Never-Trump conservatives (by now the two terms may be mostly interchangeable) present different views on some things but also predictable loyalties. In their hatred for Trump, exuberant support for Doug Jones in the Alabama senatorial race, and drumbeat support for amnestying and granting citizenship to the DACA recipients and their families, these folks stand with the establishment. And this shouldn’t surprise us. We are talking about people who live and breathe the same air as their liberal friends and colleagues. If they’re looking for social acceptance, it’s not the folks in flyover country whose acceptance they crave. They are centrist in the sense that they are centered on an unchanging source of authority, namely, on how their liberal friends and the WaPo assess them as people. They also believe in the essential goodness of the political establishment, even if not all of them go quite so far as Bill Kristol in affirming fidelity to the “deep state.”

Centrism is not about occupying a vital center between two extremes, although our centrists sometimes claim they’re doing this. But they are characterizing themselves correctly in one critical respect. They wish to occupy the juste milieu as defined by the socially respectable Left and by fans of an expanding administrative state.  Although their efforts to fit in may not benefit our country, those who call themselves “centrists” are making defensible career decisions. At the very least they won’t be attacked by their peers at cocktail parties as riffraff.

 



Source link

Rosenstein — Agent of the Deep State Coup


The confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General by a lopsided 94-6 vote should have set off warning bells. It is odd that a Trump nominee would get much Democratic support, if any. But his role in appointing his buddy Robert Mueller to lead a bogus Russian collusion probe and his history of looking the other way when Hillary Clinton is involved shows the Democrats had high hopes for Rosenstein, hopes realized by actions documented in the four-page House Intelligence Committee memo:

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.


The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent…


The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

Steele’s discredited “research,” which relied heavily on input from Russian sources, was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which puts Rosenstein in the position of aiding the efforts of one political party to overturn the results of an election won by the other political party by okaying domestic spying on an American citizen.

When the newly departed Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified for seven hours before the House Intelligence Committee, he was unable to report that the FBI had corroborated anything in the Steele dossier, except for the fact that Carter Page had visited Russia:

Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.

Based on the flimsiest of evidence in a fake Russian dossier paid for by Democrats the surveillance of Carter Page began and was reauthorized by Rosenstein. Page has vehemently denied the allegations in the dossier and has sought the release of the memo to show its falseness and to show the DOJ of Rod Rosenstein and the FBI of Andrew McCabe colluded with the Democrats to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House:

The former Trump campaign adviser who was spied on by the U.S. government prior to the 2016 election is “very much” in favor of the release of a controversial congressional memo alleging abuses of the surveillance warrant application process…

Page pressed for the release the FISA application in a May 14 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“If FISA warrants indeed exist as has been extensively reported, wide-ranging false evidence will be inevitably revealed in light of the fact that I have never done anything remotely unlawful in Russia or with any Russian person at any point in my life,” he wrote.


What remains unanswered about the application for the warrant on Page is how heavily it relied on the dossier and whether the FBI and DOJ vetted the allegations made about him by Steele…


Page has vehemently denied the allegations made against him in the dossier, which was put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and financed by the Clinton campaign and DNC.


In the 35-page dossier, Steele alleges that Page was the Trump campaign’s main backchannel to the Kremlin for the purposes of campaign collusion. Steele claims that Page was working with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and that during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, he met secretly with two Kremlin cronies, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin.


The dossier also alleges that it was Page who “conceived and promoted” the idea of having hacked DNC emails released through WikiLeaks in order to swing Bernie Sanders supporters away from Hillary Clinton and into the Trump camp.


Page denies all of the claims. He says he does not know Manafort and has never spoken with Sechin and Diveykin.

Needless to say, Rosenstein did not grant Page’s request to see the FISA application to determine how much it was based on Steele’s fake dossier. Nor has he expressed any dissatisfaction with the Mueller witchhunt he was responsible for launching,

In an interview with a local D.C. TV station, Rosenstein admired the monster he created, who now runs an alleged investigation into supposed Russia-Trump collusion but which quickly morphed into what amounts to a silent coup against a sitting President of the United States:

The U.S. Department of Justice official who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election said he is satisfied with the special counsel’s work…


“The Office of Special Counsel, as you know, has a degree of autonomy from the Department of Justice. But there is appropriate oversight by the department. That includes budget. But it also includes certain other details of the office. It is part of the Department of Justice. And we’re accountable for it.”

Yes, Mr. Rosenstein, you certainly are accountable for the Mueller witchhunt. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advise to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all.

Oh, what tangled webs Rosenstein and the FBI have woven! Republican lawmakers, needless to say, are not amused at all this, casting the obvious doubts on Rosenstein’s praise of Special Counsel Mueller:

Several conservative lawmakers held a news conference Wednesday demanding more details of how the FBI proceeded last year in its probes of Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email and Russian election interference. This week, the conservative group Judicial Watch released an internal Justice Department email that, the group said, showed political bias against Trump by one of Mueller’s senior prosecutors….


