Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Trip to Vietnam Reconfirmed My Hatred of Communism

 

Article by Dennis Prager in Townhall
 

Trip to Vietnam Reconfirmed My Hatred of Communism

Ten years ago, I wrote a column reflecting on my reactions to visiting Vietnam. Given the lack of revulsion to, and even flirtation with, communism (or its more mildly named version, socialism) among many young Americans, it is worth revisiting.

It was difficult to control my emotions -- specifically, my anger -- during my visit to Vietnam. The more I came to admire the Vietnamese people -- their intelligence, love of life, dignity and hard work -- the more rage I felt toward the communists who brought them (and, of course, us Americans) so much suffering in the second half of the 20th century.

Unfortunately, communists still rule the country. Yet, Vietnam has embraced the only way that exists to escape poverty, let alone to produce prosperity: capitalism and the free market. So, then, what exactly did the 2 million Vietnamese who died in the Vietnam War die for? I would like to pose that question to some of Vietnam's communist rulers. "Comrade, you have disowned everything your Communist Party stood for: communal property, collectivized agriculture, central planning and militarism, among other things. Looking back, then, for what precisely did your beloved Ho Chi Minh and your party sacrifice millions of your fellow Vietnamese?"

There is no good answer. There are only lies and truths, and the truths are not good.

The lie is the response offered by the Vietnamese communists, repeated by the world's noncommunist left, taught (until today) in virtually every Western university, and spread by virtually every news medium on the planet: The Vietnam communists, i.e., the North Vietnamese regime and the Viet Cong in South Vietnam, were merely fighting for national independence against imperialism, i.e., foreign control of their country. First, they fought the Japanese, then the French and then the Americans. American baby boomers will remember being told over and over that Ho Chi Minh was Vietnam's George Washington, that he loved the American Constitution, after which he modeled his own, and that he wanted nothing more than Vietnamese independence.

Here is the truth: Every communist dictator has been a megalomaniacal, cult-of-personality, power-hungry, bloodthirsty thug. Ho Chi Minh was no different. He murdered his opponents, tortured God only knows how many innocent Vietnamese (burying peasants alive was a favored method), so as to scare millions of peasants into fighting for him -- yes, for him and his blood-soaked Vietnamese Communist Party, backed by the greatest murderer of all time, Mao Zedong. But moral idiots in America chanted "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh" at anti-war rallies, and depicted America as the real murderers of Vietnamese -- "Hey, hey, LBJ: How many kids did you kill today?"

The Vietnamese communists were not fighting America for Vietnamese independence. America was never interested in controlling the Vietnamese people, and there is a perfect parallel to prove this: the Korean War. Did America fight the Korean communists in order to control Korea? Or did 37,000 Americans die in Korea so that Koreans could be free? Who was (and remains) a freer human being -- a Korean living under Korean communist rule in North Korea or a Korean living in that part of Korea where America defeated the Korean communists?

And who was a freer human being in Vietnam -- those who lived in noncommunist (but authoritarian) South Vietnam or those who lived under Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh's communists in North Vietnam?

America has fought to liberate countries, not to rule over them. It was the Vietnamese Communist Party (and China), not America, that was interested in controlling the Vietnamese people. But the lie was spread so widely and so effectively that most of the world -- except supporters of the American war effort in Vietnam, the Vietnamese boat people and Vietnamese who yearned for liberty -- believed that America was fighting for tin, tungsten and the wholly fictitious "American empire," while the Vietnamese communists were fighting for Vietnamese freedom.

I went to the "Vietnam War Remnants Museum," the Communist Party's three-floor exhibit of anti-American photos. Nothing surprised me -- not the absence of any truth about the communist North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong; not a word about the widespread threats on the lives of anyone who did not fight for the communists; not a word about those who risked their lives to escape by boat, preferring to risk dying by drowning, being eaten by sharks or being tortured or gang-raped by pirates than to live under the communists who "liberated" South Vietnam.

Equally unsurprising is that there is little difference between the history of the Vietnam War as told by the Communist Party of Vietnam and what just about any college student will be told in just about any college by just about any professor in America, Europe, Asia or Latin America.

I will end with the subject with which I began -- the Vietnamese. It is impossible to visit Vietnam and not be impressed by the people. I hope I live to see the day when the people of Vietnam, freed from the communist lies that still permeate their daily lives, understand that every Vietnamese death in the war against America was a wasted life, one of the more than 100 million human sacrifices on the altar of the most bloodthirsty ideology in history: communism.

Share this with your son or daughter who knows nothing about communism and has no idea why decent people hate it, along with fascism and Nazism.

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2021/02/02/trip-to-vietnam-reconfirmed-my-hatred-of-communism-n2584053 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Macron admires US ‘warp speed’ vaccine drive

 ‘The Americans did this very well, much better than us,’ French president says. 

 

 

 

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron said Friday he's a fan of the U.S. "Operation Warp Speed" coronavirus vaccine effort and lamented that Europe moved more slowly.

