Parting words!
The Clinton's apparently engaged in influence peddling (pay for play) through their foundation. While they were screwing America and allowing our foreign policy to be manipulated they claim their foundation was saving Africans of Aids.
Is it possible some of Hillary's deleted e mails cover up her activities in selling her office? How could anyone in their right mind think this? To do so would suggest Hillary is untrustworthy and we know better. She always tells the truth. She even traces her heritage to George Washington!
=====================================================================
Liberals embrace moral relevancy because it allows them greater latitude to engage in non-traditional behaviour and engage in pursuing dumb theories they convert into legislation. (See 1 below.)
===
Obama has placed a significant number of Muslims in government positions, some at the most sensitive levels and Hillary has also embraced the concept. If she becomes president it is likely her Chief of Staff will be someone with a history of questionable activities and connections. (See 2 below.)
===
Is Obamacare in failing health and on its last leg? And more problems as a result of Obama's Iranian Deal. (See 3 and 3a below.)
====
Glick pursues Soros. His reach is extensive and sinister.(See 4 below.)
===
This was forwarded to me by a very dear friend and fellow memo reader. It is a site he regularly accesses because he is a retired Lt. General. (See 5 below.)
Nor can I verify this but sounds like it might be correct. (See 5a below.)
===
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1) THE TYRANNY LURKING IN MORAL RELATIVISM – FROM BRZEZINSKI TO OBAMA
By PROF. PAUL EIDELBERG
Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Intercollegiate Review. I bring this article to your attention because I therein revealed something unheard of in academia: the tyrannical mentality lurking in moral relativism, a doctrine linked to modern liberalism! I see this tyranny latent or lurking in the mentality of President Barack Obama. We need to elucidate and expose Mr. Obama’s mentality because at stake is nothing less than the national security of both America and Israel.
Before citing the most relevant passages of my 1985 article, the reader should recall that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser between 1977 and 1981, and that it was he who facilitated the 1979 return to Iran of the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who had been exiled in Paris. This was a catastrophic event. Khomeini’s return to Iran triggered the 1979 Islamic Revolution, arguably the most momentous revolution in history. Indeed, one may even connect the dots from that 1979 event to the recent Islamic massacres in Paris, Nice, and Orlando!
Here the reader needs to bear in mind that the name “ayatollah” originates from a passage in the Qur’an which Shi’a Muslims interpret to mean certain human beings who can be regarded as ‘signs’ or ‘evidence’ of God!
Returning, however, to the pedestrian Jimmy Carter, one does not have to read his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that the former president is an anti-Semite. Professor Brzezinski has earned the same reputation. Not only did Brzezinski express the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure. He also urged a U.S. dialogue with Hamas whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. Since Brzezinski served as an advisor to Obama, it behooves us to gain an in-depth understanding of this academic.
In August 2007, Brzezinski endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with this disarming statement: “What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and people.”
In a September 2007 speech on the Iraq war, Obama praised Brzezinski as “one of our most outstanding thinkers.” In a September 2009 interview with The Daily Beast, Brzezinski was asked how aggressive President Obama should be in insisting Israel not conduct an air strike on Iran. Brzezinski replied: “We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” This was interpreted by some commentators as advocating the downing of Israeli jets by the United States to prevent an attack on Iran. But there is more here than meets the eye regarding Iran’s “ayatollahs.”
Obama’s outreach or cozy attitude toward a tyranny like Iran is consistent with his unabashed Islamic sympathies, and it conforms to Brzezinski’s anti-ideological approach to foreign affairs.
Long before he became Carter’s National Security Adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he termed the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government. “This image,” he scornfully declared, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” He deplored anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”
Brzezinski not only rejected the “black-and-white” image of the United States and the Soviet Union; he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! Brzezinski is simply a moral or cultural relativist. This relativism has stamped the mentality of Barack Obama.
The influence of relativism permeates not only academia; it underlies Brzezinski’s anti-ideological approach to foreign affairs. Relativism rendered him all the more inclined to appease terrorist regimes like Iran.
As a moral or cultural relativist, Brzezinski denies the existence of objective norms or standards by which to determine whether the ideas and values of one nation are intrinsically superior to those of another. This relativism has profound political consequences. The logical and psychological tendency of cultural relativism makes Brzezinski “a man without a country” – which may also be said of Mr. Obama, who repeatedly apologizes for America’s superiority in world affairs.
