MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Kamala Harris’

The Fascist America That Kamala Promises – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on October 8, 2020

Alexandra Snyder, the director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, told the Los Angeles Times that Harris’s “loyalty to Planned Parenthood” required “her to turn a blind eye to the organization’s criminal activities.” Harris did more than turn a blind eye. “Instead,” said Snyder, “she has launched an inquisition into David Daleiden.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/the_fascist_america_that_kamala_promises.html

By Jack Cashill

I do not use the term “fascist” lightly, but when even the liberal Los Angeles Times opens an article with a paragraph like the one that follows, I think fascist is apt:

“California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris is drawing fire from supporters of an anti-abortion activist whose undercover videos and identity cards were seized by the state Department of Justice this week after Harris’ political campaign sought to drum up support for Planned Parenthood.”

The activist is David Daleiden, 27 at the time of the April 2016 raid on his Huntington Beach apartment. In 2016, Harris was running for California’s open U.S. Senate seat. At the time of the raid, Harris’s campaign website was asking supporters “to take a stand and join Kamala in defending Planned Parenthood.”

In the course of Planned Parenthood’s history, no one had presented a greater threat to the organization’s federal funding than the young journalist whose apartment Harris’s agents had just raided.

In the way of background, Daleiden and his partner Sandra Merritt had gone undercover for two years posing as the brokers in the fetal tissue market.

David DaleidenIn July 2015 Daleiden started dropping the undercover videos the pair had shot at Planned Parenthood clinics in several states, including California.

The combination of callow words and cruel images, repeated in one video after another, rocked Washington. The timing was good. The 2016 presidential campaigns were revving up, and many Republicans spoke out about what they saw.

“The out-of-sight, out-of-mind mantra that propelled the pro-choice movement for decades is forever gone,” Kellyanne Conway, then a Republican pollster, told the New York Times. Reeling from the blow, even the Times had to wonder whether “the new offensive will succeed in crippling Planned Parenthood.”

Obama, the first president to speak at Planned Parenthood’s national convention, kept his distance from the hubbub. An indifferent media got no closer to the president than his press secretary, Josh Earnest.

On July 30, 2015, a young reporter asked Earnest if Obama had seen the video that was released on that day. The video in question begins with interview footage of harried Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards insisting, “It’s not a fee. It’s not a fee. It’s just the cost of trans- mitting this material.” The undercover footage that follows undercuts everything Richards said.

A doctor at a Planned Parenthood megaclinic in Colorado is seen explaining the clinic’s traffic in body parts. Aware that it is illegal to transfer “human fetal tissue” for “valuable consideration,” the doctor plays semantic games with the would-be purchasers.

“We don’t want to get called on, you know, selling fetal parts across states,” she jokes, unaware she is being recorded. This interview is followed by an on-site review of actual body parts with the doctor and a clinician.

What is impressive is how well Daleiden and Merritt play their roles as buyers. What is unnerving is how casually the doctor and clinician pick through trays of baby parts — a heart, a brain, a lung — while talking about the commercial viability of the “fetal cadaver.”

Running for president at the time, Hillary Clinton could not afford to be so dismissive. Although her first instinct was to attack the video producers, Clinton herself began to waver as each new video dropped.

“I have seen pictures from [the videos] and obviously find them dis- turbing,” Clinton told the New Hampshire Union Leader late that July. No one knew better than Clinton, however, what overwhelming force Planned Parenthood and its allies in the Democratic-media complex could bring to bear against a pair of citizen journalists.

For immediate assistance, Planned Parenthood turned to the well-connected fixers at — where else? — Fusion GPS. The beleaguered organization contracted with Fusion to review the unedited footage Daleiden had posted online.

Armed with a ten-page report from Fusion, Richards went on the offensive. Convincing people they did not see what they saw would not be easy, but the networks made the task possible by refusing to show the actual videos.

As to the newspapers and online journals, they did their bit by leaving the assessment of the videos to Fusion GPS. Faced with real journalists doing real work, the Obama courtiers reflexively turned stenographer. They welcomed this “forensic study” as heartily as they would Fusion GPS’s notorious “Steele dossier” a year later.

To complete the rout, the ambitious Harris had her agents seize Daleiden’s multiple computers and hard drives as well as the materials he had gathered from Planned Parenthood conferences.

Alexandra Snyder, the director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, told the Los Angeles Times that Harris’s “loyalty to Planned Parenthood” required “her to turn a blind eye to the organization’s criminal activities.” Harris did more than turn a blind eye. “Instead,” said Snyder, “she has launched an inquisition into David Daleiden.”

In 2017, Harris’s successor as attorney general, Xavier Becerra, filed 15 felony charges against Daleiden and Merritt and has tied them up in court ever since.

In May 2020, Daleiden filed suit against Becerra and Harris, claiming Harris violated his civil rights by conspiring with Planned Parenthood to silence him.

In Kamala’s America, killing and dismembering unborn babies and marketing their body parts is perfectly acceptable. Reporting on the practice is criminal. If that is not fascistic, I am not sure I know what is.

Jack Cashill’s new book, Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency, is widely available. See also http://www.cashill.com.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Trojan Donkey – Doug Casey’s International Man

Posted by M. C. on September 9, 2020

Since earning the nomination as the 2020 Democratic candidate for the presidency, Joe Biden has stated that he is a “transition candidate.”

This was an odd statement, especially for someone who has hardly begun his formal campaign. (He’s not even in office yet and he’s discussing being on the way out?)

Yet this was not just another one-off Biden gaff, as has been suggested by some. Since announcing his pick for vice president, he has stated, “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else.”

So what’s up here? The candidate is only a place-holder for the real, intended president?

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-trojan-donkey/

by Jeff Thomas

Since earning the nomination as the 2020 Democratic candidate for the presidency, Joe Biden has stated that he is a “transition candidate.”

This was an odd statement, especially for someone who has hardly begun his formal campaign. (He’s not even in office yet and he’s discussing being on the way out?)

Yet this was not just another one-off Biden gaff, as has been suggested by some. Since announcing his pick for vice president, he has stated, “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else.”

So what’s up here? The candidate is only a place-holder for the real, intended president?

Well, let’s have a look at that possibility.

Joe Biden, by any measure, is a poor candidate for the office. After almost half a century in politics, he’s had a career mostly as a political hack who would support any issue that seemed popular at the time. Similarly, his voting record in the Senate has been that of a man who supported whatever bill would please his peers and further his career.

Seemingly, he either has no inner core of belief, or he’s been willing to sacrifice it at a moment’s notice, if it might help his next election. After forty-seven years of elected office, he’s not regarded as having a commitment to… well, anything.

And yet he became the choice of the Democratic party as one candidate after another dropped out of the presidential race. Clearly this was a party that was not only leaderless, but couldn’t even seem to invent a leader for the sake of the election.

Kamala Harris, his presumptive vice president, dropped out of the presidential race in December 2019, when her popularity amongst democrats dropped to 3.4%. Since democrats make up roughly half of the population, this means that less than 2% of Americans would have wanted her as their president.

And yet, as stated above, candidate Biden announces, “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else.”

That’s quite curious. He apparently is stating that his only purpose is to win the election, then pass the baton to the next leader. Presumably, his vice president.

This has never occurred in US politics, although it is true that, at this point, Mr. Biden may well be too far gone to even begin to handle the job.

And that leads us to the possibility that the deal has already been brokered – that Mr. Biden would win the election, then have, let’s say, a “medical emergency,” at which point he would pass the reins to the new president – Kamala Harris.

Clearly, Ms. Harris could not have been elected on her own merit, as even democrats found her to be fundamentally lacking last December. Even the more radical elements of the party have sensed that she is untrustworthy and even dangerous.

At this point in America’s history, there’s much debate as to whether the president is the supreme leader, or whether he or she is merely the face presented by the Deep State, who run the country from the background and give the president his marching orders.

Either way, this eventuality would not bode well for the US. As supreme leader, Ms. Harris, based upon her reputation, would be an autocratic figure who behaved rather ruthlessly toward those who failed to comply with her edicts.

But as the figurehead for the Deep State, she would be a very powerful tool, implementing the loss of freedoms that were passed into law with the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act and the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.

These two acts, taken together, essentially eliminate the US Constitution in practical terms. All that’s necessary to implement them would be for a highly demonstrative president to declare a national emergency. Both acts would then be in force.

It would not be difficult to imagine Ms. Harris in this role.

Presently, we’re watching a very odd set of events unfolding in the US.

Major cities have seen months of continual protests and even rioting, which apparently have been very organized and well-funded.

In a normal situation, the mayors and governors would call in the police to quell such riots.

Yet we’re seeing the opposite. Local political leaders are consistently hamstringing local police, making it impossible for them to do their jobs, thereby increasing the extent of devastation by rioters.

Rioters are routinely let off with a slap on the wrist, whilst those who defend their homes from rioters are arrested and charged.

This, of course, is the exact opposite of what the Rule of Law is meant to achieve.

There’s every reason to believe that this condition will continue to worsen well after the 2020 election, and at some point, Americans from both the right and left will find themselves begging for the federal government to step in – to return the US to a state of relative safety.

Central governments, of course, perennially dislike local policing, as local police tend to be loyal their own communities. However, federal troops have no such loyalty. They perform as their superiors dictate, regardless of where they are deployed.

But once the local police have been gotten out of the way, it would be quite easy for an authoritarian president to deploy federal troops to re-establish order, and initially, this would meet with the approval of worried Americans.

Historically, this has occurred countless times throughout the world. In every case, martial law is instituted as a “temporary measure,” to quell existing unrest. But, as Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

If this development is in America’s future, as events indicate, it’s likely that the media will repeat the words, “public safety” endlessly as the situation unfolds. The words “martial law” and “police state” may be heard amongst some of the populace, but will be unlikely to dominate the news programmes.

Another word that’s unlikely to appear often in the media is “tyranny,” yet this will be precisely the result of the introduction of a police state.

But all the above is dependent upon a political leader who has the forceful demeanour to ensure that the job gets done with a minimum of dissent.

The American public are therefore left to ponder whether it may be that a vastly unpopular Trojan donkey may be closer to the presidency than she presently appears.

Editor’s Note: Disturbing economic, political, and social trends are already in motion and now accelerating at breathtaking speed. Most troubling of all, they cannot be stopped.

There will likely be unprecedented volatility of every kind in the months and years ahead.

That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive the crisis ahead.

It will help you understand what is unfolding right before our eyes and what you should do so you don’t get caught in the crosshairs.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Kamala Harris a 21st-Century Woodrow Wilson? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2020

To pander to the socialists, Harris supports the profligate Green New Deal and a universal basic income, funded by new taxes that will “only” be levied on the wealthy. Harris exerts enormous influence over the extremely malleable (and increasingly senile) Biden, jubilantly telling Trevor Noah on The Daily Show that “as soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.”

Clearly, Harris plans to run the show.

https://mises.org/wire/kamala-harris-21st-century-woodrow-wilson?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=078d03d63e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_09_04_06_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-078d03d63e-228343965

Although the draconian lockdowns punished the economy, a partial recovery occurred after governments allowed businesses to reopen. However, continued economic growth depends on the outcome of the presidential election. The crisis opened the door for a surge in regulations, subsidies, and other special interest privileges under the guise of promoting the “public health.”

This progressivism—a code word for cronyism—presents a serious threat to America.

As Murray Rothbard explains, the original Progressive Era witnessed corporate and safety regulations, environmental laws, welfare and labor compensation, and new taxes that benefited favored corporations, bureaucrats, academics, and labor activists at the expense of the taxpayer. If trends continue, modern politicians will pass similar policies to benefit themselves and favored supporters, crippling economic activity. To properly understand this progressivist threat, one must recognize the motives, background, and ideological orientation of the original progressives. They were mostly Yankees, the descendants of the Puritans who stayed in New England or emigrated to New York and the Midwest. They grew up in evangelical households that urged a remaking of society by coercively stamping out sin, particularly alcohol consumption. After earning PhDs in Germany, progressives preached their interventionism under the secularized guise of science and the public welfare. Furthermore, these social engineers supported eugenics, the science of controlling the labor supply to improve its overall quality. Lastly, progressives strove to revolutionize the world through foreign policy adventures.

In their struggle for economic privileges, progressives split into two groups. The corporatists championed protecting trusts and cartels from the vicissitudes of the free market. These big business advocates wanted to create trade commissions and other regulatory agencies to cripple competition and impose onerous compliance costs on small businesses. On the other hand, the socialists desired an overhaul of the capitalist system, blaring the trumpets for stringent antitrust regulation, radical labor laws, and redistributive taxes. President Woodrow Wilson embodied both strands, working with the two groups to enact the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Trade Commission.

