Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 25, 2017, 02:07:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
103040 Posts in 2384 Topics by 1090 Members
Latest Member: Cgregurich73
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Second American Civil War
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Second American Civil War  (Read 5620 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7109


« on: August 21, 2009, 10:16:01 AM »

I don't know if this deserves a thread but I think it does.
I have posted we are in a "soft" civil war.

Others have noticed and stated this.  It is not new.

This article suggest BO is creating it.  I don't agree.  It already existed and has for years.  But let there be no doubt - BO is certainly making it worse - far worse.

He has never been about conciliation or post partisanship or getting past the rancor except that he thought but persistantly claiming that he could ram his agenda down the throats of those who are against it.

It was all talk all shmooz.

In any case we need more people to point this out about what is happening.  IF the right can get a better spokeperson a better plan going BO is toast.  If not he will hang in there with the potential of a comeback ala Clinton.
Though he is far more of an ideologue the Bill and so far has not shown the ability to change or adapt to preserve his power.
I guess he will eventually.  He can't be that pig headed - or can he?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/21/inside-the-beltway-68484451/
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 01:00:57 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7109


« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2009, 10:18:49 AM »

This article is food for thought whether or not one would agree with the specifics.
I agree we are in a soft civil war.
My hypothesis is that much of it can be brought down to a fight over those who want more entitlements/government and those that want the opposite.   Or perhaps it could be looked at as socialism/facism vs democracy/capitilism.
I suspect iF it wasn't for this issue, other issues, such as environmental issues, energy issues, (though perhaps not abortion), foreign policy could somehow be hashed out.  But the core divide is now unbreachable because of this taking of sides based on opposing philosophy.  It appears to have all started in the early 20th century.  The left brings back the label "progessives".   Suddenly the talking points is that they are not "liberals" but they are progressives.  The only difference is in the label.

The left has their annointed champion.  The right does not.  Yet the left even with the ONE is having trouble convincing most of us thier point of view is better. 



Comments Is America Coming Apart?
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

09/11/2009


Flying home from London, where the subject of formal debate on the 70th anniversary of World War II had been whether Winston Churchill was a liability or asset to the Free World, one arrives in the middle of a far more acrimonious national debate right here in the United States.
   
At issue: Should Barack Obama be allowed to address tens of millions of American children, inside their classrooms, during school hours?
   
Conservative talk-show hosts saw a White House scheme to turn public schools into indoctrination centers where the socialist ideology of Obama would be spoon-fed to captive audiences of children forced to listen to Big Brother -- and then do assignments on his sermon.

   
The liberal commentariat raged about right-wing paranoia.
   
Yet Byron York of The Washington Examiner dug back to 1991 to discover that, when George H.W. Bush went to Alice Deal Junior High to speak to America's school kids, the left lost it.
   
"The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," railed The Washington Post. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was called before a House committee. The National Education Association denounced Bush. And Congress ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate.
   
Obama's actual speech proved about as controversial as a Nancy Reagan appeal to eighth-graders to "Just say no!" to drugs.
   
Yet, the episode reveals the poisoned character of our politics.
   
We saw it earlier on display in August, when the crowds that came out for town hall meetings to oppose Obama's health care plans were called "thugs," "fascists," "racists" and "evil-mongers" by national Democrats.
   
We see it as Rep. Joe Wilson shouts, "You lie!" at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress.
   
We seem not only to disagree with each other more than ever, but to have come almost to detest one another. Politically, culturally, racially, we seem ever ready to go for each others' throats.
   
One half of America sees abortion as the annual slaughter of a million unborn. The other half regards the right-to-life movement as tyrannical and sexist.
   
Proponents of gay marriage see its adversaries as homophobic bigots. Opponents see its champions as seeking to elevate unnatural and immoral relationships to the sacred state of traditional marriage.
   
The question invites itself. In what sense are we one nation and one people anymore? For what is a nation if not a people of a common ancestry, faith, culture and language, who worship the same God, revere the same heroes, cherish the same history, celebrate the same holidays, and share the same music, poetry, art and literature?
   
Yet, today, Mexican-Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a skirmish in a French-Mexican war about which most Americans know nothing, which took place the same year as two of the bloodiest battles of our own Civil War: Antietam and Fredericksburg.
   
Christmas and Easter, the great holidays of Christendom, once united Americans in joy. Now we fight over whether they should even be mentioned, let alone celebrated, in our public schools.
   
Where we used to have classical, pop, country & Western and jazz music, now we have varieties tailored to specific generations, races and ethnic groups. Even our music seems designed to subdivide us.
   
One part of America loves her history, another reviles it as racist, imperialist and genocidal. Old heroes like Columbus, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are replaced by Dr. King and Cesar Chavez.
   
But the old holidays, heroes and icons endure, as the new have yet to put down roots in a recalcitrant Middle America.
   
We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard's Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.
   
Consider but a few issues on which Americans have lately been bitterly divided: school prayer, the Ten Commandments, evolution, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, affirmative action, busing, the Confederate battle flag, the Duke rape case, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, amnesty, torture.
   
Now it is death panels, global warming, "birthers" and socialism. If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago. What is it that still holds us together?
   
The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.
   
"E pluribus unum" -- out of many, one -- was the national motto the men of '76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?
   
Is America, too, breaking up?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2017, 07:02:23 AM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/368229.php

Why Can't the Left Accept a Defeat?
Because Their "Politics" are a Messianic Cult, and Every Religious Zealot Knows You Cannot Repeal the Kingdom of Heaven Come to Earth

Sharp insight from John David Danielson at The Federalist.

    The obstinacy of Senate Democrats reflects the mood of their progressive base, whose panicked anger is the natural reaction of those for whom politics has become an article of faith. Progressives, as the terms implies, believe society must always be progressing toward something better. Always forward, never backwards. After eight years of Obama, they believed progressive politics in America would forever be on an upward trajectory.

    Trump shook that faith. But his election also unmasked the degree to which progressivism as a political project is based not on science or rationality, or even sound policy, but on faith in the power of government to ameliorate and eventually perfect society. All the protests and denunciations of Trump serve not just as an outlet for progressives' despair, but the chance to signal their moral virtue through collective outrage and moral preening--something that wasn't really possible under Obama, at least not to this degree.

    Not that they didn't try. Recall that during the Obamacare debate in 2009 Ezra Klein suggested that Sen. Joe Lieberman was "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score," simply because he threatened to filibuster what would become the Affordable Care Act. This is the language of political fundamentalism--policy invested with the certainty of religious conviction.

    Religious fundamentalism of course rests on immutable truths that cannot be negotiated.

I'm not a big fan of any religion, but traditional religions are nicely circumscribed as far as their scope and ambition. I know what topics a traditional religious outlook will take an interest in -- those related to sex, marriage, childbirth, and the sanctity of life.

Most religions -- except for Islamism, which isn't really a religion but a totalitarian political movement with a quasi-religious justification -- focus chiefly on the metaphysical and the transcendent. They focus on the Kingdom to Come, not the temporal kingdoms of earth.

Therefore, fewer issues are sacralized. Someone who is focusing on your eternal soul is not therefore focusing on your healthcare decisionmaking.

The left politicizes everything, and given the left's increasing cultishness, that means they religicize everything. Everything -- not just a few rules about sodomy and marriage and abortion -- becomes a Sacred Principle which must be fought for with the passionate fury of the zealot, from whether private religiously-based organizations must pay for a woman's $9 per month birth control pills to whether the Pagan Deceiver Milo Yiannopolous can be allowed to step foot upon the sanctified ground of Berkeley Auditorium 3C.

The article linked above pairs nicely -- or pairs ominously -- with this excellent rumination on the death of liberalism (the good sort of classical liberalism) due to the left's insistence on their being only two categories of temporal actions: Those which are forbidden, and those which are mandatory.

The nutshell of his thesis is this: Liberalism was discovered -- not invented, but discovered -- in reaction to the very bloody religious wars that swept through Europe in the 1600s and 1700s. The previous rule that Politics Was Everything and whoever had the throne could inflict his will on everyone, down to mandating what god a citizen should bow to, resulted in endless war, death, misery, and mutual hatred and suspicion.

Classical liberalism was discovered (he's keen on insisting on this word) as a way of avoiding the religious wars that killed 8 million people. The state would be more rules-light, and leave more freedom to citizens, thus reducing the incentive to, or need for, resort to violent bloodshed when Your Guy wasn't on the throne.

He calls this rules-set "a minimum viable politics" -- the minimum possible state interference with the habits and preferences of citizens, yet still preserving of social stability and order. And this minimum viable politics necessarily was a pluralistic politics, permitting all sorts of sharply-disagreeing religions and philosophies. The main thing a "minimum viable politics" focuses on outlawing is illiberalism which itself threatens the minimum viable politics -- thus, a minimum viable politics focuses on protecting people's right to religious conscience, right to free speech and free thought, right to have a say in how they are governed (and later, by whom they are governed).

It does not mandate the tiny particulars of what you must or must not do. It does not require that you bake a cake for someone, for example. Rather, it mandates that you must respect others' freedoms.

Because the alternative is a return to the Thirty Years' War and bomb plots and priests hiding in priest holes as the King's Men search the town for them.

The left is of course undoing all this, turning our rules-light system into a very rules-heavy system, in which virtually everything is illegal, and what little is not illegal, is mandatory. It is reversing pluralism -- and the result of reversing pluralism will be what the result of an end to pluralism has been in the past.

Which is civil war, or, at best, not full civil war but roving bands of Religious Enforcement Vigilante night-riders who terrorize outsiders and pagans with the support and aid of their correligionists.

Which we're seeing more and more of.

Politicians, "journalists," and "celebrities" are actively encouraging punching people they call "Nazis" (which means anyone who disagrees with them; they should just say "Pagans") and "setting it all on fire."

The TV director who made this pronouncement said to open a history book -- it's the only way, she advised.

She should open a history book herself. She should point to me a single case where rampant political violence from one faction was not quickly met by equal or even greater political violence from the factions that were being preyed upon.

Does she think people are going to sit back and let themselves be beaten because the "arc of history" demands they take their lumps agreeably?

No, sister. Soon the people you punch will start punching back, and then, not long after that, they'll start punching first.

And what moral ground will you have to object to it? Your rules, Vagina Warrior.

If the left ever did bother to open a history book, they'd discover that every illiberal, gloriously bloody revolution invites its own equally bloody counter-revolution, it's own Vendee, its own final Thermidor.

If a thing is sacralized, that means you are bound by conscience and God Himself to fight for that. If an enemy is demonized, your are bound to slay that demon.

The more which is sacralized, the more blood, the more maimings, the more fires, the more murders.

In a minimum viable politics, people are free to sacralize what they will, assuming they do not break the rules of minimum viable politics and resort to vigilante violence to vindicate their religious beliefs.

But the left is determined to sacralize every flighty thought that gets into their heads -- like that men with penises should be free to use women's room, and if little girls are bothered by seeing a man's penis, why, they must just "overcome" their "discomfort" at seeing an adult man's penis -- and they are also determined to use the violence of the state or the violence of private vigilantes to enforce those Sacred Lunacies.

It won't end well. It will end, eventually. But not well, and not without many, many casualties, of both the guilty and innocent kind. Mass political violence is like a tornado, and tornadoes do not discriminate between the virtuous and the vicious.

They just kill everything in their path.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2017, 10:27:40 PM »

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/23/draft-n2289256

Straightforward From Here To The Left’s Fascist, Maybe Violent, Endgame
Kurt Schlichter

|
Posted: Feb 23, 2017 12:01 AM




The Democrat Party, its Media serfs, and Social Justice Incorporated are all outraged because we uppity normals are again presuming to rule ourselves, and their agony is delightful. Less delightful is how, in the process of trying to claw their way back into power, they are incinerating the norms and rules that preserve our political order. That stuff Hillary babbled about honoring the legitimacy of elections? Yeah, no. There’s an invisible asterisk only liberals can see that explains that the norms and rules are void when liberals lose.

So, where does this crisis end?

We know where the leftists want it to end, with us silenced and subservient forever, toiling to pay taxes for them to redistribute to their clients as they pick at, poke at and torment us. You look at the things Trump stands for and all of them are about lifting the yoke off of us – cutting taxes, slashing regulations, guaranteeing the Second Amendment, protecting our religious liberty, and safeguarding us from terrorists and illegals. But everything liberals want, everything Hillary ran on, is about clamping the yoke ever tighter around our necks – raising taxes, issuing more regulations, disarming us, limiting our religious freedom, and putting us at risk from terrorists and alien criminals. The whole leftist platform is about putting us down and keeping us down.

Think what they will do if they take power again.

They are certainly not going to risk us ever being able to repeat November’s rejection. California’s decline lays out their tyrannical road map. When the Democrats took power here, they “reformed” the election laws to lock-in their party, co-opted the “nonpartisan” redistricting process, and changed the ballot initiative system to make sure we will never see another unapproved proposition. They ensured there is no way to stop illegal aliens from voting because they want illegal aliens voting.


But even that’s not enough. The state government chose to allow its unofficial catspaws to intimidate and beat dissenters at UC Berkeley. California’s governing class wanted the thugs to prevail; it was a lesson to its opponents. I thought my novel People’s Republic, about post-freedom California, was an action thriller, not the first draft of a future history.

I was wrong.

Do you think Hillary Clinton or whatever aspiring Hugo Chavez they offer up next is going to protect us from violent leftist thugs, or encourage them? Remember how Obama weaponized agencies like the IRS against conservatives? Multiply that by a thousand. Think about the “hate speech” rules used to silence conservatives on campus; imagine them as federal law. That’s coming, just like in Europe – it’s now a crime in France to speak out against abortion. Do you imagine leftists don’t dream of doing that? No, once back in power they will ensure we will never be able to challenge their rule. One man (or woman or other), one vote, one more time, then never again.

How will they do it?

This massive resistance campaign against everything Donald Trump has done and a lot he hasn’t done is one way. The media’s liberal advocacy and tsunami of fake news is another; the press is now just one more partisan political player campaigning to restore the establishment to power. These same liars who fantasize about Trump silencing critics will cheer as the next Democrat commandante does it for real. Remember how they said nothing when Democrats voted to repeal the First Amendment so Congress could control speech during elections?

And they think they’re winning.

Sally Kohn, a CNN commentator perfectly personifies the left’s combination of utter cluelessness and utter certainty in its own moral superiority. Drawing from her bottomless well of stupidity, she recently became infamous for wishcasting about what happens “traight forward from here.” Her scenario starts with Step 1 (“Impeach Trump & Pence”) and ends with Step 6 (“President Hillary”), thanks to a Constitutional process she created herself by blending ignorance, fascism, and wanting.

Sally, however, overlooked Step 2.5, where several dozen million Americans defend the Constitution by taking out their black rifles and saying, “Oh, hell no.” I assume the patriots determined to protect the Union would be confronted, for a short and awkward time, by a pro-coup hipster army locked and loaded with vinyl LPs, participation trophies and unearned self-regard.

There’s no reason not to believe that for these seditious Democrats, the second time will be the charm.

But this amusing idiocy highlights a much more frightening possibility. Dennis Prager has written that America is locked in a Second Civil War already, albeit a cold one. And in light of the absolute rejection by the left of any legitimacy of the grievances, the interests, or the right to participate in governing this country of the tens of millions of red Americans, it’s reasonable to wonder how this can end peacefully. You see read it on social media, you hear it whispered. Are the wounds to our body politic so deep they can’t be healed?

I recently polled people on Twitter about what they thought of the chances of serious violence in the coming four years, and the results from 6,159 people are alarming. “Stop being a nut” got 10%; I was hoping it would get about 95%. “We’ll wise up” and find a way out of this crisis, got 13%. But “50/50 leftists may try violence” got a stunning 41%, while “It’s coming. Gear up” got a terrifying 36%.

So, 77% of the respondents fear serious violence during Trump’s first term. That’s scary, especially since political warfare is not unprecedented in history. Forget Bleeding Kansas. Just reflect on the low-grade insurgency the American left undertook in the 1970s, with more bloodshed than most people remember, and consider how today the left has significantly more cultural, institutional and media support. The reality is that there is the potential for this to get out of control, way out of control, especially considering the likelihood that leftist violence would be met in kind. That 77% indicates that the red side is, as the left loves to say, “woke” to the threat. And the red people have the guns and training, should things degenerate into serious chaos.

Basically, this country is a powder keg, and leftist fools who do not understand the danger are figuratively standing around it, firing up their bongs.

Now, understand that leftist liars will meet this column with the slander that I (and by extension, you) hope for violence. Skim down the comments and check out the idiots no doubt infesting my Twitter feed – you’ll see plenty of such lies. Actually, this is yet another of my several pleas for sanity and peace (including in my book’s preface). But the left’s favorite tactic is to deny substantive truth in favor of narrative; what I (and you) actually believe is irrelevant. This infuriating tactic makes reasoned discussion and argument impossible anymore, which itself makes violence more likely since it forecloses the primary method of peacefully resolving disagreements. If you can’t argue, if you can’t even speak, there’s only one way to be heard.

The left’s combination of evil and stupidity is the driver straightforward from here. With the grim understanding that they hate us, we need to accept that there may be no easy return to peaceful coexistence. Our goal in electing Donald Trump was to remove the left’s hand from our throat, not to put our hand around blue peoples’ collective windpipe. We don’t care how they live their lives, but leftists care very much how we live ours. Their goal is to lock both hands around our throat and squeeze until we submit to leftist tyranny or die.

It’s hard to see how we compromise. Do we just somewhat submit, or only die a little?

This crisis has to culminate somehow. It could end peacefully, with a return to the old norms and reasoned competition between ideas. But it seems no one is interested in that; instead, one side has to win decisively, and one side has to lose decisively. If so, I say we win and they lose, since I’m not ready to submit or to die.

How about you?
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 761


« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2017, 01:28:43 AM »


I'm a realist....

Quote
Drawing from her bottomless well of stupidity

It's coming.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2017, 12:29:37 PM »

And may well include blazing stupidity like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/24/get-out-of-my-country-kansan-reportedly-yelled-before-shooting-2-men-from-india-killing-one/?utm_term=.b72d992963d7&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2017, 12:33:19 PM »


Looking at what happened in the former Yugoslavia is probably a good map for what is probably coming.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 761


« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2017, 05:16:36 PM »


As opposed to the "Fry them like Bacon" crowd.

Looking at what happened in the former Yugoslavia is probably a good map for what is probably coming.

Exactly correct.

People always think that the US has some type of magical pixie dust sprinkled on it, where REALLY bad things can't happen... even after the Soviet Union fell in less than a day.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2017, 02:23:23 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4349390/Violence-breaks-pro-Trump-rally-California.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2017, 02:35:16 PM »

second post

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/lemons-gun-totin-left-wingers-demonstrate-trump-rally-bloodshed-on-the-horizon-9192965
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2017, 02:55:44 PM »


Sooner rather than later.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2017, 07:07:40 PM »

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-trump-rally-20170325-story.html

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17523306_10211108378237633_1697151899612656604_n.jpg?oh=e0ed94ef6f31a8cafe98008a25e9d1e4&oe=5957FFFE

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2017, 07:26:06 PM »


The black bloc douches better get used to people fighting back. This will of course, escalate. Bill Ayers is tanned, rested and ready.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2017, 04:02:18 PM »

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266197/civil-war-here-daniel-greenfield

THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE
The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule.
March 27, 2017  Daniel Greenfield 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning. 

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

 That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.


 
It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 761


« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2017, 04:42:58 PM »


Excellent article GM.

North Korea +/- = What happens when Democratic socialists are left amongst themselves, uninterrupted, for a long enough period of time.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2017, 09:37:49 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWpVxtNI2ew

#Invalid YouTube Link#
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 761


« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2017, 10:19:39 PM »


This is why I chuckle at "gun" laws.

It would not be difficult for anyone, with any training at all, to take down a small group, and even less, if you infiltrated them as a supporter.

They look like 9,000 pounds of dogs..t... hoping for something they really don't want.

I'm not even being arrogant or overconfident. That's really the truth of it.

This WILL all come to a head sooner or later though. Historically speaking, it always has.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2017, 11:34:26 PM »

Playing with matches while standing in puddles of gasoline , , ,

This is not going to end well , , , cry
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 761


« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2017, 11:48:09 AM »

Playing with matches while standing in puddles of gasoline , , ,

This is not going to end well , , , cry

To be fair, on a long enough given timeline... the probability of survival drops to zero for everyone.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2017, 12:38:58 AM »

https://fee.org/articles/political-street-fights-are-a-bad-sign/

https://fee.org/articles/the-rise-of-the-wannabe-street-warrior/
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 761


« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2017, 08:35:55 AM »


It's all fun, games and schoolyard stuff until someone dies. That is what will separate the wheat from the chaff.

I doubt anyone present in Berkely had any real experience with violence or brutality.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2017, 10:56:32 AM »

It would appear that such may be the case all too soon:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/antifa-leftist-terror-group-selling-concealed-knives-slicing-conservatives-website/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2017, 02:28:18 PM »

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=74891
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2017, 06:18:58 PM »

second post
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-22/antifa-upset-not-being-able-punch-nazis-without-consequences
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2017, 06:53:46 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPnHh2KKLk0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKZ_E0QvYA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSMz0pcrM18
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 07:05:28 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2017, 10:00:57 PM »

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/a-chilling-threat-of-political-violence-in-portland/524334/

A Chilling Threat of Political Violence in Portland
Activists threatened to drag local Republicans off a parade route if they weren’t excluded from a local celebration. Organizers cancelled the entire event in response.


A protester holds a sign during a demonstration in Seattle.Ted S. Warren / AP

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF  2:31 PM ET 

On the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated, perhaps 3 million Americans took to the streets in peaceful protest to register their opposition. When news of his travel ban broke, I stood at LAX watching Angelenos sing the Star Spangled Banner and Amazing Grace. Across the nation, peaceful protest against President Trump continues. But a violent fringe has been using Trump’s rise as a justification for political violence, as if his authoritarian impulses justify authoritarianism from his opponents.

This tiny faction knows that most of their compatriots on the left are committed to nonviolence, so they frame their aggressive actions as a narrow exception to the rule.

Most famously, they insisted that it was okay, or even righteous, to punch white supremacist Richard Spencer because he was “a Nazi.” That position impels the debate down a slippery slope. And now, activists in Oregon caused the cancellation of the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, a community event in the southeast quadrant of Portland, by threatening to forcibly drag “fascists” off the parade route if they weren’t excluded.




Who exactly did they want removed from the parade? The local Republican Party of Multonomah County. The Oregonian reports on the threat the leftists sent to organizers:

"You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely," the anonymous email said, telling organizers they could cancel the Republican group's registration or else face action from protesters.
The email went on to speculate that right-wing extremists would march among the Republicans, and warned, “we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward lgbt, immigrants, people of color or others.”

A local alt-weekly quoted from a Facebook event page describing a perhaps different planned protest––its authors say that they did not send the threatening email––which stated:

The fascists know that we'll keep shutting their marches down, they are now planning to march within other parades to protect their message of hate and white supremacy - it WON'T work. Nazis will not march through Portland.

The group we're disrupting is #67. It is registered to the Multnomah County Republicans, but these infiltrators are the same folks from Lake Oswego, Salem, Vancouver, and even Berkeley. These are the folks that attacked a woman at PDX, they harassed Latinx parishioners with slurs and threats at a local church, they spew hate, threaten and curse young women at women's health clinics. They seek to intimidate and harass our Latinx, Muslim and LGBTQ+ neighbors and friends. Their Trump flags, their red MAGA hats and their hate group badges are all intended to normalize support for an orange man who bragged about sexually harassing women and who is waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice against our Muslim, Latinx, Black and Native neighbors. They will attempt to march from the Eastport Plaza to Yamhill, but nazis will not march through our city.
If you missed that, one reason these protesters cite as justification for stopping Republicans on a parade route is that they will otherwise “normalize support” for a sitting president.


Organizers caved. “Following threats of violence during the Parade by multiple groups planning to demonstrate at the event, we can no longer guarantee the safety of our community and have made the difficult decision to cancel the Parade,” they stated.

The local GOP put out its own statement. It reads in part:

The Multnomah County Republican Party (MCRP) has for many years participated in the Parade, and calls upon the Mayor, the Police Chief, and the District Attorney to take action against this criminal conspiracy to commit crimes of riot and disorderly conduct in violation of Oregon law.

Under former Mayor Charlie Hales the City allowed this cancer of lawlessness to grow to the point where its leaders are now bragging, like some sort of comic book characters, that ‘the police cannot stop us’. But this is no laughing matter. The participation of political parties in public events like the Parade is not only an American tradition, but also reflects the most fundamental constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of assembly.

The road to fascism begins with armed gangs of thugs using violence to shut down opposing points of view. The question now is whether the City of Portland will be complicit in such conduct. We hope the City’s new leadership has the courage to respond to these threats appropriately.
So long as threats of violence succeed in causing events to get shut down by their risk-averse organizers, more threats will be made. One wonders who this faction on the left will next label a Nazi or a fascist in order to justify their own use of fascistic tactics.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2017, 01:38:07 AM »

http://www.freemarketcentral.com/post/6738/antifa-terrorist-punches-reporter-then-watch-what-happens-watch
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7109


« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2017, 06:38:38 AM »

Hurray for the GW police!
I went there years ago.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2017, 05:56:51 PM »

http://nypost.com/2017/04/27/alt-right-group-tries-to-build-small-street-army/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2017, 07:40:59 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/28/l-a-police-commission-makes-violent-protests-like-uc-berkely-more-likely/

L.A. Police Commission Makes Violent Protests Like UC-Berkeley More Likely
BY JACK DUNPHY APRIL 28, 2017

University of California, Berkeley police guard the building where Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak. (AP Photo/Ben Margot, File)
Imagine you’re at work one day when your boss calls you into his office. "Uh oh," you think, "this can’t be good." And indeed, despite the gloss he tries to put on it, it isn’t. The company has adopted a new policy, he tells you, one that will change the way you are evaluated in the performance of your duties.

There are new criteria to be used, criteria designed not to measure how well you performed a given task, but rather to inform you that, no matter how well things may have turned out for you and your company, you should have performed it differently. What’s worse, the judgment will be made not by your peers, your superiors, or even by people in your line of work, but rather by people who have never done your job – and couldn’t if their very lives depended on it.

If you didn’t quit on the spot, you would very likely look askance at your boss and this nonsense he’s peddling. And you would return to your office in the discomfiting knowledge that the place is being run by imbeciles.

 
You now have a sense of what it’s like to be a police officer in Los Angeles these days.

I have often written of the politics of Los Angeles, one of the more peculiar aspects of which is that the city’s police department is overseen by five mayoral appointees to the police commission. In addition to setting policy, the commission is vested with the authority to determine the propriety of an officer’s use of deadly force.

In making these determinations, the commissioners weigh not only an officer’s decision to fire his weapon, but also the tactics he used as the incident unfolded. And, even though an honest appraisal of such an incident would presumably require a certain level of experience and expertise, not one of these commissioners has ever served so much as a single day as a police officer.

Last October, I wrote in this space on the current fashion of police “de-escalation,” i.e., the avoidance of using force in restoring order, obtaining compliance, and making arrests. Like all fashions, this one was inspired by ephemeral considerations, to wit, mostly ill-informed opinions on high-profile police use-of-force incidents recently seen in Los Angeles and across the country. The Los Angeles police commissioners, five of the most ill-informed people you’re ever likely to find in one room, recently codified this fashion in the form of a new use-of-force policy for the LAPD.


Latest Fad in Policing: "De-escalation"
In truth, the new policy (PDF) is not at all a drastic departure from the one it replaces. The changes amount to no more than a few words, these intended to emphasize the desire for alternatives, if any are available, to the use of deadly force. So it is not the policy itself that officers find objectionable. Rather, it is the knowledge that their fate may one day rest in the hands of the people whose idealistic notions of police work cannot be squared with how police work is actually performed.

In my October piece, I linked to this Los Angeles Times article concerning the September 2015 shooting of Norma Guzman, who was killed while approaching officers with an 8-inch knife. Though LAPD Chief Charlie Beck ruled the shooting to be “in-policy,” the commission disagreed, arguing that the first officer to fire on Guzman should have “redeployed” to a safer place.

And this is where the commissioners’ lack of real-world experience becomes obvious and alarming. They disapproved of the outcome, so they propose that different actions by the officer would have resulted in a better one. But in doing so they fail to consider what might have happened had the officer done what they think he should have.


 
In the video accompanying the Times’s story, we can see that the passenger officer alights from the police car and apparently spots Guzman walking toward him. He draws his weapon and, we are told, orders her to stop and drop the knife. She fails to comply and is shot when she gets to within about ten feet of the officer.

The driver officer, having exited the police car and come around the rear, also fires as he sees Guzman approaching his partner. In the commissioners’ imagination, the passenger officer should have distanced himself from Guzman before firing. But consider that in doing so, he would also have distanced himself from his partner, whose view of Guzman was momentarily blocked by the police SUV.

One can easily imagine a scenario in which the passenger officer “re-deploys” only to expose his unwary partner to the danger posed by Guzman. What’s more, this scenario might easily have resulted in Guzman being between the officers, thus creating the danger of deadly cross-fire.

What’s more, had the passenger officer “re-deployed,” the commission’s euphemism for “run away,” he may have violated the LAPD policy that prohibits partners from separating. Had he done so and left his partner to face Guzman alone, the commission surely would have found fault with either officer or both if Guzman had been shot.

It’s one thing for police officers to critique the actions of their peers with the aim of improving safety, it’s quite another to have five political appointees with no relevant experience taking months to evaluate decisions officers must make in an instant. No less authority than the U.S. Supreme Court has made this clear, ruling in Graham v. Connor (1989) that “the ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

UC Berkeley's Police Chief Offers Terrible Excuses for Her Failure
In the current climate, hindsight on police matters abounds, and the acuity is most often less than 20/20, with the L.A. police commission perhaps in need of a long white cane and a seeing-eye dog. And with all this myopic second-guessing comes the apparent reluctance among some police managers to uphold the law whenever there is a risk of a violent encounter with those who are breaking it. The most notable recent example can be found on the campus of the University of California, in Berkeley, where the campus police chief so disgraced herself at the Milo Yiannopoulos event earlier this year.

Following that disgrace, I offered some advice to her and her campus overseers on how to handle a visit to the campus by Ann Coulter, who was scheduled to speak on April 27. Already the campus officials have embarrassed themselves once more, first by rescinding the invitation to Coulter, then by rescheduling her appearance to a date during the week before final examinations.

In first canceling the event, university officials said it was “not possible to assure that the event could be held successfully — or that the safety of Ms. Coulter, the event sponsors, audience and bystanders could be adequately protected.” In this they admit their own ineptitude and their unwillingness to accept the fact that in order keep these people safe they may have to use force against those who threaten them.

It’s quite simple: Announce that the law will be enforced, then do it. Perhaps this is too much to ask these days.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2017, 01:37:11 AM »

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/antifa-thugs-unmasked-in-alabama
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2017, 11:11:35 AM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/369504.php

April 30, 2017
The Mask Is Coming Off, And They Don't Care.
They used to hide it. Hell, the Soviet Union spent billions of rubles on disinformation and supporting organizations that were publicly neutral or soft-left but in reality were fronts for the Soviet's robust efforts to undermine Western Democracies, most of all the United States. But now there seems to be little desire to hide the progressive Left's efforts to destroy democracy and freedom in this country.

Academic Malfeasance: U. Of Arkansas Disinvites Phyllis Chesler is a sordid tale of exactly what many of us suspect the Left does behind closed doors, but here they don't even bother to shut the door, and in fact don't seem to care that the intercom was broadcasting their fascist plots.

Free Speech isn't complicated. Government (here in the form of a state university) has no business regulating speech in any form short of clear and unambiguous calls for violence. But they don't care.

And lest you think they were going after a crypto-conservative, this professor was a member of a loony-tunes hard-left socialist organization called "Hashomer Hatzair," and trust me, they are hard-core. And nuts. But definitely far, far to the left. But she made a fatal error...she is against honor killings and genital mutilation, and that just can't be tolerated, because those are the tools of the Islamists, who are at the vanguard of those who would destroy the West.

The latest speaker to be "disinvited" from an American college is prominent feminist scholar Phyllis Chesler, whose participation in a University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, symposium on honor killing earlier this month was withdrawn days before the event. Behind the cancellation lies a sordid tale involving faculty machinations, threats from a dean, and at least one shattered window. Together, they offer a case study on the intellectual and moral corruption of academe.
And to the surprise of no one with more than two functioning synapses, The neo-fascists of American academia were being supported by some rather more hands-on fascists, the militant Islamists who are quickly becoming embedded in our universities, thanks to lots and lots of oil money.

The university has a chapter of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a Saudi-founded organization that promotes Islamist propaganda -- including Islamic supremacism, opposition to women's rights, hostility toward America, and anti-Semitism -- on campuses nationwide. That Islamists played a role in cancelling Chesler's talk is revealed in a professor's April 7 email stating that he anticipated "campus Muslim organizations would get involved" and "a Muslim RSO [Registered Student Organization] might be involved too."
Trumped up charges, low-level violence, manipulation of the academic-political process...this is an all-too familiar playbook.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2017, 10:20:30 AM »

http://blog.suarezinternational.com/2017/05/antifa-the-new-enemy.html

ANTIFA - THE NEW ENEMY
Monday, May 01, 2017

PJBCC-youtube-SS

#Invalid YouTube Link#

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CywFbSdMVx0





Now some perspectives -

Yes, these people are ridiculous...right now...and this particular group. Standing and watching from our "gentleman killer/warrior scholar" perspective, we sneer at their poor marksmanship and silly antics. But let us not forget...the sin of underestimating your enemies is a profound one for which the penalty is usually death.

Let's recall the "poorly trained" and marginally skilled rear echelon pogue that in essence, kicked the ass of one of the largest police departments in the nation for a few hours last year. Not to mention the San Bernardino and Orlando jihadists who I suspect would be in the lower 25% of skill of most in the gun community. They seem to have done quite well with some very basic skills and whole nutsack-full of conviction and initiative.

As well...not all skilled shooters, former soldiers/cops, etc. are dyed in the wool conservatives. We will recall one gent from Atlanta that was an aspiring instructor whom we canned after his ties to the BLM were discovered. Their side has skilled personnel, just like ours. So I urge caution and avoidance of underestimation based on a few silly people in a video.

We live in a time of war and a new adversary is making themselves known.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #33 on: May 17, 2017, 08:51:48 AM »

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/05/the_war_of_two_americas.pdf

We are watching it happen in front of our eyes.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2017, 07:32:22 PM »

http://www.dailywire.com/news/16993/oregon-republican-hey-if-police-wont-protect-free-elliott-hamilton
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2017, 07:46:43 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-erupts-in-portland-as-alt-right-anti-fascists-square-off_us_5932c1ebe4b075bff0f3dc8c?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&utm_term=nosplashcard&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2017, 08:05:48 PM »


Bigdog?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 40316


« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2017, 03:55:18 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/05/portland-demonstrations-erupt-violence-thanks-usual-suspects/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2017, 04:02:02 PM »


I am surprised Portland PD was allowed to make arrests.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #39 on: June 07, 2017, 12:51:54 AM »

http://thedeclination.com/book-review-kurt-schlichters-indian-country/

Book Review: Kurt Schlichter’s Indian Country
by Dystopic | Jun 1, 2017 | Culture War, Fiction, Reviews, SJWs, War | 18 comments

If you’ve long felt the country coming apart at the seems, fracturing along its ideological breakpoints, you aren’t alone. Right or Left, it’s not hard to see it. The Internet is chock full of vitriol and hatred between the the camps. In meatspace, the peace was often maintained by deliberately looking the other way, or just keeping quiet.
But now, with the rise of Donald Trump, even meatspace is becoming hostile politically. I’ve lost many personal friends, and I’ll probably lose more. There are riots in streets, and graffiti right down the road from me that says “Kill Whitey – Black Lives Matter.” Hoax or true, who knows? But God knows you didn’t see things like that in my town even a year ago.

We’re heading to a dark place as a nation, presuming we even last much longer as a nation. I don’t know. When I read Kurt’s first book in this series, People’s Republic, I was instantly struck with how plausible and realistic the world he constructed felt.

In his new book, Indian Country, this world is taken up to the eleven. You see what it would actually be like to live in a time when the country wasn’t just splitting apart, but had already cut itself to pieces. Make no mistake, the world he describes is so very possible, even likely, that it’s actually something of a frightening read.

In some ways, his writing style reminds me of Tom Kratman, as it should given their broadly similar backgrounds. You can definitely tell that the author served. His description of tactics, the grasp of command, and what it means to fight ring true.

Some trolls on Twitter, usually of the Progressive variety, have taken to calling him a stupid “jagoff” on Memorial Day, but they only prove why Kurt’s world feels so realistic. The hatred and vitriol slung his way for just the mere act of writing and promoting this book shows the truth of it.

Kelly Turnbull, Kurt’s protagonist, is a fascinating character. At first read, you might think him a simplistic military man, without any real depth. But as you get into the book, you realize that Kelly is a sort of observer of humanity, almost as much a passenger in this story as the reader.

Oh, he’s not a helpless passenger. During the course of the story, he fights, and motivates his men (and yes, they are his men, despite being a motley collection of civilians, cops, and ex-military) to great feats. But the reader gets the sense that though this story takes place in a tiny part of southern Indiana, it’s part of a much wider world that’s slowly but surely going straight to Hell.

There are some memorable characters, and some amusing one-liners here and there, including an old stubborn redneck downing Pabst on the way to a firefight because damnit, the beer was just there, and plenty of jabs at politically correct social justice culture. It’s not Crusader company, damnit, it’s “Caring” company. I guess every tanker is just a caring transsexual overweight otherkin lesbian in disguise. It sounds like the sort of irritating intellectual refuse peddled by your average SJW. Kurt, it would seem, is well acquainted with them.

The villains aren’t cardboard cutouts either. One isn’t really a villain at all, despite his role as a major antagonist. Others, while being comically idiotic zampolits (is there any other kind?), manage to get in their own way more often than not.

Indian Country is a book I couldn’t put down. It was at times, entertaining, horrifying, real, and utterly insane. And it’s a thing that may come to pass sooner or later. Kurt intends this book to be a warning. Perhaps he, like some of my friends (Sarah, I’m looking at you), believe we can still avert the coming crisis.

Me? I’m a cynic and a pessimist. Not so different from Kurt’s protagonist, in this respect. When I read Indian Country, I feel like I’m reading a history of the near future.
Wherever you might stand on the future of our country, all I can say is, this book is powerful beyond my ability to describe it, and I give it the strongest possible endorsement.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 11:20:29 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2017, 03:25:36 PM »

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/evergreen-state-college-is-having-issues-with-roaming-bands-of-bat-wielding-vigilantes/?mod=sm_tw_post
Bat-Wielding Mob of Left-Wing Students Are ‘Community Policing’ Evergreen College
Home Culture Wars
By William Hicks | 1:39 pm, June 6, 2017
 
READ MORECOLLEGE
Evergreen State College erupted in protest two weeks ago when a biology professor Bret Weinstein spoke out against a social justice event that coerced white students and faculty to leave campus.

Since then, the Olympia, Washington, campus has devolved into chaos, while the school administration cowers and capitulates to student mob rule.

Things are getting so bad that the school is having issues with a group of bat-wielding vigilantes seeking to “community police” the campus. The school was shut down Monday because of acts of vandalism and window smashing the previous night.

On Sunday, an official at Evergreen sent a letter (obtained by College Fix) to students, urging them not to carry bats while they roam the campus.

Dear RAD Students,

We are aware of a small group of students coordinating a community patrol of housing and campus. We acknowledge and understand the fear and concerns that are motivating these actions. We also understand that these students are seeking to provide an alternative source of safety from external entities as well as those community members who they distrust.

Community patrols can be a useful tool for helping people to feel safe, however the use of bats or similar instruments is not productive. Some members of this group have been observed carrying batons and/or bats. Carrying bats is causing many to feel unsafe and intimidated. The bats must be put away immediately in order to protect all involved. Non-students participating in this activity are advised to leave campus.
One of the demands made by protesters is to abolish the campus police and replace it with student-led community policing. This kind of bat-wielding vigilantism is the warped extension of this idea.

Weinstein, the professor at the center of the shit storm, is claiming some students were even hit, but says they won’t report it to the police.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
 Follow
 Bret Weinstein @BretWeinstein
Credible reports protestors w/ bats roaming campus for 2 days. People hit, won't report. @heathereheying students & I warned @GovInslee 5/25
4:00 PM - 5 Jun 2017
  735 735 Retweets   864 864 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Last Thursday, a group of students was accosted by members of this mob, one of them carrying a bat.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2017, 02:44:44 PM »

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/06/08/stop-lying-to-us-n2337434

Stop Lying To Us
 Kurt Schlichter |Posted: Jun 08, 2017 12:01 AM  Share (2K)   Tweet


The most significant revelation that came out of the most recent London massacre of disarmed British subjects was not the bloodshed itself, but the pathetic sissy whining, in the midst of throats being slashed, at the Brit who refused to adhere to the comforting lie that the Muslims doing the slashing in the name of Allah were not Muslims doing the slashing in the name of Allah.

The left would rather you lie and die than tell the truth and live.

It’s exhausting being lied to 24/7 about the big issues, and don’t start with the “but what about Trump?” nonsense because…well, what about Trump?

Does Trump pretend that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam because to admit the Islamic State has something to do with Islam is an admission that the unquestionable idea underlying multiculturalism – that every culture is wonderful except the Western culture that brought about 95 percet of the learning and science that is making the grinding poverty and disease that was heretofore man’s fate a thing of the past – is an utter fraud?

Does Trump pretend that we are morally or scientifically bound by a non-treaty that was non-submitted to our elected representatives to solve the non-problem of climate change at the price of our non-employment and non-prosperity?

Does Trump blame Russians for the utter repudiation of Felonia von Pantsuit’s poisonous ideology of greed and huggy fascism? Does he contend Hillary skipped those icky workin’ folks in Wisconsin and Michigan because Putin tricked her?


I keep trying to find the big Trump “lies” and they always seem to end up being disagreements with liberal orthodoxy.

But for the so-called elite that seeks to rule us, it’s all lies, all day, every day, about everything, since they can’t be honest because we normals reject what they want whenever we are exposed to the truth and are allowed a say. So their go-to move to impose their sick will is to obscure or hide the truth, and try to suppress our voices.

When it comes to terror, they prioritize their cocktail party clichés over our lives. They are willing to accept the risk of dangerous Muslim radicals infiltrating our country rather than admitting the truth and taking action. They refuse to bar people from jihadi hellholes, preferring to virtue signal in an orgy of self-congratulation over their own enlightenment. They refuse to deport scummy anti-American trash like punitive clitoral mutilation advocate Linda Sansour – hell, the liberal feminists have made that sharia-loving refugee from the Seventh Century their heroine.

And, of course, they eagerly seek to ensure patriotic Americans are just as disarmed and helpless as their Euro-victim counterparts. Nothing offends a liberal – especially their cowardly beta boyz – like a proud American with an AR15 shaking his head and saying, “Nope, I’m a citizen, not a subject.”


We reject their plans for our subjugation, so the left seeks to stop our voice from being heard. We elected a guy who, quite reasonably, sought to keep out people from places where a lot of the population wants to murder us, at least until we can get our ridiculous intelligence community capable of adequately vetting them. Of course, that would be done by the same bunch of saps who gave a 25-year old leftist named “Reality Winner” a Top Secret/SCI clearance though her social media feed included a pledge of loyalty to Iran should America find itself at war with those sexually-inadequate freaks. You know, when I got my TS/SCI, they investigated me so intensely that if I had any, they would have detected my colon polyps.

So, we vote for a guy who proposed to stop the refugee madness of King Barack and the left promptly goes to the courts, which invent extra-constitutional justifications for preventing the president from fulfilling his basic function of protecting the people of the United States. And when the president tweets in frustration, the left cheers because it fully expects the courts to again abuse their responsibility – no, a court may not consider material not in the record on appeal (the new tweets are not), and no, a court may not rule against someone just because he offended the judges personally.


Then there are the informal ways the left seeks to protect the lies – the attempts at public shaming, plus the intimidation by political correctness that tells the truth-speaker that his reputation, his job and maybe his physical safety will be in danger if he dares point out that the lies are lies.

The hell with that, and the hell with them.

We’re Americans, and it’s time to push back twice as hard. Confront the lies, call them out. Stand firm in the face of the systemic dishonesty our elite uses to attain, retain, and exercise power.

We are citizens, not subjects. Don’t be that pathetic sissy whining in the midst of throats being slashed at other Americans who clearly and unequivocally reject the comforting lie that the Muslims doing the slashing in the name of Allah were not Muslims doing the slashing in the name of Allah. Cease your embarrassing fussing, you gutless dhimmis. Pick up a weapon and fight.

No, they would rather you lie and die than tell the truth and live. But unless we choose not to stand up for ourselves, our families and our Constitution, we still get a say.


And we should say, “Hell no.”

The elite wants you to submit.

Run. Hide. Tell.

Never. We’re Americans. We don’t submit to intimidation and oppression, and certainly not to impotent jihadi schmucks.

Here’s how we roll.

Draw. Aim. Shoot.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2017, 09:39:41 AM »

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-cold-civil-war/

THE COLD CIVIL WAR



By: Angelo M. Codevilla

Posted: April 25, 2017
This article appeared in: Volume XVII, Number 2

As the Ancients remind us, the statesman’s primary concern must be the good of his own nation. In revolutionary times especially, thoughts, words, and deeds about international affairs must be subordinated to internal needs. That is the primary meaning of “America First.” But because “America First” has an equally compelling meaning internationally, it also implies taking seriously what the United States might do for itself vis-à-vis foreign nations—beyond simply using them as weapons in domestic battles, as so many politicians and commentators do today in what passes for discussion of Russia policy.

America is in the throes of revolution. The 2016 election and its aftermath reflect the distinction, difference, even enmity that has grown exponentially over the past quarter century between America’s ruling class and the rest of the country. During the Civil War, President Lincoln observed that all sides “pray[ed] to the same God.” They revered, though in clashing ways, the same founders and principles. None doubted that those on the other side were responsible human beings. Today, none of that holds. Our ruling class and their clients broadly view Biblical religion as the foundation of all that is wrong with the world. According to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy, or any form of intolerance.”

The government apparatus identifies with the ruling class’s interests, proclivities, and tastes, and almost unanimously with the Democratic Party. As it uses government power to press those interests, proclivities, and tastes upon the ruled, it acts as a partisan state. This party state’s political objective is to delegitimize not so much the politicians who champion the ruled from time to time, but the ruled themselves. Ever since Woodrow Wilson nearly a century and a half ago at Princeton, colleges have taught that ordinary Americans are rightly ruled by experts because they are incapable of governing themselves. Millions of graduates have identified themselves as the personifiers of expertise and believe themselves entitled to rule. Their practical definition of discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, etc., is neither more nor less than anyone’s reluctance to bow to them. It’s personal.

On the other side, some two thirds of regular Americans chafe at insults from on high and believe that “the system” is rigged against them and, hence, illegitimate—that elected and appointed officials, plus the courts, business leaders, and educators are leading the country in the wrong direction. The non-elites blame the elites for corruptly ruling us against our will, for impoverishing us, for getting us into wars and losing them. Many demand payback—with interest.

So many on all sides have withdrawn consent from one another, as well as from republicanism as defined by the Constitution and as it was practiced until the mid-20th century, that it is difficult to imagine how the trust and sympathy necessary for good government might ever return. Instead, we have a cold civil war. Statesmanship’s first task is to prevent it from turning hot. In today’s circumstances, fostering mutual forbearance may require loosening the Union in unfamiliar and unwelcome ways to accommodate differences that may otherwise become far worse.

Taking Sides

Well-nigh the entire ruling class—government bureaucracies, the judiciary, academia, media, associated client groups, Democratic officials, and Democrat-controlled jurisdictions—have joined in “Resistance” to the 2016 elections: “You did not win this election,” declared Tom Perez recently, the Democratic National Committee’s chairman. This is not about Donald Trump’s alleged character defects. The Resistance would have arisen against whoever represented Americans who had voted not to be governed as they have been for the past quarter-century. It is a cold civil war against a majority of the American people and their way of life. The members of the Resistance mean to defend their power. Their practical objective is to hamper and otherwise delegitimize 2016’s winners. Their political objective is to browbeat Trump voters into believing they should repent and yield to their betters. This campaign might break the Trump presidency.

In the meantime, however, it exacerbates the spirit of discontent in the land. In 2016 the electorate, following the pattern it had set in 2010 and 2014 (and even in 2012, except for the presidential election), voted Republican to show its desire to reduce government’s intrusion in American life, to get out from under the ruling class’s socio-economic agenda and political correctness. But the Republican leadership did not and does not share the electorate’s concerns. Cycle after cycle, Americans who vote to “throw the rascals out” get ever more unaccountable rules piled on by the same unelected bureaucrats; and even modest attempts to hold back capillary intrusion into their lives get invalidated by the same judges. They come to believe that the system is rigged. In short, they want to drain the swamp.

Yet such revolutionary sentiments do not amount to a coherent program to reverse the past century’s course. Donald Trump’s promises with regard to the swamp and to restoring America’s greatness would be extraordinarily difficult to keep even were they matched with due understanding and forceful execution. But the ruling class is so big, so pervasive, and so committed to its ideas, that sidelining it, and even more so, undoing its work, would require at least matching its power, pretensions, and vehemence. In other words, it would take raising the temperature of our cold civil war’s right side to match or overmatch the temperature of its left side. Statesmanship’s task, however, is to maximize peace, not strife.

American society has divided along unreconcilable visions of the good, held by countrymen who increasingly regard each other as enemies. Any attempt by either side to coerce the other into submission augurs only the fate that has befallen other peoples who let themselves slide into revolution. It follows that the path to peace must lie in each side’s contentment to have its own way—but only among those who consent to it. This implies limiting the U.S. government’s reach to what it can grasp without wrecking what remains of our national cohesion.

Lincoln’s Example

The events preceding the Civil War, which killed some 10% of military-age American men, may offer some guidance. The conflict loomed for 30 years because Northerners and Southerners wanted to impose their views about slavery, the tariff, and much else on the other. South Carolina had nullified the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Because war was the only way by which it could have been forced to accept the tariffs, President Andrew Jackson and Congress, while threatening the use of force, offered a compromise that effectively let South Carolina get what it wanted out of nullification.

By 1858, America had become a “house divided” by a cold civil war that, Lincoln warned, would lead eventually to total victory for one side or the other. Lincoln left no doubt which side he wanted to prevail. But, until the firing on Fort Sumter left him no other option, he focused on cooling the conflict. He would send no obnoxious officials to the South—effectively agreeing to at least temporary nullification of federal law—though he made clear he would defend federal forts and arsenals in the South. He would faithfully enforce the fugitive slave law in the North, and even consider a constitutional amendment specifically protecting slavery where it existed. He believed that, so long as slavery was not allowed to expand into the territories, regardless of what the Southern states did within their boundaries, the best features of diverse America would triumph in the end.

To this extent, Lincoln was following the standard American way of getting along with people with whom one disagrees. Ever since Roger Williams led his band out of Massachusetts to found Rhode Island, Americans have avoided contention by sorting out into more congenial groups. The Constitution was written to reflect the reality of very different ways of life, united by a common commitment to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and to the supreme law of the land. The waning of agreement among ourselves regarding first principles has increased the need for—and the difficulty of—tolerating differences among ourselves.

As with Lincoln, the practical limits of the U.S. government’s reach should guide its grasp. Of what would similar statesmanship today consist? Much of the heat in contemporary American politics comes from the attempt, principally from the Left but increasingly from the Right as well, to force the entire nation to live in precisely the same way with precisely the same values. Statesmanship should begin by questioning and moderating that tendency.

Accepting Reality

Consider sanctuary cities (and states). Some hundreds of cities in America have declared that they are taking no part in enforcing national immigration laws. The government of great big California has set up an executive office to figure out all the ways in which to evade or just to stiff anything it does not like coming from the Trump Administration. And why not? Practically speaking, the federal government doesn’t have the power to make local officials enforce its rules, or even court judgments, against significant popular opposition. Yes, nowadays every federal agency has its SWAT team. But state or city officials, backed by the voters, can nullify or simply ignore a federal law, regulation, or court order, because countering peaceful nullification is hard—and usually unwise, too. Sending paramilitaries to arrest elected officials or citizens who comply with local law or policy is a blind alley. Yes, President Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce school desegregation after Brown v. Board of Education. But that symbolic act (no resistance, no force, no arrests) succeeded because the government then enjoyed a moral authority that it has since squandered. Nothing like that will ever happen again.

The reality is that, today, the people of California and Massachusetts continue to diverge from those of Texas and the Dakotas in so many ways that applying the administrative state’s formulae to them requires ever more force. Substituting administrative force for waning consensus makes for less national unity, not more. Why not, then, deal with the problem by accepting reality?

Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?

Now that identity politics have replaced the politics of persuasion and blended into the art of war, statesmen should try to preserve what peace remains through mutual forbearance toward jurisdictions that ignore or act contrary to federal laws, regulations, or court orders. Blue states and red states deal differently with some matters of health, education, welfare, and police. It does no good to insist that all do all things uniformly. Why shouldn’t each spend its money and legislate as it wishes? Regarding sanctuary cities, the federal government can, and should, withdraw whatever money such jurisdictions receive from the federal government for the functions in question. Indeed, as jurisdictions on the Left and Right effectively nullify some of the administrative state’s functions, fewer and fewer congressmen and senators will be inclined to maintain those functions. America’s founders had learned from the history of empires that keeping diverse peoples under the same roof requires interfering as little as possible with their views of themselves and of the good. Time to relearn federalism.

The limits to such forbearance are set by the Declaration of Independence’s requirement that no one may rule another without his consent; such unity as may be possible, therefore, has to result from the politics of persuasion. Today, states and cities ruled by the Left are seizing disproportionate influence in national politics by counting the votes of non-citizens. California issued drivers’ licenses—de facto voter registration—to a million illegals. Countless localities, such as New York City, Detroit, and Florida’s Broward County, do similar things. A few million votes here and there add up to a wall protecting today’s ruling class as it imposes itself on the rest of the country. Because this fraud so threatens the body politic’s integrity, a federal law requiring positive proof of citizenship for voting in federal elections is a sine qua non of continued national cohesion.

The Common Defense

Revolution narrows statesmanship’s focus to first principles regarding foreign affairs, too. The fundamentals never change: foreign policy must serve internal needs first. It must speak softly and carry a big stick. In revolutionary times or times of profound discord, this approach is especially important: minimize interference in others’ affairs so as to minimize occasions for others’ interference in ours, and maintain such military capacity as would discourage anyone from taking advantage of our temporary distraction. The overarching challenge is to secure such respect from other peoples as may be needed to live safely and without interference as our body politic secures internal peace.

George Washington’s Farewell Address stressed the priority of avoiding foreign commitments that set Americans against one another, encouraging them to be partisans of contending foreign causes. Contrary to Washington’s warnings, U.S. foreign policy has oscillated between support for, and opposition to, governments and factions entangled in the Middle East’s perennial struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Like its predecessors, the Trump Administration seems preoccupied, for example, with the question of which sect will hold the mayoralty of Mosul. But attention to such questions exacerbates divisions that already exist among Americans. Our incapacity to make lasting changes in other peoples’ arrangements with one another continues to subtract from the respect that we Americans need in order to secure ourselves from foreign interference at a time when this is crucial. The same is true of official U.S. pronouncements on world events that are not of our making and are beyond our control. They bark without biting, furthering contrasting reactions among Americans and increasing foreigners’ contempt for us all.

We should take to heart Washington’s injunction to treasure and defend America’s peculiar—yes, exceptional—nature and circumstances. Military preparedness naturally unifies Americans of disparate views insofar as it is directed to “the common defense.” Since political divisiveness results from suspicions that our military power is directed to partisan ends, military power can contribute mightily to national unity by focusing unambiguously on protecting Americans and killing those who harm us. In this regard, nothing has ever enjoyed so near-unanimous support as defense against ballistic missile attack. Most Americans mistakenly believe it already exists, and strain to comprehend why U.S. policy remains not to raise any obstacles whatever to Russian and Chinese missiles hitting our country. Americans of all sorts (elites of a certain age excluded) could unite around missile defense as essential to themselves and to their neighbors.

Revolutions end when a coherent, persuasive idea of the common good returns to the public mind. Only then can statecraft be practiced rationally, as more than a minimalist calling designed to prevent the worst from happening.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2017, 08:56:22 AM »

http://www.jammiewf.com/2017/gop-rep-steve-scalise-staffers-shot-during-congressional-baseball-practice-shooter-dead/

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7109


« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2017, 09:17:31 AM »

Well we have heard the "drive bys" blaming Trump every chance they get for inspiring any violence at all in the US.

Don't expect CNN or Maddow or Waters to tone it down.

There will be the usual call of no violence and then they will then clarify that they have nothing to do with it and then proceed to do everything in thier power to destroy Trump.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2017, 09:19:57 AM »

Well we have heard the "drive bys" blaming Trump every chance they get for inspiring any violence at all in the US.

Don't expect CNN or Maddow or Waters to tone it down.

There will be the usual call of no violence and then they will then clarify that they have nothing to do with it and then proceed to do everything in thier power to destroy Trump.

The left is enjoying it.

https://news.grabien.com/story-left-wing-twitter-celebrates-shooting-rep-scalise
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2017, 10:08:24 AM »

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/james-hodgkinson-alexandria-gop-baseball-shooter-shooting-gunman-identified-illinois/



https://www.facebook.com/jthodgkinson?lst=18506000%3A1350932325%3A1497451717

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2017, 10:12:18 AM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/public-safety/updates-shooting-at-congressional-baseball-practice-in-virginia/acquaintance-describes-campaigning-for-sanders-with-hodgkinson/?utm_term=.75406796b9c7

Acquaintance describes campaigning for Bernie Sanders with shooting suspect

Charles Orear, 50, a restaurant manager from St. Louis, said in an interview Wednesday that he became friendly with James T. Hodgkinson, whom law enforcement officials identified as the shooter, during their work in Iowa on Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. Orear said Hodgkinson was a passionate progressive and showed no signs of violence or malice toward others.

“You’ve got to be kidding me,” Orear said when told by phone. “I met him on the Bernie trail in Iowa, worked with him in the Quad Cities area.”

Orear described Hodgkinson as a “quiet guy” who was “very mellow, very reserved” when they stayed overnight at a Sanders’s supporter home in Rock Island, Ill., after canvassing for the senator.

“He was this union tradesman, pretty stocky, and we stayed up talking politics,” he said. “He was more on the really progressive side of things.”

The Post reached out to Orear after seeing that he liked one of Hodkinson’s Facebook posts.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14813


« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2017, 10:21:25 AM »



Climate of hate.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7109


« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2017, 10:36:15 AM »

Watch .  the media will somehow twist this and blame Trump for this.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!