Liberals Are Pushing The Country To The Edge | Derek Hunter

https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2018/174/50d8f2f4-de76-44a8-be20-4cf6bd48f21f.jpg

Democrats have nothing to sell the American people but being the alternative to what they declare evil.

Source: Liberals Are Pushing The Country To The Edge – Derek Hunter

That is, indeed, the question.

As Hunter points out in this sobering but insightful piece,

“The ability to agree to disagree is dead, murdered by leftists who demand absolute adherence to their political will or they declare you an enemy of the people and seek to destroy you. As long suspected, those “coexist” stickers on their Priuses were for show, they should read “obey” because obedience, in absolute terms, is the only acceptable way to “coexist” with the liberal mob…

“When you hear that the President of the United States is well on his way to becoming the next Hitler, you almost have an obligation to act. When you’re whipped into a frenzy fed by dishonest reporters spinning half-truths into concentration camps, it’s only a matter of time before another person snaps at members of the party enabling the next despotic monster. It’s not only inevitable, it’s the objective. That’s the only logical conclusion you can draw…

“Democrats have nothing to sell the American people but being the alternative to what they declare evil. For that declaration to carry any emotional weight the hateful flames of their fringe have to be stoked to engulf enough people to motivate them to vote in November. The question is, will November come before the spark they’re building toward that ignites something awful?”

That is indeed the question. And on the answer, may ride the fate of our Republic. I have rarely been so fearful for our future as a nation, and a people.

And of course, in November, it all begins again… Is it any wonder that, much though I love and am loyal to the Founders’ vision for this country, I also have a political Tory’s longing for Church, King, and Country – and all of them ordered in a Traditional direction? To say that we are badly off-course is to risk severe understatement!

Advertisements

Russiagate’s ‘Core Narrative’ Has Always Lacked Actual Evidence | The Nation

'Russia's Mark Zuckerberg' takes on the Kremlin, comes to ...

The unprecedented allegation that the Kremlin “attacked America” and “colluded” with its president in order to elect him is based on two documents devoid of facts or logic.

Source: Russiagate’s ‘Core Narrative’ Has Always Lacked Actual Evidence | The Nation

As my late father used to say, “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts!” He, however, was joking. Unfortunately, there’s no hint of humor, awareness of irony, or anything other than a deadly earnestness in the Left’s verbal opposition to “fake news,” even as they use it themselves to feed their favorite narratives.

Case in point: The Nation is hardly a platform for alt-right opinion, yet this article in that venerable magazine of progressive causes and perspectives reports that Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and frequent contributor to The Nation,

“reminds listeners that the Russiagate scandal, which first leaked into the media in mid-2016, has already done immense political damage during these two years. It has cast doubt on the legitimacy of this presidency and possibly future ones. It has questioned the authenticity of a popular election and probably future ones, and thus of American democracy itself.

“And with high-level former US officials, influential columnists, and an array of mainstream-media outlets regularly declaring that President Trump is ‘a quisling‘ and ‘a Russian agent,’ the scandal has greatly diminished his capacity to avoid war with Russia, conceivably nuclear war.”

That alone is a horrifying thought, and is worth some serious introspection regarding whether the Democrats’ irrational desire resolute determination to take down the President, regardless of the cost, is really worth that cost, in world peace as well as political stability here at home.

Up until quite recently, the U.S. has been justly proud of its tradition of the orderly transfer of power, and the willingness of the party not occupying the White House to take the role of the “loyal opposition” – standing up for its principles and policies, of course, but doing so with honour and dignity, in an awareness that we are all, despite our differences, Americans, and that “politics stops at the waterline.”

That reserve seems to be gone, and while today’s Democrats – with their bluster about being the “Resistance” (a hard slap in the face to those who have, throughout history, resisted real dictatorships and tyrannies) – are not solely responsible for the shift, they have carried it to new extremes. Meanwhile, the article goes on to note,

“as happened during the McCarthy era, a myriad of official and media ‘investigations’ have cast an ever-widening net in search of evidence of other ‘colluders,’ from peripheral Trump ‘advisers’ and shadowy ‘informants’ to a Russian prostitute and her pimp in Thailand. After all this time and frenzy,”

it continues,

“substantiated charges and indictments amount to little more than customary financial corruption on the part of the bipartisan top 2 percent and “lying to the FBI,” the latter apparently open to interpretation as to what was actually said and perhaps involving entrapment.

“Meanwhile, reputations are slurred, lives ruined, once-respectable media degraded, and public discourse—especially about international affairs, but not only—chilled by self-censorship and growing institutional forms of ‘preventing disinformation.’”

Hardly the high-water mark in American political discourse. Furthermore,

“Amid this daily frenzy, it’s often forgotten that Russiagate’s ‘core narrative,’ as one of its most devout and prominent promoters terms it, was inspired by, and continues to be based on, two documents, both published in January 2017: an ‘Intelligence Community Assessment’ and the anti-Trump ‘dossier’ compiled by a retired UK intelligence officer, Christopher Steele.

“The ‘core narrative’ of both was, of course, that Putin’s Kremlin had intervened in the 2016 presidential election—essentially an ‘attack on America’—in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and abet Trump’s.

“At the time, a few critics questioned the authenticity of the ICA and the dossier, but for political and media Russiagaters, they instantly became, and have remained, canons, despite their deficit of facts and logic. Reread today, in light of what is now known, they are examples of the adage ‘rubbish in, rubbish out.’

For more details, read the rest of the article. It makes for sobering, or perhaps enraging, reading. If this is what we are becoming, I am not at all happy about it.

This sort of misinformation, manipulation, and blatant witch-hunting on the part of what should be reputable agencies and institutions is far more damaging to America’s credibility, values, and indeed system of Constitutional government than any number of arguments over whether the children of adult illegal immigrants should be housed with them or separately – the cause célèbre which seems to be consuming America’s talking heads at the moment. Distraction, anyone…?

Magna Carta: an introduction | The British Library

Image result for magna carta

King John granted the Charter of Liberties, subsequently known as Magna Carta, at Runnymede on 15 June 1215.

Source: Magna Carta an introduction – The British Library

On this date in 1215, 803 years ago today, King John “Lackland” granted – admittedly under duress! – the “Charter of Liberties,” which was to become known as the “Magna Carta” or “Great Charter,” to the rebel barons and leading churchmen of the Realm of England.

This is of Anglican interest because it protected, among other things, the rights and privileges of the English Church (Ecclesia Anglicana); and is is of general interest for those concerned with the defense of the West because “Magna Carta has… acquired a special status as the cornerstone of English liberties…. [The Great Charter] retains enormous symbolic power as an ancient defence against arbitrary and tyrannical rulers, and as a guarantor of individual liberties.”

The article points out that it is not certain how many copies of the 1215 Magna Carta were originally issued, but four copies still survive: one in Lincoln Cathedral; one in Salisbury Cathedral; and two at the British Library. It is actually the edition of 1225, issued (voluntarily) by King Henry III, which became definitive, and of which three critical clauses are still part of English law:

“Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was subject to the law. Although nearly a third of the text was deleted or substantially rewritten within ten years, and almost all the clauses have been repealed in modern times, Magna Carta remains a cornerstone of the British constitution.

“Most of the 63 clauses granted by King John dealt with specific grievances relating to his rule. However, buried within them were a number of fundamental values that both challenged the autocracy of the king and proved highly adaptable in future centuries. Most famously, the 39th clause gave all ‘free men’ the right to justice and a fair trial. Some of Magna Carta’s core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).”

Of the three of those clauses which remain part of English law, one defends the liberties and rights of the English Church, another confirms the liberties and customs of London and other towns, but here is the third and most famous:

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”

“This clause gave all free men the right to justice and a fair trial [although] ‘free men’ comprised only a small proportion of the population in medieval England…

“Magna Carta has consequently acquired a special status as the cornerstone of English liberties. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of its clauses have now been repealed, or in some cases superseded by other legislation such as the Human Rights Act (1998). Magna Carta nonetheless retains enormous symbolic power as an ancient defence against arbitrary and tyrannical rulers, and as a guarantor of individual liberties.”

Perhaps, given the political and social situation there, England is in need of a new “Great Charter”!

Will Riley of “Stand for the Second”: “There Is a Human Right to Defend Yourself from Tyrannical Government”

‘Stand for the Second’ Will Riley

“For me, this isn’t about getting to the range. This isn’t about hunting, I’m not a hunter. This is about people’s rights. This is about human rights. And I think people often forget that there is a human right to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.”

Source: ‘Stand for the Second’s’ Will Riley: ‘There Is a Human Right to Defend Yourself from Tyrannical Government’ | Breitbart

On May 2, Breitbart News reported that students in schools around the country walked out of class in order to show support for gun rights via the “Stand for the Second” event. The event was organized by Will Riley, and he sat with Breitbart News for the upcoming episode of the podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins.

We asked about the motivation for the pro-gun walkout, and he said:

What drove me to action was I saw the response of the mainstream media to the movements of my peers — the March for Our Lives, the Enough walkouts during the national day of action — and I saw how the media was responding to that by creating this false narrative that my generation is somehow united behind gun control. I wanted to dispel that myth.

Riley made clear that he does not own a gun, that his ultimate motivation to “Stand for the Second” is his desire to preserve and/or recover founding principles and ideals.

He said, “For me, this isn’t about getting to the range. This isn’t about hunting, I’m not a hunter. This is about people’s rights. This is about human rights. And I think people often forget that there is a human right to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.”

He added, “My political concerns are very similar to Thomas Jefferson. I am very concerned with natural rights and the constitutional protections thereof.”

I have found it quite interesting how much coverage the pro-Second Amendment student walkouts received in the mainstream media: Zero. Nada. Crickets. One might almost think there was a dominant narrative that they wanted to promote, and that no deviations from that theme were permitted! But no, that couldn’t be, could it? The news media is supposed to objectively report the facts… right?

“I saw how the media was responding to that by creating this false narrative that my generation is somehow united behind gun control. I wanted to dispel that myth.”

As one young friend of mine commented, “this kid gets it.”

 


 

P.S. Here’s a map, published originally on CNN, showing the locations of walkouts during Stand the Second:

https://i2.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2018/05/CNN-Walkout-Map.jpg

Was this event as big as the gun-ban protests? Probably not. It certainly didn’t get the level of media and political support they did, the infusion of funds, or the adult “advisors.” But I’m not sure I’d trust any of the mainstream media to provide accurate accounting, so we may never know for sure. But this map certainly demonstrates that it was not a small or local event!

What is particularly interesting to me is the number of walkouts in the Northeast, the West Coast, and the urbanized liberal enclaves in the Midwest, south of the Great Lakes. These are all areas which already have strict gun-control laws, and (if you believe the national narrative) want more. Clearly, not everyone who lives there agrees!

Wisdom from “Silent Cal”

Image may contain: 1 person

“One of the first efforts of all kinds of absolutism is to control the press and the schools as the sources of information and education of the people. Where the press is free, as it is in our country under the guaranties of the National and State Constitutions, it has a reciprocal duty of its own to perform toward the administration of the Government, of giving true reports to the people of the actions of public officials. To do otherwise would be to establish a petty tyranny of its own.”

—President Calvin Coolidge, from an “Address at the Dinner of the United Press in New York City on Difficulties with Mexico, Nicaragua and China,” April 25, 1927. The full text of the address is found here.

Almost the whole address may be read as an (unintentional, as he could not have known the way things would go) indictment of our modern-day actions and attitudes, and most especially of the alliance of convenience between neoconservative politics and neoliberal economics! Or more broadly, as I have phrased it on more than one occasion, the unholy alliance between Washington and Wall Street.

Much to ponder in these words of President Coolidge! For they are not only an indictment of where we have gone wrong, but a blueprint for how we might fix it, if we have the will. Whether we do, in fact, have the will is the proverbial $64,000 question.

N.B.:  I have commented previously – including, I believe, in this blog – on the fact that I knew next to nothing about Calvin Coolidge until I ended up living on a street named for him! Since then, synchronicity (along with Ms Ross’s daily history posts) has handed me more than a few nuggets of his wisdom, and I have come to respect him a great deal.

He was known as “Silent Cal” because he only spoke when he had something worthwhile to say. That alone makes him remarkable – for anyone, but especially a politician! And when he did speak, it was generally worth listening to.

Blood Upon Us: Ireland, Holy Week, and 300,000 Pieces of Silver | Ethika Politika

https://external-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQB9p3uE1soT8o57&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fethikapolitika.s3.amazonaws.com%2Farticles%2Fblood-hands.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQCU7xP6Jo12kQ2v

Source: Blood Upon Us: Ireland, Holy Week, and 300,000 Pieces of Silver | Ethika Politika

This came across my news-feed from a good friend’s page, with this selection quoted:

“In May of this year, Irish voters will again go to the polls to decide upon the eighth amendment to the Irish constitution. The amendment recognizes that an unborn infant has the right to live, and it effectively renders abortion, which was already illegal in all thirty-two counties, unconstitutional in the Republic of Ireland. The amendment, which was approved by a two-to-one vote in the plebiscite of 1983, is almost certain to be repealed. Legislation to liberalize abortion will follow quickly.

“We will hear the whole thing described as a leap forward for gender equality and women’s reproductive health, and so on and so forth. The repeal, the ensuing legislation, and the resulting brutal termination of the lives of Irish children in the womb will be put down to a long-overdue decline of the influence of the Catholic Church in Irish society. In short, it will be seen as a mark of the progress we have made out of the bondage of religion and into the freedom of, well, who knows what.

“In fact, the real progress we have made is from a society in which sacrifice and self-disregard were esteemed as virtue to a society in which the easy way out, always the short road to Hell, is held up as a ‘personal choice.’ It is, in short, the progress from Palm Sunday to Good Friday. It would seem that, for now at least, the children of this world are wiser than the children of the light.”

Or at least, think they are. Here is the text of the amendment in question:

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

One might reasonably ask, what sort of person thinks this is a heinous and unacceptable assault on the rights of women?

I have, in general, been reticent about commenting on the issue of abortion. It is, to say the least, a controversial and emotionally-fraught issue, and one must pick the hills on which one chooses to fight and, perhaps, die (metaphorically speaking, one hopes – unlike the victims of abortion). But this move, to amend the Constitution of Ireland, hit home to me.

I spent a semester studying abroad in Ireland, in 1990. It was at that time still emphatically a Catholic – and a Christian – country, although more contemporary and “politically correct” views were already beginning to creep in. At the time, if I had any opinion on abortion at all, it was that (in the words of President Bill Clinton), it should be “safe, legal — and rare.” That is to say, legal in order to keep it safe, and viewed as a last resort for the most tragic of cases.

I still believe that, in principle. The problem, as I have come to realize in the years since, is that in practice, being safe and legal, it is far from rare. According to the Centers for Disease Control, which tracks abortions, in the U.S. in 2014 “652,639 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

That figure is dismayingly high, and cannot be explained, I believe, as accounting for only the most tragic and extreme of circumstances. It is difficult to escape the conclusion, in other words, that for far too many people, abortion is being used as a form of birth-control, after the fact. In fact, the very slogans used imply as much.

Abortion proponents have gotten more canny, in the U.S., in recent years, as overall support for abortion has begun to slip. Rather than the older and far more in-your-face demands for “abortion on demand without apology,” they now use the kinder, gentler, more compassion-inducing “my body, my choice.” But the reality is that a fetus is not – just! – part of a woman’s body, some lump of tissue like a pancreas or a benign tumor. Her body is her own, unquestionably: but the unborn is something more.

She hosts it, of course! She carries it within her, for nine months; she nourishes it, via her umbilical cord. Until able to survive outside the womb, the unborn can only exist within the mother. These are not immaterial or incidental considerations.

But from the time it begins to form, indeed from conception, the fetus is a distinct, individual organism, with distinct, individual DNA, a distinct, individual genetic blueprint: formed from a combination of the genes of both the mother and the father, but different from either.

This is not right-wing opinion, neither is it religious doctrine; this is scientific fact (it is interesting how enthusiastically so many folks on the left trumpet science… right up until it conflicts with one of their fondly-held ideological views).

“My body, my choice” is a lie, or at best it is a half-truth, used to defend what is, in most cases, a choice of convenience. I am sorry, I know that is probably a hard thing to hear, for many people. It is not easy for me to write. But it is the truth.

Therapeutic abortion – abortion undertaken for reasons of medical necessity, in which the termination of the pregnancy is an unfortunate result, but not the intended reason, for the procedure – is one thing. But I am not here talking about therapeutic abortion, I am talking about elective abortion: abortion undertaken for the specific and sole purpose of ending the pregnancy.

That sort of abortion is certainly useful if one’s goal is population control. And it is certainly useful if one desires not to be encumbered with an unwanted pregnancy, either because one made an unwise choice, or because one’s birth control method of choice failed.

But it is not only fatal to the aborted fetus – a unique individual, and one we who are Christians cannot assume is lacking a soul, although we do not know the details of when or how God grants that – but it has been shown to have negative psycho-emotional effects on the mother, and – perhaps most controversially – has negative effects on society as well.

Between six and seven hundred thousand abortions per year cannot, in my view, help but contribute to the numbing of America, when it comes to the sanctity of life. That, in turn, leads to all sorts of unintended – and deeply negative – consequences, almost certainly including a mentality in which the mass murder of innocents becomes thinkable.

After all, if the termination of 652,639 pregnancies each year – 1,788 each and every day – is not the mass murder of innocents, it is hard to imagine what is! And it happens under the imprimatur of the legal and medical establishment.

What sort of message is that sending, out into the larger culture? What message is that sending to our young people, who are also dealing with many other demoralizing and dehumanizing messages? Not a good one, I’ll warrant.

Am I saying there is a direct, causal relationship between the two – that abortion leads directly to school shootings? Well, no… not exactly. Not directly. But indirectly? Absolutely. How could it not? Something, or someone, is inconvenient to you? Bothers you? Upsets you? Get rid of it! Kill it! Throw it away. That’s the message, unintended or no.

There are many other factors involved, too, of course. Abortion is just one factor among many. But it’s a mistake not to think that it IS a factor, in my opinion – and a fairly major one at that – in the overall loss of America’s moral bearings.

652,639 abortions is nearly 18 times the number killed in traffic fatalities annually in the U.S. (37,461 in 2016), a staggering 49 times the number killed by gun violence (13,286 in 2015) – though that number attracts the most attention – and even 2.6 times the horrific number killed by medical malpractice (estimated at around 250,000 annually).

Can this possibly not be having an effect on the psyche and morals of a nation? It’s hard to imagine how it could not. And now Ireland is poised to join the club. Sad.

 


 

For further details on the duplicity of this effort, see “Medical myths about Eighth Amendment must be challenged: Campaign of fear and misinformation has been deployed to tarnish reputation of Irish medicine.”

These teens were shooting as others were protesting guns

 

Source: These teens were shooting as others were protesting guns | Yahoo News

“This .22 Rimfire Silhouette Exhibition Match had been scheduled long before 17 people were killed at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and therefore long before the survivors of that rampage had sparked a national protest movement. But even if this daylong test of marksmanship wasn’t deliberate counter-programming, it did provide an illuminating counterpoint.

“There has been much talk since Parkland of the younger generation — the one that grew up hearing of shootings in other schools and participating in shooter drills at their own — and of how those teenagers are changing the conversation about guns. But every American generation is as multifaceted as the country itself, and the 44 high schoolers who took up their rifles in Georgia as their counterparts took up microphones in Washington also have something to say.

“No doubt a lot of this generation doesn’t think we need to have guns,” said Cole Cook, a ninth grader from Barstow County who has been shooting since his father first taught him at the age of 6. “I think they’re wrong. And I’m part of this generation too.”

This is the point that the contemporary American (and Western, generally) Left does not seem to be able to grasp – or willing to admit: that they are not the sole socio-political and moral gate-keepers of our society; that there are many people who are both intelligent and of good will who simply do not agree with their take on matters.

And despite the attention being given to protesters these days, a lot of the younger generation “gets” this!

Given this reality, along with the simple fact that there is an inherent natural right to bear arms in our own defense – as enumerated, not granted, by the Second Amendment, and confirmed by (inter alia) District of Columbia vs Heller – we should tread very gently indeed when it comes to laws and regulations that would further limit that right.

The best way to deal with gun violence is precisely this: to train citizens, from childhood on up, in the safe, legal, and responsible handling of firearms.

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

– Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)