Too much is at stake for me to be less than brutally frank about a political scientist of Brzezinski’s potential if not actual influence. Steeped in cultural relativism while earning his livelihood in a pluralistic and egalitarian society like America, Brzezinski finds it convenient to use multiculturalism as his working principle, on the one hand and equality as his primary value on the other – precisely the ingredients of his anti-ideological foreign policy. In fact, and with the exception of his animosity toward Israel, he promotes or reinforces the moral equivalency that dominates the American State Department. Ignoring philosophical consistency, Brzezinski, like Obama, harbors a benign attitude toward the PLO, a consortium of terrorist organizations committed to Israel’s destruction.
But let us probe deeper. What I have said of Brzezinski applies to countless American academics and policy makers tainted by the cultural relativism that has influenced the mentality several generations of students at all levels of American education, including law schools, hence judges of the Supreme Court.
Cultural relativism is inherent in Marxism. Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Marxism and Islam reject the idea of the nation-state. In fact, neither Marxism nor Islam recognizes international borders, and both have global aspirations. This makes them expansionist creeds.
Brzezinski is nothing if not a globalist, which may also be said of Obama’s two Supreme Court appointments, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Brzezinski’s globalism infected Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter pursued a “North-South” or “Third World” policy as opposed to an “East-West” or anti-Soviet U.S. policy. Consistent therewith, Carter slashed U.S. defense spending, the same policy of Obama who cozies up with Iran as well as with Russia, while curtailing ballistic defense systems for Europe.
Brzezinski’s systematic deprecation of the nation-state appears in his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technocratic Era. He baldly declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty….The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could [peacefully] develop.” This is the anti-nationalist or globalist attitude of Obama’s Supreme Court appointees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor!
Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social or global consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition. “That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.”
However, once Marxism was institutionalized in the Soviet Union, it degenerated into a party dogma; and under Stalin it “was wedded to Russian nationalism.” For Brzezinski, this was not entirely a tragedy.
While he poses as a humanist, Brzezinski has the callousness and audacity to say that “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, “there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was a blessing in disguise”! Brzezinski could as readily have said: “Although Muslims slaughtered more than 200 million people since Muhammad, Islam nonetheless brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Islam and the Qur’an”! (What a charming humanist!)
Let us conclude. First, the moral relativism of Brzezinski contradicts the American Declaration of Independence, which affirms the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
Second, Brzezinski’s anti-ideological foreign policy toward Iran and Islam cannot but subvert the Judeo-Christian foundations of the American Republic and the magnificent idea of American Exceptionalism. To put it bluntly: Brzezinski’s relativism is anti-American. He and Obama are two birds of a kind. Like liberals in general, they appear oblivious of the tyranny of which their moral relativism is susceptible and which may activate them. I perceive tyranny lurking in Obama’s silence regarding black American violence and Islamic terrorism, the tyranny which in Communism Brzezinski deemed a “blessing in disguise”!?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) CLINTON'S TOP AIDE HUMA ABEDIN PUBLISHED ANTI-AMERICAN ARTICLES
By CHRISTINE WILLIAMS
“The Daily Mail and the New York Post continue to build on the damning case against Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin that the mainstream media continues to ignore.”
It is bizarre that Muslim anti-Americanism could have infiltrated at the highest levels, bringing with it acceptance of opposition to patriotism and to the Western principle of equality for women. But that is exactly what has happened, due to the stealth jihadis’ alliance with leftists. Westerners tolerate mind-boggling propaganda and statements that would be not tolerated if spoken against Muslims or, in fact, any other minority group (except, unfortunately, Jews).
In fact, Jews, Europeans, Christians, North Americans and conservatives have become safe targets and have been so beaten into submission by constant criticism and propaganda and claims that they are guilty for past wrongs that all this is now commonplace. We are far too habituated to the inconceivable, while the mainstream media is abetting the slow collapse of our democracies. Imagine, a “recent article in Vogue describes Huma Abedin’s mother as a ‘feminist,’” even though she edited a book “that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law”.
Abedin, who is the top aide to Hillary Clinton, “was working as ASSISTANT EDITOR at her mother’s radical Muslim journal when it blamed America for 9/11”, (the “Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs”).
The two-faced Huma Abedin also “published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece.”
“Hillary Clinton’s Top Aide Huma Abedin Published Articles that Blamed USA for 911, Blamed Women For Violence”, by Lee Stranahan, Breitbart, August 21, 2016:
“Hillary Clinton’s Top Aide Huma Abedin Published Articles that Blamed USA for 911, Blamed Women For Violence”, by Lee Stranahan, Breitbart, August 21, 2016:
With a blockbuster story out Sunday that shows that Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs published articles blaming the U.S. for 9/11, suggesting women were asking for rape by dressing provocatively, and that, according to the Post, “in 1999 published a book, edited by her mother, that justifies the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation under Islamic law.”
A recent article in Vogue describes Huma Abedin’s mother as a “feminist.”
The Daily Mail picked up on the New York Post reporting by Paul Sperry, writing:
Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin worked at a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11, it has been revealed.
Abedin, who could become the future White House chief of staff if Hillary wins the election, was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs until as late as 2008, NY Post reports.
The aide was at the journal in 2002 when her mother Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who remains editor-in-chief to this day, published an article which appeared to blame the US for bringing the 9/11 terror attacks on itself, according to the Post.
An article by Huma’s mother after 9/11 claimed America’s “spiral of violence” and “injustices” created “a time bomb that had to explode and explode it did on September 11, changing in its wake the life and times of the very community and the people it aimed to serve.”
The Mail also reported:
A 1996 piece titled ‘Women’s rights are Islamic rights’, that appeared to claim that women who wore revealing clothes were inviting rape.
The author wrote that revealing clothes ‘directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.’
As Breitbart News has previously reported, Abedin was working for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs at the exact same time she was serving as one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides when she was the Senator from New York.
Other articles and statements by Huma Abedin’s mother were sure to please the misogynist Saudi Arabian regime, but not Hillary Clinton’s liberal base. Sperry writes at the New York Post: Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton.
Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.
“A conjugal family established through a marriage contract between a man and a woman, and extended through procreation is the only definition of family a Muslim can accept,” the author, a Saudi official with the Muslim World League, asserted, while warning of “the dangers of alternative lifestyles.” (Abedin’s journal was founded and funded by the former head of the Muslim World League.)
So far, Hillary Clinton’s media strategy has been to simply duck the issue entirely, using her media surrogates such as the group Media Matters for America to try to discredit them. Often, this takes the form of quoting Republicans such as John McCain or Grover Norquist, who defended Abedin against allegations made led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Bachmann’s allegations were accurate but took the circuitous route of attempting to connect Huma to terrorism through the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. More recently, however, articles published on Breitbart News by this reporter and Trump advisor Roger Stone took the direct route of connecting Saudi Arabia-raised Abedin to the Saudi Arabian charity called the Muslim World League and its offshoot The Rabitha Trust.
The media has simply ignored the clear connection between Abedin and the Muslim World League, instead focusing on the allegations from years ago and writing them off as a “conspiracy theory”….
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Fail: Expert Says Obamacare Might Be on the Brink of Total Collapse
By Guy Benson
Remember Bob Laszewski? He's the health insurance industry expert whose generally accurate and prescient criticisms of Obamacare over the span of several years have largely been vindicated by events. He's been watching the steady departure of insurers from the law's failing exchanges (here's the latest example) with increasing concern, warning that the entire system risks implosion within the next year if the current trajectory isn't significantly altered. Watch, via CNBC:
If politicians don't fix the Affordable Care Act, then the vulnerable Blue Cross and local HMO plans — which serve as the backbone of Obamacare — must exit, said Robert Laszewski, the President of Health Policy and Strategy Associates. "What the politicians need to do is to understand they have got about a year to fix this," he said in an interview with CNBC's "Closing Bell." ... "If we don't get some very significant fixes to Obamacare,the math is simple. These plans can't continue the way it's going. And that undermines the coverage that all of these people have gotten," he said. Laszewski has worked in the insurance business for over 40 years, including 25 within the Washington D.C. area, where he started his own consulting business that specializes in market and health-care policy. Clients include hospitals, physician's offices and insurance companies. His concerns for Obamacare stem from what he says are repetitive situations in each state. The issues cited by Aetna over Obamacare losses are now being echoed in multiple states by almost every company, he said. "State after state, we are seeing exactly the same scenario; losses deteriorating … deteriorating conditions and carriers not being able to continue in the long term."
Spoiler alert: "The politicians" aren't going to "fix" Obamacare. Republicans want the whole mess thrown out and replaced, while Democrats' preferred options -- injecting even more taxpayer money into the void, pushing a private market-destroying "public option," or erecting an unaffordable and immoral single-payer regime -- are politically unreachable. Still, the fact remains that a hugely controversial and expensive law marketed as a legislative panacea with no serious downsides is, in fact, hurting people and betraying the promises made by its supporters. The New York Times reports that as of next year, nearly one in five Americans on Obamacare will have exactly one "choice" on their so-called marketplace's menu (via John Sexton):
So much for choice. In many parts of the country, Obamacare customers will be down to one insurer when they go to sign up for coverage next year on the public exchanges. A central tenet of the federal health law was to offer a range of affordable health plans through competition among private insurers. But a wave of insurer failures and the recent decision by several of the largest companies, including Aetna, to exit markets are leaving large portions of the country with functional monopolies for next year. According to an analysis done for The Upshot by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, 17 percent of Americans eligible for an Affordable Care Act plan may have only one insurer to choose next year. The analysis shows that there are five entire states currently set to have one insurer, although our map also includes two more states because the plans for more carriers are not final. By comparison, only 2 percent of eligible customers last year had only one choice.
That's a big leap in one year. The Times also makes note of another glaring Obamacare shortcoming, highlighting the ordeal of one consumer who made the grave mistake of taking Nancy Pelosi at her word:
When Obamacare was developed, one goal was to allow middle-class Americans to use the new marketplaces to buy the same kind of health insurance they had at their jobs. People could retire early, or quit a corporate job and become a freelancer, and still have the great care and financial protection that come with high-end plans. But six years into the health law, the reality is that a typical Obamacare plan looks more like Medicaid, only with a high deductible. The typical marketplace plan covers a small number of low-cost doctors and hospitals, and offers fewer frills than employer plans. The recent high-profile exits of many of the national insurers from markets around the country will only heighten the shift...When the first Obamacare plans were released for 2014, many experts and customers were surprised at how many featured very limited numbers of doctors and hospitals. Three years later, and the trend has only intensified...Although the local Blue Cross plans largely remain, many are sharply narrowing the networks offered by their exchange plans.
When Chris Foley, 42, left his career in finance to begin one in stand-up comedy and acting, he assumed his health insurance would look like the coverage he’d received while working for big banks. The transition was a challenge. First, he bought a plan through a New York State program before Obamacare that had skimpier coverage and bigger deductibles than his corporate plan. Then, when he signed up for his first Obamacare plan in 2014, he found that his doctor of 15 years wasn’t covered by any of the options. He needed a colonoscopy last year, and had a hard time finding a doctor who was covered. He was surprised when he was asked to pay $450 out of pocket for a prescription drug at the pharmacy. “I was frustrated; I was pretty angry about not having good coverage,” said Mr. Foley, who said he briefly considered a return to the corporate world.
The joke's on him, not to mention the patrons and employees of America's tanning salons. And a fresh batch of significantly higher Obamacare premiums will be announced just prior to the November elections. I'll leave you with another healthcare expert awarding Obamacare a solid 'D' on MSNBC, attributing the downgrade to the program's flaws "getting worse and worse." The doctor also predicts that other major carriers will ultimately end up following the leads of United Healthcare, Aetna and Humana -- an outcome Laszewski warns would spell the law's downfall:
3a)
Aaron David Miller is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars and most recently the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” He is on Twitter: @AaronDMiller2.
I write that knowing that Congress plans to hold hearings in September. I also know that so close to Election Day, this issue is likely to remain a highly politicized he-said/she-said among Republicans eager to take aim, an administration on the defensive, and a Democratic nominee in an increasingly difficult position because of the optics: a choreographed and sequenced transaction in which cash was delivered after U.S. prisoners were released, regardless of whether you consider it ransom.
3a)
Why ‘Cash for Prisoners’ May End Up Being Least of U.S. Concerns Over Payment to Iran
By Aaron David Miller
Re: Why ‘Cash for Prisoners’ May End Up Being Least of U.S. Concerns Over Payment to Iran------Obama’s flood of hypocrisy opens t
Re: Why ‘Cash for Prisoners’ May End Up Being Least of U.S. Concerns Over Payment to Iran------Obama’s flood of hypocrisy opens t
Re: Why ‘Cash for Prisoners’ May End Up Being Least of U.S. Concerns Over Payment to Iran------Obama’s flood of hypocrisy opens tWhy ‘Cash for Prisoners’ May End Up Being Least of U.S. Concero Iran------Obama’s flood of hypocrisy
Aaron David Miller is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars and most recently the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” He is on Twitter: @AaronDMiller2.
It’s not clear how much worse things will get for the Obama administration over its $400 million payment to Iran in January, but the cash-for-prisoners scandal may end up being the least of U.S. concerns in all this.
I write that knowing that Congress plans to hold hearings in September. I also know that so close to Election Day, this issue is likely to remain a highly politicized he-said/she-said among Republicans eager to take aim, an administration on the defensive, and a Democratic nominee in an increasingly difficult position because of the optics: a choreographed and sequenced transaction in which cash was delivered after U.S. prisoners were released, regardless of whether you consider it ransom.
Here’s the larger and more potentially damaging perception beyond the general embarrassment: In the Middle East, strength and negotiating acumen are prized; they demonstrate power and credibility. And the region tends to consider actions and strategy in a time frame that stretches far beyond the four- and eight-year scale of U.S. politics. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s handling of Iran in this situation plays into the narrative that the U.S. is weak and feckless and behaving as if it doesn’t know what it’s doing.
Some will see this as proof that the U.S. is unable or unwilling to contain Iran’s influence in the region, whether because the administration fears that pushing the Iranians too hard on Syria might jeopardize the international agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program–a seminal achievement for Mr. Obama–or because the U.S. is wary of deeper involvement in the region.
Others will notice that Iran is cementing ties with its friends–Russia, Turkey, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias that support Iran, and the Assad regime–while the U.S. is losing regional clout by becoming estranged from its friends, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, also because of the nuclear accord.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is tripping over itself trying to explain how and why it didn’t pay ransom as Iranian hard-liners contend that that is precisely what happened–adding to the perception that Washington was played and is violating its own pledge of not bargaining for imprisoned Americans.
All of this feeds into an image of U.S. policy fundamentally constrained by a changing region, one that seems beyond Washington’s willingness and capacity to manage. The central actor in this new landscape is a rising Iran, willing to sacrifice much for its vital interests. What can be hard to keep in mind in all the back-and-forth is that Iran isn’t 10 feet tall–its regime has its own constraints in Syria and Iraq. But in a region of weak Arab states, alongside a Russia willing to assert its power, and a Washington constrained by a nuclear accord that has expanded Iran’s ambitions, Tehran is a force to be reckoned with. This will be the case even more when the constraints on its nuclear program begin to sunset in a few years. At which point cash-for-prisoners may end up being the least of U.S. concerns.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
|
Major media outlets in the US have ignored the leak of thousands of emails from billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation by the activist hacker group DCLeaks. The OSF is the vehicle through which Soros has funneled billions of dollars over the past two decades to non-profit organizations in the US and throughout the world.