In a meeting with a group of reporters in Paris, including POLITICO, Macron said he was "very admiring" of the "extremely innovative model" that the Trump administration put in place to facilitate and accelerate the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

By comparison, he admitted "Europe had a slower strategy." But he said it was important to remember that the European Commission was moving into new territory when it got involved in vaccine development and procurement.

 

 

"We are asking the [European] Commission to do something that isn’t within its competence when it is the role of the federal government in the United States," he said.

But beyond that, U.S. authorities also knew how to be more flexible and pioneering in their approach to the vaccine effort, which required unprecedented speed using extremely new technology.

"I also think it’s a question of state of mind," Macron said. "How do we do good science as quickly as possible? The Americans did this very well, much better than us."

For Macron, the U.S. model is "less risk-averse" than the European one.

U.S. authorities were also bold in "believing in science" and accepting the shortening of clinical trials in favor of speeding up the vaccine authorization process, Macron said.

He said he'd like the EU to be bolder on that level, without cutting corners on the science.

 

 

 

"It’s my political DNA, I think our European institutions need to reconnect with that and we are sometimes perhaps too cautious," Macron said.

The French president is a leading advocate of European "strategic autonomy" in fields like health and industry. But Macron acknowledged America's leading role in vaccine development also benefitted Europe.

"What’s great is that we can benefit from what the Americans did, when they compressed the phase two and three of clinical trials, they allowed all of humanity to progress, it’s great."

Two American companies, Pfizer and Moderna, have played leading roles in the global production of coronavirus vaccines. Pfizer developed its vaccine in partnership with German firm BioNTech.

Despite being home to the Pasteur Institute that cracked the HIV virus and is named after famed scientist Louis Pasteur who invented the vaccine against rabies, and to some major pharma companies like Sanofi, no French firm has produced an approved COVID-19 vaccine yet.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-admires-us-warp-speed-coronavirus-vaccine/ 

 

 


 

Breaking Amazon boss Jeff Bezos to move sideways as Christmas quarter sales exceed $100bn

 

Amazon has announced its founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is to step down from running the business as it reported record revenues for its core Christmas quarter, topping $100bn for the first time with help from the coronavirus pandemic.

The e-commerce, cloud data storage and entertainment giant said Bezos would become executive chair during the summer, with Amazon Web Services chief Andy Jassy assuming the top job.

Bezos said its latest results demonstrated it was the right time to make the transition as Amazon recorded total sales of $125.6bn (£92bn) between October and December 2020 - a period that took in its annual Prime Day for the first time, Black Friday and holiday season business.

 

 It represented a 43% rise on the same period in 2019 in, what proved to be, the run-up to the COVID-19 crisis that has hammered physical retailers, forced a stampede to work from home and stoked demand for TV and movie downloads during lockdowns.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/amazon-boss-jeff-bezos-to-move-sideways-as-christmas-quarter-sales-exceed-100bn-12206868 

 


 

La Chandeleur: The day the French get superstitious and go crazy over crepes

 

Coins on crêpes, flipping crêpes, and crêpes on top of the wardrobe. 

That’s what you can expect to see on Tuesday, February 2nd, 2021 as the French dig out their non-stick frying pans to celebrate La Chandeleur.

I’ve never heard of it before. What exactly is La Chandeleur?

It's a religious holiday in France that’s been around since Roman times that nowadays sees people eat a lot of crêpes, light candles and become very superstitious.

Why crêpes?

Well there's a lot of history to this day - more on this later - but in short, it was a good way to use up the extra wheat ahead of the new harvest. And symbolically, it looks like a sun, so it was a reason to rejoice as the days started to get longer.

 

 

Why February 2nd?

The date actually marks when Jesus was presented at the temple in Jerusalem.

 

 

 Before becoming a religious holiday, Chandeleur stemmed from several pagan traditions celebrating the fertility of the earth and the beginning of the end of winter.

 

 It's said that in the 5th century, Pope Gelasius I started the Festival des Chandelles on this date, a candlelit procession through the streets of Rome that culminated in placing the blessed candles in the churches. Gelasius linked this custom to crêpes by handing out galettes (a type of savoury crêpe) to poor pilgrims who arrived in Rome that day.

 

 

And how about the Chandeleur superstitions?

Well, in France’s Franche-Comté region, a proverb says that if someone can carry a Chandeleur candle all the way home from church without it going out, then that person will "certainly stay alive this year".

 

 

 

A bit of a morbid superstition for a candle, you might think, but you've obviously not heard what the folks down in the Haute-Garonne department thought.

There, they said that if a candle's wax only dripped on one side of the candle during a religious procession, it announced the death of a loved-one during the year.

They also said that "bewitched" people could only be cured by a soothsayer using a blessed altar candle on the day of the Chandeleur.

He would then draw various symbols on the ground, then mix soil from a graveyard with holy water, only to douse the floor with it together with a mix of poppy, fennel, and wild mustard.

Unfortunately soothsaying in a group probably contravenes Covid restrictions so you might want to give that one a miss this year.

 

 

https://www.thelocal.fr/20190201/la-chandeleur-the-day-the-french-go-crazy-over-crepes-and-superstitions 

 

 


 

China bans children from using mobile phones at school

 

Children in China are to be banned from using their phones in school, the Ministry of Education has ruled.

Pupils will not be allowed to bring mobiles to school without written parental consent.

The authorities say they want to protect young people's eyesight, improve their concentration and prevent internet addiction.

Schools are being encouraged to find other ways for parents to communicate with children during the school day.

According to one of the country's newspapers, China Daily, there has been heated debate among parents over the whether the ruling is practical.

The vast majority of children and teenagers in China access the internet via their own smartphones - 74% of under-18s, according to the government-affiliated China Internet Network Information Centre.

But the authorities are concerned about how internet use is affecting the health of the nation's youth.

There have been rising levels of nearsightedness among children in China and in 2018, the authorities announced plans to regulate the gaming industry which was partially blamed for the problem. They also cited concerns that gaming addiction was damaging mental health.

The following year a curfew was imposed on under-18s, who were restricted to 90 minutes of gaming on weekdays and three hours on weekends and holidays.

 

 

 

French ban

Many schools in China already restrict the use of mobile phones on their premises. In some extreme cases, phones have been smashed in front of students who have broken the rules.

The topic of a ban has become a major news item in China and on social media, with thousands discussing it on social media site Weibo.

Some 27,000 people voted in an online Sina News poll, with most saying there was no need for the new rules because of the widespread ban during school hours. Some pointed out that children may continue to over-use their phones when not in school.

A plan to stop schools setting homework tasks via phone has also been criticised. One teacher told state broadcaster CCTV that "not allowing phones to contact someone, or to arrange homework, that will take some getting used to. They all get so much homework, so that's been convenient."

French lawmakers voted in 2018 to ban the use of phones in primary and middle schools, ruling that children under 15 have to keep their mobile phones out of sight while on school premises.

A survey conducted in the UK by price comparison site uSwitch last year suggested that just under half of UK parents thought their child's school should ban mobile phones.

 

 

 The use of phones in the UK is generally left up to individual schools. One head teacher, from Anglesey in Wales, told the BBC that teachers could find themselves spending too much time challenging children for using phones, which took time away from actually teaching them.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55902778?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_campaign=64&at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=2FBBB7AC-6572-11EB-867C-E2F04744363C&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_custom2=twitter 

 

 


 

Covid-19: Captain Sir Tom Moore dies with coronavirus

 

Captain Sir Tom Moore has died with coronavirus.

The 100-year-old, who raised almost £33m for the NHS, was taken to Bedford Hospital after requiring help with his breathing on Sunday.

His daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore said he had been treated for pneumonia over the past few weeks and last week tested positive for Covid-19.

Buckingham Palace said the Queen is sending a private message of condolence to the family of Capt Sir Tom.

The Royal Family tweeted: "Her Majesty very much enjoyed meeting Captain Sir Tom and his family at Windsor last year. Her thoughts and those of the Royal Family are with them."

The Army veteran won the nation's hearts by walking 100 laps of his garden before his 100th birthday.

 

 

In a statement, Capt Sir Tom's daughters Mrs Ingram-Moore and Lucy Teixeira said: "It is with great sadness that we announce the death of our dear father, Captain Sir Tom Moore.

"We are so grateful that we were with him during the last hours of his life; Hannah, Benjie and Georgia by his bedside and Lucy on FaceTime.

"We spent hours chatting to him, reminiscing about our childhood and our wonderful mother. We shared laughter and tears together.

"The last year of our father's life was nothing short of remarkable. He was rejuvenated and experienced things he'd only ever dreamed of.

"Whilst he'd been in so many hearts for just a short time, he was an incredible father and grandfather, and he will stay alive in our hearts forever."

 

 

Capt Sir Tom's daughters said the care he received from the NHS was "extraordinary".

They said staff had been "unfalteringly professional, kind and compassionate and have given us many more years with him than we ever would have imagined".

The Army veteran, originally from Keighley in West Yorkshire, came to prominence by walking 100 laps of his garden in Marston Moretaine, Bedfordshire, before his 100th birthday during the first national lockdown. 

 

 

Capt Sir Tom joined the Army at the beginning of World War Two, serving in India and Myanmar, then known as Burma.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer tweeted: "This is incredibly sad news. Captain Tom Moore put others first at a time of national crisis and was a beacon of hope for millions. Britain has lost a hero."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-55881753 

 

 


 

FNC’s Carlson: Democrats ‘Think It Is Fine to Mobilize the Army in Order to Put Down Domestic Opinions’

 

Article by Jeff Poor in Breitbart
 

FNC’s Carlson: Democrats ‘Think It Is Fine to Mobilize the Army in Order to Put Down Domestic Opinions’

Monday, Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson opened his program questioning the military presence in Washington, D.C., around the U.S. Capitol.

He pointed to some Democrats, who have justified the use of National Guard troops as a means to combat political opinions, as a cause for concern. 

Transcript as follows:

CARLSON: The news is moving with bewildering speed, in case you haven’t noticed. We’ve noticed.

No presidential administration has ever changed so many basic institutions and facts of American life, and done it so quickly. We’ve done our best to bring you nightly updates on what’s happening for the week and a half that Joe Biden has been President, but at times, it’s overwhelming, there’s just too much to cover.

The other day, for example, we learned that the Biden administration plans to make the tiny District of Columbia, our 51st state, a more corrupt English speaking version of Monaco, as if lobbyists in Washington didn’t have enough control over your life. Now, there will be U.S. senators.

But that’s not even the biggest news. Just a few hours ago, Biden officials informed us that after almost 65 years of working to build a nuclear weapon, the nation of Iran maybe finally — and you’ll find this amazing, quote: “just weeks away” from getting a bomb. After 65 years of trying. What a coincidence.

You already know how that story is going to end, another pointless foreign war, trillions spent many dead, the United States gaining nothing. We’ve seen that a lot and it’s happening again.

Joe Biden just sent American troops to Syria. Well, you didn’t know that? Yes. Hours after he became President, American soldiers crossed into the nation of Syria, sending them to Syria was one of the first things Joe Biden did.

Somehow most of the media forgot to even mention that. In their defense, as noted, there’s a lot going on in the news, including a lot of troop mobilization. Syria is not the only place they’re massing. Washington, D.C. looks like occupied Sarajevo tonight, a small city overflowing with soldiers.

The troops came last month, tens of thousands of them. We were told they’re going to protect the capital from the inevitable right-wing violence, certainly certain to accompany Joe Biden’s Inauguration. Then Joe Biden was inaugurated, and there wasn’t any violence. Donald Trump didn’t chain himself to the North Portico. Trump voters didn’t rush the stage. The Trump restoration never happened. And yet, the troops stayed.

No one in Congress seemed to notice, but in fact, they’re still arriving, as of tonight, thousands of them. As of last Thursday, National Guard troops from 23 states were stationed in Washington. That number seems to have risen over the past few days. We called the National Guard today to find out by how much, but they couldn’t give us numbers or wouldn’t.

We do know that more states have sent troops since last week. You may have seen the video of soldiers getting off buses downtown near the Capitol. What are they all doing there? Again, National Guard leadership wouldn’t tell us quote, “for operational security reasons,” the spokesman said, “We will not get into specific details of the ongoing mission.”

Oh, soldiers in our capital, but we don’t have a right to know. Got it.

JB Pritzker, who is the Governor of Illinois was not so shy about the purpose. He laid it out very clearly. In a press release announcing the deployment of more soldiers to Washington, D.C., Pritzker explained that, quote, “We must root out the dark forces of racism, white supremacy and disinformation that have created this moment.” Let that sink in.

The military has been deployed to Washington, D.C. to fight disinformation. So say something a Democratic Governor doesn’t like and he will send troops. Does that sound like the country that you grew up in? It probably doesn’t.

This is not the way things are done in America. It’s not the way they have been done since the Civil War. No one alive has ever seen anything like this. So why is everyone — everyone pretending it’s totally normal to have thousands of troops in the Capitol to fight disinformation? Because obviously, they’re in favor of it. They think it is fine to mobilize the Army in order to put down domestic opinions.

MSNBC though, let us remind you, an opinion channel, is completely in favor of this. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And now, nearly 5,000 National Guard troops will be deployed in D.C. through March as some congressional staffers and extremism researchers say there are concerns about possible violence surrounding the upcoming impeachment proceedings.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The National Guard will have to stay there as a symbol to those people who think that that building is vulnerable, and that includes the American citizens who went up there and performed insurrection.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Inside The Pentagon’s decision to keep thousands of National Guard troops in the streets of Washington, D.C. as we get a new gut punch from the F.B.I. affirming the greatest threat facing the American people is already among us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh extremism researchers. So the Southern Poverty Law Center is now in charge of the Pentagon. You should know that. The whole thing is a gut punch, by the way, they just told you. Gut punch? Not to the people in charge who have ordered up an unspecified number of soldiers for an unspecified number of soldiers for an unspecified period of time for purposes they refuse to explain to us.

No, that’s not a gut punch. It’s not a big deal. It is business as usual here in Kurdistan.

The gut punch is, the fact is, it definitely is a fact, it is not at all terrifying Rwanda level propaganda. The fact is that, quote, “The greatest threat facing the American people is already among us.” Already among us. They’re here.

Terrified yet? The woman that you just saw on television went to Harvard, incidentally, so you can believe it when she tells you what the real threat is. It’s not like she was reading from a ministry of truth press release issued by some creepy authoritarian regime. No, not at all. She knows who the enemy is.

And this week, the enemy was a freshman Congresswoman from the 14th District of Florida. No one is more scary. No threat is more imminent or dangerous tonight to this nation, ladies and gentlemen, than this freshman Member of Congress.

The threat that she alone poses, as they say in cable news, it existential. Indeed, this single Congresswoman maybe just weeks away from developing nuclear weapons. If you watched television this weekend, you already know quite a bit about her.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trump has also been in touch with Florida Congresswoman and noted QAnon devotee, Marjorie Taylor Greene.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Marjorie Taylor Greene has spent the weekend scrubbing her social media accounts.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People who are spreading conspiracy theories and doubling down on inciting violence. That, of course, is Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been in the news this whole weekend is a conspiracy theorist.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Certainly, news outlets have been exposing Representative Greene’s history of hate. But is the coverage also building her up?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Oh, so how dangerous — just how dangerous is this three-named Congresswoman, you probably have never heard of? Well, so dangerous, that in the name of democracy, she must be expelled tonight from the Congress. That’s what they’re saying.

No one is claiming voter fraud here. The member in question was elected just months ago with 75 percent of the vote. Now, that’s roughly the same percentage of the vote that Nancy Pelosi got out in San Francisco. So there’s no question that her voters very much wanted her to represent them in Washington.

On the other hand, what do her voters have to do with democracy? That’s not how democracy works. In the new democracy, CNN gets the veto. If cable news doesn’t like your views, you have to leave Congress. That’s the rule.

The test is entirely ideological. You don’t actually have to harm anyone to lose your job. This new member of Congress has barely even voted. She just got there the other day. But CNN says she has bad opinions, therefore, she is the greatest threat we face.

Now, if you’re skeptical about any of this, our advice is keep it to yourself because free inquiry is dead. Unauthorized questions are hate speech. Anyone who suggests that this one Member of Congress is not really America’s greatest enemy is by definition, one of America’s greatest enemies, and that would definitely include this show, which CNN spent yet another weekend trying to get pulled off the air by force.

Censoring a news program is not censorship when the people at CNN don’t agree with what that program says. OK. They actually said that.

They are children obviously, but that does not mean they will not win in the end, or that it won’t get worse in the meantime. Why? Simple. Donald Trump is gone now. That’s very bad news for the many people who made a living yelling at Donald Trump, and it is especially dangerous for their political party. A party whose nonsensical coalition can only hang together by collectively throwing rocks at whomever happens to be at the center of the hate circle today.

So there’s no more Donald Trump. That means you get to be Donald Trump now. See how that feels.

It’s all pretty predictable, you could have written this script. The sad thing is, they are missing a lot. This is the media after all, their job is to cover the news, and there are tons of interesting things happening right now. Things that you tend to miss when you spend all day screaming about a single Member of Congress from Georgia.

For example, there’s the populist revolt underway on Wall Street. That’s not a small story. It’s still going on tonight. In fact, it is spreading.

What began as attack on short sellers will likely change our economy permanently and forever. So why are the Reddit guys doing this in the first place? It would be nice if someone somewhere had asked that question. Is it possible that the Reddit guys have a point, however destructive their tactics may turn out to be?

Could it be that COVID has so dramatically accelerated the concentration of wealth in this country to a degree that’s dangerous and completely unsustainable, that this was a reaction to it? But because corporations have made it impossible for people to say anything that’s true out loud anymore?

Simple things like, hey, hedge funds aren’t actually very good for the country, or, whoa, why don’t we still have something as obviously corrupt as the carried interest loophole in our tax code, things like that? Because you can’t say any of that in public without being called a racist by some goon from the H.R. department down the hall, the Reddit guys maybe had nowhere else to express their justifiable frustration and instead took it out on our public markets.

Could that have happened? Just spit-balling. Totally possible that’s what’s going on here.

But that segment was not on cable news this weekend, nor was any speculation about how long a market that is this disconnected from reality can continue. How long before the whole thing crashes, not just the stock market, but any society built on mandatory lying? How long before Davos man, the flimsiest emblem ever created of our new age evaporate like meringue in the rain, and we return to the real things? Physics, gravity, reason, God. How long? Anytime?

Those are all good questions. None have been addressed lately in the media. Instead, we saw “Newsweek” fret about the quote, “far right extremists who may be using Reddit to mock our noble hedge funds.”

The Washington Post, meanwhile, saw the resemblance — not unreasonable, if we’re being honest here — between what’s happening on Wall Street right now and what happened in the 2016 presidential election. They were appalled, of course. When the hedge funds take a hit, it’s mob rule.

Even the corporate comedians weighed in, bowing before their masters in finance. Watch this guy tell you that it must have been the Russians doing this. No decent, loyal American would hurt a hedge fund, and for once he is not joking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, TALK SHOW HOST: Over the past six months, their stock price has grown by 8,000 percent because a bunch of amateur investors, maybe even some Russian disruptors who are part of a Reddit community called WallStreetBets, decided to buy a bunch of GameStop stock and drive the price up and screw over the hedge fund guys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, if you’re screwing over the hedge funds, you must be Russian because there are no underlying problems that American citizens might be reacting against, none.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/02/02/fncs-carlson-democrats-think-it-is-fine-to-mobilize-the-army-in-order-to-put-down-domestic-opinions






Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The Fight That Lies Between Status Quo and Secession

 

Article by Selwyn Duke in The American Thinker
 

The Fight That Lies Between Status Quo and Secession

With a stolen election, stolen culture, stolen courts and stolen dreams, many Americans are realizing that rule by the Left, absolutely corrupt even without absolute power, is unthinkable. Talk of secession, something continually entertained in various states throughout history, is again in the air. The problem is that for the most part, we’ve been supinely submissive in the face of burgeoning leftist tyranny. So it would help if there were something between secession and our current slouching toward servitude. And there is.

Too many conservatives are also waxing defeatist, saying “The republic is dead; our freedoms are gone.” And, yes, if we continue operating inside the box and being “conservative” — as in status-quo oriented — we can kiss our (remaining) liberties goodbye. But the left isn’t constrained by any box, except what’s physically and politically possible; it doesn’t abide by rules, laws, social codes or conventions except when convenient. So why should we remain in any box except that which is divinely ordained?  

Embracing Mao’s sentiment that “[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” the left trades in violence, violence done to political opponents and to our culture, history, heroes, Constitution and just liberties. Now having seized power in government’s executive and legislative branches via the violence of electoral theft, the left aims to use that power to become autocratic. As to how we should respond, remember:

Only power negates power.

The left has been able to steal a national election (and some down-ballot seats, no doubt) via massive vote fraud in, largely, a handful of big Democrat-run cities. Yet despite all the electoral theft, President Trump still won half the states, some by wide margins. It is these states where power should be exercised.

The power I reference is what Thomas Jefferson called the “rightful remedy” for all federal usurpation of states’ domain: nullification. This is the process whereby authorities simply ignore federal dictates, whether handed down by Congress, a bureaucracy or the courts.

There’s nothing unprecedented about nullification. Leftists engage in it continually. For example, their localities often ignore federal drug or immigration laws, and more than a score of states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Only, leftists don’t call it “nullification” — they just do it. In contrast, conservatives busy themselves conserving the status quo even though it’s leftist-born and generally abide by even unconstitutional federal laws, mandates and court rulings because “this is the way things are done.”

This said, we have seen some pushback, with county sheriffs in recent times refusing to enforce irrational China virus restrictions and some opposition to anti-Second Amendment proposals. But this effort must become widespread and organized — “Nullification!” must become a rallying cry.

To this end, we need a nullification movement. When state officials, from governor to assemblymen and senators, run for office, the first and last question must be: Will you vow to nullify all unjust federal dictates? If they hem and haw at all, they must be immediately disqualified.

In addition, nullification-disposed states should make a compact with one another so that we can enjoy the strength numbers bring.

In reality, nullification (which I’ve been advocating for years) should have been pursued long ago; the federal government has, after all, been trampling states’ powers for at least the better part of a century, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But that being water under the bridge, we now require a ton of cure.

The cure of nullification is the obvious next step for anyone serious about combating the burgeoning leftist tyranny. We’ve no other recourse. “As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones,” wrote author Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Under this scenario, the federal government “will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power,” he continued.

That is reality. So is this: Reasoned argumentation only works with those who’ll yield to reason (the left won’t). Constitutional constraints only matter to those who respect laws and national contracts (the left doesn’t). Appealing to courts only bears fruit when judges have a sense of justice and duty and the guts to act rightly even when pariah status results (most don’t). Making this more tragically comical still is that when we seek redress for federal tyranny, we expect relief from the federal government’s own judicial branch! 

This didn’t help us with the 2020 election, which the left got away with stealing. Moreover, it knows it can not only replicate the theft in the future but can expand it; thus have the Democrats introduced a bill taking mail-in voting nationwide. Perhaps they can pass it, too.

Then the states can just pass on it. “Pound sand” would be my response. 

The Democrats can hobble border enforcement so that they can further destabilize our country and import more future voters -- and Texas can secure its border itself. Let the left-wing, black-robed lawyers issue their contrary “opinions,” as we know they will. My response would be a paraphrase of the paraphrase of Andrew Jackson: “The judges have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”

Why, states can even consider deporting illegal aliens within their borders and then say they’re just doing the job the feds won’t do (or maybe “deport” them to liberal states and do the latter the favor of enhancing their diversity. It’s called a one-way bus trip and giving people what they voted for).

In other words, I’d even consider assuming certain federal powers just as the feds have stolen states’ powers. “What of the Constitution?” you ask? “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” wrote John Adams in 1798. “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Leftists are the “other.” They also have wholly trampled the Constitution, the “contract” Americans have with one another. And when a party consistently violates a contract to benefit itself at the expense of other contractees, and courts provide no remedy because they’re complicit in the con, the contract is voided.

Leftists have made their intentions crystal clear, calling for 9/11-like “truth commissions,” blacklists and the persecution of Trump supporters. They’re also successfully “cancelling” opponents as they destroy careers, reputations and lives. For how long will we insist on abiding by Queensberry rules while they proceed no-holds-barred?

Painting with a broad brush, conservatives are principle-oriented and, projecting as man will, don’t fully appreciate that the Left is power-oriented. If we’d handled the Soviets during the Cold War as we do our left, with NATO (no action, talk only), we’d have been singing “The Internationale.”

Only power negates power, and our choice is simple: Accept that and nullify tyranny — or go gentle into that good night.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/the_fight_that_lies_between_status_quo_and_secession.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The Real Constitutional Crisis is Upon Us

Article by John Green in The American Thinker
 

The Real Constitutional Crisis is Upon Us

We’ve heard repeated claims over the course of the Trump presidency that we’re facing a constitutional crisis.  We’ve been told that everything from executive orders to impeachment proceedings were such a crisis.  Those claims were utter nonsense.

But what about when the Constitution is ignored rather than respected?  In that case it will cease being a guarantee of our rights or a constraint on government overreach.  Under those circumstances the Constitution will no longer have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves as a nation.  It will become nothing more than an interesting historical document.  That will be a true constitutional crisis and it’s rapidly approaching.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be our bulwark against encroachments on the Constitution.  The justices are not only to be the interpreters of the Constitution, but also its guardians.  They are the robed scholars intended to understand the Constitution inside and out, and to ensure the nation remains faithful to it.  They are granted lifetime appointments so that they may remain above petty politics.  Justices are intended to be free of party affiliation so that they may defend the Constitution -- independent of outside influences.

Somewhere along the line, the Supreme Court decided that it not only wanted to keep the Constitution relevant, but it wanted the Constitution to evolve with the times.  Suddenly, we had an evolving Constitution (I hate the term “living Constitution”).  We’ve now been introduced to “penumbras” and “emanations” -- which are just legal-speak for, “We know what the Founders meant, even though they didn’t write it down.”  And with that, fidelity to the Constitution has been lost.

Let’s compare our approaching constitutional crisis to that of an approaching comet.  Astronomers assure us that avoiding a fatal impact from a comet or asteroid is relatively straightforward -- if the threat is detected early enough.  With ample warning, it can simply be nudged off course.  However, the longer it remains undetected, the more difficult it becomes to redirect.

I submit that threats to our Constitution have been approaching for generations.  Either through dereliction or malicious intent (willful violation of their oaths), the Supreme Court justices have failed to interdict the approaching threats when it would have been relatively easy.  Now we’ve reached a point where the Constitution is becoming irrelevant, and it’s not clear that the Supreme Court has any interest in defending it.

A brief history will help to illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the meaning of the Constitution.  I’ll start with Roe vs Wade.  The court could have simply ruled that abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  It was the business of the states and the Supreme Court would not engage in the argument.  Instead, the Supreme Court found a new right, hidden in a secret compartment somewhere in the Constitution.  And just like that, the court announced, “We are open for business! If you’ve got something you can’t get passed in Congress, come talk to us. Maybe we can help.”  The Constitution evolved.  Deflecting the threat would have been easy in 1973, but the court became a political player instead.

Fast forward to 2012.  The court had been playing around with which laws it likes and which it doesn’t for years.  But in 2012, one of its most notorious rulings landed on the American people.  The affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) had been challenged on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for the government to require citizens to buy products from private companies -- and fine them if they failed to do so.  As part of the argument supporting ObamaCare, the drafters of the legislation argued that the fine was not a tax.  In spite of this, the court ruled that ObamaCare was constitutional because the government has the right to levy taxes, and the fine was really a tax, even though the legislation said it wasn’t.  At this point, the Supreme Court wasn’t just picking the laws it liked and disliked, it was writing the legislation itself.  It was doing so by saying the legislation meant something other than what it actually said.  That meteor was getting kind of big in the sky -- No?

Let’s jump forward to the Trump administration.  Since the judicial branch has become a political player, judge shopping has become standard practice.  If there’s something your side wants from a court, you may simply select a sympathetic judge -- rather like an a la carte menu item.  That has brought us the phenomenon of rogue judges.  It became commonplace for district judges to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential orders -- regardless of the constitutionality of those orders. 

We also saw judges unilaterally appropriating the powers of Department of Justice (DoJ).  The DoJ has the sole authority to decide when, and when not, to prosecute someone.  Yet when DoJ decided to drop charges against Michael Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan decided to appoint his own prosecutor and continue the proceedings against Flynn.  He became judge, prosecutor, and jury -- all wrapped up in one robe.  As judging goes, what could be more out of control (rogue) than that?

The Supreme Court could have reined in rogue judges with clear rulings about the inappropriateness of their behavior.  But it didn’t, and equal justice under the law is no longer a given.  The comet was still approaching.

The end of Donald Trump’s first term brought us to the election of 2020.  One of our most sacred rights is the right to vote in free and fair elections.  In response to COVID-19, numerous election officials announced their intent to conduct the election contrary to applicable laws.  The Supreme Court had a chance to say no.  But instead, it took a pass.  After the election, with a mountain of irregularities, the court again had a chance to ensure election integrity – through a public hearing of the evidence and unbiased adjudication of its implications.  The Supreme Court again took a pass.  In doing so, the justices effectively announced they had no interest in defending the citizenry’s right to fair elections.  Let that sink in -- Our constitutional guardians opted out of defending our constitutional rights.  How honorable of them.  That comet is getting awfully close!

It’s now 2021 and we’ve seen our free speech rights threatened by censorship.  Our right of assembly has been suspended for COVID-19 lockdowns.  Members of Congress have called conservatives “insurrectionists” and demanded our re-education -- for having the temerity to protest.  The Department of Homeland Security has even issued a domestic terrorism alert because “right-wing radicals” might question the authority of the president.  Is it possible that the Patriot Act may be used to surveil and curtail conservative political movements?  Before you say no, remember the IRS targeted the Tea Party and the FBI spied on the Trump campaign.  That approaching rock is starting to block out the sun.

Lawsuits challenging censorship and domestic surveillance are undoubtedly on their way.  Will the Supreme Court choose to get involved?  Or will it take a pass again?  Isn’t it disturbing that this is even a mystery?  Time is short. The crisis is here.  The justices may either fulfill their oaths, or the rest of us will need to brace for “deep impact.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/02/the_real_constitutional_crisis_is_upon_us.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Prof. Jonathan Turley Explains the Dangers of Senate Dems 'Playing Games' With 14th Amendment



After the Senate’s vote last week on the constitutionality of holding a Senate trial after a president has left office, it’s clear that a conviction of President Trump in the upcoming Senate (show) trial is DOA because most Republicans are not likely to go along with it.

Because of that, some Senate Democrats have floated other measures like censuring Trump as an alternative, because it would require 60 votes instead of 67. But according to failed 2016 Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), part of any censure effort would also involve what a conviction would lead to in a Senate impeachment trial: barring Trump from running for office again:

Kaine is still gathering input but has drafted a resolution that would formally censure Trump. It also includes provisions that would mirror language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on barring officials from holding future office.

“In a way I view it as kind of censure-plus because it has these two factual findings that could have the same consequence as an impeachment conviction,” Kaine said. “It’s not just, ‘hey you did those things and that’s bad.’ ”

[…]

In addition to condemning Trump, the resolution makes two findings, according to Kaine: that Jan. 6 was an insurrection and that Trump gave “aid and comfort to the insurrection.”

“If he ever were to decide to run again, which may not happen, then likely a court or somebody would say OK what about your behavior in January of 2021 including the congressional fact finding,” Kaine said, predicting that “Congress finding the facts would be given great deference by a court.”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who has testified before Congress on many occasions including during the 2019 House Democratic impeachment hearings, took to the Twitter machine over the weekend to explain the dangers of Senate Democrats considering the “censure-plus” path of punishing Trump as well as the legal challenges they would face from Trump’s team:

In a piece he wrote for The Hill, Turley opined that Senate Democrats should stick with a simple censure resolution and leave any future political plans Trump may have “to voters and to history”:

There is an alternative, which is a censure resolution that can garner overwhelming support as a bipartisan condemnation rather than a circumvention of impeachment. We can then leave the Constitution alone, and leave the future of Trump to voters and to history.

That said, I’m not sure that even a censure resolution would win over the required number of Republicans in the Senate, because so much evidence has come out since the Capitol riots, evidence that points to the attack on the Capitol being pre-planned rather than being something “incited” by Trump during his speech.

If Republican Senators truly do plan on voting based on what they hear as it relates to the evidence, it’s hard to see where they could in good conscience vote to censure, much less convict.


DOJ Investigating Elon Musk For Not Hiring Foreign Applicant


For those of us familiar with the legal term “Disparate Impact” this report today will make sense.  However, if you don’t know that it is unlawful to hire an “ineligible” applicant, the DOJ action seems ridiculous, which it is.

[CTH Reference HERE and HERE]

Under legal interpretation rules of “Disparate Impact” it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens. If a company uses eligible (legal) work authorization status as a requirement on employment applications (when making hiring decisions), and if the use of legal work eligibility is used as a qualifier, and the eligibility (qualification) standards disqualify a protected class (nationality, ethnicity) at a disparate rate, then it is unlawful not to hire illegal aliens.

Read the emboldened paragraph below carefully.

WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating SpaceX over whether the company discriminates against non-U.S. citizens in its hiring practices and said Elon Musk’s company is stonewalling a subpoena for information, court documents revealed Thursday.

The DOJ’s Immigrant and Employee Rights Section received a complaint of employment discrimination from a non-U.S. citizen claiming that the company discriminated against him based on his citizenship status.

“The charge alleges that on or about March 10, 2020, during the Charging Party’s interview for the position of Technology Strategy Associate, SpaceX made inquiries about his citizenship status and ultimately failed to hire him for the position because he is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,” DOJ attorney Lisa Sandoval wrote in a court document filed Thursday. The document was a request for a judge to order SpaceX to comply with an administrative subpoena for documents related to how the company hires. (more)

This may or may not be a disparate impact case. Ultimately, that is what the DOJ is once again seeking to discover.