A. James Gregor, Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism

This book looks useful for my own course prep.

At Amazon, A. James Gregor, Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism: Chapters in the Intellectual History of Radicalism.

'It's Alabama, you'll discover the police behave differently than they do in Berkeley...'

The quote's from Lew Harper's tweet, at Twitchy, "Auburn takes Berkeley to school as police unmask anti-fascists outside Richard Spencer speech."

I don't like Richard Spencer, but neither do I like the so-called "anti-fascists" (who are really fascists).

The Four Issues Driving Trump's Populism

From VDH, at the New Criterion, "Populism, VIII: The unlikeliest populist":

Leftists deride the “bad” populism of angry and misdirected grievances lodged clumsily against educated and enlightened “elites,” often by the unsophisticated and the undereducated. Bad populism is fueled by ethnic, religious, or racial chauvinism, and typified by a purportedly “dark” tradition from Huey Long and Father Coughlin to George Wallace and Ross Perot.

Such retrograde populism to the liberal mind is to be contrasted with a “good” progressive populism of early-twentieth-century and liberal Minnesota or Wisconsin—solidarity through unions, redistributionist taxes, cooperatives, granges, and credit unions to protect against banks and corporations—now kept alive by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Good leftwing populism rails against supposedly culpable elites—those of the corporate world and moneyed interests—but not well-heeled intellectuals, liberal politicians, and the philanthropic class of George Soros, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, who make amends for their financial situations by redistributing their millions to the right causes.

The Right is similarly ambiguous about populism. “Bad” populists distrust government in sloppy fashion, failing to appreciate the intricacies of politics that understandably slow down change. “Bad” right-wing populists, given their unsophistication and wild emotions, are purportedly prone to dangerous excesses, American-firstism, social intolerance, and anti-capitalist bromides: think the pushback by the Tea Party or the Ron Paul zealots.

In contrast, “good” conservative populists are those who wish to trim the fat off complacent conservatism, reenergize the Republican Party with fresh ideas about small government and a return to social and cultural traditionalism, while avoiding compromise for compromise’s sake. Good populists for conservatives might include Ronald Reagan or even Ted Cruz.

Within these populist parameters, Trump appeared far more the “bad” or “dangerous” populist.

Despite Trump’s previously apolitical and elite background, he brilliantly figured out, even if cynically so, the populist discontent and its electoral ramifications that would erode the Democrats’ assumed unassailable “blue wall” that ran from Wisconsin to North Carolina. In contrast, sixteen other talented candidates, some of whom were far more experienced conservative politicians, over a year-long primary race lacked Trump’s intuition about the potential electoral benefits of courting such a large and apparently forgotten working-class population.

Critics would argue that Trump’s populist strategy was inauthentic, haphazard, and borne out of desperation: he initially had few other choices to win the Republican nomination.

Trump began his campaign with exceptional name recognition and seemingly with ample financial resources. Yet he lacked the connections of Jeb Bush to the Republican establishment and donor base, the grass-roots orthodox conservative movement’s fondness for Ted Cruz, the neoconservative brain trust that allied with Marco Rubio, and the organizations and reputations for pragmatic competence that governors such as Chris Christie, Rick Perry, or Scott Walker brought to the campaign.

Trump never possessed the mastery of the issues in the manner of Bobby Jindal or Rand Paul. Ben Carson was even more so the maverick political outsider. Nor was Trump as politically prepped as his fellow corporate newcomer Carly Fiorina. Despite his brand recognition, Trump’s long and successful experience in ad-hoc reality television, millions of dollars in free media attention, and personal wealth, he started the campaign at a disadvantage and so was ready to try any new approach to break out of the crowded pack—most prominently his inaugural rant about illegal immigration.

By 2012 standards, Trump, to the degree he had voiced a consistent political ideology, would likely have been considered the most liberal of the seventeen presidential candidates. In the recent past he had chided Mitt Romney for talking of self-deportation by illegal immigrants, praised a single-payer health system, and had at times campaigned to the left of both the past unsuccessful John McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns. Yet in 2016 Trump found a way to reassemble the remnants of what was left of the Tea Party/Ross Perot wing of the Republican Party.

Such desperation might explain his audacity and his willingness to campaign unconventionally if not crudely. Yet it does not altogether account for Trump’s choice to focus on what would become four resonant populist issues: trade/jobs, illegal immigration, a new nationalist foreign policy, and political correctness—the latter being the one issue that bound all the others as well. Trump’s initial emphasis on these concerns almost immediately set him apart from both his primary opponents and Hillary Clinton...

 Keep reading.

The Left's Outrage Fatigue Problem

Heh.

This is the best.

At Politico, "The Democrats face up to their Trump problem: The base is eager to protest the president, but elected leaders worry about outrage fatigue":

The Democrats face up to their Trump problem https://t.co/7uBvc0WlN5 pic.twitter.com/5dR52DAhXe

— POLITICO (@politico) February 5, 2017

Democrats don’t know how long they’ll be able to keep up the pace of protests against President Donald Trump — and they’re worried Trump and his team are counting on them to run out of energy before the White House does.

Two weeks into the Trump administration, party leaders have already reached a frantic, fevered pitch, throwing around talk of constitutional crisis and raising the specter of impeachment.

“The thing that we don’t want to do is anesthetize the public with dozens and dozens of press conferences and marquee events,” said Seattle Mayor Ed Murray. “Then it’ll just become background noise. I’m worried that’s exactly what they’re trying to maneuver us into doing.”

Democrats are having as much trouble defusing Trump now that he’s in the White House as they did all through last year’s campaign. Murray said he’s seen neither a clear understanding among leaders in Washington of how far left their base has careened in just the past few weeks nor the emergence of any infrastructure among progressive groups for turning what’s going on in the streets into concerted opposition.

“The question is: How do we respond beyond that?” Murray said. “I’m a little worried that we’re not there.”

House Democrats head to their retreat in Baltimore this week trying to come up with an answer.

“Some people on social media are already saying, ‘Yes! Impeach the guy.’ No. I think any time you’re talking about impeachment, which is historically extremely significant, that is not something you do on a whim,” said Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas), explaining that he used the word himself earlier in the week as a warning of where things might go. “I think our response should be reasonable, it should not be exaggerated — but we fundamentally have to protect the integrity of the republic.”

Some of his colleagues will boycott Trump’s address before a joint session of Congress at the end of the month. Others are planning to go but come up with a way to protest that makes a splash. They’re trolling, referring to “President Bannon” in the hopes of goading Trump into sidelining Steve Bannon, his chief strategist, if he thinks people are seeing him as a puppet.

“I plan on being there at this point in time, I think it’s part of my responsibility,” said Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “I’m there to witness and hear what he has to say, and respond in kind.”

“We are going to continue to be the bulwark against the man. We’re going to stop him at every opportunity we have,” Crowley added. “This is going to be a gift that keeps on giving in some respects.”

Democrats are mobilizing around Republican members' town halls to protest Obamacare repeal. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) is demanding that Mar-a-Lago, Trump's exclusive club in Florida, release its members list.

Some are trying other strategies of chipping away at Trump’s authority. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) says he’s looking to hit the House staffers who worked with the White House on crafting the travel ban and signed nondisclosure agreements that he says made them into employees of the administration too. “Sounds like double-dipping to me,” Gutiérrez said in an interview off the House floor on Wednesday. “There might be a law against that.”

But Democrats readily acknowledge Trump won last year in part by sparking so many simultaneous outrages among the left that they all blended together. Trump’s White House so far is following that model...

Keep reading --- and relishing the flailing idiot leftists.

Owner of Twelve Rounds Brewing Company Apologizes for Facebook Rant Slamming 'Women's March' Against Donald Trump

I suspect I'd be pretty much completely apolitical if I was a business owner, knowing that my views would get me targeted by the left's fascist thought police.

But this dude Daniel Murphy, owner of Twelve Rounds Brewing, must've thought he enjoyed a right to free expression under the new regime. He thought wrong, and has apologized profusely (to save his business, obviously).

At Breitbart, "Investors Dump Brewery After Facebook Post Opposing Women’s March."

And at the Sacramento Bee, "Can Twelve Rounds survive a social media disaster that turned off customers?":

Hey ladies, the owner of 12 Rounds brewery in Sacramento has some special feedback on the Women's March ... pic.twitter.com/RpdBvd8VpE

— Nick Miller (@NickMiller510) January 24, 2017

Why do voicemails about 12 Rounds Brewing keep saying owner has right to say what he said? That misses the point. https://t.co/48nz3YzaT7

— Blair A. Robertson Ⓥ (@Blarob) February 5, 2017

Do craft beer patrons have a certain political bent? Are they likely to be more liberal, moderate or conservative? Do they wear way more plaid flannel shirts than the general population?

If you’re in the hospitality industry, here’s the only answer that should matter to you: It doesn’t matter.

When it comes to political views, breweries should have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Arguing about politics, religion and conspiracy theories are simply bad for business.

Understood by most already, this simple lesson came screaming into our collective consciousness nearly two weeks ago when award-winning brewer Daniel Murphy’s personal Facebook posts leaked into the public sphere, beginning with one where he said he was “disgusted” with the Women’s March. To put it charitably, some of Murphy’s other political and social views fall well outside the bounds of polite or even reasonable political discourse.

Can you suggest that the nation’s first black president was actually a Muslim and a traitor without decimating all that good will you’ve spent months building up? Can you use racist terms for Pakistanis? Why would you even go there? All those millennial couples and their cute kids and fluffy dogs I saw sitting outside drinking beer and socializing last summer? They likely don’t want to be connected to that kind of rhetoric.

To be a successful business that optimizes profits and is good for the community, a brewery should be a welcome place for people of all walks of life and political perspectives. This has nothing to do with the First Amendment or one man’s right to give his opinion. It’s Business 101.

Is there a way out of this hole Murphy has dug himself?

I asked straight-shooting Evan Elsberry of the popular restaurant Evan’s Kitchen, which is across 57th Street. He’s been handling the food program for Twelve Rounds – you can place an order from the brewery and have Elsberry’s superb cooking delivered in minutes. Several days ago, he walked across the street to check in with Murphy.

“I told him, ‘I don’t agree with what you said, but I’m going to stand by you as a business owner,’ ” Elsberry told me. “I know the guy personally and feel bad for him. It’s a good business. He just really messed up.”

Elsberry has seen the short-term spike in attention. He’s even benefited from it.

“In the last four days, I was swamped with orders from the brewery. It’s not hurting his business yet, but it’s going to catch up to him.”

A new company, Disrupt Marketing, was so intrigued by Twelve Rounds’ predicament that company co-founder Soreath Hok, a former news producer at KCRA Channel 3, wrote a detailed Facebook post with an abundance of excellent advice. She says the brewery needs to create personal, sincere videos that address those who feel let down or insulted by Murphy’s posts. Here’s an excerpt...

Keep reading.

This isn't the same as arguing for religious freedom. I'd be more behind this guy if he was saying he wasn't going to cater some homosexual wedding. But this is Facebook. You're just putting your views out there, throwing caution to the wind. I think he learned his lesson. He wants to stay in business. He's going to be buttoning it up.

Ben Garrison Milo Yiannopoulos Cartoon

More cartoons later with my Sunday roundup.

Meanwhile, here's the great Ben Garrison, keeping with our weekend theme of left-wing fascism:

New #BenGarrison #cartoon #VirtueSignaling #berkeley Style #berkeleyRiots #MiloYiannopoulos more at https://t.co/Oj98iIxEAZ pic.twitter.com/knRH16rwRW

— BenGarrison Cartoons (@GrrrGraphics) February 3, 2017

Heh: CNN's Marc Lamont Hill Can't Name One Example of Right-Wing Rioters on Campuses

That's because "right-wing rioters" is an oxymoron.

Heh.

At Instapundit, "WELL, TO BE FAIR, NEITHER CAN ANYONE ELSE: CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill Can’t Name One Example of Right-Wing Rioters on Campuses."

Tomi Lahren: Antifas 'Claim to Stand Against Hate, Intolerance, and Bigotry ... Are All About Love, Tolerance, and Acceptance, Unless It Offends Them...' (VIDEO)

Here's the lovely Tomi Lahren, at Faceook, "I Stand with Milo."



PREVIOUSLY: "Lauren Southern: A Right Wing Call to Self-Defense (VIDEO)."

We're going to have to fight back against these thugs. Simple as that.

Lauren Southern: A Right Wing Call to Self-Defense (VIDEO)

She's a cool chick.

And following-up, "Only 'Antifas' Allowed 'Free Speech'."

Berkeley Riots Provoked by Freedom Center Campaign (VIDEO)

David Horowitz appears on Lou Dobbs' show, at the video.

And here's Matthew Vadum, at FrontPage Magazine, "Berkeley fascists shut down Milo Yiannopoulos’s scheduled anti-sanctuary campus speech":

Leftist UC Berkeley students and outsiders rioted last night to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from delivering a David Horowitz Freedom Center-sponsored speech demanding the end of “sanctuary campuses” that harbor illegal aliens. Milo's address, which was canceled amid violent mob attacks, fire-setting, and wanton property destruction, had been scheduled to mark the launch of the Freedom Center’s #nosanctuarycampusforcriminals campaign.

“One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down,” Yiannopoulos, tech editor at Breitbart News, said after being safely evacuated from the campus.

“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republicans member told SFGate as smoke bombs exploded nearby. He said paint was thrown on his person. “It’s sad.”

“The so-called ‘sanctuary movement’ is a concerted effort by left-wing administrations in major cities to thwart the purposes of the Patriot Act, undermine federal immigration law, and cripple the efforts of the Department of Homeland security to protect American citizens from terrorist threats,” David Horowitz, founder and CEO of the Freedom Center, said on Jan. 31.

“Thanks to the efforts of left-wing activists and administrators, this seditious movement has now spread to our colleges and universities.”

Backed by the Freedom Center, Yiannopoulos, an outspoken gay, Jewish, Greek-born British citizen who ardently supports President Trump, was on campus to demand that federal grants to UC Berkeley be withdrawn and that university officials like UC President Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks who endanger their students with their illegal alien-shielding policies be prosecuted.

UC President Napolitano, formerly President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, is under the microscope because, as head of the taxpayer-supported University of California system, she is deliberately harboring hundreds of illegal aliens attending UC system schools. She has forbidden campus police from working with immigration law enforcement and provided $5 million to aid the illegals UC is sheltering from ICE.

The University of California system even provides legal aid to illegal alien students who wish to keep breaking U.S. immigration laws.

The executive director of the University of California Undocumented Legal Services Center at the UC Davis School of Law explained to Rolling Stone in December what a sanctuary campus was.

“Basically it’s a concept that says, ‘You’re safe here, and your immigration status, we won’t ask,’” said Maria Blanco. “’We won’t turn you over. We won’t turn your records over.’”

Not all the rioters were from Berkeley.

Many of those dressed black bloc-style so police can’t identify them appear to be associated with the “antifa” movement. Antifa may be short for anti-fascist but these thugs, usually a mix of anarchists and communists, use violent fascistic tactics against their targets. These terrorists do not tolerate opposing views. Before the riots broke out those gathered carried signs that read “hate speech is not free speech.” Signs from the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PLS) also showed up in Berkeley.

Antifa is also involved in the protests and melees at airports nationwide launched in opposition to President Trump’s Executive Order 13769 which as of Jan. 27 temporarily banned visitors from a handful of terrorism-plagued Muslim nations.

The Berkeley police had reportedly been given a “stand down” order which allowed rioters to generate mayhem. Later when the police declared the throng of troublemakers an unlawful assembly and ordered those present to leave, the mob chanted “you go first!”

After leaving the campus Yiannopoulos reflected on the night’s events in a video on his Facebook page...

Keep reading.

'Antifas' Will Come After You, So-Called 'Liberals' Too

People are going to get killed.

Following-up, "The Old Gray Lady Promotes the Black Bloc: 'Anarchists Vow to Halt Far Right's Rise'."

Seen on Twitter:

Graffiti at BAMFA building #MiloatCal pic.twitter.com/teHOWD3jqL

— Charlotte Kosche (@charlottekosche) February 2, 2017

The Old Gray Lady Promotes the Black Bloc: 'Anarchists Vow to Halt Far Right's Rise'

Following-up, "Only 'Antifas' Allowed 'Free Speech'."

I gotta say this is pretty fascinating. Anarchists and communists brawling with alleged brown shirts. It's like the 1930s, although let's hope not with the same results.

And the Old Gray Lady is playing it up. See, "Anarchists Respond to Trump’s Inauguration, by Any Means Necessary":

Anarchists Respond to Trump’s Inauguration, by Any Means Necessary https://t.co/mXhsPZVZLT

— NYTimes Once (@nytimes_once) February 3, 2017

Who Are the #Anarchists? And why are both Trump and the Democrats so afraid of them? #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/TSI0lDdMB6

— submedia (@submedia) February 4, 2017

The videotaped sucker punch that staggered the white nationalist Richard Spencer on Inauguration Day quickly inspired mockery on social media. But it echoed loudly in an escalating confrontation between extreme ends of the political spectrum.

With far-right groups edging into the mainstream with the rise of President Trump, self-described anti-fascists and anarchists are vowing to confront them at every turn, and by any means necessary — including violence.

In Berkeley, Calif., on Wednesday night, masked protesters set fires, smashed windows and stormed buildings on the campus of the University of California to shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, an inflammatory Breitbart News editor and a right-wing provocateur already barred from Twitter. Five people were injured, administrators canceled the event, and the university police locked down the campus for hours.

That followed a bloody melee in Seattle on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, when black-clad demonstrators — their faces concealed to minimize the risk of arrest — tried to prevent a speech by Mr. Yiannopoulos at the University of Washington, and a 34-year-old anti-fascist was shot and seriously wounded by a supporter of Mr. Yiannopoulos.

The outbreaks of destruction and violence since Mr. Trump’s inauguration have earned contempt from Republicans — including Trump supporters who say it is exactly why they voted for his promises of law and order — and condemnation from Democrats like Berkeley’s mayor, Jesse Arreguín. He called Wednesday’s display “contrary to progressive values” and said it “provided the ultranationalist far right exactly the images they want” to try to discredit peaceful protesters of Mr. Trump’s policies.

But anarchists and anti-fascists, who often make up a small but disproportionately attention-getting portion of protesters, defend the mayhem they create as a necessary response to an emergency.

“Yes, what the black bloc did last night was destructive to property,” Eric Laursen, a writer in Massachusetts who has helped publicize anarchist protests, said, using another name for the black-clad demonstrators. “But do you just let someone like Milo go wherever he wants and spread his hate? That kind of argument can devolve into ‘just sit on your hands and wait for it to pass.’ And it doesn’t.”

Anarchists also say their recent efforts have been wildly successful, both by focusing attention on their most urgent argument — that Mr. Trump poses a fascist threat — and by enticing others to join their movement.

“The number of people who have been showing up to meetings, the number of meetings, and the number of already-evolving plans for future actions is through the roof,” Legba Carrefour, who helped organize the so-called Disrupt J20 protests on Inauguration Day in Washington, said in an interview.

“Gained 1,000 followers in the last week,” trumpeted @NYCAntifa, an anti-fascist Twitter account in New York, on Jan. 24. “Pretty crazy for us as we’ve been active for many years with minimal attention. SMASH FASCISM!”

The movement even claims to be finding adherents far afield of major population centers. A participant in CrimethInc, a decades-old anarchist network, pointed to rising attendance at its meetings and activity cropping up in new places like Omaha.

“The Left ignores us. The Right demonizes us,” the anarchist website It’s Going Down boasted on Twitter. “Everyday we grow stronger.”

Little known to practitioners of mainstream American politics, militant anti-fascists make up a secretive culture closely associated with anarchists. Both reject social hierarchies as undemocratic and eschew the political parties as hopelessly corrupt, according to interviews with a dozen anarchists around the country. While some anarchists espouse nonviolence, others view property damage and even physical attacks on the far right as important tactics...

I hate these people. Anarchists were among the leftist goons that attacked me in Anaheim, in 2014. See, "Cowardly #ANSWER Communists Violently Harass 'American Power' at Anaheim Police Brutality Protest!"

They will resort to violence to shut you down. I've confronted them numerous times, but if you're going to do it, you need to do it in numbers. I'm not going out to cover another one of these events unless I've got a posse with me.

Only 'Antifas' Allowed 'Free Speech'

I've been checking out the "Refuse Fascism" Twitter feed for a couple of weeks now. These people are the real fascists, and they're not shy about it.

According to the collective's editorialists, Milo Yiannopoulos has no free speech rights because "he spews forth hateful, crude, unthinking bigotry and low-level insults against marginalized and oppressed people, and he has a documented record of knowingly unleashing campaigns of harassment, stalking, and threats of violence." (Via Memeorandum.)

This is part of what people need now to strengthen #TheResistance: https://t.co/KjmysJRGdu Read&share. #NoBanNoWall #NoFascistUSA #MiloAtCal pic.twitter.com/raQBlp0tBb

— #NoFascistUSA (@RefuseFascism) February 4, 2017

All of this is false, of course. Even if his comments are "hateful," they're still protected by the First Amendment. Anyone with half a brain knows this (or anyone who wants to be taken seriously).

Indeed, even the far-left Los Angeles Times got it right the other day, when it defended Milo's right to speak at Berkeley. See, "The No Free Speech Movement at Berkeley":

A leaflet circulated at the Berkeley protest said Yiannopoulos has “no right to speak at Cal or anywhere else” because he’s a “tool of Trump’s possessive fascist government."

This is just the latest variation on the age-old argument of the censor that “error has no rights,” or, put another way, that one only has a right to free speech if one is speaking the “truth.” It’s an insidious notion that needs to be opposed in every generation.

Well, leftists don't want free speech. They don't want open debate and discussion, because they don't want their ideas exposed to critical examination (and repudiation). So, instead of engaging their opponents, they seek to destroy them. That's the textbook characteristic of fascism, hence the irony of "refuse fascism." For more on that, see Guy Benson, "Berkeley's 'Anti-Fascism' Protesters Embrace Fascism to Shut Down Free Speech."

@TheRealAmerica_ @Wild_Phil pic.twitter.com/rA7BnbkURE

— Myles Lefleure (@myleslefleure) February 4, 2017

We're in the midst of a political war. The Berkeley riot was just an advanced column of the left's forces of annihilation. The way to respond is with equal force, pushing back through vigorous law and order policies. (Governor Reagan sent in the National Guard at Berkeley in the 1960s. I expect we might be seeing a repeat of that kind of action in the current era, especially if the Trump administration decides to crack down.)

More at Right Wing News, "Who’s Funding the Liberal “Protests”?"

'Don of a New Day'

An unusual symmetry among the New York tabloids.

It's going to be a great day, like a national holiday.

Now this is rare. They match. pic.twitter.com/AKqiYouMWC

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) January 20, 2017

Ivanka Trump Arrives in Washington

What a day.

I don't think I can stay up all night, heh.

I'm at my mom's house. She's going to wake me up just in case. Festivities begin early for those of us on the West Coast.

Arriving in Washington DC with my family. A very special moment! #MAGA #Inauguration2017 pic.twitter.com/whZxJdFiQ3

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) January 19, 2017

Leftists Call for Donald Trump's Assassination on Twitter

This lady's already been reported to law enforcement, and I guess she's wearing her threats (which won't be prosecuted) as a badge of honor.

As of this entry goes live, she's been retweeted 200 times:

With the amount of people who are disgusted by him, what makes him qualified to be our president? SOMEBODY ASSASSINATE HIM BEFORE TOMORROW!!

— Tracy (@tracypickerill) January 19, 2017

PREVIOUSLY: "Assassinating Trump Could Keep Obama in Power (VIDEO)."

ADDED: Scrolling through this woman's feed, she's wished death on Donald Trump before: "I hope he chokes on his chicken."

UPDATE: As you can see, the woman deleted that tweet, but the internet is forever:

HEy @DenverPolice maybe you should have a word with @tracypickerill . pic.twitter.com/Z07Unyc542

— JP Brown (@JPB209) January 19, 2017

Assassinating Trump Could Keep Obama in Power (VIDEO)

I don't like all this talk, and no, "assassinating Trump" wouldn't keep Obama in power. Mike Pence would become president if something happened to him, but why the speculation anyway? It makes me sick.

At Breitbart, "CNN: Assassinating Trump Could Keep Obama Administration in Power."

I seriously don't think we need news reports about designated survivors at this moment. Jeez.

BEYOND EVIL! #CNN assassinating Trump could keep Obama in power! https://t.co/w5fQGHUKi9 #Trump45 @realDonaldTrump @LouDobbs @seanhannity

— Lori Hendry (@Lrihendry) January 19, 2017

'Trump Is an American Hitler'

He's not, but these "refuse fascism" cadres are dead set on the idea.

I am literally praying my ass off tonight. I've been fearing something untoward happening tomorrow.

I watched the inaugural concert moments ago, and President-Elect Trump and his family were behind bullet proof glass. But then he got up to speak to the crowd! I'm like, he's out in the open! He's vulnerable!

I imagine there's more security in D.C. right now than there's even been in American history, even more on hand than there was for all of Barack Hussein's festivities. Will Trump get out of the presidential limo tomorrow and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue?

I imagine he will. I guess I just need to have confidence that the security is rock solid.

I blogged about the "Refuse Fascism" group earlier. Robert Stacy McCain posts a clear incitation to violence, which I can't see how that's protected speech, but whatever: "Come to D.C. Take to the streets. Do not leave with fascists in office."

Trump is an American Hitler. Ppl in the streets 2nite are standing on the right side of history. #TruthTeller #heroes #NoFascistUSA #FloodDC pic.twitter.com/IXauEo0kQL

— #NoFascistUSA (@RefuseFascism) January 18, 2017

Populism Isn't a Threat to Democracy, But a Vibrant Manifestation of It

Following-up, "Fascism vs. Right-Wing Populism."

I don't believe so-called "right-wing populism" is a threat to democracy. What it is is a threat to the morally bankrupt, far-left globalist agenda, and radical progressives across the institutional spectrum, from Hollywood-types, the leftist media, far-left academe, and the radical left's NGO network, working hand-in-hand to delegitimize the grassroots popular surge against the political class, seen in Brexit to Trump and beyond.

The latest case in point is Kenneth Roth, and his piece up at Foreign Policy, "Dark Days: The Global Rise of Populism is a Dangerous Threat to Democracy and Human Rights":

Today the greatest long-term threat to rights is the rise of populism in the West. I describe this worrying trend: https://t.co/n9vXGpIItq

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) January 12, 2017

The global rise of populists poses a dangerous threat to human rights — which exist to protect people from governments. Yet today, a new generation of populists is reversing that role. Claiming to speak for “the people,” they treat rights as an impediment to their conception of the majority will, a needless obstacle to defending the nation from perceived threats and evils. Instead of accepting that rights protect everyone, they encourage people to adopt the dangerous belief that they will never need their rights against an overreaching government claiming to act in their name.

The appeal of the populists has grown with mounting public discontent over the status quo. In the West, many people feel left behind by technological change, the global economy, and growing inequality. Terrorism sows apprehension and fear. Some are uneasy with societies that have become more ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse. There is an increasing sense that governments and the elite ignore public concerns.

In this cauldron of discontent, a certain breed of politician is flourishing by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect or the asylum-seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and cultural preferences of the presumed majority. They scapegoat refugees, immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty. Nativism, xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, and misogyny are on the rise.

But if these voices of intolerance prevail, the world risks entering a dark era. We should never underestimate the tendency of demagogues who sacrifice the rights of others in our name today to jettison our rights tomorrow when their real priority — retaining power — is in jeopardy.

And you know what's coming: When leftists start going off on nativism, xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, misogyny and blah, blah, the dreaded "F" word is just around the corner.

See, more from Roth:

We see a similar scapegoating of asylum-seekers, immigrant communities, and Muslims in Europe. Leading the charge have been Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, but there are echoes of these arguments of intolerance in the Brexit campaign, the rhetoric of Viktor Orban in Hungary and Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland, and far-right parties from Germany to Greece. Throughout the European continent, officials and politicians hark back to distant, even fanciful, times of perceived national ethnic purity, despite established immigrant communities whose integration as productive members of society is undermined by this hostility.

We forget at our peril the demagogues of yesteryear — the fascists, communists, and their ilk who claimed privileged insight into the majority’s interest but ended up crushing the individual. When populists treat rights as an obstacle to their vision of the majority will, it is only a matter of time before they turn on those who disagree with their agenda. Such claims of unfettered majoritarianism, and the attacks on the checks and balances that constrain governmental power, are perhaps the greatest danger today to the future of democracy in the West. They threaten to reverse the accomplishments of the modern human rights movement...

Voices like Roth's are the voices you need to ignore.

Democracy's not under threat. There is no wave of "xenophobia" and "racism." And the so-called "nativist" tide is a righteous populist revolt against the out-of-touch elites in both the U.S. and Europe, who've brought on an unprecedented crisis of jihad terror and political correctness. It's these scourges, and the neo-communist economic policies that go with them --- that threaten world order and the survival of democracy.

Spread the word. Keep fighting for freedom. Make America Great Again!

Refuse Fascism

Following-up from previously, "Fascism vs. Right-Wing Populism."

I think it's important to nail down exactly what we're talking about. Professor Sheri Berman is right that Donald Trump and right-wing populist movements are not fascist. She's wrong when she demonizes Trump and right-wing populists as threat to current democratic norms and institutions.

Getting these things right is particularly important, since the smear of "fascism" is being thrown around like so much confetti on New Year's Eve.

Here's this big push by the leftist interested group "Refuse Fascism," which published a full-page advertisement in today's New York Times.

As I've said, Trump's not fascist. But if leftists keep pushing and pushing, publishing these smears in all the "correct" outlets, then even your non-political teenybopper down at the mall with be denouncing Trump supporters as "fascist" threats to the "democratic order."

Talk about fake news. Sheesh.

See, "Call to Action to STOP Trump and Pence BEFORE they Come to Power."

Call to Action 2 STOP #Trump #Pence BEFORE #J20 published today in @nytimes! Say NO! Read-sign-spread #NoFascistUSA https://t.co/9mZtw9tTBZ pic.twitter.com/DnPAw4PceL

— #NoFascistUSA (@RefuseFascism) January 4, 2017

(Frankly, since the election, the most significant threats to democratic norms --- like the legitimacy of the Electoral College --- have come from the left. But that doesn't matter to all the "correct" people at the "correct" outlets and institutions, like the MSM and academe. Frankly, the truth doesn't matter to the left, unless it's a truth that advances their agenda. We're in for a wild ride.)