Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Matt Bracken on diversity being out strength, multi-culturalism, political correctness and social media.

Jeremy D. Lawhorn writing at SWJ.

The Pew Research Center suggests that political polarization in the United States has reached a dangerous extreme. Divisions on fundamental political and social issues reached record levels during President Obama’s term in office. And the gaps have increased even further during President Trump’s first year. This polarization is caused by political and social entrenchment combined with a general reluctance to compromise creating extreme fractionalization. Fissures have opened up along every major demographic line including race, ethnicity, religion, place of origin, gender, and along every major political and social issue including immigration, national security, gay marriage, religious freedom, structural inequalities and many others.

The extreme fracturing along these fault lines has wide ranging social, political, and security implications for the United States. Today, the single greatest challenge to the United States national security is the growing threat posed by people that are being forced to join factions that align, if only loosely, with their beliefs, creating deep fractures and eroding the internal cohesion of the country.

[ … ]

Understanding the U.S. center of gravity’s current strengths and weaknesses is crucial for accurately assessing the U.S. national security. The Pew Research data on political polarization suggests that the U.S. center of gravity is critically weak. Analyzing these critical vulnerabilities, exposes the dangers posed by expanding fractures that are ripe for exploitation. As the population continues to become more polarized and deeper fractures emerge, the nation loses its cohesion which is one of the critical requirements. As each of the critical requirements disappear, America’s center of gravity becomes weaker. If not properly addressed, these fractures will continue to present significant challenges and have potentially devastating consequences for national security.

[ … ]

These historic lessons of entrenchment are instructive for leaders today. The difference is, that the speed at which information travels today exacerbates political polarization. As a consequence, the United States is once again at the precipice of self-destruction. While the United States is currently addressing threats to national security all over the world like those posed by violent extremist groups, a greater threat is looming at home. The homeland is primed to implode; at present, the political polarization and fractionalization driven by growing resentment over unresolved internal problems is becoming a significant vulnerability as more people are becoming radicalized along major fault lines. As people become more radicalized in their views, they become reluctant to engage in debate and prefer to take action.

The author goes on to explore race, social and economic strata.  This is an interesting essay in that it is the first I can remember from the professional military in which these admissions are made.  They all know it, but no one talks about it.

The problem with the essay is that it doesn’t even begin to address or identify the root causes of these “polarizations.”  Barack Obama didn’t polarize America.  Donald Trump isn’t polarizing America.  They are symptoms, not the disease, branches, not the roots, effects, not the causes.

These divisions have been deep in America for quite some time.  In the old South, men like James Henley Thornwell, Robert L. Dabney and Benjamin Morgan Palmer were the philosopher-theologians, and their pulpits and classrooms were the center of culture and philosophy.  They didn’t just exegete the Scriptures, they conveyed a holistic world and life view throughout not only their congregations but to the entire South.  The notion that proper governance, economics or plowing the fields for crops could be divorced from the edicts and laws of the Almighty would have been preposterous.

In the Nineteenth century social Darwinism saw it’s ascent to throne of American culture, leading to the temperance movement and in no small part the war between the states.  Forgotten was the old hymns of the church, so even though theology was undercut and infected, it took a while (decades) for the church members to begin relinquishing their beliefs.

Eventually though, it happened.  It was in no small part aided by the pagan philosophy of the American educational system promulgated by William James and Horace Mann.  If students at American universities relinquished their theology, they replaced it with something else.

In the mid-twentieth century the hippies were reading Marx, Sartre and Camus.  Several decades ago they were studying Jacques Derrida (does anything good ever come out of France?).  Today they wear Che Guevara tee shirts and take to the streets to advocate fourth wave feminism.  The self loathing is nearly complete.

The election of Barack Obama was a catalyst at the very most, and possibly just an opportunity for these divisions to manifest in the public life to an extent that would cause the writer to pen an essay discussing the fracturing of America.  It’s a quaint notion, this idea suggested by the author that we do something about this.  But the destruction of a society has taken more than a century to effect, and it will take longer to undo.

It might be tempting to simply observe that we’re adjusting and preparing for a separation.  But a separation from what, and to what?  There are two problems.  The first is geographical.  From the town council in Jackson, Wyoming, to lower state South Carolina where their ideas still hold sway locking the state into union with California, Hawaii and New York as prohibiting open carry, from the so-called “Northwestern Redoubt” to Appalachia where many still vote for the party that will give them the largest welfare check, America is in trouble.  There is an admixture of ideas, political beliefs, self interests and no beliefs at all, making a division based on geography impossible.

Deeper still is the problem with world and life view.  Even if a division based on geography was possible, with beliefs so scattered, fractured, disjointed and disconnected, with the concept of social covenant and contract outdated, and moral scruples so out-of-favor, it’s unlikely that there can be a national agreement on much of anything, much less something so significant as a covenant under which we must all live and work.  Even if there could be agreement, that doesn’t ensure fidelity to the promise.

Unlike the author, I have hope, but it is not in addressing grievances or coming together as a nation.  My only hope is in an American reformation not unlike the European reformation of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.  But take careful note – the first one was rather hard, required centuries to effect, required the leadership of fearless men, and wasn’t bloodless.

Via WRSA comes this stunning documentary.

David Codrea takes note of several comments on the state of affairs.

Double negative = a positive. Land stolen from from the natives and then stolen back … I hope this goes continent wide, including the De beers factory … I don’t feel sorry for this man at all. He profits off hunting large animals. Karma is truly at work here! … Hmmm, so, like the Dutch grabbed the land from the native south Africans … No it’s not theft. And you can defend all you like it won’t help …  Go home mate … At first I had sympathy… but then I read “hunting” farm….. A HUNTING farm??? Sorry farmer, NO sympathy here! Murdering animals for “sport” is VILE! … If you kill animals they will get you back somehow…

So I hate to be all logical and everything because I know it’s dreadfully boring.  But you know me – I don’t believe that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

If the commenter has no sympathy for the farmers because they allow hunting and charge for it (like many Americans do with their land), I’m wondering if the commenter will see the necessity of having no sympathy for the indigenous population when they, like savages, kill and steal the land from the farmers, only to starve to death in short order?

No, it’s not likely.  What is more likely is this (here, I’m making a prediction for my progressive readers on which you can test me – I do have at least some progressive readers don’t I?).  When people begin starving to death because they have no civility, cannot run farms, cannot operate machinery, cannot supply power and fuel because they have no idea how to run power plants, etc., it will become a litmus test and a point of doctrine for the progressives that the U.S. must send aid, even if it means increasing taxes on Americans.  Watch it in the upcoming debates.

Furthermore, they will even demand that a Marine Corps MEU be dispatched to “keep the peace” and supply “much-needed aid.”  They will make these same demands of the United Nations, who will lean on America for this responsibility.

But starve they will.  And they will deserve it.

David Codrea:

I’m not going to speak ill of the dead. McCain’s record in life was clear and my differences with him – and there were many — were expressed then. It’s more productive for the purpose of defending against some of those differences to look at what his ostensible political opponents, his friends across the aisle and in the media, are saying about him now.

Barack Obama recalled a “shared… fidelity to something higher.” Joe Lieberman “lost a dear friend.” Joe Biden “will miss him dearly.” Bill and Hillary Clinton noted “He frequently put partisanship aside to do what he thought was best for the country, and was never afraid to break the mold if it was the right thing to do.”

And on and on the effusive praise goes.  It’s all lies of course, but they would rather have a deep-stater like McCain than anyone else on the GOP side.

Like David, there are things I won’t criticize.  I won’t speak ill of his time in Vietnam.  If I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened in that prison in Hanoi.  And you don’t either.  And as for the torture he endured, I’m sure I would crack like an egg.  Unless I was in that position, I won’t comment on what I would do in that position.

But I will certainly speak ill of the man, life or death.  Virtually no one else had so much blood on his hands in American politics as McCain.  He is responsible, at least in part, for the North African horror we are witnessing, which leads irreversibly to the falling of Europe to Islam.

The criticism doesn’t have to stop there.  There is no reason other than spite, vengeance and hatred to come out of semi-retirement to kill a bill that might have helped to end socialized medicine in America.  He hated you, and he hated me.  We can all consider him responsible for the pain and suffering of millions of men, women and children who see their financial wherewithal to retain good medical care taken away, only to be redistributed by the state.

The catalog I’ve given above is just the beginning, and readers could add more, although the list I’ve given is sufficient.  I bid good riddance to the man.

Make sure to watch all of it.  Matt is at his best here.

This is a trend, one that doesn’t surprise me in the least.  Nor should it surprise you.

News from South Africa:

THE South African government has begun the process of seizing land from white farmers.

I have thought for a number of months that the smarter farmers would have seen the signs of the times and sold several years ago, moving all of their estate to Australia, New Zealand or the U.S.  Now it’s too late.  The only recourse now is to lose everything or go to war.

Via WRSA, can London be far behind?

Politico:

A woman whose son was killed on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona can sue for damages, a federal court ruled Tuesday.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Border Patrol agent Lonnie Swartz is not entitled to qualified immunity, saying that the Fourth Amendment — which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures — applies in this case.

“Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Swartz violated the Fourth Amendment. It is inconceivable that any reasonable officer could have thought that he or she could kill J.A. for no reason,” Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote in the majority opinion. “Thus, Swartz lacks qualified immunity.”

Swartz, who was found not guilty in April of second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting, has said he shot at people throwing rocks through the border fence in Nogales, Arizona. A retrial in the case will take place in October.

Okay then.  Since non-citizens get these rights under a constitution to which they are not subject, then the next step is for the Ninth Circuit to issue a cease-and-desist order for all SWAT raids where people get shot by cops in their own homes on American soil.

Right?

The Oregonian:

The state police SWAT officer who investigators say fired five times at refuge occupation spokesman Robert “LaVoy” Finicum said Monday he second-guessed himself when he learned of an unaccounted-for bullet hole in the roof of Finicum’s truck.

In the days after the Jan. 26, 2016, shooting in Harney County, the officer wracked his brain trying to figure out how it could have occurred, considering that none of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team agents at the scene said they had fired any shots.

“I never thought I did it, but there were times I was thinking, ‘I don’t know. This doesn’t make any sense,”’ he said. “If that was going to be attributed to me and I had no recollection of it … could I continue in this profession?”

When he learned investigators had tracked all his shots and the magazine of his AR-15 rifle was missing five bullets, he said he told them: “The FBI has a big effing problem, and this is serious.”

The testimony from “Officer 1” – the only identification of the SWAT officer used in court because of government concerns over militia threats – is crucial to the prosecution’s case in the trial of an FBI agent at the scene that day.

Agent W. Joseph Astarita is accused of lying about having fired two disputed shots at Finicum’s truck as state police and the FBI moved to arrest leaders of armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. One struck the roof and one missed entirely.

Astarita’s lawyers have argued that other people at the scene, and most likely Officer 1, could have fired the shots.

Officer 1 said he knew he hadn’t fired the shots in question because investigators found only 24 rounds remaining in the magazine of his AR-15 rifle, which he said he loaded with 29 rounds.

He had fired three times as Finicum’s truck was speeding toward a roadblock set up on U.S. 395 as the refuge leaders left the bird sanctuary. They each struck the front of the truck. He then fired two times and struck Finicum’s back after Finicum had walked away from his truck and reached into his jacket, according to investigators.

Officer 1, now a captain who has worked for the state police for 20 years, was the lieutenant and commander of the agency’s SWAT team at the time of Finicum’s shooting.

Officer 2, the second state police officer who shot Finicum that day, also testified – the first time either of them have publicly spoken about their roles in what happened. He fired once, his bullet also hitting Finicum in the back. He’s now a sergeant with the tactical team, having worked 21 years with the agency.

Their superiors worried from the outset that they would face threats, so much so that the night of the shooting they directed investigators to take photos of each officer with a paper bag concealing their faces when documenting their clothing and equipment.

Prosecutors sought to portray the state police officers who fired their rifles that day as having acted according to state police policy while the FBI agents skirted standard protocol.

The two state police officers said they immediately alerted supervisors that they had fired and surrendered their rifles and ammunition.

In contrast, prosecutors showed that FBI agents were seen on aerial video scouring the scene for items and ducking under trucks after the shooting. The FBI agents also failed to ensure a shell casing spotted on the ground was marked as evidence and then in a highly unusual move, demanded they be interviewed as a group by detectives, prosecutors said.

Defense lawyers have painted a much different portrait of state police, suggesting Officer 1, who was supposed to be in a command role that day, instead ran aggressively to confront Finicum in a risky maneuver without any cover causing a potential cross-fire situation with another state trooper.

They pointed out that state police didn’t immediately create a crime scene log to control who entered or exited the area and allowed other police vehicles to pass through.

They suggested state police officers heightened the tension from the beginning by firing a less- lethal sponge bullet at Ryan Payne, the front seat passenger in Finicum’s truck, who was about to surrender when authorities first stopped the two-car caravan of refuge leaders earlier on the highway.

They also revealed that Officer 1 exchanged text messages about the shooting, witness officers’ statements and evidence with state SWAT officer Joey Pollard, who witnessed the shooting, and their boss, Travis Hampton, now state police superintendent. The exchanges came before his interview, held five days after the shooting.

[ … ]

Prosecutor Gary Sussman followed up, asking if that was because Pollard’s focus was elsewhere. Pollard said he was looking at Finicum’s hands when Finicum stepped out of the truck and heard a “loud bang.”

After the shooting, Pollard drove Officer 1 from Burns to the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office in Bend. Deschutes County was tasked with leading the investigation of the shooting. After Officer 1 and Officer 2 turned in their gear and were photographed, Pollard drove each officer home.

In the days that followed, testimony Monday revealed Pollard exchanged multiple text messages with Officer 1 and instructed Officer 1 on Feb. 1 about the bullet hole that forensic investigators found in the roof of Finicum’s truck.

Good Lord.  What a circle jerk.

Remember folks, this didn’t arise out of thin air.  The whole thing began as a protest against the FedGov over trumped-up charges against ranchers whose land the BLM wanted because it had been promised to Uranium One in exchange for donations to The Clinton Foundation, all approved and catalyzed by The State Department.

Never forget that.  These officers are under cross examination right now because they did the bidding of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their band of demons.

HuffPo:

Well, I’ll say it if Trump won’t.  Hey Trey, are you listening?

The NSA and CIA are among the most wicked organizations on the planet, and cannot be trusted.  You can throw the DOJ and FBI into that mix as well.

As for Gowdy, what do you think the chances are of Trey having been method-actor this whole time, working for the deep state, always outraged, never bringing anyone to justice, and always preventing the need to take anything to court or hold anyone accountable for their illegal actions?