Sunday, December 20, 2015

The Democrats' Theme for 2016 Is Totalitarianism

The National Review ^ | December 20, 2015 | Kevin D. Williamson 

At the beginning of December, Rolling Stone writer Jeff Goodell asked Secretary of State John Kerry whether Charles and David Koch, two libertarian political activists, should be considered - his remarkable words - "an enemy of the state." He posed the same question about Exxon, and John Kerry, who could have been president of these United States, said that he looked forward to the seizure of Exxon's assets for the crime of "proselytizing' impermissibly about the question of global warming.
An enemy of the state? That's the Democrats' theme for the New Year: totalitarianism.
Donald Trump may talk like a brownshirt, but the Democrats mean business. For those of you keeping track, the Democrats and their allies on the left have now: voted in the Senate to repeal the First Amendment, proposed imprisoning people for holding the wrong views on global warming, sought to prohibit the showing of a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, proposed banning politically unpopular academic research, demanded that funding politically unpopular organizations and causes be made a crime and that the RICO organized-crime statute be used as a weapon against targeted political groups. They have filed felony charges against a Republican governor for vetoing a piece of legislation, engaged in naked political persecutions of members of Congress, and used the IRS and the ATF as weapons against political critics.
On the college campuses, they shout down unpopular ideas or simply forbid nonconforming views from being heard there in the first place. They have declared academic freedom an "outdated concept" and have gone the full Orwell, declaring that freedom is oppressive and that they should not be expected to tolerate ideas that they do not share. They are demanding mandatory ideological indoctrination sessions for nonconforming students. They have violently assaulted students studying in libraries and assaulted student journalists documenting their activities. They have staged dozens of phony hate crimes and sexual assaults as a pretext for persecuting unpopular organizations and people.
What they cannot achieve by legislation or litigation, they seek to achieve by simple violence, left-wing activists having smashed, looted, and burned portions of Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, where Koreans and other Asian minorities were specifically targeted. As on college campuses, they have made a point of assaulting journalists documenting their violence. They have rioted in Philadelphia and in other cities.
They are not backing away from that. Hillary Rodham Clinton may do her vice-principal shtick, but Bernie Sanders is calling for "revolution," and by "revolution" he means crushing the economic and political rights of opponents in order to prevent them from having a say in political debate. Sounding oddly like Henry Ford, he seethes as he talks about scheming foreigners and international bankers working nefariously behind the scenes to undermine American interests, while his admirers brandish such traditional symbols of totalitarianism as the hammer-and-sickle flag.
They have sought to use the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of Rupert Murdoch and other political hate totems, and have long dreamt of using federal regulation to shut down conservative talk radio. They have gone to the Supreme Court to argue that they should be empowered to ban books, films, magazines, and newspapers when they desire to do so for political reasons. They are energetic suppressors of free speech.
It is possible to have a robust, energetic political discourse within the parameters of American liberalism, which cherishes freedom of speech and of inquiry, which distinguishes between public and private spheres, which relies upon the rule of law and the Bill of Rights while placing limits on the reach of the state. But if you reject that, as our so-called liberals have, then you cannot have genuine political discourse, or genuine democracy. When he was asked about having fabricated a story about Mitt Romney's not paying taxes, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid made a straight-up might-makes-right argument: "Romney didn't win, did he?" You cannot have much of an argument without some level of honesty, which is a problem for a country that probably is going to be subjected to yet another Clinton campaign. You cannot have much of an argument without freedom of speech, and you cannot have democracy if political activism is criminalized. The Democrats are seeking to restrict speech, and they already have criminalized politics: Ask Rick Perry about that, or Tom Delay.
The Right cannot be indifferent to this, because we simply do not have that option: It is our speech that they intend to prohibit first, and it is us that they are attempting to imprison for our political views. But the Left should not be indifferent to this, either. There are at least a few (and, one suspects, more than that) liberals of the old-fashioned variety in the Democratic party, and it is not at all clear that they are going wish to remain part of a political organization that is seriously attempting to create a class of political prisoners, to ban books, and to drive people from their jobs and communities for their political beliefs.
John Kerry cannot quite answer the question of whether one of his political rivals should be declared "an enemy of the state." Between now and November 2016, Americans might want to think a bit about whether they wish to invest an openly totalitarian political party with the power of the presidency.

Obama’s Gun Jihad

Coach is Right ^ | 12/20/15 | John C. Velisek USN (Ret.) 

As gun owners know, our Muslim, Marxist President has been doing his best to take guns away from the American people. He has tried for six years to force Congress to do his bidding and violate the 2nd Amendment. To its credit Congress has pushed back, allowing the law abiding to exercise the right given them by God and protected in the Constitution.
After San Bernardino, a city 30 miles from my home and the hometown of my wife, it did not take long for Democrats to respond as they always do: The killings were the fault of the guns and therefore, no one should have one. Yet not even a front page, Guns are Evil editorial in the New York Times could convince Americans that they should abandon the right to keep and bear arms.
Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post has decided that “Evil Republicans” are to blame for gun crime because they respect the 2nd Amendment. According to Ms. Dvorak more Gun Free Zones are the answer. Posting a sign apparently affords a guarantee of safety to those behind it; just ask any assortment of progressives and socialists. But maybe we should ask the children at Sandy Hook, the writers at Charlie Hebdo, or the county workers in San Bernardino how well that works. Barack Obama, our resident scholar of constitutional law has proclaimed that these attacks take place more often in the US than in any other nation. But that isn’t the case; Norway is first, followed by Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland. Sorry, Evergreen, but your numbers lie again.
Democrats have spent decades trying to separate law abiding Americans from their guns. Just after his re-election, Obama issued 23 executive actions designed to prevent the American people from owning...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Obama takes credit for 'stamping out' Ebola

WND ^ | 20 Dec 2015 

In a remarkable show of chutzpah, President Obama has claimed credit for "stamping out" Ebola.
In his last press conference of 2015 held on Friday, Obama states that his leadership, his diplomacy, and most important his belief in climate change all helped craft the Paris climate agreement, and these same leadership qualities stamped out Ebola.
"When I went to Copenhagen, I essentially engaged in 24 hours of diplomacy to salvage from a pretty chaotic process," he stated. "This would not have happened without American leadership. And, by the way, the same is true for the Iran nuclear deal. The same is true for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The same is true for stamping out Ebola - something, you guys may recall from last year, which was the potential end of the world. At each juncture, what we've said is, is that American strength and American exceptionalism is not just a matter of us bombing somebody. More often, it's a matter of us convening, setting the agenda, pointing other nations in a direction that's good for everybody and good for U.S. interests, engaging in painstaking diplomacy, leading by example. And sometimes the results don’t come overnight, they don’t come the following day, but they come. And this year, what you really saw was that steady, persistent leadership on many initiatives that I began when I first came into office."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...

How the Deception of Tolerance and 'Chrislam' Is Destroying America

Charisma News ^ | 12/18/15 | Jessilyn Justice 

Quite literally, the Islamic term "Allah" translates as "god," but Allah and the Christian God are not the same deity.

Wheaton College suspended professor Larycia Hawkins for making the bold claims, but the action brought the discussions of "Chrislam" to the forefront of American religious dialogue.

"To affirm this truth (of the true Christian God) is not to argue that non-Christians, our Muslim neighbors included, know nothing true about God or to deny that the three major monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — share some major theological beliefs," writes Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...

LIBERALS

Can you imagine?