“The question really is, if Mueller was doing such a great job on investigating the Russian collusion, why could he have not found the conflict of interest within their own agency?’’ Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) asked at the news conference. Meadows, leader of the Freedom Caucus, cited a litany of other issues that he said show bias on the part of the FBI and Mueller, including past political donations by lawyers on Mueller’s team.

A good question Rosenstein won’t answer. Rosenstein is satisfied with Mueller, and why shouldn’t he be? The two go back a long way and cooperated in the coverup of an FBI investigation into Russia’s use of bribes, kickbacks, and money laundering to grab U.S. uranium supplies and real collusion with Hillary Clinton, only to resurface years later to chase phantom collusion between Team Trump and Russia.

Mueller and Rosenstein were both involved in the FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary’s collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia:

Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill…


John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill: Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show…


From today’s report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.


Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015.

If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair were not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, then what is? Rosenstein’s goal apparently has long been to shield Hillary Clinton from prosecution for her crimes and to use any means to bring down the Trump administration he supposedly was appointed to serve. Now he has stooped so low as to employ a fake Russian dossier in a witchhunt the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy could only envy

Rosenstein, Mueller, McCabe et al have used the office of special counsel and a politicized the FBI and DOJ to conduct a silent coup against a duly elected president and are unindicted coconspirators in Hillary’s crimes. They should be the targets of their very own special counsel.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 

The confirmation of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General by a lopsided 94-6 vote should have set off warning bells. It is odd that a Trump nominee would get much Democratic support, if any. But his role in appointing his buddy Robert Mueller to lead a bogus Russian collusion probe and his history of looking the other way when Hillary Clinton is involved shows the Democrats had high hopes for Rosenstein, hopes realized by actions documented in the four-page House Intelligence Committee memo:

A secret, highly contentious Republican memo reveals that Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of a former Trump campaign associate shortly after taking office last spring, according to three people familiar with it.


The renewal shows that the Justice Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was acting as a Russian agent…


The memo’s primary contention is that F.B.I. and Justice Department officials failed to adequately explain to an intelligence court judge in initially seeking a warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page that they were relying in part on research by an investigator, Christopher Steele, that had been financed by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

Steele’s discredited “research,” which relied heavily on input from Russian sources, was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which puts Rosenstein in the position of aiding the efforts of one political party to overturn the results of an election won by the other political party by okaying domestic spying on an American citizen.

When the newly departed Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified for seven hours before the House Intelligence Committee, he was unable to report that the FBI had corroborated anything in the Steele dossier, except for the fact that Carter Page had visited Russia:

Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow.

Based on the flimsiest of evidence in a fake Russian dossier paid for by Democrats the surveillance of Carter Page began and was reauthorized by Rosenstein. Page has vehemently denied the allegations in the dossier and has sought the release of the memo to show its falseness and to show the DOJ of Rod Rosenstein and the FBI of Andrew McCabe colluded with the Democrats to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House:

The former Trump campaign adviser who was spied on by the U.S. government prior to the 2016 election is “very much” in favor of the release of a controversial congressional memo alleging abuses of the surveillance warrant application process…

Page pressed for the release the FISA application in a May 14 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“If FISA warrants indeed exist as has been extensively reported, wide-ranging false evidence will be inevitably revealed in light of the fact that I have never done anything remotely unlawful in Russia or with any Russian person at any point in my life,” he wrote.


What remains unanswered about the application for the warrant on Page is how heavily it relied on the dossier and whether the FBI and DOJ vetted the allegations made about him by Steele…


Page has vehemently denied the allegations made against him in the dossier, which was put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS, and financed by the Clinton campaign and DNC.


In the 35-page dossier, Steele alleges that Page was the Trump campaign’s main backchannel to the Kremlin for the purposes of campaign collusion. Steele claims that Page was working with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and that during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, he met secretly with two Kremlin cronies, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin.


The dossier also alleges that it was Page who “conceived and promoted” the idea of having hacked DNC emails released through WikiLeaks in order to swing Bernie Sanders supporters away from Hillary Clinton and into the Trump camp.


Page denies all of the claims. He says he does not know Manafort and has never spoken with Sechin and Diveykin.

Needless to say, Rosenstein did not grant Page’s request to see the FISA application to determine how much it was based on Steele’s fake dossier. Nor has he expressed any dissatisfaction with the Mueller witchhunt he was responsible for launching,

In an interview with a local D.C. TV station, Rosenstein admired the monster he created, who now runs an alleged investigation into supposed Russia-Trump collusion but which quickly morphed into what amounts to a silent coup against a sitting President of the United States:

The U.S. Department of Justice official who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election said he is satisfied with the special counsel’s work…


“The Office of Special Counsel, as you know, has a degree of autonomy from the Department of Justice. But there is appropriate oversight by the department. That includes budget. But it also includes certain other details of the office. It is part of the Department of Justice. And we’re accountable for it.”

Yes, Mr. Rosenstein, you certainly are accountable for the Mueller witchhunt. Mueller has picked staff and prosecutors as if he were stocking Hillary Clinton’s Department of Justice. He has picked a bevy of Clinton donors, an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation, a former Watergate assistant prosecutor, and even a senior advise to Eric Holder. Objective professionals all.

Oh, what tangled webs Rosenstein and the FBI have woven! Republican lawmakers, needless to say, are not amused at all this, casting the obvious doubts on Rosenstein’s praise of Special Counsel Mueller:

Several conservative lawmakers held a news conference Wednesday demanding more details of how the FBI proceeded last year in its probes of Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email and Russian election interference. This week, the conservative group Judicial Watch released an internal Justice Department email that, the group said, showed political bias against Trump by one of Mueller’s senior prosecutors….


“The question really is, if Mueller was doing such a great job on investigating the Russian collusion, why could he have not found the conflict of interest within their own agency?’’ Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) asked at the news conference. Meadows, leader of the Freedom Caucus, cited a litany of other issues that he said show bias on the part of the FBI and Mueller, including past political donations by lawyers on Mueller’s team.

A good question Rosenstein won’t answer. Rosenstein is satisfied with Mueller, and why shouldn’t he be? The two go back a long way and cooperated in the coverup of an FBI investigation into Russia’s use of bribes, kickbacks, and money laundering to grab U.S. uranium supplies and real collusion with Hillary Clinton, only to resurface years later to chase phantom collusion between Team Trump and Russia.

Mueller and Rosenstein were both involved in the FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary’s collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia:

Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill…


John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill: Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show…


From today’s report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.


Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015.

If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair were not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, then what is? Rosenstein’s goal apparently has long been to shield Hillary Clinton from prosecution for her crimes and to use any means to bring down the Trump administration he supposedly was appointed to serve. Now he has stooped so low as to employ a fake Russian dossier in a witchhunt the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy could only envy

Rosenstein, Mueller, McCabe et al have used the office of special counsel and a politicized the FBI and DOJ to conduct a silent coup against a duly elected president and are unindicted coconspirators in Hillary’s crimes. They should be the targets of their very own special counsel.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 



Source link

The Idiots That Don’t Concede Elections


Back when I was a young man I had a Greek-American friend that taught me Rule One about democratic politics. This was back in the mid-1970s when the Greek colonels had just conceded power back to the center-right party in Greece.

What was needed now in Greece, my friend insisted, was that the center-right party concede power to the center-left party at the next election, and that the center-left party concede the next-but-one election to the center-right party.

Here in America, the Democrats have failed to concede the last two normal change elections that went against them: the 2000 presidential squeaker election and the 2016 election.

But you will search long and hard among your liberal acquaintance for anyone that understands how serious this is.

Now we have a piece on “This Civil War” from Daniel Greenfield, a speech given to the Tea Party convention of South Carolina. When you have a party that doesn’t concede elections then you have a civil war, he says. How do you know you have a civil war?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.


That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

Moving on, Greenfield says there are two kinds of government. You can have a “voluntary government” or a “professional government.”

This is a civil war between volunteer governments elected by the people and professional governments elected by… well… uh… themselves.


Of the establishment, by the establishment and for the establishment.

Go ahead, read the whole thing.

But I think there is an additional factor that Greenfield misses. It is that the Deep State, the Permanent Government, the “professional government,” whatever, are fools, knaves, and weaklings, and they are going to lose.

Think about what Comey and Strzok and Page and Clinton and Fusion GPS were doing in 2016. One thing comes through to me: these are weak, foolish people playing bush league but that think they are major league. Because they went to selective colleges or something.

You want to know what big-league looks like? Try Hamilton in the Federalist Papers arguing about the problems of weak federations. Or Hamilton’s debt refunding plan that launched the U.S. economy into the stratosphere. Or Reagan’s tax-rate cuts that ignited a 20 year boom.

Why are the weaklings so blind? It’s because to believe in their top-down administrative state run by the professionals they have to keep the blinders on, and resolutely ignore the settled science, such as:

Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices. And that goes for administrative government too. This is called the  “economic calculation problem.”

Under socialism or under the administrative state, the government gets captured by the special interests. This is called “regulatory capture.”

Under any government, no government program gets fixed until way after it breaks. That’s because the ruling class fears government program beneficiaries, who fight any reduction in their benefits to the knife. This is called Chantrill’s Law.

Socialism or the administrative state assumes that everything, even plastic straws in restaurants, should be regulated by the state. In other words businesses, even restaurants, cannot be trusted to know what is good for themselves and their customers.

In fact, the opposite is  true.

See, the dirty little secret is that the administrative state of our ruling class doesn’t work. At its best, piling on Obamacares and regulations, it can putter along at low growth like the Obama years. At the medium, it descends into Venezuelan hyperinflation. At its worst it descends into Nazi or Soviet or Chinese genocide.

And meanwhile the bribed apologists of our ruling class geniuses think they are #TheResistance. When in fact, to coin a phrase, they “literally know nothing.”

Last time that the losers started looking for Reds under the bed it was the Republicans in the late 1940s just after the GOP had lost five presidential elections in a row. Hey, they had a point! Alger Hiss (“from substantial Baltimore families”) and Harry Dexter White were genuine Soviet spies!

It was in 1992, when I was 46, after the Democrats had lost three elections in a row, that I decided that starting right now I was going to start voting for the out party after two successive presidential terms. Because democracy. Hey, you get to vote for a lot of winners that way: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump!

But now we have Democrats seeing Russians under the bed after the other side has won a single presidential election.

Do you see why I think the Gores, the Hillarys, the Chucks and Nancys, the “very fake news” are fools, knaves, and weaklings?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

Back when I was a young man I had a Greek-American friend that taught me Rule One about democratic politics. This was back in the mid-1970s when the Greek colonels had just conceded power back to the center-right party in Greece.

What was needed now in Greece, my friend insisted, was that the center-right party concede power to the center-left party at the next election, and that the center-left party concede the next-but-one election to the center-right party.

Here in America, the Democrats have failed to concede the last two normal change elections that went against them: the 2000 presidential squeaker election and the 2016 election.

But you will search long and hard among your liberal acquaintance for anyone that understands how serious this is.

Now we have a piece on “This Civil War” from Daniel Greenfield, a speech given to the Tea Party convention of South Carolina. When you have a party that doesn’t concede elections then you have a civil war, he says. How do you know you have a civil war?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.


That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

Moving on, Greenfield says there are two kinds of government. You can have a “voluntary government” or a “professional government.”

This is a civil war between volunteer governments elected by the people and professional governments elected by… well… uh… themselves.


Of the establishment, by the establishment and for the establishment.

Go ahead, read the whole thing.

But I think there is an additional factor that Greenfield misses. It is that the Deep State, the Permanent Government, the “professional government,” whatever, are fools, knaves, and weaklings, and they are going to lose.

Think about what Comey and Strzok and Page and Clinton and Fusion GPS were doing in 2016. One thing comes through to me: these are weak, foolish people playing bush league but that think they are major league. Because they went to selective colleges or something.

You want to know what big-league looks like? Try Hamilton in the Federalist Papers arguing about the problems of weak federations. Or Hamilton’s debt refunding plan that launched the U.S. economy into the stratosphere. Or Reagan’s tax-rate cuts that ignited a 20 year boom.

Why are the weaklings so blind? It’s because to believe in their top-down administrative state run by the professionals they have to keep the blinders on, and resolutely ignore the settled science, such as:

Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices. And that goes for administrative government too. This is called the  “economic calculation problem.”

Under socialism or under the administrative state, the government gets captured by the special interests. This is called “regulatory capture.”

Under any government, no government program gets fixed until way after it breaks. That’s because the ruling class fears government program beneficiaries, who fight any reduction in their benefits to the knife. This is called Chantrill’s Law.

Socialism or the administrative state assumes that everything, even plastic straws in restaurants, should be regulated by the state. In other words businesses, even restaurants, cannot be trusted to know what is good for themselves and their customers.

In fact, the opposite is  true.

See, the dirty little secret is that the administrative state of our ruling class doesn’t work. At its best, piling on Obamacares and regulations, it can putter along at low growth like the Obama years. At the medium, it descends into Venezuelan hyperinflation. At its worst it descends into Nazi or Soviet or Chinese genocide.

And meanwhile the bribed apologists of our ruling class geniuses think they are #TheResistance. When in fact, to coin a phrase, they “literally know nothing.”

Last time that the losers started looking for Reds under the bed it was the Republicans in the late 1940s just after the GOP had lost five presidential elections in a row. Hey, they had a point! Alger Hiss (“from substantial Baltimore families”) and Harry Dexter White were genuine Soviet spies!

It was in 1992, when I was 46, after the Democrats had lost three elections in a row, that I decided that starting right now I was going to start voting for the out party after two successive presidential terms. Because democracy. Hey, you get to vote for a lot of winners that way: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump!

But now we have Democrats seeing Russians under the bed after the other side has won a single presidential election.