In many ways, modern progressives are carbon copies. They congregate in New England and live in coastal New York City, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. While eschewing traditional religion, modern progressives are zealots for egalitarianism and social justice. They attended the Ivy League and other elite American universities, empowering them with government-funded research. Although modern progressives disregard eugenics, they still advocate social engineering, championing egalitarianism for everybody except themselves while dictating what is morally acceptable. Finally, they are thoroughgoing foreign interventionists. Neoconservatism is actually a variant of progressivism, for as Angelo Codevilla explains, George W. Bush’s wars were “but an extrapolation of the sentiments of America’s progressive class, first articulated by people such as Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson.”

The progressive movement still splits along corporatist and socialist lines. The former support a cozy relationship with Wall Street and “Big Tech,” welcoming various internet and safety regulations that would hurt smaller businesses without the appropriate ecommerce infrastructure. The latter advocate radically anticapitalist measures, particularly the dismantling of Big Tech, the Green New Deal, a universal basic income, and wealth taxes. With the exception of hostile antitrust lawsuits, big business corporatists are not against these measures per se, provided they can acquire environmental subsidies and offload the cost of new entitlements and taxes onto the less wealthy (accomplished with the progressivist income tax and Social Security).

If Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden embody the corporatist mindset and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren the socialist mentality, then surely Kamala Harris is the modern Wilsonian.

Big Tech has funded Harris in various California elections in exchange for favorable regulatory oversight. Many former personnel now work for the large companies: a senior counsel left in 2018 to lobby on behalf of Amazon, Harris’s first campaign manager works for Google, and her brother-in-law is the chief legal officer for Uber.

To pander to the socialists, Harris supports the profligate Green New Deal and a universal basic income, funded by new taxes that will “only” be levied on the wealthy. Harris exerts enormous influence over the extremely malleable (and increasingly senile) Biden, jubilantly telling Trevor Noah on The Daily Show that “as soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.”

Clearly, Harris plans to run the show.

Similar to the legislation of one hundred years ago, the new progressive juggernaut presents an incredible threat to the United States. Its policies will impoverish the public to enrich elite businesses, politicians, intellectuals, and unions. This future looks bleak, and it must be stopped.

[Adapted from “America 2021: The Threat of Progressivism,” a talk delivered on August 29 in Orlando, FL.]

Author:

Contact Patrick Newman

Patrick is Assistant Professor of Economics at Florida Southern College. He completed his PhD in the Department of Economics at George Mason University. He is a 2018 Mises Institute Research Fellow.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Muscular’ Foreign Policy: Media Codeword for Violence Abroad — FAIR

Posted by M. C. on September 1, 2020

The result of “muscular” and “robust” policies can also be seen all over the Middle East. In 2017, Trump reversed his earlier promise to pull US troops out of Afghanistan, instead announcing his own surge, having just dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in human history on the country.

https://fair.org/home/muscular-foreign-policy-media-codeword-for-violence-abroad/

John Bolton
WaPo: Kamala Harris’s foreign policy unites the ticket, if not the party

The Washington Post‘s Josh Rogin (8/13/20) writes that “Biden and Harris, if they are elected, will have a chance to prove that Democratic muscular liberalism is still the right approach.”

Writing in the Washington Post , pro-war columnist Josh Rogin appeared relieved that Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris as his running mate for November—as opposed to a progressive like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, who would have called for cutting military budgets, fewer US interventions and the withdrawal of troops stationed abroad. Biden and Harris, he explained, will together pursue a “robust” foreign policy agenda.

Harris is described approvingly by one source as “pragmatic” (another media codeword—FAIR.org, 8/21/19), and together, Rogin notes, she and Biden can prove that “muscular liberalism is still the right approach.” What that actually means in practice, he is a little vague on, though he does suggest that will entail “aggressively” “confronting” nuclear powers Russia and China.

“Muscular,” along with similar words like “robust,” are commonly used in political reporting, especially with regards to foreign policy. They are inherently positive descriptions, conveying strength and confidence, their opposites being “weak,” “feeble” or “decrepit.” It is obvious which have the better connotations. This is a real problem, because all too regularly the words are used as euphemisms to sugarcoat inflicting violence around the world.

Often the consequences of such a policy are not stated, as when CBS News (6/17/16) reported that John Kerry recommended “a more muscular US role in Syria,” or when a guest on the Rachel Maddow Show (6/18/14) described former Vice President Dick Cheney as wishing for a more “muscular policy” for the US in Iraq. Thus, when CBS’s Face the Nation (3/23/18) aired a segment entitled, “Trump Surrounding Himself With ‘More Muscular’ Foreign Policy Team,” a naif or a foreigner might be forgiven for thinking Jesse Ventura or Arnold Schwarzenegger was advising the president. And when the BBC (12/18/17) reported on the US’s “muscular engagement” with the world, they were not describing a new workout plan.

CBS: Trump surrounding himself with "more muscular" foreign policy team

CBS (3/23/18) described Trump’s hiring hyper-interventionist John Bolton as signaling a “more muscular” foreign policy team.

Sometimes, however, journalists made explicit what such a foreign policy would consist of. The New York Times (5/14/15), for instance, described Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio as offering “a robust and muscular foreign policy,” including the end of normalization with Cuba, a hike in military spending and reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. The Times is a repeat offender in whitewashing the Florida senator’s often disturbing policies; in 2019 it described his advocacy for further sanctions and military intervention in Venezuela as “muscular policy tools” (New York Times, 1/29/19). By this time, the sanctions had already killed an estimated 40,000 people and would go on to kill over 100,000. What about blocking the import of medicines is “muscular”? “Sociopathic” might be a better adjective. Support for regime change in Venezuela is bipartisan, however, with Bloomberg’s Eli Lake (8/3/20) recently noting that support for a “democratic transition” there would be more “steadfast” under a Biden administration.

The result of “muscular” and “robust” policies can also be seen all over the Middle East. In 2017, Trump reversed his earlier promise to pull US troops out of Afghanistan, instead announcing his own surge, having just dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in human history on the country. The Washington Post (8/21/17) described his decision as “muscular but vague.” On Syria, the New York Times (4/21/17) pondered whether a more or less muscular approach would bring better results. And when Trump ordered B-52 bombers to Iran’s doorstep, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan (5/12/19) asked a guest what he thought of the president’s “muscular response” to Iranian provocation.

Or you can also read about Saudi Arabia’s muscular foreign policy in Yemen (LA Times, 4/20/15, 8/11/19; BBC, 4/21/15), thought to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. Likewise, on one of the many recent occasions when Israel bombed Gaza, the Washington Post (3/26/19) noted that some Israeli politicians were calling for an even more “muscular response”—combining the “muscular” media trope with the convention that the US and its allies never initiate violence themselves, but only ever “respond” to enemy provocation (FAIR.org, 6/6/19, 8/21/20).

So reflexive is this media whitewashing of state violence that it is even applied to official enemies. For instance, in an article explaining the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin, CNN (8/8/19) wrote: “What explained Putin’s surge in popularity over those crucial early months? One factor was clear: Putin’s muscular response to domestic terrorism.” That “muscular response,” CNN explicitly stated, included when “Russian forces leveled the [Chechen] rebel capital of Grozny,” which is thought to have killed around 9,000 people.

The word is also sometimes used in reference to domestic programs as well, but generally only when involving oppressing the powerless. In 2012, Fox News (1/10/12) reported that immigration activists were unhappy with President Barack Obama’s “muscular deportation policy” (which saw more people deported than ever before). Likewise, in the wake of masked federal agents abducting people off Portland’s streets, the New Yorker (7/24/20) worried about the “ever more muscular immigration-enforcement presence in US life.”

Fox Business: Trump canceled China talks, says Biden is weak on foreign policy

“Weak” is used in corporate media as a synonym for “diplomatic” (Fox Business, 8/18/20).

While advocating wholesale violence is “robust” or “muscular” in media speak, opposing it is inherently “weak” and worthy of condemnation. A case in point is Bernie Sanders, whose “weak foreign policy,” according to Business Insider (3/15/20), was a serious black mark against him. Examples of his weakness, it noted, include “an obvious commitment to rejoin the Iran deal” and ending Saudi attacks on Yemen.

More scandalous, apparently, were his “controversial comments” on Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, comments that amounted to not endorsing US regime change efforts against sovereign nations. This, for Business Insider columnist and former US diplomat Brett Bruen, made him a unserious presidential candidate.

And while Rogin and the WaPo might have described Biden as robust on foreign policy, Trump did not see it that way; the president this month telling Fox Business (8/18/20) his opponent was “weak” on the issue. The reason? Biden would pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, like Obama did.

There is nothing inherently strong about destroying or terrorizing other nations, and nothing weak about opposing it. But our hawkish corporate media continue to present it as such, therefore subtly manufacturing consent for continued conflicts around the world. The next time you hear someone on corporate media praising a “muscular,” or “robust” foreign policy, be on the alert: They might be trying to sell you another war.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Democratic Party won’t be out-Israel’d this fall – Mondoweiss

Posted by M. C. on August 29, 2020

The Democrats are selling a mythic Israel in this race. An Israel where the Labor-Meretz bloc is going to come out of the grave with its seven seats in the Knesset and resurrect the two-state solution. An Israel that is not committed to rightwing leaders, whether you call that Blue and White or Likud. An Israel that doesn’t support Trump by 56-18 percent, according to Haaretz, and hated Obama.

https://mondoweiss.net/2020/08/the-democratic-party-wont-be-out-israeld-this-fall/

The Democratic Party is not going to get out-Israel’d this fall.

Yesterday, Kamala Harris had a conference call with 1800 Jewish Democratic donors and assured them a President Biden will never condition aid over any “political decisions that Israel makes and I couldn’t agree more.” Biden-Harris will show “unwavering support” for Israel. And Biden backed the “largest military aid package” to any country when the Obama administration signed that $38 billion MOU in 2016.

The fact is that despite deep misgivings about Israeli human rights violations in the Democratic base, the Democratic Party has brilliantly and effectively squelched the issue as a possible wedge in the coming election.

Yesterday the Republicans sought to drive the wedge with an ad of four Jewish Democrats voting Trump. But just look at the ad. It’s pathetic. It’s not going to convince anyone.

The Republicans might have been able to drive the pro-Israel wedge if Israel had gone through with annexation this summer. But Israel came to its senses when it realized annexation would have been a giant headache for the Israel lobby. It would have divided the lobby’s big organizations, and Joe Biden would have come out against annexation and the Republicans would then have tried to paint him as the second coming of Jimmy Carter, abandoning Israel.

But if annexation was in the Republicans’ electoral interest, it wasn’t in the lobby’s interest to see the issue made into a partisan football. So Israel swallowed the annexation issue.

The Democrats have a unified line at the top now. Israel is a progressive cause. The self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancient land is something to be celebrated, and we are going to keep pretending we are pushing for a two state solution.

As we continually remind Democrats, Progressive Democrats don’t believe these ideas. They think the two-state solution is a cruel charade for a reality of apartheid, that Israel’s political culture is overwhelmingly rightwing, and that Jewish national “self-determination” is an excuse for rampant discrimination against a Palestinian minority. But the Democratic establishment doesn’t care; those voices will not be heard inside the party and progressives are falling into line. Bernie Sanders spoke for 8-1/2 minutes at the Democratic convention, emphasizing the urgency of defeating a dangerous president, but he was a good soldier and didn’t bring up the Palestine issue.

Senator Kamala Harris visits an Iron Dome missile defense battery in Israel, November 2017. (Photo: Office of Kamala Harris)
Senator Kamala Harris visits an Iron Dome missile defense battery in Israel, November 2017. (Photo: Office of Kamala Harris)

The Democratic leadership is terrified by the Israel question because they are afraid it will alienate Jewish donors, and yes, also Jewish voters in Florida (where Jews make up 3 percent of the population) or Pennsylvania (2.3 percent). Though it’s hard to believe Jewish voters would make a difference in Ohio (1.3 percent), and Michigan (0.9).

The progressive street doesn’t like the Democratic stance, but what power does it have right now? Liberal Zionist Rabbi Jill Jacobs lately lectured progressives on how they have to embrace Israel as a “progressive” cause despite its flaws lest they alienate Jews.

While Israel is likely the most divisive issue in the progressive world, setting a litmus test that one cannot consider oneself pro-Israel, or support two states, would divide the vast majority of Jews from the left. Not what we need when fighting white nationalism. . .

She emphasized that Jews like Israel:

Remember that vast (>90%) of American Jews are committed to long-term stability of Israel AND majority oppose current govt & occupation and support two states. Progressive left sometimes forgets part 1. . . All Jewish organizations, and all organizations that truly care about the future of Israelis and Palestinians should speak out loudly for the human rights (incl right to self-determination) of both peoples.

We will tell you that it’s progress that only 90 percent of American Jews are devoted to a Jewish state. That’s down from the 95 percent another liberal Zionist touted last year, and the 99 percent of a generation ago. But it’s still not enough to move the needle for the Democratic Party. Jews are an essential part of the Democratic coalition, especially in the party establishment.

We’d like to think that the Democrats could both fight for Palestinian human rights and fight Trump. The polling is clear that young Dems and Democrats of color want a discussion of Israel. Peter Beinart has come out for one state. Isn’t it time to talk about what the endless fake “peace process” has meant for Palestinians?

But the party is simply too fearful about losing the Israel lobby to go near this. It is going to suppress the debate to hold on to major funders and older Israel supporters, including media figures. If Donald Trump is promoting his Jewish family members, so is Kamala Harris.

The Democrats are selling a mythic Israel in this race. An Israel where the Labor-Meretz bloc is going to come out of the grave with its seven seats in the Knesset and resurrect the two-state solution. An Israel that is not committed to rightwing leaders, whether you call that Blue and White or Likud. An Israel that doesn’t support Trump by 56-18 percent, according to Haaretz, and hated Obama.

Biden has no plan to deal with that Israel except, “Send a message to Bibi, I love him.” He is against annexation but he won’t make a peep when Israel expands the West Bank settlements/colonies. He can’t acknowledge that the two-state solution is dead, even if many Democrats, particularly among the young, are pushing for that awareness. He makes a point of kicking Linda Sarsour to show how much he likes Israel.

Liberal Zionists and the Party leadership are in denial. They haven’t read Sara Roy or Diana Buttu. They just read the New York Times‘ endless promotion of Israel as a robust democracy. They will tell you they had a big victory over Netanyahu with the annexation.

So the issue has been politically squelched. For now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Jared Kushner Achievement Award Goes To … Kamala! – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on August 21, 2020

We analyzed your selected phrase from: [KAMALA HARRIS] using our proprietary SayWhat software, and it translated as:

“OK look, I am one-trillion percent an empty suit, surviving entirely on identity politics and media complicity. So when I burp anything whatsoever out my cackling pie-hole, it’s vital you not only pretend I’m making sense but making history.”

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

We’re supposed to treat this privileged woman living the life of Riley like she’s the reincarnation of James Meredith. Yes, the daughter of a professor and surgeon rose through the Berkeley, California, school system in the 1970s, then moved with her cancer researcher mother to Montreal.

That’s not exactly Selma, 1962.

Congratulations to Harris, but please stop gaslighting us with claims that she has achieved something amazing, stupendous, historic.

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-jared-kushner-achievement-award-goes-to-kamala/print

As has been duly noted, The New York Times‘ front page celebrating Biden’s announcement of Kamala Harris as his running mate rivaled its moon landing coverage. A gigantic photo of a saintlike Harris took up half of the space above the fold, under a 2-inch headline: “HARRIS JOINS BIDEN TICKET, ACHIEVING A FIRST.”

Specifically, the “first” was: “Woman of color in No. 2 slot of major party.”

History was being made! “It was historic most of all, and especially sweet for many Black women” … Harris “is the first Black woman and the first person of Indian descent to be nominated for national office by a major party” … “It’s a stand-alone milestone, irrespective of who the opponent is.”

(That last quote was from Vanita Gupta, who was head of the civil rights division in Obama’s Justice Department. As I keep telling you, Black America, immigrants are getting all the good diversity jobs.)

No offense, but Harris was picked because she’s a woman of color. So it’s not really that amazing that she’s a woman of color. She didn’t swim the English Channel. She didn’t even win a primary. She’s not Margaret Thatcher.

She’s Jared Kushner. (Including the Jewish spouse!)

Hey, New York Times! How about devoting three-fourths of your front page with a 2-inch headline to Trump’s picking a young real estate investor as his chief White House adviser?

At 34, Jared Kushner Is Youngest Top White House Aide in History

Jared Kushner, Shatterer of Ceilings

For Jared Kushner, The Impossible Just Takes a Little Longer

(Me screaming in the corner: “He’s the son-in-law of the person who picked him!!!”)

“We’re supposed to treat this privileged woman living the life of Riley like she’s the reincarnation of James Meredith.”

If Democrats wanted us to treat Kamala’s selection as an historic achievement, the process needed to be color-blind. All the gushing about THE FIRST WOMAN OF COLOR AS VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE is like the articles every year gushing about the Nigerian who got into ALL EIGHT IVY LEAGUES!

Ever heard of affirmative action? In the same year, a thousand white and Asian kids with the exact same credentials didn’t get into any Ivy League schools.

Biden made perfectly clear — as did his supporters and sponsors — that he would be considering only women of color. Oh my gosh! A woman of color has somehow climbed to the top of the greasy pole!

Kamala’s big achievement is that she was better than the other women of color with visible positions in the Democratic Party. Of which there were five — maybe seven, as long we’re counting Jamaican Indian Americans as “African American”: a mayor, some representatives and a member of Obama’s administration who’d never run for office.

Whatever Harris’ selection represents, it’s not a triumph. Harris didn’t swim fastest, climb highest, run farthest. (She didn’t even pass the bar exam on her first try, a failure she shares with the other most-admired liberal women, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.)

The fix was in. Biden announced an extremely limited set of qualifications that only Harris had.

But liberals are standing in their kitchens sobbing about Kamala’s “historic” achievement. The dream, so long deferred, has finally been attained!

This would be like Jared’s father bragging about his boy getting into Harvard. We all know Jared was a middling high school student and had mediocre SATs, but his dad greased the skids for him. Maybe don’t bring up his getting into Harvard. Let the conversation drift to something else.

Not liberals!

ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “It is an historic morning. Kamala Harris joining Joe Biden on the Democratic Party ticket. … History will be made again today when Kamala Harris joins Joe Biden … Kamala Harris will be speaking out, now, as the first black woman, the first Asian American tapped to be vice president.”

NBC’s the “Today” show: “… the first black woman and first Indian American to be picked as a vice presidential candidate. … As Joe Biden’s newly minted running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris has already made history.”

Trying to force the facts to fit the frenzy, Harris’ every utterance is treated as incandescent brilliance. The New York Times was still swooning over this incomprehensible remark Harris made to the paper last summer:

“Policy has to be relevant. That’s my guiding principle: Is it relevant? Not, ‘Is it a beautiful sonnet?’”

Confused, I submitted that quote to WokeTranslate.com and got this response:

We analyzed your selected phrase from: [KAMALA HARRIS] using our proprietary SayWhat software, and it translated as:

“OK look, I am one-trillion percent an empty suit, surviving entirely on identity politics and media complicity. So when I burp anything whatsoever out my cackling pie-hole, it’s vital you not only pretend I’m making sense but making history.”

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

We’re supposed to treat this privileged woman living the life of Riley like she’s the reincarnation of James Meredith. Yes, the daughter of a professor and surgeon rose through the Berkeley, California, school system in the 1970s, then moved with her cancer researcher mother to Montreal.

That’s not exactly Selma, 1962.

Congratulations to Harris, but please stop gaslighting us with claims that she has achieved something amazing, stupendous, historic.

We’re not gushing about Jared, either.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Would a President Harris Mean for Whites?

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

https://www.unz.com/ghood/what-would-a-president-harris-mean-for-whites/

Her plan is silent on antifa and black identity extremists. She has only whites in her crosshairs. And if the federal government splashes out billions to combat “hate-based violence,” the bureaucracy will invent a threat to justify its existence. We already see this in the “non-profit” sector, where phony hate crimes justify constant fundraising.

As I write this, Joe Biden is invoking the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville as a specter of white terror. The violence that day was the city’s fault. However, even if we accept the worst possible interpretation and blame “white nationalists” for everything, Charlottesville was a picnic compared to the riots, property destruction, and deaths that have gripped the country since George Floyd’s death. President Trump’s timid efforts to grapple with this violence, which Democrats openly opposed, are far less intrusive than Kamala Harris’s plans.

Gregory Hood

Joe Biden made the pick that maximized his chances of continuing to make the race a straight referendum on Trump while also selecting someone whose resume suggests being ready to step in, if and when Biden decides to step aside. | Analysis by @CillizzaCNN https://t.co/Ek4d6sfGfT

— CNN (@CNN) August 11, 2020

Senator Kamala Harris could become president of the United States. Joe Biden, who enjoys wide leads in national polls and battleground-state polls, may well win the election. Many people on both Left and Right, including the socialists at Jacobin and Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, suspect Mr. Biden is mentally declining. When a black reporter asked Mr. Biden if he would take a cognitive test to prove his mental fitness, Mr. Biden replied by asking if the reporter was a “junkie.” If elected, Mr. Biden would be the oldest man ever to become president. Most voters, including about half of Democrats, think he won’t finish his first term. Kamala Harris would then become president.

Some progressives, especially former Bernie Sanders supporters, are unhappy with the Biden-Harris ticket. Mr. Biden is a white man who has said “racist” things by today’s standards. Kamala Harris’s lackluster presidential campaign had only one high point: when she shamed Mr. Biden for his friendship with segregationists and opposition to forced busing. “[T]here was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” said Senator Harris. “And that little girl was me.” Senator Harris even sold T-shirts with this clearly rehearsed line.

Kamala Harris’s campaign sputtered out after Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard exposed the former prosecutor’s own record:

There are too many examples to cite but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.

She blocked evidence — she blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California. And she fought to keep cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.

WATCH: Tulsi Gabbard tears into Kamala Harris’ tough-on-crime record as California Attorney General. #DemDebate2 pic.twitter.com/Bw8iFW5wgI

— America Rising (@AmericaRising) August 1, 2019

Sen. Harris was rattled, but arrogantly claimed to be a “top-tier candidate.” Her support vanished.

The senator has always been willing to bite in the clinches. A Politico story about her first political campaign had the title, “Ruthless.” And she has run brazenly on race. When she campaigned for San Francisco district attorney, her final mailer said “it’s time for a change,” and showed a picture of her white opponent.

But there wasn’t much change; she stayed tough on crime. In 2010, DA Harris smiled when she told an audience about using her staff to threaten parents with jail if they didn’t send truants to school. In 2013, she chided liberals who didn’t believe in prisons, saying that they didn’t understand “why I have three padlocks on my front door” and that there should be “a broad consensus that there should be serious and severe and swift consequences” for criminals. “Kamala is a cop” was a devastating slogan during the campaign because it was true.

Harris’ beliefs in retributive justice are deeply held. Here’s a video of Harris from 2013 at the Chicago Ideas Week mocking criminal justice reformers as unrealistic and ideological. pic.twitter.com/DWk6bliLmw

— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 29, 2019

Sen. Harris locked up plenty of pot smokers, but cracked a joke when someone asked if she had ever smoked it. “Half my family’s from Jamaica” she said. “Are you kidding me?” Her Jamaican father, an economics professor, wasn’t laughing. He said his ancestors “must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics.”

Tariq Nasheed repeatedly criticizes Kamala Harris for not being “really” black. He’s got a point. Her “African-American” identity is about as authentic as being “Wakandan” or wearing kente cloth.

In 2004, the Los Angeles Times profiled her, calling her “a privileged child of foreign graduate students whose academic pursuits led them to UC Berkeley.” Her mother is Indian and a scientist. Kamala Harris married a Jewish lawyer and became stepmother to his two white children. They reportedly call her “Mamala.”

My ancestors didn’t own slaves, but hers probably did, at least according to her father. Like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris is a poseur, pretending she’s an oppressed minority. Unlike Elizabeth Warren, she has enough melanin to make it plausible.

In 2018, Sen. Harris said that people who criticize “identity politics” are trying to “divide” and “distract,” or to “shut us up.” “Identity politics” is the game she plays, and its purpose is to split Americans into competing racial and sexual groups. In February 2019, she said Columbus Day should be renamed Indigenous Peoples’ Day, which implies that European settlement was wrong. She called America “the scene of a crime when it comes to what we did with slavery and Jim Crow and institutionalized racism in this country, and we have to be honest about that.” Is she going to be “honest” and tell us about her slave-owning ancestors? Later in 2019, she asked whether “America was ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States of America.” Pure identity politics.

Still, her specific black agenda is as vague as her identity. In 2019, she called President Trump a racist and said “there has to be some form of reparations and we can discuss what that is.” She told Al Sharpton’s National Action Network she would sign a bill to “study” reparations. She also co-sponsored Cory Booker’s bill for a commission on reparations. She’s even mused that mental health treatment could be “reparations” and talked about putting “extra resources” into “those communities that have experienced that trauma.” It’s hard to say what all that means.

But Sen. Harris does want to eliminate the “racial wealth gap.” Her plan would give money to “families living in historically red-lined communities.” This may not be a straight handout to blacks because it would be based on geography, and racial housing patterns no longer fit those old maps. In an October 2019 report, the Brookings Institute found that plans built around “redlining maps” “will prove to be insufficient in dismantling the legacy of racial inequalities in homeownership and wealth in the United States.”

Senator Harris’s most worrying policies would be for “combating violent hate.” Her plan (now archived) called “anti-immigrant manifestos” a sign of “impending violence” that could justify removing suspects’ Second Amendment rights “if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness.” Who defines “dangerousness?” Candidate Harris said she would “immediately direct the National Counterterrorism Center to address the threat of global white-nationalist terrorism, and seek authority to include domestic terrorism in its mission.” She would also “reverse President Trump’s dangerous efforts to deprioritize countering white supremacy and commit $2 billion to investigate, disrupt, and prosecute domestic terrorists.” This includes making it a “priority” for the FBI to “more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites and forums – consistent with well-established legal requirements and civil liberties protections – where extremists discuss and encourage violent acts.”

The next sentence reads, “This will put pressure on online platforms to take down content that violates their terms and conditions.” She therefore wants the federal government to pressure platforms to remove legally permissible speech, not just violent content. She would also tell the FBI to “identify and penetrate extremist networks and seek Domestic Terrorism Prevention Orders to preempt terrorist attacks.”

Her plan is silent on antifa and black identity extremists. She has only whites in her crosshairs. And if the federal government splashes out billions to combat “hate-based violence,” the bureaucracy will invent a threat to justify its existence. We already see this in the “non-profit” sector, where phony hate crimes justify constant fundraising.

As I write this, Joe Biden is invoking the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville as a specter of white terror. The violence that day was the city’s fault. However, even if we accept the worst possible interpretation and blame “white nationalists” for everything, Charlottesville was a picnic compared to the riots, property destruction, and deaths that have gripped the country since George Floyd’s death. President Trump’s timid efforts to grapple with this violence, which Democrats openly opposed, are far less intrusive than Kamala Harris’s plans.

Would President Harris do what she says? Her record suggests she would. As a district attorney in 2005, she rejected suggestions from her staff that defendants be informed of police misconduct. She changed policy only after a political scandal. In 2013, she refused to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage because she disagreed with it, even though it was her job, as California attorney general, to defend state law. In other cases, she pursued her duty to a fault, fighting against compensation for men wrongfully convicted. In one case, she did her best to keep a man in prison even after a judge tossed the conviction on the basis of police misconduct, incompetent defense, and a lack of evidence. The man was allegedly tied to a Nazi gang, but the case was so outrageous that even Jacobin blasted Kamala Harris for it.

Sen. Harris is not particularly extreme by today’s standards, but her life is about acquiring power. Once she has it, she would surely wield it against us. She is likely to restrict freedom of speech and other constitutional rights. Even those who have criticized her in the past would cheer it on.

She has the right skin color, right sex, and enemies. Sounds like privilege to me. Republished from American Renaissance

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article – Kamala Harris part of leftist Trojan horse operation

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2020

If Harris really were a moderate, progressives would be up in arms over her choice. But they are not.

The left sees Biden as their Trojan horse. They want voters to look at his inoffensive, moderate, bipartisan exterior, and decide it is safe to let him inside the White House gates. But as soon as they do, an army of socialists will rush out — led by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — to impose a radical progressive agenda on America.

This coming from WaPo! I am surprised it is permitted.

https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1700df0f9

Kamala Harris a moderate? Not even close. Welcome to the leftist Trojan horse operation.

In case you haven’t noticed, there is a not-sosubtle campaign afoot to paint Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as a centrist — an effort that exposes the left’s strategy to fool the American people into giving them political power in November.

After presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced Harris as his running mate, the New York Times immediately declared her a ‘pragmatic moderate,’ the Los Angeles Times called her a ‘centrist’ and ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos told his viewers ‘Kamala Harris comes from the middle of the road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party.’

No, she doesn’t. Harris was the ‘most liberal compared to all senators’ in 2019 according to Gov-Track, the nonpartisan government transparency watchdog — to the left of even her democraticsocialist colleague, Sen.

Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Harris wasn’t ‘pragmatic’ either. GovTrack found she ‘joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats.’

According to Manhattan Institute budget expert Brian Riedl, Harris has proposed a mind-numbing $46 trillion in new spending over the next decade.

She supports the economically ruinous Green New Deal, Medicare-for-all and free taxpayer funded health care for undocumented immigrants. She is also an abortion zealot who has suggested that a faithful Catholic who belongs to the Knights of Columbus is unfit to serve as a federal judge. She opposes deportation of those who illegally enter the United States and once compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the Ku Klux Klan.

If Harris really were a moderate, progressives would be up in arms over her choice. But they are not. Leftists understand that to win in November, they must be able to peel away reluctant Trump voters in key swing states who are uncomfortable with the leftward lurch of today’s Democratic Party. These voters need to believe that a Biden-Harris administration will be centrist and reasonable, so they can give themselves permission to defect and vote Democrats into power. So progressives and their allies in the mainstream media have tried to portray Biden’s choice of Harris as another example of how he has kept the left at arm’s length.

Progressives know it is a lie. Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep.

Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., recently said the left need not worry about Biden’s moderate veneer because ‘he is movable.’ As she told ‘The Daily Show’ host Trevor Noah, ‘As soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.’

The left sees Biden as their Trojan horse. They want voters to look at his inoffensive, moderate, bipartisan exterior, and decide it is safe to let him inside the White House gates. But as soon as they do, an army of socialists will rush out — led by Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — to impose a radical progressive agenda on America.

They have every reason to believe that will happen, because Biden has already given in to their demands. For more than 40 years, Biden supported the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for abortions, even writing a constituent to say, ‘Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.’ When he reiterated his support for the Hyde Amendment last year during the presidential primaries, he was chastised by none other than Harris, who declared, ‘No woman’s access to reproductive health care should be based on how much money she has. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.’

Biden quickly surrendered to Harris and the party’s pro-abortion radicals.

If Biden will capitulate to his party’s left wing on a fundamental moral question like abortion, what makes anyone think he won’t do the same when it comes to Medicare-for-all or the Green New Deal?

Most candidates tack to the center after securing their party’s nomination, but Biden has already gone to the left, forging a ‘unity platform’ with Sanders.

The platform was a wink and a nod to democratic socialists — embracing a number of their demands and promising to ‘study’ others once Biden is in the White House.

The left got the message: Once the election is over, Biden will move even further in their direction.

Besides, progressives in Congress believe that they will be setting the agenda anyway, and Biden’s job will be to autopen whatever they pass and put on his desk. What is he going to do, stand with Republicans and veto their legislation?

Progressives are more than comfortable spreading the myth of moderation, while they hide inside the belly of the Democratic ticket waiting for voters to open the White House gates.

Marc A. Thiessen is a Washington Post columnist. Contact him on Twitter, @marcthiessen.

Marc Thiessen

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

YouTube Censorship Is Ridiculous – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 18, 2020

And I’m afraid that they are far from being alone. Hypocrisy is a sign of our times. At a debate, a Kamala Harris can slice and dice Joe Biden for being a segregationist. She can look, act and sound as if this is truth and she means it. But then she can turn right around this week and laugh it all off, suggesting that it was just a “debate”. So, how is anyone supposed to know when Kamala Harris means what she says or does not? And when she talks with others, be they foreign leaders or fellow senators, how does she expect to know what they mean and what they do not mean if she views truth as being dependent on the situation at hand?

Youtube and politicians lie. They all know it. They all expect it. Just another day.

In addition to here, Millie Weaver’s video is presented elsewhere in today’s posts.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/michael-s-rozeff/youtube-censorship-is-ridiculous/

By

I downloaded the 82-minute Millie Weaver video from YouTube before YouTube removed it. The blank YouTube screen now says “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech. Learn more about combating hate speech in your country.”

I watched this video, and while I can’t say I caught every word, I caught nearly all of it. There were some revelations in it from two whistleblowers that were new to me, and they are of some importance in understanding where data collection has gone and where it’s going, and the grave dangers for liberty.

The video is still available in other places if you hunt for it. Here is one source that’s currently up and running. Here is another source.

My main reason for this blog is what the title says: “YouTube censorship is ridiculous.” This company is full of it. I didn’t see any hate speech whatsoever in any part of this video. I’m not saying it’s an A-1 production or that it’s worth 82 minutes of your life. I’m just saying that YouTube is coming from some very strange and very weird place to say that this video needs to be removed because it contains hate speech. Their idea of “hate” must be really far out, really crazy, because all we have here are two people explaining what their jobs were relating to government, data collection, and how these data are being used by certain companies for profit, and being used in ways that are corrupt and threaten liberty.

This case of this documentary is just one case. There are now hundreds of cases like it in which YouTube selectively removes content for reasons that appear to be political and to involve censorship of political-related views that their censors disagree with. YouTube is like a newspaper that has a definite political slant and publishes only material in accordance with that slant.

However, what sort of outfit does YouTube pretend to be? You will find their mission here. This is where we see that we’re entitled to conclude that they are lying to us about “hate speech” in this instance.

YouTube claims “Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.” Well, obviously NOT. There are 3 voices being silenced at a minimum, the two whistleblowers and the host, Millie Weaver.

YouTube claims “We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.” Well, UNTRUE. Not everyone deserves a voice, according to their eliminating this video. And the world is NOT a better place, YouTube is saying, if our minds are exposed to Millie Weaver and her guests, who, I remind you, are not spewing hatred whatsoever. YouTube advocates an INCLUSIVE policy, and then turns around and actuates an EXCLUSION policy. What a bunch of clowns and hypocrites the people doing this inside YouTube must be.

The gigantic hypocrisy of these cowards gets worse. Their mission page goes on to tout “four essential freedoms that define who we are.” And these include “freedom of expression” and freedom of information”. What sort of idiots in a major company like this can profess these ideals and then turn around and do the very opposite? It makes no sense unless we understand that they are paying no attention to their mission. Instead they’re simply censoring whatever they feel like censoring according to their own political preferences. What a rotten way to behave, to act as if you’re nobly providing the world with a forum for freedom of expression, and then to turn around and delete what you please. But that’s YouTube for you.

And I’m afraid that they are far from being alone. Hypocrisy is a sign of our times. At a debate, a Kamala Harris can slice and dice Joe Biden for being a segregationist. She can look, act and sound as if this is truth and she means it. But then she can turn right around this week and laugh it all off, suggesting that it was just a “debate”. So, how is anyone supposed to know when Kamala Harris means what she says or does not? And when she talks with others, be they foreign leaders or fellow senators, how does she expect to know what they mean and what they do not mean if she views truth as being dependent on the situation at hand? How can anyone operate where trust and truth are reduced to grains of sand being shifted here and there by the winds of voices jabbering away? What else does it all mean, except the rejection of truth and one’s word of honor, when YouTube strongly proclaims its basic beliefs and then does the opposite?

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Truth About Left-Wing Racial Politics – Aussie Nationalist Blog

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2020

Yet as is often the case with non-white beneficiaries of Western altruism, Harris has offered little to nothing in the way of reciprocation.

Wrote Patrick Buchanan in The Death of the West,

It is in the nature of nations and religions, that they rule or are ruled.

When considering this principle, there is nothing new about the tribalism of Kamala Harris; it is straightforward to envision where things are headed next. As Harris and her type garner power–crude, unyielding forms of racial discrimination will develop against white Americans, in particular for Trump supporters and Christians.

https://aussienationalistblog.com/2020/08/18/the-truth-about-left-wing-racial-politics/

It came as little surprise last Wednesday, when Kamala Harris was named as Joe Biden’s vice president pick.

This was a patently token selection: Harris being a black women; her lacking the requisite political or real-life experience to be prepared for vice-presidential (and quite potentially) presidential duties.

That the left is intent on promoting members of allegedly victimised classes over those with merit, by now, is clear and trite to emphasise. What is more interesting to evaluate, is the background of Kamala Harris and its connection (or lack thereof) to her politics of racial grievance.

Harris was born in Oakland, California in 1964, the product of recent immigrants: an Indian mother and a Jamaican father. In this respect, Harris holds a distinct history to many American blacks. She was never personally subject to Jim Crow laws; or had any ancestors that were; or had any ancestors even geographically residing in the United States while they were still applied.

In plain terms, when it comes to what could be objectively seen as constituting American racism, neither Harris nor her ancestors were the victims of anything. To the contrary, as witnessed the fact of American and Indian living standards, Harris has amply benefited from being born into the United States.

Yet as is often the case with non-white beneficiaries of Western altruism, Harris has offered little to nothing in the way of reciprocation. In fact, she has a racial vendetta against white America, expressed in her presidential campaign kickoff speech from January 2019:

Let’s speak the truth that too many unarmed black men and women are killed in America. Too many black and brown Americans are locked up.

Additionally, Harris has spoken of the need for reparations, and has called American history “the scene of a crime.”

In her own life, Harris has only ever profited from white America; but as demonstrated above, she is animated by feelings of racial vengeance. The only way to make sense of this apparent contradiction, is to conclude that leftist identity politics comprises a power grab, having nothing to do with resolving actual instances of oppression or persecution. It is a power grab aimed at increasing the political, cultural and economic agency of non-white Americans–at the necessary expense of white Americans.

Wrote Patrick Buchanan in The Death of the West,

It is in the nature of nations and religions, that they rule or are ruled.

When considering this principle, there is nothing new about the tribalism of Kamala Harris; it is straightforward to envision where things are headed next. As Harris and her type garner power–crude, unyielding forms of racial discrimination will develop against white Americans, in particular for Trump supporters and Christians.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »