Tag Archive for: Progressive

Tide Turning on Woke Criminal Justice Cabal

/in , , , /by

Last month, San Francisco voters, fed up with high crime, ousted progressive prosecutor Chesa Boudin in a recall election.  The new DA has just cleaned house, firing 15 employees in a new emphasis on public safety.  She vowed to hold “serious and repeat offenders accountable.”  Put this together with the jurisdictions re-funding the police and walking back their no-cash bail policies, and it appears Woke criminal justice reform has passed its peak. Funny what happens when people get mugged by reality.

But there’s work left to do in many places.  West Hollywood is reducing the size of its sheriff’s department despite the fact crime is up 137 percent.  Chicago police are no longer allowed to chase people on foot.  A one-man crime wave was arrested five times in ten days in New York City, after being released without bail for a slashing and other crimes.  The New York subway stabber was released from jail the night before, having been given ‘time served’ for brandishing a knife at police.  In all, violent crime is way up in New York and other cities controlled by Democrats.

Cashless bail, not letting police do their job, or getting rid of police officers entirely – we already know how these stories end, and they don’t end well.   But hope springs eternal in the fantasyland of the mindless Left.

The stories will end just as badly in cities still stuck with progressive prosecutors.  Steve Descano’s office in Fairfax, Virginia sought a light sentence for a man charged with assault and battery.  The man went on to beat a 63-year-old woman to death at a bus stop. Next door in Loudon County, a judge removed the progressive prosecutor from a case for “deliberately misleading the Court and the public” in an attempt to ‘sell’ a plea deal.  In Philadelphia, progressive prosecutor Larry Krasner dropped charges against three Antifa members who beat two Hispanic men.  The progressive prosecutor in L.A., George Gascon, treated a 17-year-old repeat offender as a juvenile and asked the court to put him in a probation camp after the offender tried to kill a young mother and child, despite the fact the offender was on parole and violating the terms of his release at the time of the attack.

The puppet master behind all these progressive prosecutors is George Soros who has spent $40 million to elect 75 progressive prosecutors around the country.  The man evidently wants to sow chaos and is spending his fortune to do it. Twenty-eight of his puppets signed an open letter after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade saying they will defy state laws that limit abortion.    These lawless puppets want to play state legislature and decide what the laws should be, which is not their role.  This is chaos.  Before you say you kinda like the idea of not enforcing abortion laws, let’s change the facts:  How would you like it if 28 Trump prosecutors said they would not enforce climate emergency laws?

On the Left, the issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution. Woke criminal justice reform isn’t just about evening the score for the supposedly downtrodden and oppressed.  It’s about creating chaos, to make society stink and push frustrated citizens into voting left-wing authoritarian governments into power to clean up the mess the authoritarians created in the first place.   But Woke criminal justice reform is on the decline and, now, two progressive prosecutors have gone down to ignominious defeat at the polls.  If the Left wants to create further chaos, they’re going to have to find another way to do it.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Major Convenience Chain Closes LA Locations Over Violence Fears

Starbucks CEO Blames Woke Elected Officials For 16 Store Closures In Dangerous Cities

Globalism: Persuading the Individual to Stop Being an Individual

/in , , , /by

If society understood the reality of collectivism instead of the promise of collectivism then their support for collectivism would vanish.

The elite globalist leaders selling collectivism know this to be true and so they have had to rebrand collectivism as Globalism. Songs are written about globalism – John Lennon’s classic song “Imagine” is the globalist anthem. The successful marketing of collectivism requires the names to change from already rejected Communism and faltering Socialism (think Venezuela) to the promise of a New World Order renamed GLOBALISM that disingenuously pledges social justice and income equality.

Globalism is the new word for the old lie about collectivism – that surrendering individual rights and national sovereignty will deliver social justice and income equality.  

Philosopher Ayn Rand understood the sinister nature of collectivism and and wrote extensively about socialism/communism and how it persuades the individual to stop being an individual:

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” 

The Islamization of Europe and the West demonstrates how mass social indoctrination toward collectivism leads to cultural suicide and the death of the individual.

Ayn Rand writes:

“When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.”

Europe’s surrender of its national sovereignty began after WWII with the 1957 Treaty of Rome that created the European Economic Committee (EEC) which eventually became the European Union(EU) of today. Internationalizing Europe’s sovereign nation states into the EU left the United States as the single greatest obstacle to one-world government.

Macron’s victory in France is a victory for collectivism at the expense of French sovereignty and French individualism represented by Marine Le Pen. It is a surrender to postmodern moral relativism, and historical revisionism designed to destroy democracy and its incomparable individual rights and freedoms. The question is WHO benefits from Macron’s victory?? The globalist elite of course. Socialism (total government control) is the death of democracy and is the prerequisite for internationalizing nation states and the imposition of one-world government Globalism. The greatest single obstacle to one-world government is the nation state. National sovereignty is to a country what individual sovereignty is to a human being.

The left-wing liberal agenda seeks to destroy the socio-political capitalist infrastructure of America and transform it into a dependent European-style socialist state with cradle to grave control by the government. Their strategy is to destroy American democracy by dismantling the supporting American institutions of family, religion, and education that promote independence, adulthood, individualism, and ego strength – the same qualities that made America great.

Ayn Rand warns us:

“Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.” 

American education, our elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and universities, are a specific target and field of practice. The anarchists, socialists, and hippies of the 60s have become the teachers and professors now indoctrinating their students toward collectivism. The problem, of course, is that these narcissistic intellectuals have never lived under collectivist tyranny – they are armchair pundits living in subjective reality. Anyone interested in the objective reality of collectivism should be listening to those who have escaped from its tyrannical rule.

The entire narrative of the Left is designed to induce regression through educational indoctrination and the media – as Hillary Clinton famously remarked they need “an unaware compliant public.” Unaware and compliant are the hallmarks of childhood. The pitch might sound good to a childish mind who is seduced by candy from a stranger but the adult mind understands the sinister end-game. Once the public is entirely dependent on the government they lose all individual rights and national sovereignty as the socialized state becomes part of the internationalized one-world government. The doors of the car lock and there is no escape – only exploitation and enslavement.

One-world government is the big lie of the 21st century. It promises redistribution of wealth and social justice. What it delivers is unapologetically described in chilling detail by globalist elite English aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society.

The left-wing liberal lemmings are the useful idiots who are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction. They have been indoctrinated to believe they are fighting for “social justice” when in fact they are helping to establish the dystopian nightmare of one-world government where there is no middle class, no upward mobility, no national sovereignty, and no individual freedoms. There is only the ruling elite and the enslaved population who service them.

The left-wing liberal lemmings in Europe and in America should take a break from marching and “resisting” and start reading Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society written in 1952. They will learn that their script was written 65 years ago by the globalist elites who dreamed of one-world government – a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves.

The globalist elite’s New World Order was their self-serving answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth not having enough resources to sustain the population growth. Tavistock Institute was exported to America with the purpose of indoctrinating Americans via education and the media – particularly television – the greatest vehicle for mass social engineering ever invented. The Hollywood glitterati and the protesting hoards should take a pause and understand there is no place for them in the New World Order – they are simply useful idiots who will be destroyed.

The aristocratic Lord Bertrand Russell and the late David Rockefeller had no moral problem with eliminating the useless eaters any more than Hitler with exterminating Jews, Islamists with exterminating infidels, or the Chinese Emperors with burying their concubines alive to service them in the afterlife. The point is elitism is supremacist – there is no egalitarian respect for human life only the pretense of humanitarian considerations. The Left and the Islamists have common cause in trying to destroy America from within – but it is the globalist elites who finance and disingenuously facilitate both groups because the social chaos they each engender is a prerequisite for imposing globalist one-world government. For the globalist elite whether in Europe or in America, the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots.

Socialism will never provide social justice – it will only provide the pathway to one-world government where no individual rights or self-determination exist. Socialism strips the individual of his selfness and transforms that individual into property of the state. The individual who willingly forfeits his selfness for socialism has been successfully persuaded to stop being an individual. Socialism is not a free ride it is slavery.

Karl Marx’s Flight from Reality by Richard M. Ebeling

/in , , , /by

Though it may seem strange, Karl Marx was not always a communist. As late as 1842, when Marx was in his mid-20s, he actually said he opposed any attempt to establish a communist system. In October 1842, he became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung [the Rhineland Times], and wrote in an editorial:

The Rheinische Zeitung … does not admit that communist ideas in their present form possess even theoretical reality, and therefore can still less desire their practical realization, or even consider it possible.

In 1843, Marx was forced to resign his editorship because of political pressure from the Prussian government and ended up moving to Paris. It was in Paris that he met his future lifelong collaborator, Friedrich Engels (who already was a socialist), and began his deeper study of socialism and communism, leading to his full “conversion” to the collectivist ideal.

Feuerbach and the Worship of Man Perfected

From his student days in Berlin, two German philosophers left their imprint upon Marx: George Hegel (1770-1831) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). From Hegel, Marx learned the theory of “dialectics” and the idea of historical progress to universal improvement. From Feuerbach, Marx accepted the idea of man “perfected.” Feuerbach had argued that rather than worshiping a non-existing supernatural being – God – man should worship himself.

The “true” religion of the future should, therefore, be the Worship of Mankind, and that man “perfected” would be changed from a being focused on and guided by his own self-interest to one who was totally altruistic, that is, concerned only with the betterment of and service to Mankind as a whole, rather than only himself.

Marx took Feuerbach’s notion of man “perfected” and developed what he considered to be the essential characteristics of such a developed human nature. There were three elements to such a perfected human being, Marx argued:First, the Potential for “Autonomous Action.” This is action undertaken by a man only out of desire or enjoyment, not out of necessity. If a man works at a blacksmith’s forge out of a desire to creatively exercise his faculties in molding metal into some artistic form, this is free or “autonomous action.” If a man works at the forge because he will starve unless he makes a plow to plant a crop, he is acting under a “compulsion” or a “constraint.”

Second, the Potential for “Societal Orientation.” Only man, Marx argued, can reflect on and direct his conscious actions to the improvement the “community” of which he is a part, and which nourishes his own capacity for personal development. When man associates with others only out of self-interest, he denies his true “social” self. Thus, egoism is “unworthy” of a developed human being.

And, third, the Potential for “Aesthetic Appreciation.” This is when man values things only for themselves; for example, “nature for nature’s sake,” or “art for art’s sake.” To view things, Marx claimed, only from the perspective of how something might be used to improve an individual’s personal circumstance is a debasement of the “truly” aesthetic value in things.

Capitalism Keeps Man from Perfection

Feuerbach believed man was “alienated” from himself when he was not “other-oriented.” To change from self-interest to altruism was mostly a state of mind that man could change within himself, Feuerbach argued. Marx insisted that the problem of “alienation” was not due to a person’s “state of mind,” but was conditioned by the “objective” institutional circumstances under which men lived. That is, the political, social, and economic institutions made man what he is. Change the social order, and man would be changed. “Capitalism,” Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

How did this “alienation” manifest itself?

Capitalism, Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

First, there is the Stifling of Autonomous Action. In the marketplace, forces “outside” the control of the individual determine what is produced and how it is produced. The individual “reacts” to the market, he does not control it. Thus, market forces are external constraints on man. He responds to the market out of “necessity,” not out of free desire.Furthermore, to enhance production and productivity, man is “forced” to participate in a division of labor to earn a living that makes him an “appendage” to a machine, a “slave” to the machines owned by the “capitalists” for whom he is “compelled” to work.

Second, there is Diminished Other-Orientedness. In the market, the individual sees others only as a means to his material ends; he trades with others to get what he wants from others, merely in pursuit of his own self-interest. Work is not considered a communal “cooperative” process, but an antagonistic relationship between what the individual wants and what is wanted by the one with whom he trades.

Third, there is Limited Aesthetic Appreciation. In the market, people see nature, resources, and the creations of man not as things to be intrinsically valued in themselves, but as marketable objects – as means – to personal ends. Acquisition of things – possessiveness – becomes the primary goal of economic activity for making a living.

Communism’s Liberation of Constrained Man

Communism, through collective planning, would make work an “autonomous” act, rather than “constrained action.” When democratically regulated by the workers as a whole, Marx asserted, collective planning would emerge from the desires of all the members of society as their communal choice and consent. It would be consciously planned and directed through the participation of all the members of society, thus generating an “other-oriented” sense of a “common good” for which all worked.

No one would be forced and constrained to do what another made them do in the division of labor anymore. Indeed, communism would free men from the “tyranny” of specialization. In Marx’s words, from The German Ideology (1845),

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind.

In this new communist world, no one will have to work at anything he did not like or want to do. In addition, under communal planning, production would rise to such a height of productivity that the work day would be shortened to the point that each person’s time would be free to do only the things he enjoyed doing.

Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait, and altruism would become the dominant trait.

Communism would also enhance social consciousness and other-orientedness. All that was communally produced would be distributed on the basis of “need” or “want.” No longer would scarcity impose constraints on man’s desires. As a result, the urge for “possessiveness” and acquisition of “things” would diminish and finally disappear. Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait.Others would no longer be viewed as “competitors” for scarce things, but as social collaborators for attaining “higher” ends of social importance. Altruism would become the dominant trait in man.

In addition, communism would result in the flowering of aesthetic appreciation.

Man would not create so he could earn a living, but for the pleasure of the activity itself. Work would not be a source of “alienation” but an activity reflecting the free – the “autonomous” – desires of man for the “beautiful.”

Communism would liberate man in all ways and all things, said Marx:

With a communist organization of society, there disappears the subordination … of the individual to some definite art, making him exclusively a painter, a sculptor, etc. … In a communist society, there are no longer painters, but only people who engage in painting among other activities.

With the end of capitalism and the arrival of communism, there would come a heaven on earth. There would be enough of everything for all. Man would be freed from working for survival, he would be unchained from the division of labor, he would be liberated to follow whatever gave his heart pleasure. With Communism, man becomes like God – free and powerful to do whatever he wants.

Marx’s Denial of Self-Oriented Human Nature

Let me suggest that what Marx was objecting to – revolting against – was human nature and the existence of scarcity. Man can never escape from or get outside of being an individual “ego.” We exist as individual human beings; we think, remember, imagine, choose, and act as distinct and unique individual men and women.

Our experiences are our experiences; our thoughts and beliefs are our reflections and ideas; our judgments and valuations are our estimates and rankings of things of importance to us. Even when we try to put ourselves in another person’s shoes, to try to sympathize, empathize, and understand the meanings, experiences, and actions of others, it is from our perspective and state of mind that we do so.It is the individuality of the person in these and other facets of our distinct nature and character as conscious, conceptualizing creatures that make for the unique differences and diversities of our minds as self-oriented human beings. This is the source of the creativity and plethora of possibilities that can and have emerged from seeing the world in the distinct and different ways of self-oriented and self-experiencing people when pursuing their own improvement. As they consider what is most advantageous for themselves and others they “selfishly” care about, they support and encourage an institutional setting of peaceful and voluntary market association.

Marx’s Denial of the Reality of Scarcity

Marx also objects to the reality of the necessity to have to produce in order to consume and to have to view one’s own labor as a means to various ends, rather than simply being somehow provided with all that we want and our labor being “free” to be used as a pleasurable end in itself.

Likewise, he revolts against men viewing each other as a means to their respective desired ends rather than as purely human relationships, a “club” in which all get together and freely associate for “good times” with no concern for how or who provides the things without which good times cannot occur.

Nor can he abide men looking upon nature and man-made objects as the means or tools of producing the necessities, amenities, and luxuries of life, with the assignment of a “money value” to a house, a work of art, a waterfall, or a sculpture being “dehumanizing” for Marx.

However, the only reason such things are given values by people in society is that they are wanted but also scarce and because the means to achieve them are scarce as well. As a consequence, we must decide what we consider to be more or less valuable and important to us since all that we would like to have cannot be simultaneously fulfilled at the same time.

Marx’s hatred for the division of labor is an outgrowth of this worldview. Man is seen as somehow less than whole by specializing in a task and selling both his labor and his fraction of the total output to achieve the ends and goals he considers more important than what he has to give up in return.

Marx’s Misconception of Action and Choice

The entire Marxian conception of man, society, and happiness can be conceived, therefore, as a flight from reality. It can be seen in Marx’s distinction between “autonomous action” and capitalist “choices.”

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested: we undertake courses of action only after we have decided what it is we wish to do. That is, we decide which among the alternatives available to us we shall try to bring about, and which shall be set aside for a day or forever because not everything we desire can be had, due to the constraints of nature and the existence of other human beings.

Marx talks of people fishing in the morning and hunting in the afternoon – does that not mean that the person’s time is scarce? Is he not “frustrated” that he cannot do both at the same time, or be in two places at once?

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested.

If every man is to be “autonomously free” to hunt and fish whenever and to whatever extent he desires, what happens when the various members of the community wish to kill the forest animals or catch the fish at such a rate that they are threatened with extinction? Or what if several people all want to fish from the same place along the river or lake bank at the same time, or from the same “cover” position while out hunting?Marx might say that a “societal orientation” on the part of everyone would result in some form of “comradely” compromise. But is that not just other language for “mutual agreements,” “trade-offs,” and “exchanges” concerning the use and disposal of scarce resources – the disposition of the communal property rights among the members of society?

There is no certainty that all of the members of such a society will always like the communally agreed-upon outcomes, with some of them considering themselves “exploited” for the benefit of others who have out-voted them. And, therefore, they may be “alienated” from their fellow men and from nature even in the communist paradise to come.

Nor can there simply be the idea of art for art’s sake or nature for nature’s sake.

Resources for art and gifts of nature (unless cultivated to expand them) are always limited. The use of forests for primitive contemplation versus industrial use versus residential housing would still have to be made in Marx’s magical communist society. And, certainly, not everyone in the bright, beautiful communist society may agree or like the decisions that a majority of others in the blissful societal commune make about such things.

The paint for the artist’s pallet is not in infinite supply, so some art would have to be forgone so other art might be pursued; similarly with the ingredients going into the manufacture of paints versus being used for other things. To assume that men would never conflict over how to dispose of these things is to escape into a complete fantasyland.

Also, it is a physical and psychological fact that men differ in their relative capacities and inclinations in terms of various tasks needing to be performed. It is a physical and psychological fact that men tend to be more productive when they specialize in a small range of tasks as opposed to trying to be a “jack-of-all-trades.”

The Reality of Communism Versus the Reality of Capitalism

As a result, the division of labor raises both the productivity and the total production of a community of men, standards of living rise, leisure time can be expanded, and more variety and quality of goods can be produced.

Indeed, it has been free market capitalism that has provided humanity over the last 200 years with that actual relative horn-of-plenty wherever a fairly free rein has existed for self-interested individual action in pursuit of profit in associative relationships of specialization based on the peaceful use of private property.

Capitalism has been the great liberator of ever more of mankind from poverty, want, and worry. It has freed people from the hardship and drudgery of often life-threatening forms of work. The free market has shortened the hours of work needed to generate levels of material and cultural comfort for a growing number of people and provided the longer, healthier lives and increased leisure time for people to enjoy the wealth that economic freedom has made possible.The “de-alienation” of man from his everyday existence, in the sense that Marx talked about it, has also, in fact, been brought about through the achievements of capitalism. It has relieved more and more of mankind from the concerns of mere survival and subsistence through the capital accumulation and profit-oriented production that has raised the productivity of all those who work and expanded the available supply of useful goods and services. The free market has enabled people to have the means to fulfill more of the enjoyments and meanings of life as ends in themselves.

Furthermore, as Austrian economist F. A. Hayek and others have pointed out, the advantage of the free market system is precisely that it does not require all of the members of the society to agree upon and share the same hierarchy of goals, ends, and values. Each individual, under competitive capitalism, is at liberty to select and follow their own purposes and pursue happiness in their own way. Using each other as the voluntary means to their respective ends in the arena of peaceful market exchange allows a much larger diversity of outcomes reflecting differences among people than if one central plan needs to imposed on all in the name of the interests of a collectivist community as a whole.

Marx’s flight from reality, on the other hand, was the wish to have everything capitalism, the division of labor, and competitive exchange can produce, but without the cost of work, discipline, specialization, and selecting among alternatives. It is like the cry of the child who refuses to accept the fact that he cannot have everything he wants, right there and then and, instead, expects someone or something to provide it to him and everyone else in a blissful fairyland of material plentitude.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

New Board Game ‘Socialism’ parodies Monopoly, satirizes Hillary Clinton

/in , /by

PHILADELPHIA, PA /PRNewswire/ — What would America look like under Socialism? Startup Company, Diogenes Games says they don’t know, but developed a satirical version of Monopoly to find out. They call it SOCIALISM: The Game.

The small startup is proud to announce the commencement of a Kickstarter campaign to promote their parody tabletop game “SOCIALISM”.

A hilarious sendup of the classic board game Monopoly, SOCIALISM: The Game has a radically different goal than the original – the object of the game is to achieve total fairness and equality through the renting and selling of property under a modern, progressive, and populist public policy. The game is over when everyone has $300or less, and uses caricatures of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to replace the game’s original mascot, Rich Uncle Pennybags.

“We discovered that our game was a fun way to hypothesize what might happen if trends in public policy, trends that have recently entered mainstream political debate, were extrapolated to their logical conclusions in the capitalistic world of Hasbro’s real estate trading game Monopoly,” said John Elliott, CEO and founder of Diogenes Games.

Elliott says the results “aren’t pretty,” but thinks that they just might change the way people think about campaigns, elections, and politics in general. One of the ways the game accomplishes this is through an “enlightened” rulebook that contains sarcastic-yet-realistic changes:

  • There’s no more “banker” – all dealings are with the Federal Directorate of Redistributive Services
  • You don’t “go to jail,” you “go to rehab”
  • You don’t have title cards, you are granted a public “concession” to manage a property
  • No more hotels; public “housing towers” are the highest and best use
  • Chance and Community Chest? Nope. “Fat Chance” and “Communism Chest”

The “Fat Chance” and “Communism Chest” cards also reflect the satirical nature of the game, with gems like “Advance to income tax” and “Bernout! Power grid fails on a cloudy windless day. Flick the lights off, pay the player on your right $100 for a black market generator.”

After months of development, design, and play testing, the game is currently in production and is expected to ship in June, if not sooner.

SOCIALISM: The Game on Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/333308942/socialism-the-game

SOCIALISM: The Game Website: https://www.SocialismGame.com

EDITORS NOTE: This game is political satire, or is it?

Which Group Poses the Gravest National Security Threat to America?

/in , , , /by

For decades I have said America’s number one national security threat is the Islamic ideology. Now in April 2016 as I have became a bit wiser about the ‘Big Picture’ of our world and how an elite few liberals control much of the world events, I feel there is a need to update my national security threat analysis.

Of course the Islamic ideology is dangerous and a threat to the entire world, but the question we must ask ourselves is how is Islam allowed to thrive in America despite many intelligent people understanding it can and likely will destroy the world.

Liberals in America, currently being led by America’s worst U.S. President (Obama), and by far the President who hates America and what it has stood for since it’s birth are the leading forces behind why the violent ideology of Islam is allowed to grow, flourish, and be accepted into all areas of Americans lives.

There are several definitions of a liberal, but my definition is the one you will never hear our media or politicians use. “Liberals in America are everything but American. Liberals are traitors to this great country and are the cause behind America’s destruction from within. Although many U.S. liberals were born here, they do not uphold basic American values and for this reason they are America’s number one threat to our nation security, our country’s survival, and the future of our children”.

There are a dozen or so legitimate counter-terrorism professionals in America. There are hundreds of self appointed fake counter-terrorism professionals in America who have fooled the American public into believing they know Islamic based terrorism issues inside and out. A few of the fakes include all major media people who pose as journalists, such as O’Reilly and Hannity. More such fakes are senior law enforcement officials at all levels of our government. Finally the leading fakes are Christian and Jewish leaders who pose as religious heads close to God and who by the very nature of their ‘jobs’ feel they understand Islam and Islamic based terrorism better than all others. Thankfully we do have a handful of Christian and Jewish leaders who truly understand the threat of Islam, but they are out numbered by a ration of 1000 to 1!.

Counter-terrorism professionals have proven over and over and over that the Islamic ideology is dangerous, violent, a threat to the entire world, and it’s poison has entrenched all corners of the world and America. Then why has the Islamic ideology, Islamic terrorists, Islamic supporters, and Islamic Centers been allowed to thrive and multiply in America? The answer is that liberals (American traitors) allow it to thrive. Liberals believe that the Islamic scholars and Jihadists throughout the world will give them a break when it comes to enforcing Sharia law in America, such as beheadings, being set on fire, rape of women, and death for the most minute obscure failings of human beings.

Liberals are very wrong of course. When Islam dominates America, there will be no safe zones for liberals or for any person who does not give their 100% allegiance to Islam.

  • Liberals are the people who advocate allowing illegal (criminals) to enter America, allowing mosques to advocate and promote violence, and even child marriages in America.
  • Liberals are the ones who advocate refugees who have not been properly vetted to come into our country by the hundreds of thousands.
  • Liberals are the one’s who give Islamic terrorist organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MANA, and all mosques in America tax free non profit status.
  • Liberals are the one’s who allow the school text books of our children to be drafted by Islamic terrorists from such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
  • Liberals are the people who allow Islamic terrorists from GITMO to be freed and allowed once again to target and kill our troops worldwide.
  • Liberals are the people who support Islamic based terrorists before they will American service members who have fought for America.
  • Liberals are the people who fight major wars using minor league rules and tactics.
  • Liberals are the people who voted an American traitor into office as our President.
  • Liberals are the people who support anti-Americans such as H. Clinton and a Socialist/Communist B. Sanders as possibly our next President.
  • Liberals are the people who will NEVER acknowledge that Islam is anything other than a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a few.

Abe Lincoln, one of America’s greatest Presidents (the 1st President from the Republican Party) said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”.

Will Patriotic Americans defeat the liberals who are posing as Americans in America? Will true Americans save America before liberals destroy us forever? My answer is we could, but Americans have been so brainwashed by liberal thought for decades, that it is unlikely we can reverse the dangerous course of destruction we are on.

TIP OF THE DAY: “Black Lives Matter is a Propaganda tool of liberals and Islamic based terrorist groups”

Robbie Travers: No Home on the Left for Opponents of Islamism

/in , , , /by

A journalist and law student explains his feeling the British left has ostracized opponents of Islamism after Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.

Robbie Travers is the executive director at Agora, non-partisan think tank for young people aged of 15-28 and junior media management at the Human Security Centre, a non-profit foreign policy think tank based in London. He is a second year student of law at Edinburgh University.

He graciously agreed to speak with Clarion Project Dialogue Coordinator Elliot Friedland about the struggle against Islamism on the British left.

Clarion Project: Why do you think certain sections of the left have struggled to robustly combat the problems of Islamism? 

Robbie Travers: There are a variety of reasons for the left’s troubling inability to combat Islamism or enter an honest dialogue on problems amongst Islamic groups.

These include the racism of low expectations, which is sadly a regular feature of the left’s discussions surrounding Islam.

Because Islamic people face prejudice in the West, many on the left often adopt an approached best simplified by the following formula: “since they must protect or defend minorities, and Muslims are a minority in the west, they consequently must protect Muslims.” This regressive trend of supporting and apologizing for the regressive elements of the religion of a minority is common.

This line of argument fails to wash though, as not discussing issues and failing to challenge authoritarian and theocratic views and individuals is not “protecting Muslims,” it’s eroding their relations with wider society and undermining the platform that moderate Muslims and Islamic reformers have to stay upon.

Many argue that since these people are oppressed, their terrorism may not be justifiable, but it is understandable. This, however, stands at odds with their mantra that Islamism isn’t properly part of Islam. So oppressing Muslims, apparently, enrages groups that aren’t “true Muslims” (note the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy) who then often kill Muslims, all to oppose the killing of Muslims?

If you are confused by the left’s complex and heavily contradictory narrative, don’t worry most voters are, and hence they no longer consider the left’s opinion as accurate or viable on Islamism.

Stop The War Gaza March, London (Photo: © Creative Commons, David Holt)

Stop The War Gaza March, London (Photo: © Creative Commons, David Holt)

Another reason is that because Islamism stands against the (western) patriarchy and the current system of capitalist and free societies, many feel that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, even when their friends tend to be theocratic totalitarian cults that despise many of the freedoms these individuals take for granted. The deployment of this argument can be seen as particularly prevalent amongst young activists and intersectionalists often chanting that since the West, which symbolizes the dominance of Western White-Cis-Hetero-Male ruling classes, and patriarchy, is the ultimate evil.

Anything which challenges this dastardly hegemony, since the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore, must be cheered and rooted for.

Cheering for movements and ideology despite not thinking of the consequences and full beliefs of these consequences has seen pro-LGBT groups defend IS and apologize for Hamas, women’s groups turning their back on democrats and Islamic feminists across the MENA in favor of apologizing for regimes that abuse them like Iran, and defending symbols of misogyny like the Burqa.

Senses of self-loathing and “white guilt” created by identify politics can be blamed for this inability to tackle Islamism too. Often when discussing Islam, you will encounter those who say “But Christianity is bad too,” and trade in various platitudes about Islam, such as “If all Muslims are terrorists, why aren’t we dead yet.” No-one of any credibility is asserting this, and to fight against straw men rather than the actual argument is a tactic of those unable to answer the decent, fair questions about problems with radicalization.

And if the left refuse to answer those questions coherently, the far right most certainly will answer the questions. And nobody of any substantial reason wants to see the far right with the exclusive ability to answer any questions.

The left have lost their way, large chunks of the Left no longer represent the working classes they purport to represent, and actually employ snobbery – being repulsed by the anti-immigration, socially conservative, anti-welfare working person who despises terrorism and is suspicious of Islamism. Most working class people have little time for those arguing about how the West is just as evil or IS, or that we have significant issues or problems that are comparable to the genocides committed by IS.

Hence the left risk drifting onto obscurity on the issue as their perceived base no longer sees the left as representative of their stance against terror.

Following from this, there is a determined arrogance amongst Progressives that an Islamist is just like them and isn’t actually motivated by the Koran, but rather has legitimate grievances with the West and current global order, and this somehow means we should understand that they are victims.

This fetishization of victimhood and diminishment of actual victims means that the left have no compelling ability to simply, and crisply condemn the terror attack and the ideology that motivated it, rather than blaming the victims for the attacks.

McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University. (Photo: © Creative Commons Dun_Deagh)

McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University. (Photo: © Creative Commons Dun_Deagh)

Clarion: You are currently a second year student at the University of Edinburgh. How do people on campus relate to the issue of Islamist extremism?

Travers: Edinburgh has seriously improved, but has a long way to progress. It must be stated that the majority of students are tired of flailing narratives, and we are seeing a desire for dialogue. Edinburgh now has an official “Israeli Engagement Society,” which aims to engage people in dialogue over such important topics. This would not have happened in previous years.

However, there was an attempt to stop the society from forming by voting individually, in which many members of Student Justice for Palestine tried to stop our group from existing. It is a worrying trend that some members of said group would seek to limit the rights of pro-Israeli students to recognition. They want one rule for themselves and another rule for others.

Often there is a bizarre position encountered on campus which argues Islamist extremism should not be seen as a threat, going along with anti-semitism, and the idea that Islamism is caused by the Western world. There is a worrying trend that somehow the 2003 invasion of Iraq is seen as a Pandora’s Box and the root of all subsequent evil, like the creation of IS. It is seen as a symbol of colonialism, and how the West needles in affairs of others too often. Many occupying this position however, when challenged, provide no answers on how to challenge either Islamic theocracies or terrorist organizations.

There is an idea that somehow Islamism and Islam are completely unconnected. There is also an incredibly paternalistic attitude that Islam must be protected from criticism. Students who will criticize the Vatican, or Judaism freely, will often feel scared to criticize Islam. There are also concerns about the “Safe space” policy which is designed to protect people from harmful and offensive speech. The problem, however, is when you exist in an environment in which people cannot discuss Islam or issues with the faith without others taking offence, and often taking offence because someone may take offence, you shut down the discussion.

Secular activist Maryam Namazie speaks at Goldsmiths University in London. She was heckled at the talk by opponents from the Islamic society who sought to prevent her from speaking in a speech widely reported in the British media. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Secular activist Maryam Namazie speaks at Goldsmiths University in London. She was heckled at the talk by opponents from the Islamic society who sought to prevent her from speaking in a speech widely reported in the British media. (Photo: Screenshot from video)

Clarion: Why do you support UK airstrikes against targets in Syria?

Travers: UK airstrikes in Iraq and Syria still have a remarkable 0 civilian casualties figure, which is a tribute to the precision strikes of our RAF and Brimstone missile technology. We are not slaughtering people as often posited, we are saving lives by striking strategic targets and ensuring civilians are not killed. This is what an accurate and precise military operation does and is not comparable to ISIS tactics. It’s also having a real effect, reducing IS territory in Iraq and Syria and hence reducing their ability to spread their genocidal rule.

The longer we allow their state to thrive in Iraq and Syria, the longer we allow a hostile terrorist training facility, which areas of Iraq and Syria function as, we endanger our civilians, and put the lives of Iraqis at risk. We are also providing essential support for groups fighting for our values on the ground, like Kurds.

Striking against ISIS also helps us tackle a group complicating the Syrian Civil War, so that if we can begin reducing IS territory dramatically; we can also highlight the crimes of Assad, and works towards the removal of the butcher of 85% of Syria’s population!

An RAF tornado fighter-bomber.

An RAF tornado fighter-bomber.

Clarion: You’ve spoken before about the need to revive liberalism to adequately tackle Islamism? What do you mean by that and why is it necessary?

Travers: We need to be as passionate about fundamental freedoms, about education, and discussion as Islamists are about spreading their theocracy. We need to start defeating fascism with freedom, for example educating women and empowering them across the globe to run businesses, control their reproductive cycles, and countering radicalization with education.

We also should continue cross faith and international partnerships with schools, to show that Muslims, Christians and Jews that other faiths are not the enemy, and work on reducing the ability for an extremist narrative to take hold at a young age.

Clarion: You left the Labour party after the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Where do you see a political home for left wingers who oppose Islamism? 

Travers: Nowhere. Isn’t that genuinely such a sad statement to have to make?

But we are homeless, politically homeless due to the right and left spectrum both having flaws.  The only people that are aided by the left failing to have a decent discussion on Islam is the right, and that includes the far right, and Islamists, as Muslims will be alienated by society and driven to extremism as the far right offer answers that are based on simplistic hatred and prejudice.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mohammed Nazam: Music Does What Talking Can’t

Hassan Radwan: From Faith to Faithless and Back Again

Free Speech Forever: Ex-Al Jazeera Bureau Chief Mohamed Fahmy

Omer Aziz: Why I am Offended by the Saudi Grant to Yale

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Robbie Travers. (Photo: © Robbie Travers)

Bolshevic Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton 42-4 among Texas Gamers

/in , , /by

SAN ANTONIO, Texas /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — NAVGTR CORP. — Young voters turned out in droves to support Bernie Sanders in San Antonio.  A mock Iowa caucus was held at the Penny Arcade Expo South (PAXS), a gaming festival drawing tens of thousands.

The caucus event was titled, “Decision 2016: Vote on Game ‘War of Awards’ or Donald Trump,” organized by the National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers (NAVGTR) for the Official PAXS panel schedule.

A 450-seat room was packed with 332 caucus-goers, clearly dominated by Democratic voters with only 24 self-declared Republican voters.  “All night there was a clear enthusiasm gap between those who were willing to climb over people in their rows of seats and those who chose to sit and watch impartially,” said academy president Thomas Allen.  “The plan was to clear half the room of chairs to have a large open space, but time was working against us.”

Among the caucus-goers, about 73 people voted publicly for the presidential candidates.  Forty-two Bernie Sanders supporters flooded the voting floor, while four and three people stood for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, respectively.

Among Republicans, Ted Cruz won with 8 votes.  Rand Paul was a close second with 7 votes.  Marco Rubio held in the top three with 5 votes.  Jeb Bush received two votes.  Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump received 1 vote each.

Game players also expressed who they thought should win the industry D.I.C.E. and Game Developers Choice Awards.  The crowd established fan-favorite front-runners such as “The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt” for Achievement in Character (DICE), “Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain” for Game Design (GDC), “Undertale” for Innovation (GDC), and “Ori and the Blind Forest” developer Moon Studios for Best Debut (GDC).

In the final vote, “Fallout 4” won Game of the Year with an estimated 32 votes.  Even among gamers, supporters were therefore more able to consolidate top-tier votes behind Bernie Sanders than any one video game:

Presenters included Larry Asberry Jr., Vanessa Fernandez, Colby Sites, Justen Andrews, Geoff Mendicino, and George Wood.

The National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers announces its own nominations February 9.  Entries have been extended to a February 1 deadline.  NAVGTR will caucus again at South by Southwest (SXSW) and the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) Networking Event on March 15, 2016.  Subscribe at navgtr.org for updates.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Four Types of Socialists

Trump: Glenn Beck is ‘irrelevant’

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump tweeted the following:

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

.@glennbeck got fired like a dog by #Fox. The Blaze is failing and he wanted to have me on his show. I said no – because he is irrelevant.

It appears that Trump was responding to Glenn Beck’s interview on the Kelly File after the GOP debate in Las Vegas. During the interview Beck says Trump the is biggest progressive and he won’t vote for him. He said if Trump gets the nominee the GOP party is over. But is it?

Watch the interview:

Question: How is Donald J. Trump a progressive?

What proof does Glenn Beck have that Trump is anything but a successful businessman? That is the question.

Many believe that the Republican Party establishment (a.ka. GOPe) is progressive in its policies and politics. The most recent example is the omnibus spending bill pushed through the House of Representatives by Speaker Paul Ryan, with a majority of Democrat votes. Paul Ryan is the epitome of a GOPe. He is a progressive Republican who believes in big government, spending beyond the ability to pay and supporting President Obama’s refugee agenda.

Perhaps Glenn is a member of the GOPe?

RELATED VIDEO: The Glenn Beck Betrayal

RELATED ARTICLES:

Putin Praises Trump As ‘Absolute Leader’

The Paul Ryan Compromise: The new speaker’s first big deal is just like all of the ones that infuriated conservatives under Boehner

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE DRUDGE REPORT ON THE RYAN COMPROMISE BUDGET:

Congress’ half-trillion dollar spending binge…

Increases deficit by hundreds of billions…

MEETS OBAMA PRIORITIES…

Funds ‘climate’ deal…

Planned Parenthood PRAISES…

Makes it ‘harder to repeal Obamacare’…

‘Cybersecurity’ bill hacked in…

Conservatives give pass on deal they despise!

SESSIONS: THIS is why voters in ‘open rebellion’…

AMERICAN WORKER SOLD OUT…

The Alinsky Affect Taking Hold in America

/in , , , /by

It can be pretty depressing to witness more and more Americans protesting in favor of oppression and against liberty.  Yes indeed, increasing numbers of Sovereign citizens want the government boot-heel on their necks or the lash on their backsides.  A primary root of this trend can be traced directly to the mega, one size fits all, government school system.  For over fifty years, government school educators have been used to fundamentally change America. This has been accomplished by systematically lowering some standards and eliminating others altogether.

American history courses have been degenerated to nothing more than anti United States of America propaganda dogma.  The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers are mere mentions without credible or in depth study.  The education system or more appropriately, the dens of indoctrination are wasting an average of $15 thousand dollars per student in cities like Detroit, where at least a forty percent literacy rate is not uncommon at many schools.

So now, America is lumbering along with at least two generations of students who believe that the communist inspired concept of the common good trumping individual rights or rational self-interest is the way to go.  That is why bigoted progressive political marxists like Hillary Clinton openly state that “they’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Another indication of Americans preferring in this case indirect oppression over liberty, whether self-induced or directly from the government, was a recent episode of Late Night hosted by progressive host Stephen Colbert.  His guest that particular Friday night was Ohio governor John Kasich.  He is a moderately conservative republican who has overseen the Buckeye States successful economic recovery.  He also eliminated the Ohio budgetary deficit and increased economic activity has fostered a two or three billion dollar surplus.

But the major focus of Colbert’s interest was presenting nagging questions about the voters of Ohio choosing not to approve the legalization of marijuana for medicinal or recreational use.  That is indicative of the progressive elitist democrats and some rino republicans want Americans to have.  In other words, they would prefer that we light up and not focus on concrete issues like illegal immigration, or higher gasoline taxes coming in 2017 for Michigan residents.  The progressives don’t want us to remember that president Obama has not made one concrete decision that would benefit America economically, morally, militarily, constitutionally, environmentally, or educationally.

When one reads the numerous quotes of the founding fathers, it is quite apparent that they were concerned about the possibility of the United States evolving from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the dominated and home of the cowardly.  Neither you or I can accurately tell how many times we have heard that according to certain pols, Americans support gun control and gender neutral bathrooms for example.  Many other such wedge issues on the progressive agenda ae promoting illegal immigration, false allegations of racism and supposedly hating the poor.

Those wedge issues have a certain prominence because people have been dumbed down to a lower level of thinking politically, morally and economically.  If Americans were properly schooled on the benefits of our constitution and economics, along with virtue, I seriously doubt that the federal government would be so bloated and working to implode our nation on behalf of the United Nations and muslims.

Properly informed or schooled Americans would not entertain the fool-hearty concept that one is xenophobic because they simply want people to obey our laws and immigrate into the United States legally.  Also, perhaps American voters would not have twice elected an individual who literally wants to bring tens of thousands of American hating muslims into our country to try and change our American culture into a bastion of rights inhibiting sharia law.

In order to rescue the United States from utter ruin, we must make genuine efforts to teach Christian virtues, real United States history, critical thinking, real math, etc. to the up and coming generations.  If not, our beloved republic will simply end up slip, slipping away.  Despite the current troubles and travails throughout the land I am still optimistic that America the beautiful will be truly great again.  Our cities will once again be undimmed by human tears.  She will of course soon reestablish a closer walk with the one who shed His grace upon her and benefit from His Providential guidance.

Do you believe?

Trustworthiness Issues? Politifact Calls Out Clinton Deception

/in , , , , /by

That there are apparently still people (though, increasingly few) that find Hillary Clinton at all trustworthy is becoming more and more incredible. Late last week, Politifact took Clinton to task over comments she made about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). According to Politifact, at a campaign event in Iowa, Clinton remarked “[p]robably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability… They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Politifact properly branded the statement “False.” That Politifact has been known to skew their work in favor of gun control advocates, shows just how patently false Clinton’s characterization of the PLCAA was.

The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry from frivolous and politically motivated lawsuits. In the mid-1990s, gun control advocates, big city politicians, and trial attorneys teamed up in an attempt to use the courts to bilk the gun industry for untold millions and force them to agree to gun control measures that gun control supporters were unable to enact in Congress. The suits sought to hold members of the industry liable for the criminal behavior of those who misused their products.

These suits, though they were of little merit, posed a grave threat to the industry; and in turn, America’s gun owners. In 1998, Executive Director of the anti-gun U.S. Conference of Mayors was quoted by the New York Times as stating, “[t]he lawyers are seeing green on this issue… they think they can bring the gun industry to its knees.” One of those attorneys “seeing green,” John Coale, was quoted in a 2000 Washington Post article remarking, “[t]he legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.”

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005, the PLCAA merely prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for the criminal misuse of their products by a third party. Suits against the industry for knowingly unlawful sales, negligent entrustment, and those predicated on traditional products liability grounds are still permitted.

Further, the Politifact item makes clear that the gun industry isn’t the only industry for which Congress has limited tort liability. The piece cites similar protections given to vaccine makers, telecommunications companies, and aircraft manufacturers.

Clinton can’t seem to stop lying about guns and gun control. Earlier this month, we detailed how Clinton has hidden her true position on the Second Amendment; that it does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, on the same day that Politifact issued their “False” rating, the Washington Post gave Clinton three pinocchios for stating the thoroughly debunked myth that 40-percent of firearms sales occur without a background check.

With her trustworthiness rating going down the tubes, one would think that Clinton and her campaign flunkies would be working overtime to make sure she sticks to the facts. That’s of course assuming they would even know how.

The Economics of a Toddler and the Ethics of a Thug by Donald J. Boudreaux

/in , , , , /by

Reflecting on the recent Democratic debate, Dan Henninger reports that Bernie Sanders said that he would fund his plan to make college free for students “through a tax on Wall Street speculation” (“Bernie Loves Hillary,” Oct. 15).

This statement reveals the frivolousness of Mr. Sanders’s economics. If such speculation is as economically destructive as Mr. Sanders regularly proclaims it to be, the tax on speculation should be set high enough to drastically reduce it.

But if — as Mr. Sanders presumably wishes — speculation is drastically reduced, very little will remain of it to be taxed and, thus, such a tax will not generate enough revenue to pay for Mr. Sanders’s scheme of making all public colleges and universities “tuition-free.”

That Mr. Sanders sees no conflict between using taxation to discourage (allegedly) harmful activities and using taxation as a source of revenue proves that he ponders with insufficient sobriety the economic matters on which he pontificates so sternly.

Excerpted from Cafe Hayek.

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Look Inside the Courtroom Where Property Owners Fight the Government to Get Back Their Cash, Homes, and Cars

How Do You Define Destructive?

/in , , , /by

Recently, on one of the rare and I truly mean rare occasions of watching an episode of Extra, the television gab fest that regularly expounds upon the likes of liberal/progressive luminaries like Kim Kardashian, Kanye West and Miley Cyrus.  However, this particular episode they were extolling about the virtues of Hillary Clinton, which is why I bothered to watch it.  I was able to tolerate that program because every so-often we must pay attention to what the enemy has to say or what they are up to.

So on this particular Hillary appearance she boldly labeled republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as destructive.  Now before I go any further in regards to the Hillary situation I will elaborate on the definition of destructive as defined in the 1828 American Dictionary of The English Language by Noah Webster.  Destructive: Causing destruction; having the quality of destroying; ruinous; mischievous; pernicious; with of or to; as a destructive to the morals of youth.  I’ll add destructive to an economy; destructive to the family structure; destructive to the military or even an embassy staff.

So when Hillary Clinton yelped about how destructive Donald Trump is, believe it or not I kind of agree, to a point.  For decades Mrs. Clinton has promoted the wicked concepts of big government and so-called nanny goat solutions to all facets of life.  She honestly believes or more accurately, has fooled millions of Americans into believing that government health care, high taxes and government deficit spending are actual paths to prosperity or good living.

However, there is much evidence to the contrary.  For example Texas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio along with several other states have proven that actually, the opposite to be the truth.  Those states all have growing economies, with budget surpluses which fully demonstrates the false nature of Hillary’s thinking.  In fact, Donald Trump along with many other mega business tycoons have demonstrated how the policies that Hillary supports are not good for business by taking a lot of their business dealings to other nations where laws are not nearly as oppressive as those here in this onetime land of opportunity.

Whether it’s the American corporate tax (the highest in the world) or extreme environmental regulations that have so damaged our nation’s economy that she no longer has one of the top ten living standards among nations.  Also, before Obamacare the United States was blessed with the overall best medical care in the world, but now that is no longer the case.  Those destructive policies are fully supported by one Hillary Clinton, of course.

By all means, Hillary’s proclamation that Donald Trump being destructive is as insanely stupid as her handling of emails.  Whether you like Donald Trump or not, it cannot be denied that he has definitely invigorated the presidential campaign process by bringing to the forefront issues of most importance that could potentially soon harm our Republic beyond the ability to repair her.  Even now, it seems as though, that without a direct intervention from God, the United States may soon be one nation gone under.

Perhaps when Hillary Clinton squawks about Trump being destructive, she might be thinking about when the Donald called her the worst secretary of state in our nation’s history.  His point is well taken because under her watch, along with the worst president of all time, Barack Hussein Obama the United States needlessly lost embassy personnel at the hands of murdering muslims in Benghazi.

The only thing she was concerned about was shifting the blame to a supposed video defaming Mohamed, the pedophile founder of the muslim political movement masquerading as a religion.  The woman has no discernable conscience.  Also the mere fact that millions of Americans still want her to be president illustrates the moral depravity of our times.

It is my hope and desire that as light destroys darkness that truth from whatever source, whether it is Trump, Dr. Carson or Jesus Christ will continue to be brought forth and enlighten those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Then together, “We the People” can re-establish America as that shining city on a hill republic under God with liberty and justice for all.

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Media’s Bias

/in , , , , /by

Have they no shame? Can America’s ideologically constipated, left wing, mainstream media get any worse? The answer appears to be yes. After largely ignoring the gruesome Planned Parenthood videos and instead focusing on Marco Rubio’s wife’s driving violations, they have now moved on to Donald Trump and Kim Davis.

You likely saw the widely reported story about the two brothers from Boston who allegedly beat up a homeless man and, after being caught, were reported to have told police officials, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.” But, did you see the other headline? The headline that read, “Alleged Manhattan Gunman was an Elizabeth Warren Supporter”?

Unless you read Conservative Review, Breitbart, or Heavy.com, then the odds of you reading this story are minuscule. The general premise the ideologically slanted mainstream media has been working with in its attempt to ensure maximum distribution of the Trump headline while suppressing the Warren headline, is “Conservativism inspires violence.”

Exposing media bias in cases like this is critical because the members of the media who are promoting the Trump story were not saying, “political speech inspires violence” they were saying “CONSERVATISM inspires violence.” Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen this theme appear in the writings of media figures on both the reporting, and opinion, sides of the media house.

Far left opinion columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post tried this same sleight-of-hand trick when he disingenuously tried to pin some of the blame on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Loughner, writing that she should “consider being quiet for a while” after the shooting. Robinson, either not bright enough to realize that his Palin hit piece was an anti-free speech screed, or so ideologically married to hard-left ideology that he was blind to the irony, penned a piece just three years later, absolving President Obama, Al Sharpton, and New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for the actions of cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley (who was reported to have been inspired by a movement these far left political figures vocally supported). Robinson jumped the credibility shark in his subsequent piece by writing that they “are in NO WAY responsible” (emphasis mine).

Other committed leftist columnist, Dana Milbank, also of the Washington Post, is another hypocrite anxious to sacrifice his credibility for Internet clicks from rabid leftists. Milbank, who was quick to celebrate civil disobedience on the part of immigration activists who aligned with his ideologically leanings, even asking the President to join in the protest where illegal immigrants were present, was, hypocritically, quick to condemn civil disobedience in the case of Kim Davis. Milbank ridiculously attempts to explain away his hypocrisy by claiming that ignoring the law is okay as long as it doesn’t involve “ignoring court orders.”

Sadly, Milbank is serious with his outrageous attempt to be logical and consistent. In Milbank’s bizarre world, it’s okay to violate clearly written laws which conflict with far leftist ideology because this is the “good” civil disobedience, not involving “court orders” but, when a registered Democrat such as Kim Davis, engages in an act of civil disobedience, based on a sincere religious objection, and the cause conflicts with leftist thinking, then she deserves to be jailed. Don’t try to make sense out of this because you will pull your hair out in the process.

These blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisies are not an accident. The organized left doesn’t believe in principled civil disobedience, they believe in the accumulation of power at any cost, the Constitution and the rule of law be damned. If jailing Kim Davis in perpetuity would advance their end game of dismantling the traditional family and instilling cultural relatively from the home, to the school, to the government, then that is exactly what they would do. The far left’s inclination will always be to suppress opposing political views because the movement’s scandalous flirtations with socialism can only evolve into a successful marriage if government force is involved and, tragically, history is clear on this.

Whether it’s punishing religious freedom, verbal policing on college campuses, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel’s push for regulating political speech online, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s push for expanded control over the web, the IRS, and their targeting of conservative groups, or the President’s dangerous rhetoric, directed at his political opposition, they will continue to take every opportunity to try to intimidate conservatives through the media, the regulatory and law enforcement infrastructure, and the legislative process.

So just stop pretending. People in positions of public influence such as Eugene Robinson and Dana Milbank should just be honest and tell America how they really feel. If you disagree with us we will support whatever means we need to do, including, but not limited to, destroying your name, jailing you, lying about you, and creating disingenuous false narratives, to ensure that we crush and silence you.

Information is power and the ability to see and bring attention to the constant stream of obvious media hypocrisy is a weapon we must employ to counter their endless feed of bogus narratives. It can be depressing to watch leftist activists pretend to be unbiased journalists or rational opinion writers but, on a positive note, we are winning the long game. Yes, we are winning due to the commitment of many conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans to exposing media trickery. Pulling back the curtain and exposing media bias has dissolved the trust between the media and Americans searching for the truth. Keep up the fight and whenever you see these examples of bias, get your letter to the editor ready, fire up your social media accounts, cancel your subscriptions, and get your game face on. This fight is too important to lose.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image is by Charles Dharapak | AP Images.

Why Is the Vatican Pushing Communist Goals? by Michael Hichborn

/in , , , , , /by

This coming November, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Science is holding a workshop intended to figure out how to indoctrinate your children in the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs]. This comes on the heels of the Vatican nuncio to the United Nations announcing “verbatim” support for the SDGs, and after Catholic Relief Services president Dr. Carolyn Woo echoed Pope Francis’ call for support for the SDGs as well.

So, what are the Sustainable Development Goals?

They’re a United Nations plan for the creation of a global socialist utopia thinly disguised as a poverty reduction program. In short, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are the first step in achieving several of the goals laid out in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. In truth, these goals are Communist goals, through and through. Here’s a snapshot of how specific portions of the SDGs line up with identified Communist goals:

Sustainable Development Goals:

  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
    • Communists have always used the plight of the poor as justification for the implementation of their nefarious schemes
  • Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
    • Plank 7 of the Communist Manifesto calls for a top-down approach to industry and agriculture
  • Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
    • A 1938 issue of a Communist publication concluded that “only through the final victory of world socialism can the vast stores of available scientific knowledge really be put to work for the full benefit of humanity. ‘Socialized medicine’ is a meaningless phrase except in a socialized society.”
  • Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
    • Plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto is “free education for all children in public schools.”
  • Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
    • Communism has pushed for working women since the beginning of the Revolution in Russia.
  • Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
    • Plank 8 of the Communist Manifesto: Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  • Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
    • Plank 9 of the Communist Manifesto: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
  • Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
    • This is an echo of Karl Marx’s mandate, “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
  • Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
    • This is pure global governance orchestrated by an entity with authority above national sovereignty.

This summary is not intended to be exhaustive, but should provide enough information to alarm even the most lukewarm of patriots and faithful Christians. But the Catholic Church, which has issued full and unqualified condemnations of Communism and Socialism should have nothing to do with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals … and yet, “Catholic” social justice organizations and its leaders have hijacked key positions in the Vatican and are using their influence and authority to fast-track programs to get the faithful to fully support and work for the implementation of the SDGs. This is extremely dangerous and must be forcefully resisted by all faithful Catholics. What follows is a general overview of some of the more egregious of the SDGs in their audacious push for global Communist governance.

Read the rest at http://www.lepantoinstitute.org/.

Hichborn_headshot300ABOUT MICHAEL HICHBORN

Michael Hichborn is the president of the Lepanto Insitute. Formerly, Michael spent nearly eight years as American Life League’s Director of the Defend the Faith project. He has researched and produced countless articles and reports on the funding of abortion, birth control, homosexuality and Marxism by Catholic Relief Servies and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Michael holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Christendom College in Political Science and Economics and a Master’s degree in Education from American Intercontinental University. Michael lives in Virginia with his wife, Alyssa, and their five children.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope’s climate push at odds with U.S. Catholic oil investments

Vatican Representative Endorses UN Sustainable Development Goals, “Verbatim”

405,000 people, 104 bishops sign petition to Pope Francis asking for ‘clarification’ on marriage

Stephen Limbaugh Answers the Question: Are Corporations People?

/in , , /by

In Dinesh D’Souza’s the latest video of the “new voices” series, Stephen Limbaugh gives his unique take on the liberal dogma that “corporations are not people.”

EDITORS NOTE: This video initially appeared on DineshDSouza.com. Keep an eye out for more “new voices” videos on DineshDSouza.com in the coming months. In the meantime, watch some more of Stephen’s videos and connect with him on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Dinesh D’Souza’s latest #1 New York Times best selling book is “America,” a rebuttal of the progressive shame narrative of American history, now available in paperback for the first time!