Do you see why I think the Gores, the Hillarys, the Chucks and Nancys, the “very fake news” are fools, knaves, and weaklings?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

The Week Ahead Promises an Awful Lot


The coming week looks like a doozy: another leftist “people’s” mass demonstration today, President Trump’s first State of the Union address to the Congress and the nation on Tuesday, and the expected release of the House Republicans’ FISA memo after that. Not to mention all kinds of hints that other shoes may be dropping as the Democrat Party and the Deep State scramble to wrest control of the 24/7 news cycle narrative in these most uncertain times.

Fox News Channel host and one of the last remaining truth-telling figures in the MSM Sean Hannity is promising, in one of his recent Twitter messages “Monday’s a big day…tick tock.” That tweet was posted at 7:08 PM E.T. Saturday after Hannity’s Twitter account mysteriously disappeared for a while early Saturday morning. Earlier in the week, investigative journalist and Fox News Contributor Sara A. Carter, a mainstay of Hannity’s radio and Fox News TV programs since last March, announced at her website that her Twitter feed had been “compromised” on or about Jan. 22. It was subsequently restored to her control. As she tweeted on Jan. 25 “My account was hacked and now it’s back. Thank goodness and thank you @Twitter for helping me regain control.”

There’s something happening here. Cautionary header at Sara Carter’s Web page Jan. 24, 2018

Hannity, who has been slowly peeling away layers of the Obama administration-Deep State conspiracy to destroy President Trump during the past year (with the help of investigative journalists like Carter, John Solomon, and Gregg Jarrett), is increasingly the #1 target in the media of the anti-Trump Resistance. A lengthy article in the anti-Trump mouthpiece POLITICO on Friday, “As the network escalates its attacks on the FBI, mainstream conservatives say it is endangering U.S. institutions,” focused much of its attention on Hannity and what he has been reporting in recent days. The article’s author managed to get quotes from a variety of Never Trump RINO Republicans attacking Hannity and his POTUS-friendly colleagues at Fox News.

In advance of President Trump’s prime-time address to a joint session of the Congress on Tuesday, the Resistance is planning a “People’s State of the Union,” an all-out counter-push on Monday, organized by MoveOn.org and headlined by Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, and a collection of other far left so-called celebrities and activists. After the president’s address, or possibly the following night, rabid anti-Trumper Rep. Maxine Waters (D_CA), who has been calling for the president’s impeachment or removal from office pretty much since day one, has been offered time on BET (Black Entertainment Television) for a counter State of the Union address.

It’s not a certainty, but various sources have been predicting that by the middle of next week the long-awaited purported bombshell 4-page “FISA memo” (#ReleaseTheMemo) that reportedly outs the dirty players in President Obama’s administration who conspired to take down President Trump, will be released. To head it off, the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have been casting the memo as a flawed partisan Republican document whose purpose is to deflect attention from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. Democrats opposed to releasing the memo also insist that it has the potential of harming government intelligence agencies and compromising national security.

Leading the opposition to the memo in Congress is Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee whose Republican majority prepared the memo. In a statement on Thursday, Jan. 18, increasingly parroted since then by his allies in the Democrat Party and the media, Schiff said:

The Majority voted on a party-line basis to grant House Members access to a profoundly misleading set of talking points drafted by Republican staff attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation. Rife with factual inaccuracies and referencing highly classified materials that most of Republican Intelligence Committee members were forced to acknowledge they had never read, this is meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI. This may help carry White House water, but it is a deep disservice to our law enforcement professionals.

As author, former Secret Service agent, podcast host, and frequent guest on Fox News Dan Bongino tweeted on Jan. 27:

After they #ReleaseTheMemo you can absolutely count on the Dems embarking on a scorched earth campaign to lie their way through this epic scandal. There’s no lie they won’t tell, no character they won’t assassinate, & no deception they won’t embrace to hide what they did.

With incendiary and unpredictable events like these, and undoubtedly many more like them to come, it might be said that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Or, as Robert F. Kennedy said in a speech at the University of Cape Town in Cape Town, South Africa on June 6, 1966:

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind.

Amen.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  In addition to his writing, Peter has appeared as a guest commentator on NBC; PBS; the CBC; and, on January 4, 2018, the BBC.  For announcements and links to a wide selection of Peter’s published work, follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.

The coming week looks like a doozy: another leftist “people’s” mass demonstration today, President Trump’s first State of the Union address to the Congress and the nation on Tuesday, and the expected release of the House Republicans’ FISA memo after that. Not to mention all kinds of hints that other shoes may be dropping as the Democrat Party and the Deep State scramble to wrest control of the 24/7 news cycle narrative in these most uncertain times.

Fox News Channel host and one of the last remaining truth-telling figures in the MSM Sean Hannity is promising, in one of his recent Twitter messages “Monday’s a big day…tick tock.” That tweet was posted at 7:08 PM E.T. Saturday after Hannity’s Twitter account mysteriously disappeared for a while early Saturday morning. Earlier in the week, investigative journalist and Fox News Contributor Sara A. Carter, a mainstay of Hannity’s radio and Fox News TV programs since last March, announced at her website that her Twitter feed had been “compromised” on or about Jan. 22. It was subsequently restored to her control. As she tweeted on Jan. 25 “My account was hacked and now it’s back. Thank goodness and thank you @Twitter for helping me regain control.”

There’s something happening here. Cautionary header at Sara Carter’s Web page Jan. 24, 2018

Hannity, who has been slowly peeling away layers of the Obama administration-Deep State conspiracy to destroy President Trump during the past year (with the help of investigative journalists like Carter, John Solomon, and Gregg Jarrett), is increasingly the #1 target in the media of the anti-Trump Resistance. A lengthy article in the anti-Trump mouthpiece POLITICO on Friday, “As the network escalates its attacks on the FBI, mainstream conservatives say it is endangering U.S. institutions,” focused much of its attention on Hannity and what he has been reporting in recent days. The article’s author managed to get quotes from a variety of Never Trump RINO Republicans attacking Hannity and his POTUS-friendly colleagues at Fox News.

In advance of President Trump’s prime-time address to a joint session of the Congress on Tuesday, the Resistance is planning a “People’s State of the Union,” an all-out counter-push on Monday, organized by MoveOn.org and headlined by Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, and a collection of other far left so-called celebrities and activists. After the president’s address, or possibly the following night, rabid anti-Trumper Rep. Maxine Waters (D_CA), who has been calling for the president’s impeachment or removal from office pretty much since day one, has been offered time on BET (Black Entertainment Television) for a counter State of the Union address.

It’s not a certainty, but various sources have been predicting that by the middle of next week the long-awaited purported bombshell 4-page “FISA memo” (#ReleaseTheMemo) that reportedly outs the dirty players in President Obama’s administration who conspired to take down President Trump, will be released. To head it off, the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have been casting the memo as a flawed partisan Republican document whose purpose is to deflect attention from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into alleged collusion between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. Democrats opposed to releasing the memo also insist that it has the potential of harming government intelligence agencies and compromising national security.

Leading the opposition to the memo in Congress is Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee whose Republican majority prepared the memo. In a statement on Thursday, Jan. 18, increasingly parroted since then by his allies in the Democrat Party and the media, Schiff said:

The Majority voted on a party-line basis to grant House Members access to a profoundly misleading set of talking points drafted by Republican staff attacking the FBI and its handling of the investigation. Rife with factual inaccuracies and referencing highly classified materials that most of Republican Intelligence Committee members were forced to acknowledge they had never read, this is meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of the FBI. This may help carry White House water, but it is a deep disservice to our law enforcement professionals.

As author, former Secret Service agent, podcast host, and frequent guest on Fox News Dan Bongino tweeted on Jan. 27:

After they #ReleaseTheMemo you can absolutely count on the Dems embarking on a scorched earth campaign to lie their way through this epic scandal. There’s no lie they won’t tell, no character they won’t assassinate, & no deception they won’t embrace to hide what they did.

With incendiary and unpredictable events like these, and undoubtedly many more like them to come, it might be said that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Or, as Robert F. Kennedy said in a speech at the University of Cape Town in Cape Town, South Africa on June 6, 1966:

There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind.

Amen.

Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture.  In addition to his writing, Peter has appeared as a guest commentator on NBC; PBS; the CBC; and, on January 4, 2018, the BBC.  For announcements and links to a wide selection of Peter’s published work, follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.



Source link

Using Nullification To Destroy Federalism


Animosity reigns supreme among Democrats who now are anything but “the loyal opposition.” The intention to disrupt, undermine, insult, reject, and vilify anything and everything about President Donald Trump’s person, his programs, and his policies is there for all to see. Character assassination is but one dimension of the attack on this administration. Ridicule on late night talk/comedy shows is standard and has been standard throughout the President’s first year in office. Incessant conversations about the investigation into the bogus “Russia collusion” has been allotted more than 80% of news and discussion time on major media outlets.

But lately, with the failure to make collusion stick, the failure to make Trump’s mental health disqualification stick, the failure to make his breaking of the emoluments clause of the Constitution stick, and the failure to make his supposed womanizing and #metoo wrongdoings stick, the disloyal opposition is now clinging to the charge of racism for his having reversed President Obama’s executive order regarding DACA for a class of persons living within our borders. That has also been linked to his intense beefing up of federal law enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to find, arrest, and deport criminals who are in this country illegally.

In other words, the so-called “Dreamers,” who are here illegally are being defended along with other illegals who, in addition to being illegals, are also criminals. And this is all under the name of diversity. Trump is being characterized as a pathological xenophobe. This enforcement is presumably motivated by his hate and the hate of his supporters for non-white peoples, especially Hispanics. And this pervasive and obsessive anti-Latino tendency is reinforced by an additional dimension of his mindset, and that of his Christian, conservative, dumb, working-class mindsets, by Islamophobia.

All we dumb deplorables tend to see the USA as not the land of the free, home of the brave, as we like to claim. Rather, we have dark motives of trying to maintain white Christian superiority and this ethnic hegemony has existed in a mean way for a long time. This rejection is always appended with the suffix “phobia.” Phobias are fears, but not merely fears. They are irrational fears. The irrationality thus dovetails nicely with the narrative of a mental health imbalance and threat from both the President and his supporters throughout the culture.

Various governors and big city mayors have recently taken the step of declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. California has passed laws forbidding citizens from cooperating with federal law enforcement in finding and capturing illegal persons. The state has two new laws that took effect in 2018, AB 450 and SB 54, that protect illegal aliens. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, addressing rumors of raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, [stated] “It’s important, given these rumors out there, to let people and more specifically employers know that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws [they will be prosecuted].”

This radical step of nullification of federal law by the Democrats is part of a long history of nullification that has been embraced by Democrats, and before them by the Democratic-Republicans at the end of the 18th century. In 1798 and 1799, the Virginia Resolution, written by James Madison, and the Kentucky Resolution written by Thomas Jefferson were passed and claimed the right of those states to nullify (not obey) various provisions of the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. They believed the Alien Act was a political power play by the Federalists to delay voting for immigrants who would probably vote Democratic-Republican.

(Do I need to point out parallel motives by the Democrats today in their “protection” of the illegals, even the criminals? They are maneuvering for illegals to be able to vote even though they are not citizens, and of course this would add to the entrenchment of Democratic Party power in California and elsewhere.)

In 1832, there was another nullification crisis whereby South Carolina, under the leadership of Sen. John C. Calhoun, a Democrat, claimed it had the right to nullify and would nullify the federal tariff act passed under Andrew Jackson. Jackson was enraged by South Carolina’s nerve in challenging the tariff because the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the authority to impose tariffs (just as it gives our federal government the authority to control immigration policy and to enforce that policy). Nullification seemed just a breath away from secession. However, the “great compromiser,” Henry Clay, stepped into the issue, and a new bill was passed which provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff over a ten-year period. Both President Jackson and Calhoun got on board with the compromise and further strife was averted.

Then, of course, the cataclysmic nullification came after the election of President Abraham Lincoln. The South with its feverish and unreasonable expectation regarding the rights of the governed in our republic, did not seek merely to nullify a law but sought to nullify the results of a federal election for President. The slaveholders were typically Democrats. No law had been passed to either abolish or restrict slavery, but Lincoln’s victory in 1860 was perceived as such a dire threat by Southern leaders that they took the step of firing on Fort Sumter, a federal facility located in South Carolina. This act of nullification led directly to our Civil War.

The Democrats have been masters of nullification. The judicial system has been bombarded with cases that challenged states rights regarding abortion, homosexual marriage, prayer in the public schools, and police practices by state and local governments. In the past 50-60 years, the federal courts have been used to nullify states rights.

A few years ago, when Arizona tried to execute strict enforcement laws against illegals, the Democrats were up in arms. This was taken to court, and it was determined that some of the measures taken by the Republicans and by Gov. Jan Brewer were outside the purview of state authority because immigration enforcement was strictly under federal supervision. By trying to provide a safer and more lawful environment, she was lambasted as a vile nullifier of federal authority. One of my colleagues at the time literally compared Arizona to North Korea, asserting that it was acting ruthlessly and unlawfully. Also in Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was persecuted for his supposed overstepping of his authority.

Now we have the Democrats in California and elsewhere with their “sanctuary city” and “sanctuary state” movement on the search and destroy path of nullification of legitimate federal authority. They are shaking their fists in Jeff Sessions’ face more defiantly than Jan Brewer or Joe Arpaio ever did against the laxity of the feds under Obama. The Democrats are at war with the very system of federalism that is our system of governance. They are nullifying federal rights when they should be supporting them, as required by the U.S. Constitution. This is surely a despicable attack on our legal system and the foundations of our republic. Nullification has been going on for a long time, but it has been weaponized by the Democrats to destroy the institutions we love.

Animosity reigns supreme among Democrats who now are anything but “the loyal opposition.” The intention to disrupt, undermine, insult, reject, and vilify anything and everything about President Donald Trump’s person, his programs, and his policies is there for all to see. Character assassination is but one dimension of the attack on this administration. Ridicule on late night talk/comedy shows is standard and has been standard throughout the President’s first year in office. Incessant conversations about the investigation into the bogus “Russia collusion” has been allotted more than 80% of news and discussion time on major media outlets.

But lately, with the failure to make collusion stick, the failure to make Trump’s mental health disqualification stick, the failure to make his breaking of the emoluments clause of the Constitution stick, and the failure to make his supposed womanizing and #metoo wrongdoings stick, the disloyal opposition is now clinging to the charge of racism for his having reversed President Obama’s executive order regarding DACA for a class of persons living within our borders. That has also been linked to his intense beefing up of federal law enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to find, arrest, and deport criminals who are in this country illegally.

In other words, the so-called “Dreamers,” who are here illegally are being defended along with other illegals who, in addition to being illegals, are also criminals. And this is all under the name of diversity. Trump is being characterized as a pathological xenophobe. This enforcement is presumably motivated by his hate and the hate of his supporters for non-white peoples, especially Hispanics. And this pervasive and obsessive anti-Latino tendency is reinforced by an additional dimension of his mindset, and that of his Christian, conservative, dumb, working-class mindsets, by Islamophobia.

All we dumb deplorables tend to see the USA as not the land of the free, home of the brave, as we like to claim. Rather, we have dark motives of trying to maintain white Christian superiority and this ethnic hegemony has existed in a mean way for a long time. This rejection is always appended with the suffix “phobia.” Phobias are fears, but not merely fears. They are irrational fears. The irrationality thus dovetails nicely with the narrative of a mental health imbalance and threat from both the President and his supporters throughout the culture.

Various governors and big city mayors have recently taken the step of declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. California has passed laws forbidding citizens from cooperating with federal law enforcement in finding and capturing illegal persons. The state has two new laws that took effect in 2018, AB 450 and SB 54, that protect illegal aliens. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, addressing rumors of raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, [stated] “It’s important, given these rumors out there, to let people and more specifically employers know that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws [they will be prosecuted].”

This radical step of nullification of federal law by the Democrats is part of a long history of nullification that has been embraced by Democrats, and before them by the Democratic-Republicans at the end of the 18th century. In 1798 and 1799, the Virginia Resolution, written by James Madison, and the Kentucky Resolution written by Thomas Jefferson were passed and claimed the right of those states to nullify (not obey) various provisions of the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. They believed the Alien Act was a political power play by the Federalists to delay voting for immigrants who would probably vote Democratic-Republican.

(Do I need to point out parallel motives by the Democrats today in their “protection” of the illegals, even the criminals? They are maneuvering for illegals to be able to vote even though they are not citizens, and of course this would add to the entrenchment of Democratic Party power in California and elsewhere.)

In 1832, there was another nullification crisis whereby South Carolina, under the leadership of Sen. John C. Calhoun, a Democrat, claimed it had the right to nullify and would nullify the federal tariff act passed under Andrew Jackson. Jackson was enraged by South Carolina’s nerve in challenging the tariff because the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the authority to impose tariffs (just as it gives our federal government the authority to control immigration policy and to enforce that policy). Nullification seemed just a breath away from secession. However, the “great compromiser,” Henry Clay, stepped into the issue, and a new bill was passed which provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff over a ten-year period. Both President Jackson and Calhoun got on board with the compromise and further strife was averted.

Then, of course, the cataclysmic nullification came after the election of President Abraham Lincoln. The South with its feverish and unreasonable expectation regarding the rights of the governed in our republic, did not seek merely to nullify a law but sought to nullify the results of a federal election for President. The slaveholders were typically Democrats. No law had been passed to either abolish or restrict slavery, but Lincoln’s victory in 1860 was perceived as such a dire threat by Southern leaders that they took the step of firing on Fort Sumter, a federal facility located in South Carolina. This act of nullification led directly to our Civil War.

The Democrats have been masters of nullification. The judicial system has been bombarded with cases that challenged states rights regarding abortion, homosexual marriage, prayer in the public schools, and police practices by state and local governments. In the past 50-60 years, the federal courts have been used to nullify states rights.

A few years ago, when Arizona tried to execute strict enforcement laws against illegals, the Democrats were up in arms. This was taken to court, and it was determined that some of the measures taken by the Republicans and by Gov. Jan Brewer were outside the purview of state authority because immigration enforcement was strictly under federal supervision. By trying to provide a safer and more lawful environment, she was lambasted as a vile nullifier of federal authority. One of my colleagues at the time literally compared Arizona to North Korea, asserting that it was acting ruthlessly and unlawfully. Also in Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was persecuted for his supposed overstepping of his authority.

Now we have the Democrats in California and elsewhere with their “sanctuary city” and “sanctuary state” movement on the search and destroy path of nullification of legitimate federal authority. They are shaking their fists in Jeff Sessions’ face more defiantly than Jan Brewer or Joe Arpaio ever did against the laxity of the feds under Obama. The Democrats are at war with the very system of federalism that is our system of governance. They are nullifying federal rights when they should be supporting them, as required by the U.S. Constitution. This is surely a despicable attack on our legal system and the foundations of our republic. Nullification has been going on for a long time, but it has been weaponized by the Democrats to destroy the institutions we love.



Source link