The National Security Council cannot hand over records relating to former National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s surveillance of Americans, because they have been moved to the Obama presidential library and may be sealed for as may as five years, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced Monday.
The NSC informed Judicial Watch in a letter dated May 23 that materials related to Rice’s requests to know the identities of Americans swept up in surveillance of foreign targets, including any Trump campaign or transition officials, have been moved to the library.
That’s certainly convenient for Rice, whose role in illegally ‘unmasking’ Americans caught up in spy surveillance dragnets and then leaking what she learned for partisan political purposes is explicitly forbidden by law. Well, with this sudden move of all the evidence of her crime to the Obama library, looks like she skates again.
Deep State knows how to protect itself.
It’s appalling because these laws were put on the books precisely to prevent the sort of scenarios we have seen in the last six months: that of angry political partisans, embittered about the 2016 election, attempting to use U.S. intelligence resources to get back at their political enemies. Susan Rice and her tag-teamer in Benghazi talking points, former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes (who never got a security clearance) and other denizens of the National Security Council have all apparently been involved in the illegally ordered ‘unmasking’ of U.S. citizens caught up in the intelligence dragnets of mass surveillance. Rice has been caught red-handed demanding to know the names of these Americans, something the law provides explicit protections for with the ‘unmasking’ of former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, who spoke with the Russian ambassador- followed by a flood of news leaks from Rhodes’ little buddies in what he called his “echo chamber” media.
It’s an abuse of power and a miscarriage of justice if there ever was one.
In their by-any-means-necessary minds, U.S. spy resources were their resources, not the state’s, to use as they pleased. And since they feel they have a right to rule, any abuse of power is acceptable, provided it supports their leftist president’s political fortunes and his now-rejected values.
Will she ever be sanctioned or scrutinized now? Not with a five-year wait on the black hole of Obama administration presidential library files.
On that front, it’s a good guess that the files themselves are likely to be raked through and scoured with “bleachbit” or whatever the favored erasure is, by Obama partisans in a bid to ensure that Rice’s role never sees the light of day – and Rice never faces the music. Just the example of former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger stuffing documents from the National Archives down his pants in a bid to alter the historic record is sign enough of that.
That they could do this legally signals a problem. Congress should act to stop this travesty of justice. Obama shouldn’t own any of those files – those files are evidence as well as historic record and in either case, belong solely to the American people who paid for them.
This is the norming of Jew-hatred in London. Jewish groups pleaded with London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan to cancel this march, since it openly promoted jihad terror, but he refused. This is what London voted for when it voted him in. And there will be much more of it.
The World Jewish Congress sent around this email:
Earlier today, during the annual Al Quds Day march, the streets of London were filled with the flags of Hezbollah. Iranian-supported Quds Day events, at which demonstrators routinely call for boycott Israel and for a third intifada (armed uprising) against Israel are held every year in cities across the globe.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission, which organized the parade and distributed Hezbollah flags to attendees, said in a statement, “You can bring a Hezbollah flag to show support for the political wing of Hezbollah.” However, as we all know, the political and armed wing of this terror organization are one and the same.
More than 25,000 have signed a petition calling on London Mayor Sadiq Khan to ban Quds Day,, and we hope that after this year he will take appropriate action to curb this gross display in one of Europe’s capital cities.
The Jewish community of London, through a joint initiative of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the World Jewish Congress, We Believe in Israel, Sussex Friends of Israel, North London Friends of Israel and the Israel Advocacy Movement, organized the counter-demonstration…
“Hezbollah Flags Fly at ‘Al Quds Day’ March in London as Islamist Agitators Blame Grenfell Tower Tragedy on ‘Zionists,’” by Ben Cohen, Algemeiner, June 18, 2017:
Hundreds of anti-Israel protesters marched through the streets of central London on Sunday on the annual “Al Quds (Jerusalem) Day” demonstration convened by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), a British Muslim organization with close ties to the Iranian regime.
At a rally outside the US Embassy following the march, one speaker blamed this week’s tragic fire at west London’s Grenfell Tower public housing project on “Zionists.”
“Some of the biggest supporters of the Conservative Party are Zionists,” the speaker ranted. “They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party.”
Many of the marchers brandished signs calling for a boycott of the State of Israel. A number of flags of the Lebanese Islamist terror organization Hezbollah were also in evidence, including one at the front of the protest that was tied atop a Palestinian flag
An energetic counter-rally organized by British Jewish organizations under the banner “Stand Against Hate” was staged close to the route of the march. Protesters waved Israeli flags and chanted “terrorists, off our streets.”
The counter-rally was addressed by Kay Wilson, who survived a terrorist attack in Israel in 2010.
“It is a racist slur to say that all Muslims are terrorists,” Wilson said. “However, it is deluded, dangerous and disingenuous to claim that terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.”
Today’s march took place just a fortnight after eight people were murdered in an Islamist car-ramming and stabbing attack near Borough Market in south London.
A Hezbollah flag flies at the front of the 2017 “Al Quds Day” march in London. Photo: Screenshot
Ahead of the event, as Jewish communal officials urged London Mayor Sadiq Khan to ban the march, the IHRC encouraged its supporters to “bring a Hizbullah flag to show support for the political wing of Hizbullah.” While Hezbollah is a proscribed terrorist organization in the UK, a widely-criticized exemption for the terror group’s “political and social activities” means that it is technically legal for its flag to be displayed in public.
“There were numerous Hezbollah flags and they were being handed out before the march started,” Simon Cobbs of activist group Sussex Friends of Israel told The Algemeiner.
A large number of attendees at the march were seen carrying signs reading “Justice 4 Grenfell” alongside their Hezbollah flags, in an attempt by the IHRC organizers to link their cause with the Grenfell Tower fire, in which more than 58 people are either confirmed or presumed by police to have died.
Marchers carrying Hezbollah flags alongside signs supporting the victims of the Grenfell Tower blaze. Photo: Screenshot….
The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What “hate crimes” are not already covered by the law?
Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech”? The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.
Would it not be appropriate for the politicians sponsoring and voting for these resolutions first of all to find out what drives the organizations responsible for drafting them? The Investigative Project on Terrorism has authored a damning 88-page report about the Muslim Public Affairs Council. American politicians do not seem to have taken much interest in it.
On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). On April 6, 2017, EmgageUSA wrote the following on their Facebook page:
“Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country’s founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream”.
Senate Resolution 118 calls on
“…Federal law enforcement officials, working with State and local officials… to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States and to hold the perpetrators of those crimes, incidents, or threats accountable and bring the perpetrators to justice; encourages the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies to work to improve the reporting of hate crimes; and… encourages the development of an interagency task force led by the Attorney General to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities…”
The resolution refers to hate crimes against Muslims, Jews, African-Americans, Hindus, and Sikhs and was sponsored by Senator Kamala Harris and co-sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Susan Collins.
On April 6, almost the exact same text was introduced as House Resolution H.Res. 257, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States”. A House Resolution can be reintroduced as legislation.
H.Res. 257 urges
“…the development of an interagency task force led by the Attorney General and bringing together the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities”. The House Resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 6 and from there it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on April 21.
Americans should be concerned about these resolutions, especially the part of the House Resolution, which urges the establishment of an “interagency task force led by the Attorney General … on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities.”
The United States Capitol building. (Image source: aoc.gov)
What is a hate crime in this context? The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. What do “strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime” entail, and again, what “hate crimes” are not already covered by the law? In other words, why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime? Perhaps by including “hate speech“?
The US has been in a similar situation before. In December 2015, House Resolution H.Res. 569 “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States” was introduced. That resolution never went any farther, but it was problematic: it favored Muslims over everyone else. The current resolution includes most of the major ethnic and religious minorities in the United States, so it will have a far better chance of passing, as it will more easily fool Representatives into thinking that the contents of the resolution are harmless.
The drafters of Senate Resolution 118 and House Resolution 257, are two Muslim organizations, EmgageUSA (formerly known as EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. This is what EmgageUSA published on its website on April 6, 2017:
“We are excited to report that EmergeUSA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) worked with Senator Kamala Harris to introduce Senate Resolution #118, which was passed unanimously today. The historic resolution is the first of its kind to condemn hate crimes and other forms of racism. The hate crimes extend beyond targeting just Muslim and Jewish Americans to also include religious minorities such as Hindu and Sikh Americans… EmergeUSA is committed to engaging, and empowering the Muslim American community via the political process by working towards making federal and state legislation and policies more equitable for the Muslim American community”.
EmgageUSA goes on to tell its members to thank senator Kamala Harris and her co-sponsors, as well as to urge their congressmen to support “similar resolutions” when they come up, and to also urge their local representatives to adopt such resolutions. In other words, this campaign is to be a nationwide effort.
In a blog post in The Hill, Chief Executive Officer of EmgageUSA, Wa’el Alzayat, wrote:
“On April 5, the Senate unanimously adopted Resolution 118… As a Muslim American, I am grateful for this welcome gesture to help address the troubling rise in hate crimes against immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities… The Muslim American community has been on the receiving end of a long-running campaign of Islamophobia that pre-dates the current political climate… Senate Resolution 118 is a welcome and necessary step from our national leaders, but much more needs to be done; not only by our government, but also by average citizens, especially Muslim Americans…”
On May 6, EmgageUSA published the following on its Facebook page:
“Representative Barbara Comstock, second term Republican from Virginia’s 10th District is teaming up with EmergeUSA and MPAC to successfully pass a House Resolution which condemns ethnic, religious and racial hate crimes. The bi-partisan resolution was co-sponsored by Representatives Dingell, Taylor and Curbelo and mirrors its Senate Counterpart, S. Res. 118… The Resolution is now in the House and we need you to help pass it. Take action and contact your Representatives today and urge them to sign on to pass this resolution”.
Would it not be appropriate for the politicians sponsoring and voting for these resolutions first of all to find out what drives the organizations responsible for drafting them?
EmgageUSA likes to describe itself as a civil rights style organization, “non-partisan” with the innocent sounding purpose of:
“…develop[ing] the capacity of the Muslim voter to ensure that our narrative is part of the American fabric. Our programs include civic educational events such as issue forums and town halls, voter initiatives including Get Out The Vote (GOTV), and specific programs for the youth in order to mentor and support the next generation of leaders”.
The co-founder of EmgageUSA (founded in 2006 as EmergeUSA), Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney, is the organization’s National Board Co-Chair. In a 2011 interview with The Intelligence Report, the magazine of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Wahid listed the numerous cases in which he has represented terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda, such as Omar Ahmed Abu Ali, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2006 for joining al-Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush, Shahawar Matin Siraj, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2007 for conspiring to plant bombs in New York City; Dr. Rafiq Sabir, who was convicted of conspiring to treat injured al-Qaeda fighters and was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2007; Syed Hashmi, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2010 for providing supplies and money to a senior al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan. He also represented Hafiz Khan, who was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison in 2013 for funneling tens of thousands of dollars to the Pakistani Taliban.
Khurrum Wahid appears to have a positive view of the terrorists he has represented, despite their proven guilt. According to a 2012 interview with Miami New Times:
He [Wahid] believes terrorism cases are, in many ways, the civil rights battles of his generation. While outsiders might paint his clients as criminals, he says people… are being prosecuted for giving money to groups the U.S. government doesn’t like. “I think these things are not so black-and-white… I think innocent people get caught up in the politics.”
In 2011, Wahid himself was put on a terror list. Asked by the Miami New Times about this fact Wahid said, “It tells me that the system is broken.”
Khurrum Wahid is a former board member of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR has repeatedly been identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.
EmgageUSA has hosted Islamic lecturer Sayed Ammar Nakshawani repeatedly at its yearly events. Nakshawani, has called for the destruction of Israel, saying “It is barbaric that this Zionist state is allowed to continue”.
EmergeUSA has collaborated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to “engage American Muslims” in last year’s elections. Like CAIR, ISNA was one of the unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) named by the US government in the HLF, with offenses including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, namely, Hamas.
According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
“Far from being the zealous champion of civil rights that it presents itself to be, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has followed a consistent pattern of defending designated terrorist organizations and their supporters, opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts and spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric”.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism has authored a damning 88-page report about MPAC. American politicians do not seem to have taken much interest in it.
The question that all Americans ought to ask their representatives is this: Why do they let themselves be duped by policy initiatives driven by terrorist sympathizers and activists associated with Muslim Brotherhood front groups?
Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
The Muslim Brotherhood-linked Hasm Movement claimed responsibility for a deadly terrorist attack targeting Egyptian security forces in Cairo on Sunday.
Its operatives detonated an “anti-vehicle explosive device” under a road “at the Maadi Autostrada south of Cairo… which led to the destruction of the military vehicle and the killing of two officers and the wounding of three other soldiers who still fighting death,” said a Hasm Movement statement released shortly after the attack and translated by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT).
Intelligence collected by Egypt’s interior ministry suggests that the Muslim Brotherhood is establishing “terrorist entities,” including the Hasm Movement and others, to carry out attacks in an attempt to conceal the Brotherhood’s responsibility.
In May, Najah Ibrahim, a former leader of the terrorist organization Gamma’a Islamiya, revealed these terrorist offshoots consist of Muslim Brotherhood youth seeking to escalate violence against the Egyptian regime. Ibrahim told al-Hayat news that some Brotherhood leaders encouraged the terrorist groups to commit violence, according to an IPT translation.
Part of the terrorist group’s justification for Sunday’s attack alluded to Egypt’s controversial and impending transfer of two small islands in the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia.
“The continuation of the criminal coup [Egyptian] regime in selling the homeland, giving up its land and capabilities … obliges us to undertake more resistance activity to tear them off the chest of this helpless people,” the statement said.
Muslim Brotherhood figures continue to engage in violence incitement and encouraging others to conduct terrorist attacks.
In April, a senior Muslim Brotherhood member, ‘Izz Al-Din Dwedar, called for an “intifada” targeting Egyptian embassies around the world, in a Facebook post translated by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
In protest of death sentences handed to members of the Brotherhood in Egypt, Dwedar suggested for violent action on May 3.
Egyptians abroad should “protest [outside] Egyptian embassies and lay siege to them, and steadily escalate [their actions], up to and including raiding the embassies in some countries, disrupting their work and occupying them if possible, in order to raises awareness to our cause,” Dwedar wrote.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
The present and future ownership of America, and indeed her existence, are in serious dispute. Our nation is more divided than ever in my thus far seventy-six years of life. That augurs well neither for our future as a nation nor for those of us who want our country back. Asking “Pretty please, Kind Masters, may we have our country back?” won’t help.
Robert Frost tried to read a poem he had written for JFK’s inauguration but was unable to do so. He had difficulties due to the bright sun and his age.
It was a cold and sunny day in 1961 and the 87 year old Frost could not read his poem,” Dedication”, that he wrote in honor of this special day for he was blinded by the bright sun. He fumpered on the podium because he could not see it and did not know it well. Richard Nixon came and held his top hat to block the sun for Mr.Frost who was extremely old and having problems. Instead, he recited from memory an oft requested poem, “The Gift Outright.”
I remember listening to Mr. Frost read The Gift Outright during an appearance at Yale, where I was an undergrad, back in 1959 or 196o. He had first recited it on December 5, 1941 — just two days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He recites it in this video:
The land was ours before we were the land’s
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed. Something we were withholding made us weak Until we found out that it was ourselves We were withholding from our land of living, And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she will become. [Emphasis added.]
I wonder what Mr. Frost would think of America today. Is the land still ours? To whom do the sanctuary cities belong? Their lawful inhabitants or illegal immigrants? La Raza (The Race) wants us to cede parts of our land to Mexico. Who would care? How about the people who live there lawfully. What about the Islamic caliphate, long desired by adherents to the “Religion of Peace?” For practical purposes, much of Europe is now part of the Caliphate. Many Americans believe that we should follow Frau Merkel’s shining example of unlimited Islamic migration and achieve the same multicultural glory.
Are we still possessed by “our land of living”? I doubt that those who approve of sanctuary cities, unlimited illegal immigration, non-deportation of aliens unlawfully present in America and those who find Sharia law and America’s slow but accelerating Islamisation acceptable are possessed by the land. They have rejected her.
George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
In the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, censorship, rewriting of history, and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history.
Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.
Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union.
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park.
In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart.
It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change.
These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.
Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing. [Emphasis added.]
Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists. [Emphasis added.]
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name—the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well—the Washington Monument in Washington.
Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington?
The Board of the Friends of Nash Farm Battlefield, Inc. is sad to announce that the museum, located on Nash Farm Battlefield, which was funded and maintained by our group, will close effective June 1, 2017. The main reason is that the current District 2 Commissioner, Dee Clemmons, has requested that ALL Confederate flags be removed from the museum, in addition to the gift shop, in an effort not to offend anyone. For anyone who studies the American Civil War, or War Between the States, they realize there were two parties that fought in this war. We have always prided ourselves with being an unbiased museum that told the entire story of the battles that took place on this property, as well as being a voice of the people in Henry County and Georgia during this time. These stories were told mainly through primary sources, sometimes secondary, but never tertiary sources. To exclude any Confederate flag would mean the historical value has been taken from our exhibits, and a fair interpretation could not be presented to each guest. Confederate flags were on this hallowed ground, as were the Union flags. To remove either of them would be a dishonor.
That’s just a bit of what’s been happening. Love it or hate it, it’s important to remember our history — as it was, not as today’s revisionists would like us to remember it.
The Civil War was deadly but generally fought with honor on both sides. I hope we do not have another. If it is a war between the left and right, I foresee little honor on the left.
America is a divided nation
Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar of classical history and a keen observer of current society, asks a good question in Can a Divided America Survive? The answer seems to be “probably not.”
The United States is currently the world’s oldest democracy.
But America is no more immune from collapse than were some of history’s most stable and impressive consensual governments. Fifth-century Athens, Republican Rome, Renaissance Florence and Venice, and many of the elected governments of early 20th-century Western European states eventually destroyed themselves, went bankrupt or were overrun by invaders.
The United States is dividing as rarely before. Half the country, mostly liberal America, is concentrated in 146 of the nation’s more than 3,000 counties — in an area that collectively represents less than 10 percent of the U.S. land mass. The other half, the conservative Red states of the interior of America, is geographically, culturally, economically, politically and socially at odds with Blue-state America, which resides mostly on the two coasts. [Emphasis added.]
The two Americas watch different news. They read very different books, listen to different music and watch different television shows. Increasingly, they now live lives according to two widely different traditions.
Barack Obama was elected president after compiling the most left-wing voting record in the U.S. Senate. His antidote, Donald Trump, was elected largely on the premise that traditional Republicans were hardly conservative.[Emphasis added.]
Red America and Blue America are spiraling into divisions approaching those of 1860, or of the nihilistic hippie/straight divide of 1968. [Emphasis added.]
Currently, some 27 percent of all Californians were not born in the United States. More than 40 million foreign-born immigrants currently reside in the U.S. — the highest number in the nation’s history.
Yet widely unchecked immigration comes at a time when the country has lost confidence in its prior successful adherence to melting-pot assimilation and integration. The ultimate result is a fragmenting of society into tribal cliques that vie for power, careers and influence on the basis of ethnic solidarity rather than shared Americanness. [Emphasis added.]
History is not very kind to multicultural chaos — as opposed to a multiracial society united by a single national culture. The fates of Rwanda, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia should remind us of our present disastrous trajectory. [Emphasis added.]
Either the United States will return to a shared single language and allegiance to a common and singular culture, or it will eventually descend into clannish violence. [Emphasis added.]
Based on Mr. Hanson’s analysis, the answer seems to be that unless America ceases to be as grossly divided as she now is, she will be displaced by something far worse. Indeed, it seems already to be happening. How about this bit of theater?
Members of the audience stood and cheered when the make-believe President Trump was knifed to death. Then, a Bernie Sanders supporter shot two Republican congressmen and a law enforcement officer at a baseball practice session in Alexandria Virginia. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was nearly killed. Fortunately, his status has improved from “critical” to “serious,” and it now seems likely that after more surgery and months of rehabilitation he will be able to resume his congressional duties.
Does President Trump have anything to do with, or about, our current state of affairs?
Much of America’s current division and disharmony is wrongly blamed on President Trump. He has many opponents – the “deep state,” the Federal bureaucracy, Never Trumpers, many Democrats and the lamebrain media, the pro-Democrat bias of which is perhaps unprecedented. He needs to deal with them all, a truly Herculean task.
An article by Roger Kimball titled Trump vs, the Deep State offers some suggestions. Here is his conclusion, but please read the entire article:
The sociology of the Trump presidency—and the anti-Trump “resistance”—is an unwritten chapter in recent American history. As I say, I suspect it will have to be filed chiefly under “Snobbery, examples of,” but that’s as may be. This much I am convinced of: 1. Those who identify the “administrative state” (the “deep state,” etc.) as our chief political problem today are correct; 2. Donald Trump really is trying to unravel (“deconstruct,” “drain”) Leviathan; 3. The right-leaning anti-Trump campaign is so virulent because, even if unwittingly, it is itself part of the overweening bureaucrat dispensation that is the enemy of freedom; 4. Trump will survive to the extent that he is able to follow the example of his hero Andrew Jackson and challenge his challengers by pushing through his agenda undistracted from the yapping of the PC chihuahuas.
I see President Trump as potentially a primary force in restoring at least some semblance of American unity with honor.
Here is a poem I learned when in 11th or 12th grade English class. I have been unable to find it on any search engine, so here it is as I still remember it. I may well have forgotten parts of it. If anyone can supply a link and more of the text, I will be grateful.
An Aristocrat’s Prayer
If thou lovest, reason scatter.
If thou threatenest, make it matter.
If thou swearest, make it hot.
If thou hittest miss him not.
Doest thou argue, do it boldly.
Dost thou punish, do it coldly.
In forgiving hold not back.
And of feasting have no lack.
It is not politically correct, does not yearn for non-confrontation and is unlike anything of which our current establishment leaders would approve. In no way does it resemble “Pretty please, Kind Masters, may we have our country back?” President Trump is unlike members of the establishment; that is one of the reasons we elected him as well as one of the reasons the establishment despises him. He is bold, brash, willing to take strong stands and yet is able sincerely — not as a mere pretense — to forgive his enemies when they warrant it. Neither a Clinton, Bush, Romney nor any other establishment figure would have the potential, or the guts, to do as he does and must do.
U.S. pilots over Syria will defend themselves if attacked by Russians, a Pentagon spokesman said Monday, following a report that Russia will treat U.S. or coalition aircraft as targets if they fly over areas in western Syria controlled by Russia.
The Russian Defense Ministry made the threat Monday after a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet shot down a Syrian Su-22 after that plane bombed U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces that are working with the U.S. to defeat the Islamic State on Sunday.
“Any aircraft, including planes and drones of the international coalition, detected in the operation areas west of the Euphrates River by the Russian air forces will be followed by Russian ground-based air defense and air defense aircraft as air targets,” the Defense Ministry said.
“We are aware of the Russian statements,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday morning. “We do not seek conflict with any party in Syria other than ISIS, but we will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our partners if threatened,” Davis said.
A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition said the Russian statement has had no effect on the operations in support of U.S.-backed Syrian fighters moving against ISIS in Raqqa in western Syria.
“Coalition aircraft continue to conduct operations throughout Syria, targeting ISIS forces and providing air support for coalition partner forces on the ground,” said Col. Ryan Dillon, chief U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.
He also appeared to indicate the U.S. is avoiding the parts of Syria where Russia said U.S. planes would be tracked as potential targets or providing additional airpower to counter threats.
“As a result of recent encounters involving pro-Syrian regime and Russian forces, we have taken prudent measures to reposition aircraft over Syria so as to continue targeting ISIS forces while ensuring the safety of our aircrews given known threats in the battlespace,” Dillon said.
The statement was meant as a warning, said Viktor Ozerov, a member of the Russian parliament, described the Defense Ministry’s statement as a warning.
“I’m sure that because of this neither the U.S. nor anyone else will take any actions to threaten our aircraft,” he said, according to state-owned RIA Novosti news agency. “That’s why there’s no threat of direct confrontation between Russia and American aircraft.”
Russia, beyond making the threat to treat U.S. or coalition aircraft as targets, also said its “deconfliction” line with the U.S. has been shut down. The line was established so U.S. and Russian forces could avoid bombing each other as they fight ISIS.
Both Davis and Dillon insisted the hotline remains the best way to avoid future shoot-downs.
“The coalition is always available to de-conflict with the Russians to ensure the safety of coalition aircrews and operations,” Davis said. “The de-confliction line has proven effective at mitigating strategic miscalculations and de-escalating tense situations.”
Said Dillon: “We used the de-confliction line yesterday and remain open to using it. It has proven its worth in the past to tap down tensions.”
President Donald Trump speaks in the Little Havana neighborhood of Miami, Florida, on June 15, 2017, about re-instituting some of the restrictions on travel to Cuba and U.S. business dealings with entities tied to the Cuban military and intelligence services. (Photo by JL) (Sipa via AP Images)
The sociology of the Trump presidency—and the anti-Trump “resistance”—is an unwritten chapter in recent American history. As I say, I suspect it will have to be filed chiefly under “Snobbery, examples of,” but that’s as may be. This much I am convinced of: 1. Those who identify the “administrative state” (the “deep state,” etc.) as our chief political problem today are correct; 2. Donald Trump really is trying to unravel (“deconstruct,” “drain”) Leviathan; 3. The right-leaning anti-Trump campaign is so virulent because, even if unwittingly, it is itself part of the overweening bureaucrat dispensation that is the enemy of freedom; 4. Trump will survive to the extent that he is able to follow the example of his hero Andrew Jackson and challenge his challengers by pushing through his agenda undistracted from the yapping of the PC chihuahuas.
**********************************
With his typical panache, Frank Buckley asks the central political question of our time and hints at an answer with an original suggestion for remediation. The question is what to do about the “administrative state,” a.k.a., the regulatory state, the “deep state,” that Leviathan that Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist, has said he came to Washington to “deconstruct.”
As Buckley points out, that laudable goal is hedged around with difficulties, partly because the meddling class has built up such a formidably complex hive of extra-constitutional rules and regulations, partly because the populace has been supine for so long that strategies for effective rejoinder seem utopian at best. What, really, can one do about the proliferation of “guidance,” of the statute-like interference in the conduct of business or, indeed, of everyday life?
The Kafkaesque bureaucracy stymies ordinary people at every turn as it pursues its two overriding goals: the perfection of a “progressive,” i.e., socialist agenda and—just as important—the consolidation of its own power and perquisites.
What to do? The courts can only do so much without themselves falling prey to the molasses-like blandishments of the administrative state. Effective responses seem to be few and far between.
One model, Buckley notes, was provided by Andrew Jackson who, disgusted by the encroaching sclerosis and corruption of the bureaucracy he inherited, instituted a “spoils system.” He fired 10 percent of the federal workforce and replaced it with people of his own choosing. “Was that so bad?” Buckley asks, indulging in what Latinists refer to as a “Num” question: one expecting the answer no. As Buckley notes, even so partisan a liberal as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., lulled perhaps by the historical distance of Jackson from our own time, thought that it was a positive development that helped to restore the people’s faith in government.
Donald Trump has himself said that he would like to cut the federal workforce by 10 percent and has outlined many other cost-saving and, more to the point, bureaucracy-cutting measures. Why are these efforts, many of which have already begun to bear fruit, not universally applauded, at least among conservatives?
I do not know the answer to that question. But it is certainly the case that Trump’s efforts are not universally applauded among conservatives. Buckley quotes a curious tweet emitted by my friend Bill Kristol, former editor of The Weekly Standard and a paid-up member of the ever Never Trump brigade: “obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.”
What I find so curious about this tweet is the phrase “Trump state.” What is it? What horror does Bill envision that would lead him to prefer what Donald Trump has on offer to the “deep state”?
Ever since Trump was nominated, I suspected that he was going to govern as a far more conventional figure than some of his campaign rhetoric might have suggested. And so it has turned out to be. Sure, he continues to broadcast eyebrow-raising tweets and make provocative statements, but look at what he has actually done:
Nominated, and had confirmed, Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme court.
Nominated a score of federal judges whose impeccable conservative credentials should be balm to conservatives like Bill Kristol.
Changed the rules of engagement in hot spots like Syria and Afghanistan so that commanders on the ground, not Washington weenies, make decisions about appropriate military responses.
Outlined an ambitious tax plan that would slash taxes across the board.
Worked diligently to unravel the monstrosity of Obamacare.
Undertaken on his first foreign trip a robust articulation of his “America First,” anti-terrorist policy, all while demonstrating what progress in the Middle East might look like by flying, for the first time, directly from Saudi Arabia to Israel.
Made it possible for entrepreneurs to exploit America’s enormous energy-producing potential by scraping the prohibitions on coal mining, opening up the Keystone and Dakota pipelines, etc. etc.
Reduced illegal immigration by more than 70 percent just by being president.
Released a budget that makes meaningful cuts in federal programs.
Etc., etc., etc.,
Now, Bill Kristol knows all of this. So why does he speak of the “Trump state”? How does it differ from the “normal democratic and constitutional politics” he says he prefers?
I suspect, but do know know for sure, that the issue is largely aesthetic—what in an earlier time might have been called “snobbery.” Bill does not like where Donald Trump hails from. I don’t means Queens, NY, but rather the unschooled precincts of the spirit that people without the right credentials inhabit by definition. There are objective correlatives—a certain taste in ties, in victuals, even in feminine pulchritude—but it all boils down to a matter of style in the most comprehensive sense. Bill Kristol, scion of one of the most accomplished conservative intellectual couples of the last century, has it. Donald Trump does not. Bill is Harvard, not just because he went there, but because of the intellectual manners, the habitus, he internalized.
The sociology of the Trump presidency—and the anti-Trump “resistance”—is an unwritten chapter in recent American history. As I say, I suspect it will have to be filed chiefly under “Snobbery, examples of,” but that’s as may be. This much I am convinced of: 1. Those who identify the “administrative state” (the “deep state,” etc.) as our chief political problem today are correct; 2. Donald Trump really is trying to unravel (“deconstruct,” “drain”) Leviathan; 3. The right-leaning anti-Trump campaign is so virulent because, even if unwittingly, it is itself part of the overweening bureaucrat dispensation that is the enemy of freedom; 4. Trump will survive to the extent that he is able to follow the example of his hero Andrew Jackson and challenge his challengers by pushing through his agenda undistracted from the yapping of the PC chihuahuas.
(Using the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s military power to advance the Iranian version of the “Religion of Peace” might seem strange to westerners, but earlier Islamic caliphates were established in much the same way. — DM)
In recent statements and speeches, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders have emphasized that the Islamic Revolution in Iran is only the first stage on the path to the spread of the rule of Shi’ite Islam in the Middle East and worldwide, and that the mission of advancing the Islamic Revolution to these heights falls to the IRGC commanders.
The commanders reiterated the argument that the U.S., the leader of the “world of arrogance,” opposes Islam, and thus also Iran, which is, they say, the standard-bearer of the Revolution and its global vision. The U.S., they added, is acting to sabotage the plan to institute Islam worldwide, and is doing so by infiltrating the circles of decision-makers in Iran in order to impregnate them with Western cultural values and spark internal disputes among the Muslims. This is aimed at changing the direction of the Revolution and diverting it from its path. However, the robustness of the Revolution remains, they said, thanks to Iranian Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamenei and the IRGC.
The following are translations of recent statements by senior IRGC commanders on this matter:
IRGC Commander Ja’fari: “We Are On The Path That Leads To The Rule Of Islam Worldwide”
On March 11, 2017, IRGC commander Ali Ja’fari said of the worldwide Islamic regime: “The history of Iran is replete with agreement on the Rule of the Jurisprudent [velayat ] which has [already] crossed Iran’s borders, and the united Islamic nation is being formed… We are on the path that leads to the rule of Islam worldwide.”[1]
On March 15, 2017, Ja’fari added on the same subject: “The Islamic Revolution is aimed at creating an infrastructure of the religion of God on earth, and it will wait for no man on its path advancement. All [Iranian] officials must adapt to the accelerated progress of the Revolution.
“The Islamic Revolution is now in its third stage – that is, [the stage] of assembling the Islamic government, and with God’s help it will pass this stage successfully despite the ups and downs that constantly occur.
“As IRGC commander, and as one of the commanders during the era of the Sacred Defense [i.e. the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war], I believe that today the young people’s yearning to unconditionally defend the Revolution has expanded greatly relative to the era of the Sacred Defense. Their repeated requests to play a role alongside the defenders of the holy places indicate this.
“The religious seminaries and the IRGC bear the joint mission to advance and deepen the Islamic Revolution. This is God’s promise for the salvation of humanity, and we are charged with it. The senior revolutionary clerics and the IRGC will without a doubt actualize God’s promises, while implementing a comprehensive plan of the Islamic Revolution for shaping the picture of the Islamic world.
“Our internal spiritual and material potential for creating [such a global regime], and the robustness of the [Iranian] regime, which constitutes the main nucleus of this plan, are expanding in might. According to the words of [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini, if the revolution and the regime stop on the path, this will cause damage to Islam.”[2]
On April 30, 2017, at a teachers’ conference, Ja’fari said: “Some [people] have a flawed perception of the Islamic Revolution, for they think that its aim was only to defeat the regime of the Shah and to establish the Islamic regime [in Iran]. [But] if we look at the words of the Imam [Khomeini], we will discover a correspondence between the Islamic Revolution and the spread of the religion of Islam. In order to build the Islamic regime, there is no other path but to advance the Islamic Revolution… As the Imam said: If this Islamic regime is defeated, Islam is defeated.
“The framework of our activity is the Islamic Revolution, and first we must know what its aims are… The external dimension of the Revolution is based on the principle of Islam [as] derived from the lesson of the Ashura. This is in effect the principle of enmity towards evil and enmity towards the arrogance [the West, led by the U.S.]. This is actualized by means of the Islamic awakening against evil, and it is waged in the best possible way thanks to the Leader [Khamenei], who is its standard-bearer.”[3]
Supreme Leader’s Representative In The IRGC Saeedi: “The Islamic Revolution Is The Prelude To Islam Becoming Global”
Similar statements were made on March 15, 2017, by Ali Saeedi, Supreme Leader Khamenei’s representative in the IRGC: “There is no doubt that the Islamic Revolution is a prelude to Islam becoming global. Therefore, the Revolution must be strengthened in the best possible way, in order to create the framework for the revelation of God’s promise.”[4]
Deputy Qods Deputy Force Commander Esmail Qaani: “The Main Aim Is Global Rule”
On March 1, 2017, IRGC Qods Force deputy commander Esmail Qaani said: “Without a doubt, our martyrs and those of the dear ones like you Fatimiyyoun[5] will not settle for less than the global rule of the Imam Mahdi. Our martyrs inaugurated a great path. Syria and Aleppo are the temporary aims, and the main aim is global rule, which I hope is not far off.”[6]
IRGC Navy Commander Fadavi: “Today We Are Fighting Not At Home But Thousands Of Kilometers Beyond [Our] Borders”
IRGC Navy commander Ali Fadavi said on March 3, 2017: “Today, the thinking of the Islamic Revolution has expanded. Today, we are fighting not at home, but thousands of kilometers beyond [our] borders. Although our equipment does not compare to that of the enemy, with the blessing of faith in God and the martyrdom-seeking spirit, the enemies will fear us.”[7]
The United States Capitol building. (Image source: aoc.gov)
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments