Day: March 12, 2018

Gun-Owners Are Being Blamed for the Failures of Liberalism


Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail.  For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences.  At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil. 

We see this pattern repeated in the context of illegal immigration, global warming, environmentalism, opposition to Islamic subversion of Western culture, feminism, and social justice generally.  Nowhere has it been more acutely on display than in the left’s hatred of private gun ownership as the ultimate barrier against political overthrow.  In order to disarm the country, the left’s adherents must be tricked into believing that guns and gun ownership are irrevocably evil, and simultaneously that they and the policies they endorse have nothing to do with the “gun violence” they selectively decry.

In order for leftists to succeed, lawful gun-owners must be tricked into going along with this illusion.  Unfortunately for the left, people who are serious enough to decide to accept the responsibility of careful stewardship of firearms are not stupid enough to ignore that we are living in a cesspool entirely of the left’s making.  Not surprisingly, mature, responsible gun-owners have declined the left’s invitation to be caricatured and smeared as the scapegoats for where liberalism has taken us as a culture.  As serious people, they don’t have much capacity for irrational, emotionally unhinged accusers pointing their fingers at those who not only did not cultivate the environment that has bred mass shooters, but also do not provide such people from their own ranks.  The phenomena of unhinged “mass shooters” and the predictably vulnerable environments where they carry out their evil are unique byproducts of liberalism and its failures.

Generally speaking, law-abiding gun-owners are of a different time and culture.  They are anachronistic.  To lawfully own a firearm is a commitment to timeless principles of maturity, personal responsibility, individual freedom, and civic awareness.  It is a trust, a right possessed by free people who exercise their freedom carefully and mindfully.  It is not a masculine exercise, as men and women exemplify these qualities equally in their lawful ownership of firearms.  It is rather a uniquely American exercise, which is why the left fully loathes it.  When liberal commentators spontaneously declare themselves gun-owners for effect, it is unlikely that they are telling the truth, because the philosophical underpinnings of American gun ownership are anathema to them.  In everything else they do, they shun and disclaim the America of individualism, honor and integrity.  They show no other willingness in their words or actions to reject their liberal brethren so totally as to own what their paganism declares an object possessed of evil powers.

As true Americans, law-abiding gun-owners reject the illogic, dishonesty, and corruption that animate every aspect of liberal politics and social structure.  They loathe the culture that celebrates intolerance and bullying of opposing views, indeed which goes so far as to turn a blind eye to physical violence when it is carried out by leftist assailants against Americans to coerce conformity and acceptance of poisonous ideologies.  They reject the culture that both creates victimhood and then encourages the rage it causes, so that those who see themselves as victims feel personally and socially justified in doing harm to people who have done them no harm whatsoever.  Truth is irrelevant; liberals look outward.  Their enemy is always to blame.

Law-abiding gun-owners do not accept that they should be made to pay each time a person who is marginalized and inflamed by the immoral vacuum of liberal culture snaps, under the ever watchful eye of exploitative politicians and some law enforcement personnel who have been told to look the other way to skew statistics showing how out of control people have become in liberal culture.  The outcome is inevitable, and, having rejected solutions that have worked in conservative locales, they pretend to be surprised with each slaughter they facilitated in a gun-free zone.  It isn’t lawful gun-owners who callously endanger children and then stand on their corpses or manipulate the survivors to blame the wrong people.  It isn’t lawful gun-owners who insist on the victims’ defenselessness.  It isn’t gun-owners who excitedly wait, speech at the ready, for the horror to be repeated and for the political boost it brings to their agenda.

Law-abiding gun-owners recognize the damage that liberalism has done to America and the dangers it has brought.  They have chosen to own a firearm as a bulwark against the immorality and violence that liberalism has brought, socially and politically.  They have made the conscious decision to own a firearm not to bring violence, for the liberals have brought violence to last for generations, but to prevent it being done to them and those they love.

The left understands nothing about those who own firearms as an exercise of their human right to resist the imposition of evil upon the defenseless.  While they force us to live in their absurd psychological experiment in pervasive stupidity, they insist that we surrender as they have, and that we be made as vulnerable and defenseless as they have chosen to be.  They hate that we are still free to exempt ourselves from their fantasy, in which we are daily told that we are the evildoers who must be punished for the culture they created.

Lawful gun-owners are being entirely blamed for the cultural and societal failures of liberalism, which are endless in an ideology built on lies and irrational fantasy.  To accelerate the movement toward forcible disarmament, there will be a “Children’s March” soon.  It will be attended or watched by millions of brainwashed products of the NEA, a liberal advocate for complete government control, cynically using their right of disinformed free speech to manipulate children to destroy the right of millions to self-defense against tyranny.  In the process, lawful gun-owners will be blamed for all they have fought by millions of children who have been told that it is the gun-owners who are lying about who exposed and abandoned them to the violence of liberalism and a life of serfdom.  No doubt child-sized brown shirts will be available for purchase at the march. 

This is how children are indoctrinated as agents of the state, which uses them like so many bullet-catchers and footstools.  This is how freedom is stolen. 

Liberalism is largely a process of adopting illogical and factually invalid positions and then artificially placing blame on its opponents when policies based on those positions inevitably fail.  For the blame to bear fruit, it is necessary for people of good conscience to be fooled into believing that their actions and beliefs are bad for society and have brought about shameful consequences.  At the same time, it is necessary for people whose consciences have already been deformed and co-opted by the faux morality of liberalism to be conditioned to think fellow citizens, who have caused no actual harm but hold contrary views, are evil. 

We see this pattern repeated in the context of illegal immigration, global warming, environmentalism, opposition to Islamic subversion of Western culture, feminism, and social justice generally.  Nowhere has it been more acutely on display than in the left’s hatred of private gun ownership as the ultimate barrier against political overthrow.  In order to disarm the country, the left’s adherents must be tricked into believing that guns and gun ownership are irrevocably evil, and simultaneously that they and the policies they endorse have nothing to do with the “gun violence” they selectively decry.

In order for leftists to succeed, lawful gun-owners must be tricked into going along with this illusion.  Unfortunately for the left, people who are serious enough to decide to accept the responsibility of careful stewardship of firearms are not stupid enough to ignore that we are living in a cesspool entirely of the left’s making.  Not surprisingly, mature, responsible gun-owners have declined the left’s invitation to be caricatured and smeared as the scapegoats for where liberalism has taken us as a culture.  As serious people, they don’t have much capacity for irrational, emotionally unhinged accusers pointing their fingers at those who not only did not cultivate the environment that has bred mass shooters, but also do not provide such people from their own ranks.  The phenomena of unhinged “mass shooters” and the predictably vulnerable environments where they carry out their evil are unique byproducts of liberalism and its failures.

Generally speaking, law-abiding gun-owners are of a different time and culture.  They are anachronistic.  To lawfully own a firearm is a commitment to timeless principles of maturity, personal responsibility, individual freedom, and civic awareness.  It is a trust, a right possessed by free people who exercise their freedom carefully and mindfully.  It is not a masculine exercise, as men and women exemplify these qualities equally in their lawful ownership of firearms.  It is rather a uniquely American exercise, which is why the left fully loathes it.  When liberal commentators spontaneously declare themselves gun-owners for effect, it is unlikely that they are telling the truth, because the philosophical underpinnings of American gun ownership are anathema to them.  In everything else they do, they shun and disclaim the America of individualism, honor and integrity.  They show no other willingness in their words or actions to reject their liberal brethren so totally as to own what their paganism declares an object possessed of evil powers.

As true Americans, law-abiding gun-owners reject the illogic, dishonesty, and corruption that animate every aspect of liberal politics and social structure.  They loathe the culture that celebrates intolerance and bullying of opposing views, indeed which goes so far as to turn a blind eye to physical violence when it is carried out by leftist assailants against Americans to coerce conformity and acceptance of poisonous ideologies.  They reject the culture that both creates victimhood and then encourages the rage it causes, so that those who see themselves as victims feel personally and socially justified in doing harm to people who have done them no harm whatsoever.  Truth is irrelevant; liberals look outward.  Their enemy is always to blame.

Law-abiding gun-owners do not accept that they should be made to pay each time a person who is marginalized and inflamed by the immoral vacuum of liberal culture snaps, under the ever watchful eye of exploitative politicians and some law enforcement personnel who have been told to look the other way to skew statistics showing how out of control people have become in liberal culture.  The outcome is inevitable, and, having rejected solutions that have worked in conservative locales, they pretend to be surprised with each slaughter they facilitated in a gun-free zone.  It isn’t lawful gun-owners who callously endanger children and then stand on their corpses or manipulate the survivors to blame the wrong people.  It isn’t lawful gun-owners who insist on the victims’ defenselessness.  It isn’t gun-owners who excitedly wait, speech at the ready, for the horror to be repeated and for the political boost it brings to their agenda.

Law-abiding gun-owners recognize the damage that liberalism has done to America and the dangers it has brought.  They have chosen to own a firearm as a bulwark against the immorality and violence that liberalism has brought, socially and politically.  They have made the conscious decision to own a firearm not to bring violence, for the liberals have brought violence to last for generations, but to prevent it being done to them and those they love.

The left understands nothing about those who own firearms as an exercise of their human right to resist the imposition of evil upon the defenseless.  While they force us to live in their absurd psychological experiment in pervasive stupidity, they insist that we surrender as they have, and that we be made as vulnerable and defenseless as they have chosen to be.  They hate that we are still free to exempt ourselves from their fantasy, in which we are daily told that we are the evildoers who must be punished for the culture they created.

Lawful gun-owners are being entirely blamed for the cultural and societal failures of liberalism, which are endless in an ideology built on lies and irrational fantasy.  To accelerate the movement toward forcible disarmament, there will be a “Children’s March” soon.  It will be attended or watched by millions of brainwashed products of the NEA, a liberal advocate for complete government control, cynically using their right of disinformed free speech to manipulate children to destroy the right of millions to self-defense against tyranny.  In the process, lawful gun-owners will be blamed for all they have fought by millions of children who have been told that it is the gun-owners who are lying about who exposed and abandoned them to the violence of liberalism and a life of serfdom.  No doubt child-sized brown shirts will be available for purchase at the march. 

This is how children are indoctrinated as agents of the state, which uses them like so many bullet-catchers and footstools.  This is how freedom is stolen. 



Source link

The Holy Cross Brigade Got a Bad Rap


On February 18, 2018, in Munich, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki laid a wreath at a military cemetery to honor the fallen soldiers of the Holy Cross Brigade of the National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne – NSZ), a Polish wartime and postwar hard-core Christian nationalist outfit.  This symbolic recognition of the unheralded heroism of the NSZ does not reflect Morawiecki’s private ideological preferences.  His family is staunchly Piłsudskite, which means firmly in opposition to the National Democrats, who fielded the outfit.

One can legitimately question the timing of the premier’s visit to the cemetery. It came on the heels of the now infamous exchange with an Israeli journalist when the Polish politician misspoke about “Jewish perpetrators” of the Holocaust, instead of either suavely neutralizing the question or sonorously explicating about the complexity of the phenomenon of collaboration during the Second World War. The media not only reacted hysterically to the press conference misstep, but also went ballistic at Morawiecki’s trip to the cemetery, which was widely perceived as an act of bad will, indeed a provocation.  One the one hand, the journalists exclaimed, the Polish prime minister blamed the victims for the Holocaust.  On the other, he glorified “Nazi collaborators” of the Holy Cross Brigade of the NSZ.

What was the Holy Cross Brigade?  It was a lguerrilla unit of over 900 men and women cobbled together from smaller forest detachments of the National Armed Forces in the Kielce region of western Poland in August 1944.  The Holy Cross Brigade fought the Nazis and communists simultaneously.  It was engaged in several serious battles against the Germans and dozens of hit-and-run operations.  It also clashed with the communists, including the NKVD commandos, who were robbing, raping, and assassinating patriotic Poles and civilian bystanders.  The Polish partisans served as protection units for helpless civilians.

When the Red Army launched its surprise offensive in January 1945, the front collapsed, and the Brigade raced westward.  Its command was hoping to be able to link up with the Free Polish Army in the west.  The alternative was to remain in Poland and be destroyed by Stalin.

After initially battling it out with the Germans, the Brigade trekked west through bluff and bluster, taking advantage of the general disintegration of the enemy.  But after a while, the forces of the Third Reich reorganized and barred the way to the Poles.  Faced with either death or capitulation, the Brigade command chose a stratagem.  Stressing their anti-communism, the Poles entered into a non-aggression agreement with the Wehrmacht at the end of January.  Therefore, they were permitted to continue to march southwest to Bohemia, where their unit was confined at an encampment in March. The collapsing Third Reich was hoping to use the Holy Cross Brigade for propaganda purposes and to deploy it at the front.

The Polish command flatly refused to fight for the Nazis.  However, it agreed to assign a small number of volunteer troops to be sent, including by air, behind the Soviet lines.  The volunteers were given confidential orders to shoot any German assigned to them upon landing.  In any event, no Germans were attached, and a small number that made it back to Poland promptly reported back to the NSZ leadership and re-entered the struggle against the communists.

Meanwhile, by the end of April, the Holy Cross Brigade took off from its place of confinement in search of the Allied forces.  Soon, its reconnaissance elements linked up with the U.S. Third Army.  The bulk of the brigade commenced ambushing retreating German army and S.S. units.  Soon, the Poles obtained intelligence about a Nazi concentration camp at Holleischen (Holysov), which was a sub-installation of the Flossenburg mother facility.  On May 5, the Holy Cross Brigade swiftly attacked Holleischen, freeing several thousand women, including about 200 Jewesses who were about to be burned alive.

A French prisoner recalled: “Suddenly about 10:30am, as in a movie, when I was looking out the window with a few others, we noticed in a part of the forest … a group of people in khaki uniform.  They moved in an enveloping way, and there were many of them, and other groups were coming from the other side as well.  There was no noise.  We did hear neither command nor shooting.  We were paralyzed and it was astonishing to see simultaneously our guards in the courtyard who could not see anything.  The military in khaki uniforms moved swiftly and then they attacked the gate to the Camp of the Jewesses as well as our gate.  They opened it, one did not know why, but very quickly and the yard was full then with people in khakis, fast and silent.  The guards on duty lift their hands and drop their weapons[.] … We ran downstairs; the doors to the blocks were opened, the cupboards opened too.  There was a dead German at the gate.  It all seemed like we were dreaming or we were mad[.] … Suddenly, artillery opened up close by, rifle and machine gun fire resounded around us.  That was the Polish partisans conducting guerrilla war.  From time to time stray bullets hit the shingles.”

The commanding officer of the Holy Cross Brigade, Colonel Antoni Skarbek, aka Bohun, recalled in the Jewish Voice (New Jersey): “At this moment my aide de camp Second Lieutenant Zygmunt [Borowiecki] ran up to me to report that there are two barracks on the left side.  They are surrounded by a double row of an electrified barbed wire fence.  The gate was closed with a chain and locks.  The doors to the barracks were also closed.  Emaciated faces appeared from little windows, and there were loud screams for help.  I ordered immediately to bring the [German] commander of the camp and turn off the electricity to the barbed wire fence.  Answering my question about the reason to lock up and isolate these two barracks, he responded that on Hitler’s orders prisoners of Jewish origin were locked up there.  The buildings, along with the women, were to be doused with gasoline and burnt at the moment when [the Americans] would be approaching[.] … After opening the gate, I entered the enclosure and I saw gasoline barrels positioned next to each barrack[.] … The doors to the barracks were then forced by the [Polish] soldiers.  I wanted to enter inside, but a macabre sight which I noticed stopped me at the threshold.  From the darkness of the building there was emerging a horrible stench of human waste mixed with the smell of rotting cadavers.  From the depths there crawled out with great tears of joy, the surviving [Jewish] women.”

The Holy Cross Brigade continued its assaults on the XIII German Army.  The Nazis desperately fought back.  The Poles took over 500 prisoners, including an army staff jointly with an American company, and cleared the way for the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division to enter Pilzen.  The Americans recognized them as allies and, to honor the Polish soldiers, allowed them to wear the “Indian Head” insignia of the division.

Within a few weeks, however, the situation deteriorated as the Soviets and Czech communists appeared in the Pilzen area and began to butt heads with the Holy Cross Brigade.  Stalin demanded that the Poles be handed over to the Soviets.  General George Patton refused and adopted the brigade, transporting it to the American zone of occupation and enrolling the Polish guerrillas in U.S.-led Guard Companies.  For the next decade, they were getting ready to liberate Soviet-occupied Poland with the Americans.

For all those reasons, Prime Minister Mazowiecki resolved to honor the Holy Cross Brigade.  This was not to spite Israel.

Marek Chodakiewicz is professor of history at the Institute of World Politics D.C.

On February 18, 2018, in Munich, Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki laid a wreath at a military cemetery to honor the fallen soldiers of the Holy Cross Brigade of the National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne – NSZ), a Polish wartime and postwar hard-core Christian nationalist outfit.  This symbolic recognition of the unheralded heroism of the NSZ does not reflect Morawiecki’s private ideological preferences.  His family is staunchly Piłsudskite, which means firmly in opposition to the National Democrats, who fielded the outfit.

One can legitimately question the timing of the premier’s visit to the cemetery. It came on the heels of the now infamous exchange with an Israeli journalist when the Polish politician misspoke about “Jewish perpetrators” of the Holocaust, instead of either suavely neutralizing the question or sonorously explicating about the complexity of the phenomenon of collaboration during the Second World War. The media not only reacted hysterically to the press conference misstep, but also went ballistic at Morawiecki’s trip to the cemetery, which was widely perceived as an act of bad will, indeed a provocation.  One the one hand, the journalists exclaimed, the Polish prime minister blamed the victims for the Holocaust.  On the other, he glorified “Nazi collaborators” of the Holy Cross Brigade of the NSZ.

What was the Holy Cross Brigade?  It was a lguerrilla unit of over 900 men and women cobbled together from smaller forest detachments of the National Armed Forces in the Kielce region of western Poland in August 1944.  The Holy Cross Brigade fought the Nazis and communists simultaneously.  It was engaged in several serious battles against the Germans and dozens of hit-and-run operations.  It also clashed with the communists, including the NKVD commandos, who were robbing, raping, and assassinating patriotic Poles and civilian bystanders.  The Polish partisans served as protection units for helpless civilians.

When the Red Army launched its surprise offensive in January 1945, the front collapsed, and the Brigade raced westward.  Its command was hoping to be able to link up with the Free Polish Army in the west.  The alternative was to remain in Poland and be destroyed by Stalin.

After initially battling it out with the Germans, the Brigade trekked west through bluff and bluster, taking advantage of the general disintegration of the enemy.  But after a while, the forces of the Third Reich reorganized and barred the way to the Poles.  Faced with either death or capitulation, the Brigade command chose a stratagem.  Stressing their anti-communism, the Poles entered into a non-aggression agreement with the Wehrmacht at the end of January.  Therefore, they were permitted to continue to march southwest to Bohemia, where their unit was confined at an encampment in March. The collapsing Third Reich was hoping to use the Holy Cross Brigade for propaganda purposes and to deploy it at the front.

The Polish command flatly refused to fight for the Nazis.  However, it agreed to assign a small number of volunteer troops to be sent, including by air, behind the Soviet lines.  The volunteers were given confidential orders to shoot any German assigned to them upon landing.  In any event, no Germans were attached, and a small number that made it back to Poland promptly reported back to the NSZ leadership and re-entered the struggle against the communists.

Meanwhile, by the end of April, the Holy Cross Brigade took off from its place of confinement in search of the Allied forces.  Soon, its reconnaissance elements linked up with the U.S. Third Army.  The bulk of the brigade commenced ambushing retreating German army and S.S. units.  Soon, the Poles obtained intelligence about a Nazi concentration camp at Holleischen (Holysov), which was a sub-installation of the Flossenburg mother facility.  On May 5, the Holy Cross Brigade swiftly attacked Holleischen, freeing several thousand women, including about 200 Jewesses who were about to be burned alive.

A French prisoner recalled: “Suddenly about 10:30am, as in a movie, when I was looking out the window with a few others, we noticed in a part of the forest … a group of people in khaki uniform.  They moved in an enveloping way, and there were many of them, and other groups were coming from the other side as well.  There was no noise.  We did hear neither command nor shooting.  We were paralyzed and it was astonishing to see simultaneously our guards in the courtyard who could not see anything.  The military in khaki uniforms moved swiftly and then they attacked the gate to the Camp of the Jewesses as well as our gate.  They opened it, one did not know why, but very quickly and the yard was full then with people in khakis, fast and silent.  The guards on duty lift their hands and drop their weapons[.] … We ran downstairs; the doors to the blocks were opened, the cupboards opened too.  There was a dead German at the gate.  It all seemed like we were dreaming or we were mad[.] … Suddenly, artillery opened up close by, rifle and machine gun fire resounded around us.  That was the Polish partisans conducting guerrilla war.  From time to time stray bullets hit the shingles.”

The commanding officer of the Holy Cross Brigade, Colonel Antoni Skarbek, aka Bohun, recalled in the Jewish Voice (New Jersey): “At this moment my aide de camp Second Lieutenant Zygmunt [Borowiecki] ran up to me to report that there are two barracks on the left side.  They are surrounded by a double row of an electrified barbed wire fence.  The gate was closed with a chain and locks.  The doors to the barracks were also closed.  Emaciated faces appeared from little windows, and there were loud screams for help.  I ordered immediately to bring the [German] commander of the camp and turn off the electricity to the barbed wire fence.  Answering my question about the reason to lock up and isolate these two barracks, he responded that on Hitler’s orders prisoners of Jewish origin were locked up there.  The buildings, along with the women, were to be doused with gasoline and burnt at the moment when [the Americans] would be approaching[.] … After opening the gate, I entered the enclosure and I saw gasoline barrels positioned next to each barrack[.] … The doors to the barracks were then forced by the [Polish] soldiers.  I wanted to enter inside, but a macabre sight which I noticed stopped me at the threshold.  From the darkness of the building there was emerging a horrible stench of human waste mixed with the smell of rotting cadavers.  From the depths there crawled out with great tears of joy, the surviving [Jewish] women.”

The Holy Cross Brigade continued its assaults on the XIII German Army.  The Nazis desperately fought back.  The Poles took over 500 prisoners, including an army staff jointly with an American company, and cleared the way for the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division to enter Pilzen.  The Americans recognized them as allies and, to honor the Polish soldiers, allowed them to wear the “Indian Head” insignia of the division.

Within a few weeks, however, the situation deteriorated as the Soviets and Czech communists appeared in the Pilzen area and began to butt heads with the Holy Cross Brigade.  Stalin demanded that the Poles be handed over to the Soviets.  General George Patton refused and adopted the brigade, transporting it to the American zone of occupation and enrolling the Polish guerrillas in U.S.-led Guard Companies.  For the next decade, they were getting ready to liberate Soviet-occupied Poland with the Americans.

For all those reasons, Prime Minister Mazowiecki resolved to honor the Holy Cross Brigade.  This was not to spite Israel.

Marek Chodakiewicz is professor of history at the Institute of World Politics D.C.



Source link

Scalpels Kill More Kids than Guns


If you shoot children in a school, liberals are justifiably outraged, as are we all, even if our solutions to the problem are different. But when children are murdered in their mother’s womb? Liberals like to talk about the need for safe spaces, sanctuary cities, and the need to keep our kids safe from gun violence. Yet they support the ultimate form of violence in what should be the safest space of all, again, their mother’s womb.

As one who believes that life begins at conception and ends at natural death, I object to this double standard which says the NRA fosters violence against America’s children, but Planned Parenthood does not. As one wag put it, one of these groups sells arms while the NRA supports the Second Amendment.

One Democratic presidential wannabe who argues for total gun control while ignoring this double standard is Sen. Kamala Harris, the poster child for self-righteous indignation:

Senator Kamala Harris, a liberal Democrat from California, tweeted after the Parkland massacre: “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with pride when our babies are being slaughtered.” Conservatives pointed out that she votes in lockstep with NARAL on abortion.

She is perfectly happily to live in a society where it is wrong to kill a Parkland, Florida student with a gun but perfectly okay for that student to have an abortion. Ironically, one of the three women killed at a veteran’s home in California was pregnant. Some would say four were killed. Kamala Harris would stop counting at three.

Harris warmly embraces the Black Lives Matter movement but only if theses lives, often criminal lives, are ended by white cops. She cares not if they are extinguished by abortionists like the infamous Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell was a Philadelphia doctor who was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder for killing seven babies who survived his abortions and a woman who died after a botched painkiller injection. Compare what went on at Gosnell’s clinic to school shootings like the ones at Newtown, Connecticut, or Parkland, Florida:

Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, there ought to be agreement that a squirming infant on a table outside the mother’s womb is as worthy of protection from harm as children in classrooms in a school in Connecticut.


If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.

As J. Kenneth Blackwell, writing in the Washington Times, noted, those who chant “black lives matter” obviously exclude the abortion rate of black babies that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and the KKK could only dream of:

138,539 black babies, nearly one baby in three, were killed in the womb in 2010. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010, innocent black babies were victimized in nearly 36 percent of the abortion deaths in the United States, though blacks represent only 12.8 percent of the population. Some say the abortion capital of America is New York City. According to LifeSiteNews, the city’s Department of Health reported that in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than born (24,758). That’s 55.9 percent of black babies killed before birth. Blacks represented 42.4 percent of all abortions.

In short, the life of a young black male is more likely to be ended in his mother’s womb with a scalpel than by a white cop or a gang banger in a drive-by shooting:

Abortion doctors kill more black people in a week than the KKK has in the past century. There are almost 2,000 black lives ended by abortion every single day in the United States, and overall, a black baby is more than 5 times as likely to be executed as a white baby. Try to reflect on this statistic: abortion kills more black people than heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and respiratory illness — COMBINED. Throw cops in there, too, and it’s still not close. Comparing just the two causes of death, it appears that abortionists kill about 700 times more black people than do cops.


It’s a grim picture, to say the least. Consider that, if not for abortion, the black population would be 36 percent larger than it is currently. Without Planned Parenthood and its partners in the Infanticide Industry, black people would be much less a minority in America. It’s abortion that keeps their percentages so low. It’s abortion that victimizes them more than anything.

It victimizes people of all races and should be called what it is — abortion violence.

Liberal hypocrisy and double standard on how our children are killed was never more apparent than at this year’s Oscars, where flat tummies are honored, stretch marks are considered career-enders:

This year’s Academy Awards took place this past Sunday with a show full of political symbolism and the pushing of the progressive agenda.


One performance was even an attack on the National Rifle Association by a pair of rappers. Of course, the NRA has come under increasing attack from the Hollywood crowd because of the NRA’s support of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms.


The wailing cry of those who think that the Second Amendment needs to be abridged is that gun violence causes too many deaths. The national statistics show that there are approximately 15,000 deaths a year from gun related violence. Unfortunately, that number has slowly risen in recent years. In an effort to put some significance to that number, the CDC reports that there are 2,712,630 deaths annually in the United States. Gun related deaths from all sources (violent acts, accidental discharge, suicides, etc.) total 38,000 and account for about 1.5 percent of all deaths….


That performance, however, was nullified and made ridiculous by the presence of one individual on the stage for the attack on the NRA. That person was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The fact that the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would allow the leader of the organization that commits the most egregious acts of mass murder in United States history to participate in a performance that is supposedly prompted by the killing of 17 innocent human beings in Florida is unbelievable. Planned Parenthood kills that many innocent human beings every 30 minutes of every day of every year… there are about 3,632,630 deaths from all causes in the United States. Abortion can then be seen as accounting for 25 percent of all deaths in the United States each year. Richards’ organization runs the largest abortion chain and admits to committing 321,384 abortions a year.

That is the population of a mid-size American city. Bump stocks? How about the scalpel of an abortionist? Which is more dangerous to our children — the NRA or Planned Parenthood?  The NRA’s political influence is decried, but not Planned Parenthood’s, which will play a role in the special election Tuesday in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District:

In Western Pennsylvania, pro-life Democrat Conor Lamb is facing a Republican in a special election March 13. The race is neck-and-neck, despite the fact that Donald Trump carried the district by 20 points. Lamb’s candidacy in this conservative district is helped by the fact that he’s Catholic — a self-styled moderate who’s not a slave to Democratic Party orthodoxy. In fact, he’s already pledged not vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House…

What else won’t Lamb vote for? Any restrictions on abortion, including the recent GOP proposal to limit late-term abortions — specifically abortions after 20 weeks when, according to overwhelming scientific evidence, babies in the womb can experience pain.

“[Catholics] believe that life begins at conception,” he told The Weekly Standard, “but as a matter of separation of church and state, I think a woman has the right to choose under the law.”

So Lamb’s not afraid to tell the top House Democrat to take a hike, but he’s too timid to vote his conscience on late-term abortions? Why? Because Planned Parenthood is the NRA of the Democratic Party. Only worse.

For the unborn, a scalpel is considered an assault weapon. We are told the abortion involves the right to choose. No child, whether in a school or in a womb, chooses death. All have an unalienable right to life All should be mourned and all who kill them should be despised.

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

If you shoot children in a school, liberals are justifiably outraged, as are we all, even if our solutions to the problem are different. But when children are murdered in their mother’s womb? Liberals like to talk about the need for safe spaces, sanctuary cities, and the need to keep our kids safe from gun violence. Yet they support the ultimate form of violence in what should be the safest space of all, again, their mother’s womb.

As one who believes that life begins at conception and ends at natural death, I object to this double standard which says the NRA fosters violence against America’s children, but Planned Parenthood does not. As one wag put it, one of these groups sells arms while the NRA supports the Second Amendment.

One Democratic presidential wannabe who argues for total gun control while ignoring this double standard is Sen. Kamala Harris, the poster child for self-righteous indignation:

Senator Kamala Harris, a liberal Democrat from California, tweeted after the Parkland massacre: “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with pride when our babies are being slaughtered.” Conservatives pointed out that she votes in lockstep with NARAL on abortion.

She is perfectly happily to live in a society where it is wrong to kill a Parkland, Florida student with a gun but perfectly okay for that student to have an abortion. Ironically, one of the three women killed at a veteran’s home in California was pregnant. Some would say four were killed. Kamala Harris would stop counting at three.

Harris warmly embraces the Black Lives Matter movement but only if theses lives, often criminal lives, are ended by white cops. She cares not if they are extinguished by abortionists like the infamous Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell was a Philadelphia doctor who was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder for killing seven babies who survived his abortions and a woman who died after a botched painkiller injection. Compare what went on at Gosnell’s clinic to school shootings like the ones at Newtown, Connecticut, or Parkland, Florida:

Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, there ought to be agreement that a squirming infant on a table outside the mother’s womb is as worthy of protection from harm as children in classrooms in a school in Connecticut.


If Dr. Gosnell had walked into a nursery and shot seven infants with an AR-15, it would be national news and the subject of presidential hand-wringing.

As J. Kenneth Blackwell, writing in the Washington Times, noted, those who chant “black lives matter” obviously exclude the abortion rate of black babies that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and the KKK could only dream of:

138,539 black babies, nearly one baby in three, were killed in the womb in 2010. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010, innocent black babies were victimized in nearly 36 percent of the abortion deaths in the United States, though blacks represent only 12.8 percent of the population. Some say the abortion capital of America is New York City. According to LifeSiteNews, the city’s Department of Health reported that in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than born (24,758). That’s 55.9 percent of black babies killed before birth. Blacks represented 42.4 percent of all abortions.

In short, the life of a young black male is more likely to be ended in his mother’s womb with a scalpel than by a white cop or a gang banger in a drive-by shooting:

Abortion doctors kill more black people in a week than the KKK has in the past century. There are almost 2,000 black lives ended by abortion every single day in the United States, and overall, a black baby is more than 5 times as likely to be executed as a white baby. Try to reflect on this statistic: abortion kills more black people than heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and respiratory illness — COMBINED. Throw cops in there, too, and it’s still not close. Comparing just the two causes of death, it appears that abortionists kill about 700 times more black people than do cops.


It’s a grim picture, to say the least. Consider that, if not for abortion, the black population would be 36 percent larger than it is currently. Without Planned Parenthood and its partners in the Infanticide Industry, black people would be much less a minority in America. It’s abortion that keeps their percentages so low. It’s abortion that victimizes them more than anything.

It victimizes people of all races and should be called what it is — abortion violence.

Liberal hypocrisy and double standard on how our children are killed was never more apparent than at this year’s Oscars, where flat tummies are honored, stretch marks are considered career-enders:

This year’s Academy Awards took place this past Sunday with a show full of political symbolism and the pushing of the progressive agenda.


One performance was even an attack on the National Rifle Association by a pair of rappers. Of course, the NRA has come under increasing attack from the Hollywood crowd because of the NRA’s support of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms.


The wailing cry of those who think that the Second Amendment needs to be abridged is that gun violence causes too many deaths. The national statistics show that there are approximately 15,000 deaths a year from gun related violence. Unfortunately, that number has slowly risen in recent years. In an effort to put some significance to that number, the CDC reports that there are 2,712,630 deaths annually in the United States. Gun related deaths from all sources (violent acts, accidental discharge, suicides, etc.) total 38,000 and account for about 1.5 percent of all deaths….


That performance, however, was nullified and made ridiculous by the presence of one individual on the stage for the attack on the NRA. That person was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The fact that the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would allow the leader of the organization that commits the most egregious acts of mass murder in United States history to participate in a performance that is supposedly prompted by the killing of 17 innocent human beings in Florida is unbelievable. Planned Parenthood kills that many innocent human beings every 30 minutes of every day of every year… there are about 3,632,630 deaths from all causes in the United States. Abortion can then be seen as accounting for 25 percent of all deaths in the United States each year. Richards’ organization runs the largest abortion chain and admits to committing 321,384 abortions a year.

That is the population of a mid-size American city. Bump stocks? How about the scalpel of an abortionist? Which is more dangerous to our children — the NRA or Planned Parenthood?  The NRA’s political influence is decried, but not Planned Parenthood’s, which will play a role in the special election Tuesday in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District:

In Western Pennsylvania, pro-life Democrat Conor Lamb is facing a Republican in a special election March 13. The race is neck-and-neck, despite the fact that Donald Trump carried the district by 20 points. Lamb’s candidacy in this conservative district is helped by the fact that he’s Catholic — a self-styled moderate who’s not a slave to Democratic Party orthodoxy. In fact, he’s already pledged not vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House…

What else won’t Lamb vote for? Any restrictions on abortion, including the recent GOP proposal to limit late-term abortions — specifically abortions after 20 weeks when, according to overwhelming scientific evidence, babies in the womb can experience pain.

“[Catholics] believe that life begins at conception,” he told The Weekly Standard, “but as a matter of separation of church and state, I think a woman has the right to choose under the law.”

So Lamb’s not afraid to tell the top House Democrat to take a hike, but he’s too timid to vote his conscience on late-term abortions? Why? Because Planned Parenthood is the NRA of the Democratic Party. Only worse.

For the unborn, a scalpel is considered an assault weapon. We are told the abortion involves the right to choose. No child, whether in a school or in a womb, chooses death. All have an unalienable right to life All should be mourned and all who kill them should be despised.

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

Silence, Blacks, and Louis Farrakhan


Silence may be the perfect herald of joy but sometimes has unfortunate consequences. Sir Thomas More, 16th-century lawyer and Lord High Chancellor of England in 1532, refused to approve the decision of King Henry VIII to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and as a result was tried for high treason and executed. In the play A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt, based on this issue, the question of the interpretation of silence is disputed. The prosecution asserted that More’s silence on the King’s action meant denial. More replied that the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent.” Therefore, “You must construe that I consented.”

This principle is pertinent to the silence, the selective lack of global outrage, by the media and particularly by so called humanitarian groups and individuals, such as the American Friends Service Committee, very active in the boycott against the State of Israel, concerning atrocities committed around the world in recent years. A few examples illustrate the astonishing silence about events in Nigeria, Indonesia, Syria, and Myanmar, among so many others.

In the United States the silence is deafening on the part of the media and Twitter concerning members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and others tolerant of or not critical of the raucous bigoted rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan (once Louis Walcott and Louis X), the African-American activist who has been leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI) since 1975 after considerable infighting within the organization. Its current membership is said to be 50,000.

As a young man Farrakhan played the violin and recorded calypso music as “The Charmer,” before being influenced by Elijah Muhammad and his Nation of Islam in 1955. At that time, he informed the world that the original humans were black and God who was black created them.

Farrakhan’s unreserved stormy rhetoric and his activism for forty years have drawn large audiences and support, including a $5 million loan and gift from Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He organized the Million Man March in Washington, D.C. on October 16, 1995, the largest gathering to that point of African-Americans. His speech on that day can politely be described as “remarkable” when he commented on the statue of Abraham Lincoln in Washington which is 555 feet high. When you add the number “1” in front of it you get 1555 and that is the year “our first fathers landed on the shores of Jamestown, VA, as slaves.”

Irrespective of this inaccurate historical commentary, Farrakhan is best known for his nonstop attacks from the beginning of his career until today on the “worst enemy of black and African -American advancement.” In speech after speech he has denounced the Jews, people of “a dirty religion,” who appear to be in his eyes the dominant group in life. Only a small sampling of his rants is necessary to make the point. In Chicago on February 25, 1990 he denounced the Jews, a small handful, who have control over the “movement of this nation,” and a stranglehold on Congress. They are responsible, he wrote in a message on June 24, 2010 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, and the condition of “our people.”

His most recent announcements were at the NOI’s annual Savior’s Day convention in a large arena in Chicago on February 25, 2018, where he delivered a three-hour speech, and on Twitter on March 7, 2018 when he asserted that the FBI was the worst enemy of black advancement and the Jews have control over these agencies of government. In Chicago, he talked of Jews as the “Synagogue of Satan.” Jews, we are informed, have chemically injected homosexuality in black men through marijuana.

His speech in Chicago will interest or amuse some international leaders in the U.S., Russia, France, and the EU. According to Farrakhan, the people, part of that Synagogue of Satan, who are running Mexico are Mexican Jews, and the Jews also control Ukraine, France, Poland, and Germany. Of course, Jews who were the “mother and father of apartheid,” also control, among other things, the U.S. government and Hollywood, as well as the FBI.

Farrakhan’s tirades and prejudices have long been familiar and been discounted by every rational person as over the line of acceptable political and social dialogue. What is disconcerting are two things: the refusal of members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the very people concerned with discrimination and bigotry, to condemn wholeheartedly or to dissociate themselves from Farrakhan’s bigotry; and the almost universal absence of critical, explicit, candid commentary by most of the mainstream media on these failings.

Foremost in the CBC is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, who as a young man was employed by the NOI for 18 months in 1995 in Minnesota, and who had links with NOI for a number of years though he falsely claimed to have never been a member. Later he said, he found the views of Farrakhan upsetting and unacceptable. Ellison has never made anti-Semitic remarks himself, and publicly disavowed NOI in 2006 and rejected bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, after having defended him against charges of racism.

Yet he has had some meetings with Farrakhan, though at first he denied them. One was a meeting after Hurricane Katrina at a church in New Orleans in 2005. Another was at a private dinner in New York for U.S. Muslim leaders hosted by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in 2013. A third was a private meeting, together with Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind-7), the second Muslim elected to Congress, with Farrakhan in his hotel suite in 2016.

Carson replied to critics who called for his resignation over his ties to Farrakhan by saying that the “outcry” over Farrakhan’s recent anti-Semitic and racist remarks by Jewish organizations had no “credibility with him.” Instead, Carson called on the Republican Jewish Coalition to condemn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government for discrimination against Africans who he held are migrating, who are fleeing dictatorships, who are fleeing oppression.

Among other members of the Caucus are Rep. Danny Davis, D-Illinois, and Rep. Maxime Waters, D-Cal. Davis is reported to have said that Farrakhan is “an outstanding human being.” However, his position is somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, he said he rejected, condemned, and opposed Farrakhan’s views on the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. Yet earlier, he remarked that Farrakhan’s position on the so-called “Jewish question” did not bother him.

Waters has decided views on some issues but seems to be silent or suffer from lack of memory on other questions. On January 12, 2018 she termed President Donald Trump a racist, a dangerous, disturbed, deceitful man. However, she was silent when at a California convention in 2002, Farrakhan defended Palestinian suicide bombers who made themselves weapons against Israel. At that meeting Farrakhan applauded her presence, calling her “our great congresswoman from this area.” She refused requests to comment on the speech. Waters, together with some other black leaders, met after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. When asked about this meeting, her secretary said, “She was traveling and unable to answer.”

One particularly disconcerting aspect of these recent events is the tolerance and apparent support of Farrakhan by women associated with the Women’s March, co-leaders Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, and Linda Sarsour. By their behavior they have disgraced the principles of the women’s movement.  Mallory, a Christian black community activist, who identifies herself as a “strong black woman,” attended the 2018 Chicago rally and calls Farrakhan the greatest of all time. She explains that the black community is very complex. She condemns antisemitism and racism, but has not explicitly condemned Farrakhan. Should we expect her to do so? The answer is that a woman who calls herself a progressive leader and refuses to condemn the anti-Semitic Farrakhan is hypocritical.

Perez posted a video of herself watching a Farrakhan speech in 2016 when he spoke of “truth to power,” thus apparently justifying him. She pointed out a need to understand the significant contributions people, like Farrakhan, have made to black and brown people. There are, she said, no perfect leaders. Linda Sarsour, a Muslim Palestinian-American activist, is proud of her speech at a 2015 rally organized by Farrakhan. She declared that “the same people who justify the massacres of the Palestinian people are the same people who justify the murder of young black men and women.”

One final note, rather intriguing, resulting from the inquiry into the Congressional Black Caucus. Farrakhan had remarked that Barack Obama was the first Jewish president, the people who selected him were rich, powerful members of the Jewish community. However, a photo taken in 2005 was recently made public for the first time of then Senator Barack Obama meeting with Farrakhan. The photographer said he had suppressed its publication at the request of an unnamed member of the caucus.

Farrakhan long ago crossed the line of acceptable dialogue. What is very troubling is that the current members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not appear to have publicly condemned, systematically or otherwise, his bigotry against Jews. Remembering Thomas More, is silence consent? The CBC should come face to face with their past actions and confess and renounce any past ties to Farrakhan, or any tolerance of his bigotry. In addition, the mainstream media by its silence should not exemplify “hello darkness, my old friend.”

Silence may be the perfect herald of joy but sometimes has unfortunate consequences. Sir Thomas More, 16th-century lawyer and Lord High Chancellor of England in 1532, refused to approve the decision of King Henry VIII to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and as a result was tried for high treason and executed. In the play A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt, based on this issue, the question of the interpretation of silence is disputed. The prosecution asserted that More’s silence on the King’s action meant denial. More replied that the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent.” Therefore, “You must construe that I consented.”

This principle is pertinent to the silence, the selective lack of global outrage, by the media and particularly by so called humanitarian groups and individuals, such as the American Friends Service Committee, very active in the boycott against the State of Israel, concerning atrocities committed around the world in recent years. A few examples illustrate the astonishing silence about events in Nigeria, Indonesia, Syria, and Myanmar, among so many others.

In the United States the silence is deafening on the part of the media and Twitter concerning members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and others tolerant of or not critical of the raucous bigoted rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan (once Louis Walcott and Louis X), the African-American activist who has been leader of the Nation of Islam (NOI) since 1975 after considerable infighting within the organization. Its current membership is said to be 50,000.

As a young man Farrakhan played the violin and recorded calypso music as “The Charmer,” before being influenced by Elijah Muhammad and his Nation of Islam in 1955. At that time, he informed the world that the original humans were black and God who was black created them.

Farrakhan’s unreserved stormy rhetoric and his activism for forty years have drawn large audiences and support, including a $5 million loan and gift from Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He organized the Million Man March in Washington, D.C. on October 16, 1995, the largest gathering to that point of African-Americans. His speech on that day can politely be described as “remarkable” when he commented on the statue of Abraham Lincoln in Washington which is 555 feet high. When you add the number “1” in front of it you get 1555 and that is the year “our first fathers landed on the shores of Jamestown, VA, as slaves.”

Irrespective of this inaccurate historical commentary, Farrakhan is best known for his nonstop attacks from the beginning of his career until today on the “worst enemy of black and African -American advancement.” In speech after speech he has denounced the Jews, people of “a dirty religion,” who appear to be in his eyes the dominant group in life. Only a small sampling of his rants is necessary to make the point. In Chicago on February 25, 1990 he denounced the Jews, a small handful, who have control over the “movement of this nation,” and a stranglehold on Congress. They are responsible, he wrote in a message on June 24, 2010 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, and the condition of “our people.”

His most recent announcements were at the NOI’s annual Savior’s Day convention in a large arena in Chicago on February 25, 2018, where he delivered a three-hour speech, and on Twitter on March 7, 2018 when he asserted that the FBI was the worst enemy of black advancement and the Jews have control over these agencies of government. In Chicago, he talked of Jews as the “Synagogue of Satan.” Jews, we are informed, have chemically injected homosexuality in black men through marijuana.

His speech in Chicago will interest or amuse some international leaders in the U.S., Russia, France, and the EU. According to Farrakhan, the people, part of that Synagogue of Satan, who are running Mexico are Mexican Jews, and the Jews also control Ukraine, France, Poland, and Germany. Of course, Jews who were the “mother and father of apartheid,” also control, among other things, the U.S. government and Hollywood, as well as the FBI.

Farrakhan’s tirades and prejudices have long been familiar and been discounted by every rational person as over the line of acceptable political and social dialogue. What is disconcerting are two things: the refusal of members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the very people concerned with discrimination and bigotry, to condemn wholeheartedly or to dissociate themselves from Farrakhan’s bigotry; and the almost universal absence of critical, explicit, candid commentary by most of the mainstream media on these failings.

Foremost in the CBC is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, who as a young man was employed by the NOI for 18 months in 1995 in Minnesota, and who had links with NOI for a number of years though he falsely claimed to have never been a member. Later he said, he found the views of Farrakhan upsetting and unacceptable. Ellison has never made anti-Semitic remarks himself, and publicly disavowed NOI in 2006 and rejected bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, after having defended him against charges of racism.

Yet he has had some meetings with Farrakhan, though at first he denied them. One was a meeting after Hurricane Katrina at a church in New Orleans in 2005. Another was at a private dinner in New York for U.S. Muslim leaders hosted by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in 2013. A third was a private meeting, together with Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind-7), the second Muslim elected to Congress, with Farrakhan in his hotel suite in 2016.

Carson replied to critics who called for his resignation over his ties to Farrakhan by saying that the “outcry” over Farrakhan’s recent anti-Semitic and racist remarks by Jewish organizations had no “credibility with him.” Instead, Carson called on the Republican Jewish Coalition to condemn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government for discrimination against Africans who he held are migrating, who are fleeing dictatorships, who are fleeing oppression.

Among other members of the Caucus are Rep. Danny Davis, D-Illinois, and Rep. Maxime Waters, D-Cal. Davis is reported to have said that Farrakhan is “an outstanding human being.” However, his position is somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, he said he rejected, condemned, and opposed Farrakhan’s views on the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. Yet earlier, he remarked that Farrakhan’s position on the so-called “Jewish question” did not bother him.

Waters has decided views on some issues but seems to be silent or suffer from lack of memory on other questions. On January 12, 2018 she termed President Donald Trump a racist, a dangerous, disturbed, deceitful man. However, she was silent when at a California convention in 2002, Farrakhan defended Palestinian suicide bombers who made themselves weapons against Israel. At that meeting Farrakhan applauded her presence, calling her “our great congresswoman from this area.” She refused requests to comment on the speech. Waters, together with some other black leaders, met after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. When asked about this meeting, her secretary said, “She was traveling and unable to answer.”

One particularly disconcerting aspect of these recent events is the tolerance and apparent support of Farrakhan by women associated with the Women’s March, co-leaders Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, and Linda Sarsour. By their behavior they have disgraced the principles of the women’s movement.  Mallory, a Christian black community activist, who identifies herself as a “strong black woman,” attended the 2018 Chicago rally and calls Farrakhan the greatest of all time. She explains that the black community is very complex. She condemns antisemitism and racism, but has not explicitly condemned Farrakhan. Should we expect her to do so? The answer is that a woman who calls herself a progressive leader and refuses to condemn the anti-Semitic Farrakhan is hypocritical.

Perez posted a video of herself watching a Farrakhan speech in 2016 when he spoke of “truth to power,” thus apparently justifying him. She pointed out a need to understand the significant contributions people, like Farrakhan, have made to black and brown people. There are, she said, no perfect leaders. Linda Sarsour, a Muslim Palestinian-American activist, is proud of her speech at a 2015 rally organized by Farrakhan. She declared that “the same people who justify the massacres of the Palestinian people are the same people who justify the murder of young black men and women.”

One final note, rather intriguing, resulting from the inquiry into the Congressional Black Caucus. Farrakhan had remarked that Barack Obama was the first Jewish president, the people who selected him were rich, powerful members of the Jewish community. However, a photo taken in 2005 was recently made public for the first time of then Senator Barack Obama meeting with Farrakhan. The photographer said he had suppressed its publication at the request of an unnamed member of the caucus.

Farrakhan long ago crossed the line of acceptable dialogue. What is very troubling is that the current members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not appear to have publicly condemned, systematically or otherwise, his bigotry against Jews. Remembering Thomas More, is silence consent? The CBC should come face to face with their past actions and confess and renounce any past ties to Farrakhan, or any tolerance of his bigotry. In addition, the mainstream media by its silence should not exemplify “hello darkness, my old friend.”



Source link

A Modest Proposal on Immigration: For Alleviating the Suffering of Non-Americans


It is a melancholy object to consider the suffering of Mexicans.  Consider, for instance, the plight of a poor boy out working the corn fields for a pittance, only to come home and find that the Sinaloa Cartel has tortured his family and burnt their house to the ground.  This innocent child had a dream for his parents to see him earn an education.  But no more.

All people of a sane disposition are forced to admit that this is an unpleasant situation.  Only the most beastly would be left without a feeling of compassion.  Any method to improve this state of affairs must be immediately accepted. 

Fortunately, I have a solution.  Everyone in the world can be invited into safe, prosperous America, whereupon the government can redistribute wealth, food, medical care, and love from Americans to the new arrivals, who will be free to enter and leave as they please.  All ports, airports, and land borders must be completely opened up.

Naturally, the primary motivation for this plan, which hopefully will be passed through the American legislature at the earliest date, is altruism.  No longer can barbaric Americans put the welfare of our children first.  American laws must be dictated by the interests of billions of people we have never met.

In addition to being morally proper, this decision also carries many wonderful practical benefits.

First of all, the Republican Party could be destroyed for good.  Republicans’ antiquated notions about preserving American culture have lingered far too long.  The time is ripe to finish them.  When the borders open, they will be completely overwhelmed.  America’s new owners will vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  Not only will Democrats win, but they will continue moving to the left.  Republicans will become a meaningless fringe group.

Second, the vicious political ideas of America’s founders, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, could finally be wiped off the face of this earth forever.  Those men were the devil incarnate.  They burdened us with a Constitution.  As if the power of government should be limited and the rights of each Man strengthened.  How loathsome!

Third, that ugly concept of nationalism can be ended.  Americans can stop trying to advance the narrow interests of American citizens at the expense of others.  This can be a liberating experience.  Rather than working to preserve our society, we can just relax (!) and accept what people around the world tell us is best.  We can give in to indifference, decay, entropy.  America had a centuries-long run.  It is time to retire.  How anyone cannot admit to this fact is beyond me.

Fourth, war can be eliminated for some short-term period.  Conflict and war can occur only when there are two sides.  If America is subsumed, then it can no longer exist as a different side.  For instance, America created a big problem by trying to oppose Stalin.  What a foolish country we are!  We brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation with our stubbornness.  Alas, if my plan had only been adopted at the height of the Cold War, Russia could have sent us 50,000,000 comrades who could have voted in leaders friendly to communism, to completely hijack our policy, and thus there would have been no conflict.  When my plan is finally adopted, Americans will no longer be burdened with a unique political viewpoint to defend.   Only a deluded person would argue that conflict is superior to living a tranquil slave life. 

Fifth, I have it on good authority from someone who works in the State Department that America’s current policies are laughed at by foreigners.  This eminent man with knowledge far outweighing that of the American commoner has relayed to me that the French and Germans ridicule us, and especially the crazed Republicans, for our obstinacy in not permitting unlimited numbers of foreigners into the country.  These Europeans are very cultured and wise people, we should do as they think best.

Sixth, the government can be expanded endlessly.  Naturally, when America abolishes its borders, the world’s poorest, loneliest, depraved criminals will have the highest incentive to come.  With no families, career, or wealth, they have nothing to lose and everything still to take.  These new voters will do two excellent things: vote for policies obliging the government to hire huge numbers of people (perhaps themselves?) to take wealth from current Americans and give it to future Americans, and additionally, they will commit various types of fraud, placing further demands on the government to grow.  Finally, America can enjoy an all-encompassing government.

It seems to me that this proposal will meet with universal approbation.  I am nothing if not reasonable, though, so in the interests of fairness, let me try to anticipate a few complaints here, trivial as they may be.

One argument may be that there isn’t space for six billion new people to be crammed into America.  But this highly ignorant point does not correctly anticipate the future.  Not all of those people will come here.  As new and poorer entrants flood into San Francisco; Boston; New York; and even Kansas, Boise, and so on, America’s prosperity will gradually dilute.  As this process continues, an equilibrium will be reached where America becomes as base, poor, dirty, and sick as the rest of the world.  At this point, the incentive for others to come will disappear.  Thus, clearly, not the entire six billion people will come here.

Another complaint may be, what if some of these new elements, which will include war criminals, the mentally insane, communists, jihadists, drug cartels, and rapists, prove too violent?  I will respond: you are seeing the glass as half-empty.  Actually, whatever minor downsides there may be, their entry is highly helpful.  The more violence there is, the more need there will be for government to make new laws clamping down on liberty.  This will naturally provide an excellent path forward for government to assert itself.  Big Brother can go to work for us.

Additionally, these dangerous elements will serve another purpose.  They can help to permanently liquidate any unfortunate holdouts loyal to the extinct so-called American Way (you know, silly stuff, like the First Amendment and private property).  Unfortunately, the current system allows these old-school folk to voice their opinions in relative safety.  But there is no space for that in our brave new future.  It would be very messy indeed if Americans had to fight each other over these issues.  Thankfully, the imports, some of whom have terrific experience as killers, will gladly handle the problems.

In sum, this plan will be an amazing triumph for non-American people, equality, and world peace.  It is remarkable that this plan has not been officially adopted yet, though, thankfully, our leaders have already taken steps in this direction.  This obvious proposal must be implemented to its full extent now.

It is a melancholy object to consider the suffering of Mexicans.  Consider, for instance, the plight of a poor boy out working the corn fields for a pittance, only to come home and find that the Sinaloa Cartel has tortured his family and burnt their house to the ground.  This innocent child had a dream for his parents to see him earn an education.  But no more.

All people of a sane disposition are forced to admit that this is an unpleasant situation.  Only the most beastly would be left without a feeling of compassion.  Any method to improve this state of affairs must be immediately accepted. 

Fortunately, I have a solution.  Everyone in the world can be invited into safe, prosperous America, whereupon the government can redistribute wealth, food, medical care, and love from Americans to the new arrivals, who will be free to enter and leave as they please.  All ports, airports, and land borders must be completely opened up.

Naturally, the primary motivation for this plan, which hopefully will be passed through the American legislature at the earliest date, is altruism.  No longer can barbaric Americans put the welfare of our children first.  American laws must be dictated by the interests of billions of people we have never met.

In addition to being morally proper, this decision also carries many wonderful practical benefits.

First of all, the Republican Party could be destroyed for good.  Republicans’ antiquated notions about preserving American culture have lingered far too long.  The time is ripe to finish them.  When the borders open, they will be completely overwhelmed.  America’s new owners will vote overwhelmingly Democrat.  Not only will Democrats win, but they will continue moving to the left.  Republicans will become a meaningless fringe group.

Second, the vicious political ideas of America’s founders, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, could finally be wiped off the face of this earth forever.  Those men were the devil incarnate.  They burdened us with a Constitution.  As if the power of government should be limited and the rights of each Man strengthened.  How loathsome!

Third, that ugly concept of nationalism can be ended.  Americans can stop trying to advance the narrow interests of American citizens at the expense of others.  This can be a liberating experience.  Rather than working to preserve our society, we can just relax (!) and accept what people around the world tell us is best.  We can give in to indifference, decay, entropy.  America had a centuries-long run.  It is time to retire.  How anyone cannot admit to this fact is beyond me.

Fourth, war can be eliminated for some short-term period.  Conflict and war can occur only when there are two sides.  If America is subsumed, then it can no longer exist as a different side.  For instance, America created a big problem by trying to oppose Stalin.  What a foolish country we are!  We brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation with our stubbornness.  Alas, if my plan had only been adopted at the height of the Cold War, Russia could have sent us 50,000,000 comrades who could have voted in leaders friendly to communism, to completely hijack our policy, and thus there would have been no conflict.  When my plan is finally adopted, Americans will no longer be burdened with a unique political viewpoint to defend.   Only a deluded person would argue that conflict is superior to living a tranquil slave life. 

Fifth, I have it on good authority from someone who works in the State Department that America’s current policies are laughed at by foreigners.  This eminent man with knowledge far outweighing that of the American commoner has relayed to me that the French and Germans ridicule us, and especially the crazed Republicans, for our obstinacy in not permitting unlimited numbers of foreigners into the country.  These Europeans are very cultured and wise people, we should do as they think best.

Sixth, the government can be expanded endlessly.  Naturally, when America abolishes its borders, the world’s poorest, loneliest, depraved criminals will have the highest incentive to come.  With no families, career, or wealth, they have nothing to lose and everything still to take.  These new voters will do two excellent things: vote for policies obliging the government to hire huge numbers of people (perhaps themselves?) to take wealth from current Americans and give it to future Americans, and additionally, they will commit various types of fraud, placing further demands on the government to grow.  Finally, America can enjoy an all-encompassing government.

It seems to me that this proposal will meet with universal approbation.  I am nothing if not reasonable, though, so in the interests of fairness, let me try to anticipate a few complaints here, trivial as they may be.

One argument may be that there isn’t space for six billion new people to be crammed into America.  But this highly ignorant point does not correctly anticipate the future.  Not all of those people will come here.  As new and poorer entrants flood into San Francisco; Boston; New York; and even Kansas, Boise, and so on, America’s prosperity will gradually dilute.  As this process continues, an equilibrium will be reached where America becomes as base, poor, dirty, and sick as the rest of the world.  At this point, the incentive for others to come will disappear.  Thus, clearly, not the entire six billion people will come here.

Another complaint may be, what if some of these new elements, which will include war criminals, the mentally insane, communists, jihadists, drug cartels, and rapists, prove too violent?  I will respond: you are seeing the glass as half-empty.  Actually, whatever minor downsides there may be, their entry is highly helpful.  The more violence there is, the more need there will be for government to make new laws clamping down on liberty.  This will naturally provide an excellent path forward for government to assert itself.  Big Brother can go to work for us.

Additionally, these dangerous elements will serve another purpose.  They can help to permanently liquidate any unfortunate holdouts loyal to the extinct so-called American Way (you know, silly stuff, like the First Amendment and private property).  Unfortunately, the current system allows these old-school folk to voice their opinions in relative safety.  But there is no space for that in our brave new future.  It would be very messy indeed if Americans had to fight each other over these issues.  Thankfully, the imports, some of whom have terrific experience as killers, will gladly handle the problems.

In sum, this plan will be an amazing triumph for non-American people, equality, and world peace.  It is remarkable that this plan has not been officially adopted yet, though, thankfully, our leaders have already taken steps in this direction.  This obvious proposal must be implemented to its full extent now.



Source link

Amulets, White Noise, and Trump Reality


Somehow, her former paper scoured the earth to find a method-actor pig-farmer in Athens, Ohio who has found another way to shut out reality and keep his worldview intact – he plugged his ears with white noise to cut out all news.

Jeffrey Satinover observes: “‘He is as ignorant as a contemporary citizen could ever hope to be’ states the author.  But, no, that’s not so.  For this gentleman simply knows nothing where there is something to be known.  Believing readers of the Times, however, and authors for the Times, they are far more ignorant than the know-nothings for they are chock full of beliefs that more often than not, and mostly on matters of great importance, are flatly false.  It’s not nearly so bad to say, ‘I don’t know if the earth is round or flat’ as it is to be arrogantly certain that it’s flat.”

For the rest of us, this week’s news shows how transformational the president is.  Abramson, I suppose, will just have to clutch her doll more often, and the pig-farmer, like Rip van Winkle, eventually will awake from his self-induced slumber – in his case, to a world he could hardly imagine: a far more prosperous, orderly, peaceful place than the left-wing globalists have imposed for a couple of decades.

Russiagate Falls, FBI/DOJgate Rises

Lee Smith, no Trump fan, explains why the media are blindsiding the public on a nonexistent Russian collusion fairy tale. 

[T]here is a growing consensus among reporters and thinkers on the left and right – especially those who know anything about Russia, the surveillance apparatus, and intelligence bureaucracy – that the Russiagate-collusion theory that was supposed to end Trump’s presidency within six months has sprung more than a few holes.  Worse, it has proved to be a cover for U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement bureaucracies to break the law, with what’s left of the press gleefully going along for the ride.  Where Watergate was a story about a crime that came to define an entire generation’s oppositional attitude toward politicians and the country’s elite, Russiagate, they argue, has proved itself to be the reverse: It is a device that the American elite is using to define itself against its enemies – the rest of the country.

He describes how the intelligence agencies leaked to complaisant reporters like Jane Mayer and Adam Entous were used by the intel-leakers to further their aims of bringing down the president: 

According to British court documents, The New Yorker was one of the publications that former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele briefed in September 2016 on the findings in his now-notorious dossier.  In a New Yorker profile of Steele this week – portraying the spy-for-corporate-hire as a patriotic hero and laundering his possible criminal activities – Jane Mayer explains that she was personally briefed by Steele during that time period.


The New Yorker has produced tons of Russiagate stories, including a small anthology of takes on the Mueller indictments alone.  Of course, there’s one by the recently-hired Adam Entous, the former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the news that the Washington firm Fusion GPS, which produced the Steele dossier, had been hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee – a story that helped Fusion GPS relieve some of the pressure congressional inquiries had put on the firm to release its bank records.  No doubt Entous will continue to use his sources, whoever they are, to break more such stories at The New Yorker.

The media-intel collaboration began under Obama, and Entous hawked it and their cover story.  Why would he bite the hands that fed him by revealing an unwarranted governmental intrusion on the privacy of Americans?

Methodically, Smith unravels how Entous was repeatedly used to tar Russia and the attorney general with lies or improperly unmasked information.

I cannot argue with his conclusion:

If you think Russiagate is real, then you will probably conclude that Sessions, Prince, and Page are all part of a single, monstrous criminal conspiracy – and that Adam Entous is one of the most important journalists in American history, an indefatigable shoe-leather reporter who helped whistleblowers inside the federal government put the truth before the American public, like Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and Neil Sheehan combined.  If you think the collusion story is nonsense, then Entous is just a political operative with a convenient byline.  And if you think Russiagate is a campaign of political warfare waged in the shadows by bureaucrats who violated the privacy of American citizens in order to undo election results they disagreed with, then Entous is something worse – an asset whom sectors of the intelligence community have come to rely on in order to manipulate the public. 

In any event, this past week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions dropped a bombshell on the leakers and their media handmaidens.  He announced that he had already appointed an “outside Department of Justice official”  to investigate the charges brought by the House Intelligence Committee and the matters revealed by the ongoing inspector general’s investigation of wrongdoing by DOJ and FBI officials.

Sessions added: “Also, I am well aware we have a responsibility to insure the integrity of the FISA process.  We’re not afraid to look at that.  The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong, but he has almost 500 employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors, and they are looking at the FISA process.  We must make sure that it’s done properly, and we’re going to do that.  And I’ll consider their request.

It’s certainly likely that such familiar names to us as “Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with the outside prosecutor for process leniency in exchange for cooperation with the IG and DOJ prosecutor,” says my friend Rattler Gator.  And I find that most probable.

If they are, the persons who pulled their strings are not likely to get a pass.

Speculation mounts online that this unprecedented corruption of the intel apparatus has a hidden motive: the Obama administration’s collusion with the Iranian mullahs.  Time will tell if that proves true.  After all, as Lee Smith noted, the first evidence we have of this arose in connection with spying on those in Congress who opposed the Iranian deal.

It got worse when the Obama administration started spying on its domestic opponents during the Iran deal, when the Obama administration learned how far it could go in manipulating the foreign-intelligence surveillance apparatus for domestic political advantage.  As Adam Entous, then of The Wall Street Journal, wrote in a December 2015 article, “the National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.

I suspect that some evidence now in the hands of the I.G. and Sessions’s appointed attorney has come from a friendly intel service (no – not the U.K., of course) that has the goods on Iranian collusion and is more than willing to share it.

Kim Jong-un Moves Away from Threats to Talks

If the Sessions announcement weren’t enough, the report later in the week that Kim Jong-un and the president will meet to discuss denuclearization of North Korea caused, in Thomas Lipscomb’s words, “a lot of wet floors in DC.”

The usual news parrots grabbed their rolodexes to interview those responsible for Kim’s nuclearization to warn the president that he is in dangerous waters and needs their expert advice to handle this.

The Obama administration’s designated liar, Susan Rice, met with the Democrats’ favorite TV propagandist, Andrea Mitchell, to issue – from her vast experience – a warning:

Former Obama administration official Susan Rice on Friday questioned President Donald Trump’s ability to successfully execute a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and she warned an unsuccessful meeting could increase the risk of conflict.


MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell – in response to an announcement that Trump will meet with Kim in the coming months – said to Rice that while the United States doesn’t necessarily have a strategy for negotiations for an upcoming meeting, North Korea does.


“What is the downside, if there is this big-flags-waving, red carpet summit and then no results?” Mitchell asked the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and national security adviser.


“I think it’s very risky,” Rice said.  “It risks the president’s credibility, the credibility of the United States, and worse still, I think it increases the risk of conflict if they go into something with very high expectations, poor preparation, and the president acting in his typically mercurial way.”


“We could end up in a much worse place then we are today,” Rice warned.

“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams had a lot of fun with CNN’s response: “More Wolf Blitzer just called the North Korean breakthrough ‘the other major story we’re following.’ ‪#StormyCNN”

“If you aren’t watching CNN pundits trying to explain how the worst president of all time is about to denuclearize North Korea in his sophomore year, you’re missing the show of the year. #POTUS”

I agree with Stelian Onufrei, who tweeted the history of these savants on foreign affairs:

Trump Admin:


-Withdraws from TPP


-Virtually destroys ISIS


-Talks with NK to denuclearize


Obama admin:


-Covertly gave Iran $1.7 billion


-Gave Russia control over US uranium production with Uranium One deal


-Gave up key US internet infrastructure to international body

…and Hale Razor on the Democrats’ foreign establishment’s demonstrated failure in reining in North Korea:

@hale_razor

2009: ignoring N Korea is working

2010: ” ” 

2011: ” “

2012: ” “

2013: underground test of 10 kiloton bomb

2014: ignoring is working

2015: ” “

2016: underground test of 25 kiloton bomb

2017: ENGAGING N KOREA WILL KILL US ALL! 

2018: Disarmament meeting

In fact, Trump has handled this masterfully, pressuring countries and companies not to deal with North Korea, strengthening Japan’s will, bringing our forces into the area, encouraging the interdiction of supply ships to North Korea, and placing an already basket-case nation on the verge of collapse and its leader increasingly likely to be assassinated by his starving people.

The president tweeted: “The deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the World. Time and place to be determined.”  I believe him.  Contrary to the claim that he goes into these things without careful planning and strategy, he seems to always scope out everything step by step to achieve his aims.

They laughed and said he couldn’t get the nomination.  He did.  They never believed he would be elected.  He was. They said his election would tank the market.  It’s risen substantially.  They said his blunderbuss style would cause the world to blow up.  Obama said the lost jobs would never come back.  They have.  It’s more likely that the president will bring peace to the Middle East and Asia. (I hope you noticed Crown Prince Mohammed of Saudi Arabia sitting with Tawadros II, head of the Coptic Church in Egypt, under a painting of Christ – signaling that Christians in that part of the world were under his protection.  Could you have ever imagined this under Clinton or Obama?  Seriously?) 

After ISIS and North Korea, I expect that the Iranians are next on the neuter list, and that has to scare the bejeebers out of those who’ve been peddling the Russiagate nonsense, which I think is in large part to hide their own collusion with the ayatollahs.

Trump and Tariffs

As for the claim that the tariff impositions on aluminum and steel will create more than an extra incentive for China to help rein in Kim, Mexico and Canada are already negotiating for exemptions from the tariff, and steelworkers and the AFL-CIO are hailing the move.

Lest you think the Democrats have no real plan to secure a blue wave at the midterms, they announced that if they win, they want to raise taxes when they retake Congress. 

I suppose they also could steal another idea from the South African minister of finance, who says he’ll end poverty by just printing more money.  It worked so well in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

The left (I refuse to call regressives “progressives”) is finding it hard to deal with a reality in which the markets are up, unemployment is down, household income is rising, ISIS is being crushed, and Kim Jong-un is being lassoed.

Former NYT editor Jill Abramson probably reflects the paper’s Upper West Side of Manhattan when she reveals she carries as an amulet (against the reality of a Trump presidency) – a little Obama doll in her purse – to comfort herself.  “It’s easy to look at what’s happening in Washington, DC, and despair. That’s why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse.  I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African-American president until very recently.  Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump’s America.”

Somehow, her former paper scoured the earth to find a method-actor pig-farmer in Athens, Ohio who has found another way to shut out reality and keep his worldview intact – he plugged his ears with white noise to cut out all news.

Jeffrey Satinover observes: “‘He is as ignorant as a contemporary citizen could ever hope to be’ states the author.  But, no, that’s not so.  For this gentleman simply knows nothing where there is something to be known.  Believing readers of the Times, however, and authors for the Times, they are far more ignorant than the know-nothings for they are chock full of beliefs that more often than not, and mostly on matters of great importance, are flatly false.  It’s not nearly so bad to say, ‘I don’t know if the earth is round or flat’ as it is to be arrogantly certain that it’s flat.”

For the rest of us, this week’s news shows how transformational the president is.  Abramson, I suppose, will just have to clutch her doll more often, and the pig-farmer, like Rip van Winkle, eventually will awake from his self-induced slumber – in his case, to a world he could hardly imagine: a far more prosperous, orderly, peaceful place than the left-wing globalists have imposed for a couple of decades.

Russiagate Falls, FBI/DOJgate Rises

Lee Smith, no Trump fan, explains why the media are blindsiding the public on a nonexistent Russian collusion fairy tale. 

[T]here is a growing consensus among reporters and thinkers on the left and right – especially those who know anything about Russia, the surveillance apparatus, and intelligence bureaucracy – that the Russiagate-collusion theory that was supposed to end Trump’s presidency within six months has sprung more than a few holes.  Worse, it has proved to be a cover for U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement bureaucracies to break the law, with what’s left of the press gleefully going along for the ride.  Where Watergate was a story about a crime that came to define an entire generation’s oppositional attitude toward politicians and the country’s elite, Russiagate, they argue, has proved itself to be the reverse: It is a device that the American elite is using to define itself against its enemies – the rest of the country.

He describes how the intelligence agencies leaked to complaisant reporters like Jane Mayer and Adam Entous were used by the intel-leakers to further their aims of bringing down the president: 

According to British court documents, The New Yorker was one of the publications that former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele briefed in September 2016 on the findings in his now-notorious dossier.  In a New Yorker profile of Steele this week – portraying the spy-for-corporate-hire as a patriotic hero and laundering his possible criminal activities – Jane Mayer explains that she was personally briefed by Steele during that time period.


The New Yorker has produced tons of Russiagate stories, including a small anthology of takes on the Mueller indictments alone.  Of course, there’s one by the recently-hired Adam Entous, the former Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the news that the Washington firm Fusion GPS, which produced the Steele dossier, had been hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee – a story that helped Fusion GPS relieve some of the pressure congressional inquiries had put on the firm to release its bank records.  No doubt Entous will continue to use his sources, whoever they are, to break more such stories at The New Yorker.

The media-intel collaboration began under Obama, and Entous hawked it and their cover story.  Why would he bite the hands that fed him by revealing an unwarranted governmental intrusion on the privacy of Americans?

Methodically, Smith unravels how Entous was repeatedly used to tar Russia and the attorney general with lies or improperly unmasked information.

I cannot argue with his conclusion:

If you think Russiagate is real, then you will probably conclude that Sessions, Prince, and Page are all part of a single, monstrous criminal conspiracy – and that Adam Entous is one of the most important journalists in American history, an indefatigable shoe-leather reporter who helped whistleblowers inside the federal government put the truth before the American public, like Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and Neil Sheehan combined.  If you think the collusion story is nonsense, then Entous is just a political operative with a convenient byline.  And if you think Russiagate is a campaign of political warfare waged in the shadows by bureaucrats who violated the privacy of American citizens in order to undo election results they disagreed with, then Entous is something worse – an asset whom sectors of the intelligence community have come to rely on in order to manipulate the public. 

In any event, this past week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions dropped a bombshell on the leakers and their media handmaidens.  He announced that he had already appointed an “outside Department of Justice official”  to investigate the charges brought by the House Intelligence Committee and the matters revealed by the ongoing inspector general’s investigation of wrongdoing by DOJ and FBI officials.

Sessions added: “Also, I am well aware we have a responsibility to insure the integrity of the FISA process.  We’re not afraid to look at that.  The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong, but he has almost 500 employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors, and they are looking at the FISA process.  We must make sure that it’s done properly, and we’re going to do that.  And I’ll consider their request.

It’s certainly likely that such familiar names to us as “Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Baker, Bill Priestap, Bruce Ohr and likely Nellie Ohr, have cut some kind of deal with the outside prosecutor for process leniency in exchange for cooperation with the IG and DOJ prosecutor,” says my friend Rattler Gator.  And I find that most probable.

If they are, the persons who pulled their strings are not likely to get a pass.

Speculation mounts online that this unprecedented corruption of the intel apparatus has a hidden motive: the Obama administration’s collusion with the Iranian mullahs.  Time will tell if that proves true.  After all, as Lee Smith noted, the first evidence we have of this arose in connection with spying on those in Congress who opposed the Iranian deal.

It got worse when the Obama administration started spying on its domestic opponents during the Iran deal, when the Obama administration learned how far it could go in manipulating the foreign-intelligence surveillance apparatus for domestic political advantage.  As Adam Entous, then of The Wall Street Journal, wrote in a December 2015 article, “the National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.

I suspect that some evidence now in the hands of the I.G. and Sessions’s appointed attorney has come from a friendly intel service (no – not the U.K., of course) that has the goods on Iranian collusion and is more than willing to share it.

Kim Jong-un Moves Away from Threats to Talks

If the Sessions announcement weren’t enough, the report later in the week that Kim Jong-un and the president will meet to discuss denuclearization of North Korea caused, in Thomas Lipscomb’s words, “a lot of wet floors in DC.”

The usual news parrots grabbed their rolodexes to interview those responsible for Kim’s nuclearization to warn the president that he is in dangerous waters and needs their expert advice to handle this.

The Obama administration’s designated liar, Susan Rice, met with the Democrats’ favorite TV propagandist, Andrea Mitchell, to issue – from her vast experience – a warning:

Former Obama administration official Susan Rice on Friday questioned President Donald Trump’s ability to successfully execute a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and she warned an unsuccessful meeting could increase the risk of conflict.


MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell – in response to an announcement that Trump will meet with Kim in the coming months – said to Rice that while the United States doesn’t necessarily have a strategy for negotiations for an upcoming meeting, North Korea does.


“What is the downside, if there is this big-flags-waving, red carpet summit and then no results?” Mitchell asked the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and national security adviser.


“I think it’s very risky,” Rice said.  “It risks the president’s credibility, the credibility of the United States, and worse still, I think it increases the risk of conflict if they go into something with very high expectations, poor preparation, and the president acting in his typically mercurial way.”


“We could end up in a much worse place then we are today,” Rice warned.

“Dilbert” creator Scott Adams had a lot of fun with CNN’s response: “More Wolf Blitzer just called the North Korean breakthrough ‘the other major story we’re following.’ ‪#StormyCNN”

“If you aren’t watching CNN pundits trying to explain how the worst president of all time is about to denuclearize North Korea in his sophomore year, you’re missing the show of the year. #POTUS”

I agree with Stelian Onufrei, who tweeted the history of these savants on foreign affairs:

Trump Admin:


-Withdraws from TPP


-Virtually destroys ISIS


-Talks with NK to denuclearize


Obama admin:


-Covertly gave Iran $1.7 billion


-Gave Russia control over US uranium production with Uranium One deal


-Gave up key US internet infrastructure to international body

…and Hale Razor on the Democrats’ foreign establishment’s demonstrated failure in reining in North Korea:

@hale_razor

2009: ignoring N Korea is working

2010: ” ” 

2011: ” “

2012: ” “

2013: underground test of 10 kiloton bomb

2014: ignoring is working

2015: ” “

2016: underground test of 25 kiloton bomb

2017: ENGAGING N KOREA WILL KILL US ALL! 

2018: Disarmament meeting

In fact, Trump has handled this masterfully, pressuring countries and companies not to deal with North Korea, strengthening Japan’s will, bringing our forces into the area, encouraging the interdiction of supply ships to North Korea, and placing an already basket-case nation on the verge of collapse and its leader increasingly likely to be assassinated by his starving people.

The president tweeted: “The deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the World. Time and place to be determined.”  I believe him.  Contrary to the claim that he goes into these things without careful planning and strategy, he seems to always scope out everything step by step to achieve his aims.

They laughed and said he couldn’t get the nomination.  He did.  They never believed he would be elected.  He was. They said his election would tank the market.  It’s risen substantially.  They said his blunderbuss style would cause the world to blow up.  Obama said the lost jobs would never come back.  They have.  It’s more likely that the president will bring peace to the Middle East and Asia. (I hope you noticed Crown Prince Mohammed of Saudi Arabia sitting with Tawadros II, head of the Coptic Church in Egypt, under a painting of Christ – signaling that Christians in that part of the world were under his protection.  Could you have ever imagined this under Clinton or Obama?  Seriously?) 

After ISIS and North Korea, I expect that the Iranians are next on the neuter list, and that has to scare the bejeebers out of those who’ve been peddling the Russiagate nonsense, which I think is in large part to hide their own collusion with the ayatollahs.

Trump and Tariffs

As for the claim that the tariff impositions on aluminum and steel will create more than an extra incentive for China to help rein in Kim, Mexico and Canada are already negotiating for exemptions from the tariff, and steelworkers and the AFL-CIO are hailing the move.

Lest you think the Democrats have no real plan to secure a blue wave at the midterms, they announced that if they win, they want to raise taxes when they retake Congress. 

I suppose they also could steal another idea from the South African minister of finance, who says he’ll end poverty by just printing more money.  It worked so well in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.



Source link