According to the documents, Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor. So it is likely the case that the media’s support for Clinton has played some role in the mainstream media’s bid to bury the story. It is also likely however, that at least some news editors failed to understand why the leaked documents were worth covering. Most of the information was already public knowledge. Soros’s massive funding of far-left groups in the US and throughout the world has been documented for more than a decade. But failing to see the significance of the wider story because many of the details were already known is a case of missing the forest for the trees. The DCLeaks document dump is a major story because it exposes the forest of Soros’s funding networks. The first thing that we see is the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s philanthropic project. No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts. No policy area is left untouched. On the surface, the vast number of groups and people he supports seem unrelated. After all, what does climate change have to do with illegal African immigration to Israel? What does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Greek immigration policies? But the fact is that Soros-backed projects share basic common attributes. They all work to weaken the ability of national and local authorities in Western democracies to uphold the laws and values of their nations and communities. They all work to hinder free markets, whether those markets are financial, ideological, political or scientific. They do so in the name of democracy, human rights, economic, racial and sexual justice and other lofty terms. In other words, their goal is to subvert Western democracies and make it impossible for governments to maintain order or for societies to retain their unique identities and values. Black Lives Matter, which has received $650,000 from Soros-controlled groups over the past year, is a classic example of these efforts. Until recently, the police were universally admired in the US as the domestic equivalent of the military. BLM emerged as a social force bent on politicizing support for police. Its central contention is that in the US, police are not a force for good, enabling society to function by maintaining law and order. Rather, police are a tool of white repression of blacks. Law enforcement in predominantly African American communities is under assault as inherently racist. BLM agitation, which has been accused of inspiring the murders of police in several US cities, has brought about two responses from rank and file police. First, they have been demoralized, as they find themselves criminalized for trying to keep their cities safe from criminals. Second, their willingness to use force in situations that demand the use of force has diminished. Fear of criminal charges on the one hand, and public condemnation as “racists” on the other causes police to prefer inaction even when situations require that they act. The demoralization and intimidation of police is very likely to cause a steep increase in violent crimes. Then there are Soros’s actions on behalf of illegal immigration. From the US to Europe to Israel, Soros has implemented a worldwide push to use immigration to undermine the national identity and demographic composition of Western democracies. The leaked emails show that his groups have interfered in European elections to get politicians elected who support open border policies for immigrants from the Arab world and to financially and otherwise support journalists who report sympathetically on immigrants. Soros’s groups are on the ground enabling illegal immigrants to enter the US and Europe. They have sought to influence US Supreme Court rulings on illegal immigration from Mexico. They have worked with Muslim and other groups to demonize Americans and Europeans who oppose open borders. In Israel as well, Soros opposes government efforts to end the flow of illegal immigration from Africa through the border with Egypt. The notion at the heart of the push for the legalization of unfettered immigration is that states should not be able to protect their national identities. If it is racist for Greeks to protect their national identity by seeking to block the entrance of millions of Syrians to their territory, then it is racist for Greece – or France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden the US or Poland – to exist. Parallel to these efforts are others geared toward rejecting the right of Western democracies to uphold long-held social norms. Soros-supported groups, for instance, stand behind the push not only for gay marriage but for unisex public bathrooms. They support not only the right of women to serve in combat units, but efforts to force soldiers to live in unisex barracks. In other words, they support efforts aimed at denying citizens of Western democracies the right to maintain any distance between themselves and Soros’s rejection of their most intimate values – their sexual privacy and identity. As far as Israel is concerned, Soros-backed groups work to delegitimize every aspect of Israeli society as racist and illegitimate. The Palestinians are focal point of his attacks. He uses them to claim that Israel is a racist state. Soros funds moderate leftist groups, radical leftist groups, Israeli Arab groups and Palestinian groups. In various, complementary ways, these groups tell their target audiences that Israel has no right to defend itself or enforce its laws toward its non-Jewish citizens. In the US, Soros backed groups from BLM to J Street work to make it socially and politically acceptable to oppose Israel. The thrust of Soros’s efforts from Ferguson to Berlin to Jerusalem is to induce mayhem and chaos as local authorities, paralyzed by his supported groups, are unable to secure their societies or even argue coherently that they deserve security. In many ways, Donald Trump’s campaign is a direct response not to Clinton, but to Soros himself. By calling for the erection of a border wall, supporting Britain’s exit from the EU, supporting Israel, supporting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and supporting the police against BLM, Trump acts as a direct foil to Soros’s multi-billion dollar efforts. The DCLeaks exposed the immensity of the Soros-funded Left’s campaign against the foundations of liberal democracies. The “direct democracy” movements that Soros support are nothing less than calls for mob rule. The peoples of the West need to recognize the common foundations of all Soros’s actions. They need to realize as well that the only response to these premeditated campaigns of subversion is for the people of the West to stand up for their national rights and their individual right to security. They must stand with the national institutions that guarantee that security, in accordance with the rule of the law, and uphold and defend their national values and traditions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) | ||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment