C.J. Pearson Endorses Bernie Sanders

C.J. Pearson, the 13-year-old black conservative who became a viral sensation earlier this year after denouncing President Obama on YouTube, has changed his mind about who he’s supporting this presidential election season.

C.J., the former chairman of Teens for Ted Cruz who recently renounced the conservative movement, said Wednesday that he is now endorsing Democratic candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders, CNN reported.

“This election will make a pivotal difference in the future of our nation. If it takes changing your mind to make the right choice as to who should lead our country, I am willing to do it. Screw the optics,” he said. “People are struggling in America. We need the right man in the White House. And in my opinion, that man is Senator Bernie Sanders.”

C.J. said he left the conservative movement due to its “lack of concern over racial discrimination in this country.” (Read more from “C.J. Pearson Endorses Bernie Sanders” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The White House Just Made a Ridiculous Claim of What Will Happen to Trump with His Muslim Ban

By Maya Rhodan. Donald Trump’s statement that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. “disqualifies him from serving as president,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said of the Republican candidate during a press briefing on Tuesday.

“What Mr. Trump said is deeply offensive,” Earnest said. “It’s morally reprehensible. It runs counter to the U.S. Constitution” and threatens national security, he added.

Earnest also slammed Trump’s campaign as a “carnival barker routine” that was rooted “in the dustbin of history.” Earnest said the “question now is about the rest of the Republican party and whether they’re going to be dragged into the dustbin of history with him.” He called on Republicans to condemn a Trump presidency. (Read more from “The White House Just Made a Ridiculous Claim of What Will Happen to Trump with His Muslim Ban” HERE)

___________________________________

Despite Outcry, Muslim Ban Unlikely to Spell Quick Fall for Trump

By Tribune News Service. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. won’t destroy his candidacy; but it would severely threaten the party’s chance at the White House in 2016 if he’s the nominee, GOP strategists and pundits said.

Trump in a statement on Monday called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S. until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” days after a mass shooting in California that authorities say was an act of terrorism by a radicalized Muslim couple.

His plan ignited a firestorm among rival Republicans, Democrats and party chairmen in the three states that will hold the first nomination votes next year. But GOP voters’ antipathy toward Islam and frustration with President Barack Obama, plus competitors’ inability to outmuscle Trump so far, suggest this won’t be the uproar that finally ends his bid and clears the way for a stronger nominee to face Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic standard-bearer.

“Hate Donald Trump all you want, be offended by his proposal all you want, but it is really brilliant politics for Trump right now in the Republican primary and the reactions from the other candidates prove it,” wrote conservative radio host Erick Erickson. Candidates “attacking Trump on his immigration proposals now attacking him on this have done themselves no favors within the primary process” by aligning themselves with Obama on both issues in voters’ eyes.

Trump’s critics have become all too familiar with the pattern: The New York billionaire says something they consider offensive, sexist or racist; prognosticators forecast his downfall; but he stays strong or even rises in GOP polls. The pattern held when Trump trashed migrants from Mexico, attacked Sen. John McCain’s war record and insulted Fox News host Megyn Kelly. (Read more from “Despite Outcry, Muslim Ban Unlikely to Spell Quick Fall for Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Welcome to Barack Obama’s America

In the wake of an Oval Office speech which went over so terribly that it has Politico openly wondering whether the entire form of presidential address is dead, yesterday’s announcement from Donald Trump that he believes the U.S. must block all Muslims from entering the country, “until our countries’ representatives can figure out what’s going on”, finally resolves the question about President Obama’s greatest political legacy.

It is no accident that President Obama’s America has given rise to Donald Trump. It is an America that is more tribalist, where people feel more racially and religiously divided; more politically correct, where people feel less free to speak their minds; and it is an America where trust in the nation’s elites, whose skills are credentialed but unproven, are at historic lows.

These are the wages of progressivism at the end of the day. Big government inevitably leads to government incompetence. That incompetence leads to growing and now dominant distrust – both in government’s basic competence, and in the values of the people who still insist upon it. Our modern elites respond to that rational distrust by smearing it as vile hatred, which further divides and toxifies our politics. And Trump is a perfect personality to exploit these divides, offering the promise of an authoritarian who represents the people in place of an authoritarian who represented the elites.

Consider the news that 965,000 migrants have sought asylum in Germany over the past year. Are jihadists using these refugee flows? Walter Russell Mead:

“Today’s Western elites, in the U.S. as much as in Europe, have never been so self-confident. Products of meritocratic selection who hold key positions in the social machine, the bien-pensant custodians of post-historical ideology—editorial writers at the NY Times, staffers in cultural and educational bureaucracies, Eurocratic functionaries, much of the professoriat, the human rights priesthood and so on—are utterly convinced that they see farther and deeper than the less credentialed, less educated, less tolerant and less sophisticated knuckle-dragging also-rans outside the magic circle of post historical groupthink. And while the meritocratic priesthood isn’t wrong about everything—and the knuckle-draggers aren’t right about everything—there are a few big issues on which the priests are dead wrong and the knuckle-draggers know it.”

(Read more from “Welcome to Barack Obama’s America” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Rubio Campaign’s Unseemly Alinsky Tactics Against Cruz

I was among the first national radio hosts to support Marco Rubio in his uphill Republican primary campaign for the Senate against the unprincipled Florida Governor Charlie Crist. Back then, he ran as an unabashed Tea Party conservative. I also supported Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, among others, in their campaigns against the entrenched GOP establishment. But soon after arriving in Washington, Rubio decided to throw in with these politicians – including John McCain and Lindsey Graham and take an active leadership role in the Gang of Eight fiasco. As he runs for the Republican presidential nomination, Rubio has attempted to redefine his position on immigration yet again, resulting in his utter incoherence on the subject.

Moreover, Rubio’s views on foreign policy are also more in line with McCain-Graham pseudo-conservativism. It is a kind of naïve and radical interventionism, involving endless demands for American ground forces, that President Ronald Reagan would never have supported – and did not. For example, Rubio’s support for the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, joining with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and, of course, McCain and Graham, has not led to democracy. Instead, Libya has become another extremely dangerous and growing stronghold for Islamic terrorists and a direct threat to our country. “Democracy projects” have also led to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, ushering in the current Islamic terrorist state that directly threatens America, as well as the more recent rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which was eventually ousted by the Egyptian military, and so forth. Democracy requires more than an election. It requires, first and foremost, a civil society. I’ve talked about this a great length on my radio program.

But my commentary here is not intended as a thorough analysis of immigration and foreign policies, which may come in a later essay. This is a friendly warning to Marco Rubio and his campaign donors, advisers, and consultants that they cannot wash away some of Rubio’s less than stellar legislative actions and related positions and pronouncements by embracing and unleashing Saul Alinsky-type tactics against Ted Cruz or other conservatives. Such unprincipled ambition has not and will not go unnoticed by conservatives.

Rather than proudly standing on his own record, and contrasting his positions honestly with those of Cruz, the latter of whom is clearly the more conservative and anti-establishment candidate, Rubio and his surrogates have launched a propaganda campaign against Cruz in a deceitful attempt to distort his record. As an activist in Ronald Reagan’s 1976 and 1980 primary and general election campaigns for president, I can tell you this is also something Reagan did not do as he was proud of his record and sought a true battle over ideas with the GOP establishment and liberal Democrats. However, his primary and general election opponents over the years — Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, or Walter Mondale — preferred the route Rubio has now taken – distortion and personal smears.

The “Cruz voted against Israel” Smear

Now let’s get to specifics. Did you know that Ted Cruz is not supportive of Israel? For anyone who has followed Cruz’s career, it would be like accusing Jeff Sessions of supporting amnesty. Oh wait, Rubio has already done that.

The Rubio campaign has also accused Cruz of being weak on immigration, weak on national security, and even supportive of Syria’s Assad! And we conservatives are supposedly so stupid we will fall for all of it!

At each stage, there has been an almost seamless coordination with Republican establishment media at the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine, to do the bidding of the Rubio campaign – no matter how false and preposterous the assertion.

Late last week, the Weekly Standard obsequiously peddled the Rubio campaign attack that Cruz voted to cut funding for Israel’s defense as part of his support for Rand Paul’s budget in 2013. The Rubio transcribers there are claiming that the Paul budget, which balanced the budget in 5 years, “among other cuts, slashed defense funding and international aid, including aid to Israel.”

This is breathtakingly dishonest. Aside from Cruz and Paul, 16 other Republicans, including Mike Lee, Tom Coburn and Jeff Sessions, voted for the budget. The notion that one can pull out any single provision of a massive budget, which doesn’t set policy, in order to attack an opponent is wittingly disingenuous, as witnessed by some of the pro-Israel conservative champions who voted for it.

Indeed, the Weekly Standard omitted that the Paul budget zeroed out all aid to Israel’s enemies and terrorist entities like the Palestinians. If it is fair to say Cruz voted against aid for Israel by supporting the broader Paul budget, it is equally fair to say that Rubio voted to continue aiding anti-Israel governments and terrorists because he opposed the Paul budget. It would then be also equally fair to suggest that Rubio opposes a balanced budget. The Rubio campaign’s notion that Cruz opposes Israel’s Iron Dome program because it was one provision in the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which he voted against, is also absurd. There have been many reasons to oppose the NDAA that include both the policy and the actual process. For example, last year’s 1,648 page NDAA bill was voted on less than two days after the text was posted online and contained a massive federal land grab. Or the time Harry Reid allowed only 2 amendment votes on arguably the most important annual bill. And each time the future of the Iron Dome was not hinging upon passage of this entire bill. Rubio and his media cheerleaders know it.

But we need not focus on one line item of a broader, more important, balanced budget vote. A cursory glance at Cruz’s brief career in the Senate reveals a record of standing for Israel on more fronts and with more force than any other senator in modern history, including Rubio, who is undoubtedly a supporter of Israel as well.

There was perhaps no vote that had a more deleterious effect on Israel than the nomination by Obama of John Kerry for Secretary of State. Rubio supported the nomination and voted to confirm Kerry. Cruz was one of only three Republicans to oppose him. And Kerry has been an unmitigated disaster across a wide range of foreign policy issues.

Cruz’s other pro-Israel actions include:

A bill to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

Using his subcommittee chairmanship to conduct hearings on Obama’s refusal to follow a court order and grant restitution to American victims of terror in Israel.

Introducing legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood, a sister of Hamas, as a terror group.

During the Israel-Hamas war, when Obama imposed a de facto travel embargo on Israel, Cruz shut it down within 24 hours after he threatened to block all State Department nominees from confirmation.

Nobody did more to fight the Iran deal harnessing every messaging tool at his disposal.

Where is Rubio’s Voice?

Which brings us to the next logical question. Cruz has used his committee assignments, legislation, floor speeches, and media appearances to fight against Obama’s war on Israel. By Rubio’s own admission, he has for the most part checked out of the Senate and as such has been MIA for fights on many of these important issues.

Rubio would be wise to focus on what he has done for conservatives on national security or any other issue. But this is where he may be having some difficulty. His record is thin. As I mentioned earlier, Rubio’s major legislative achievement in the Senate was the Gang of Eight travesty. This bill would have created permanent open borders, invited back countless dangerous aliens who were already deported, and created an unlimited new pipeline of immigration and refugees from the Middle East.

To this day, Rubio defends his Gang of Eight role, while simultaneously trying to distance himself from aspects of the bill. Last week, he also refused to vote for Rand Paul’s plan to pause the flow of refugees entering our country from the Middle East or other areas of the world where terrorism is pervasive. Given ISIS’s promise to hide terrorists among refugees, including those from Syria, which they accomplished in the recent slaughter in Paris, and the incompetence of the Obama’s administration’s vetting processes, prudence should have guided Rubio to vote for the Paul plan – if he is the national security hawk he and his media surrogates claims him to be.

Furthermore, the notion that Rubio is little different from Cruz on immigration, as suggested by Rubio and his campaign, ignores the dichotomy between the two of them on every aspect of this issue. Cruz fought tooth and nail to block the Gang of Eight bill. Rubio championed it. Cruz has led the fight against DACA, DAPA, sanctuary cities, and Obama’s lawless refugee policies, while Rubio has remained largely silent. The truth matters.

Rubio’s NSA Hit on Cruz

Rubio has accused opponents of the earlier NSA metadata collection system, in particular Cruz, of being national security doves. In fact, he has even warned them that if the country is attacked as a result of the new law’s judicial review requirement, which was spearheaded by Mike Lee and voted for by, among others, Cruz, they will be responsible for weakening the nation’s defense. Yet there’s not even one example of the earlier metadata collection system stopping terrorism. In the latest terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Rubio fails to mention that despite the telephonic activities, apparently the killers somehow avoided NSA notice. There are honest disagreements about this program, based on legitimate constitutional issues, but to insist that constitutional conservatives, like Cruz, who backed a modified metadata program are weak on defending America is contemptible. As Rubio knows, Sen. Steve Daines voted with Cruz, as did Sen. Cory Gardner, both of whom are supporting Rubio.

For now, I will stop here. Marco Rubio is a talented man who can potentially contribute a lot to this presidential race in the remaining months. But that will only happen if he abandons his Alinsky tactics for a more Reaganesque approach and treats the conservative electorate with the respect it deserves. If Rubio is proud of his record, then he should defend it. If he objects to Cruz’s record, he should challenge it. But stop falsifying both. (For more from the author of “The Rubio Campaign’s Unseemly Alinsky Tactics Against Cruz” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hospital Trying to End the Life of a CONSCIOUS Patient [+video]

A Texas mother claims a hospital is seeking to end the life of a her son who is a fully conscious patient. The patient’s mother says that a hospital administrative death panel is “Playing God” in deciding whether her son has the “quality of life” to continue to live.

Her son, Christopher David Dunn, 46, a fully-conscious former peace officer, is receiving life-sustaining care. Hospital officials in Houston are fighting to stop that care.

The man, his mother, and his lawyers, have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to save the man’s life. His attorney, Joe Nixon, told Breitbart Texas, “A criminal on death row in Texas has more rights than a patient in a Texas hospital.” He says a Texas statute denies a patient all due process rights and is unconstitutional.

Trey Trainor, another lawyer with the same firm who is representing Dunn, says Texas law gives a hospital the right to make life or death decisions without consulting the patient or the patient’s family.

Dunn is fully conscious but is receiving oxygen and antibiotics through two tubes down his throat. He is receiving fluids and nutrients intravenously. (Read more from “Hospital Trying to End the Life of a CONSCIOUS Patient” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here’s Jimmy Carter saying it back in 1980.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly . . .

In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US . . .

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn’t represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump’s proposal is far more legitimate than Carter’s action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump’s proposal does so by ideology. (Read more from “Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Liberal Lies Undermining America

The Liberal Lies

‘Wealth Transfer’ is justified and productive, i.e., ‘From Each According to Ability to Each According to Need’

‘Climate Change’ (AKA ‘Global Warming’) is ‘Man-Caused,’ which is ‘Settled Science’

‘Islam is an Abrahamic Religion,’ as well as a ‘Religion of Peace’

‘Multiculturalism’ strengthens America because all cultures are equal and ‘Diversity’ is necessary for ‘Social Fairness’

‘Institutional Racism’ is rampant in America based on ‘White Privilege’

‘Political Correctness’ is necessary to ensure ‘Civil Discourse’ that doesn’t marginalize the disadvantaged

Wealth Transfer

‘Wealth Transfer’ schemes, which have failed spectacularly from the Plymouth Colony near-starvation to the downfall of Soviet Union, have been erroneously validated and defended by the economically ignorant utopians based on ‘social justice’ and ‘economic development.’ The false premises underlying this deleterious, self-defeating economic proposition are ‘fairness’ and the baseless belief that providing economic security will ‘change human nature’ and inspire commitment to work for the common good of the community instead of personal gain. That neither of one of these premises has proved true has foreordained assured systemic collapses wherever ‘wealth transfer’ has been tried since Karl Marx codified ‘wealth transfer’ in the British Library based purely on theory, not empirical historical evidence.

The American people must wake-up soon and understand that the ever-increasing ‘wealth transfers’ into social welfare programs come at the critical costs of depriving the economy of growth capital and national security of necessary funding. This wake-up call should come without difficulty because it should be common sense, but instead ‘wealth transfer’ has had a narcotic-coma effect on the American body politic.

Climate Change/Global Warming

The climate has been changing constantly and drastically, warming and cooling, for the entire 4.5 billion years of earth’s geologic history, while the earliest evidence of human life on earth goes back just 1.8 million years. Therefore, since man has only been present for just the most miniscule portion of earth’s existence, liberals fail to account for the causes of the constant ‘climate change/global warming’ during more than 99% of earth’s being. This deliberate exclusion of the 4.5 billion years of documented ‘climate change/global warming’ from examination or explanation is justified by liberals because anthropogenic ‘climate change/global warming’ is ‘settled science.’ So, the obvious question that the true believing climate changers/global warmists evade answering like the plague is: Since there was radical climate change and global warming/cooling for 99% of the world’s geologic history before man even set foot on the planet, how do liberals scientifically examine and prove that any change of the climate is just not a continuation of the the climatic forces that have always occasioned change? In other words, what is the proof that man has suddenly become more powerful than the forces of the universe and preempted them? Since ‘Greenland’ was obviously originally named ‘Greenland’ because it was verdant landscape, what caused the tremendous climatic change at that north latitude because the change from temperate to arctic long predated mankind’s introduction of industrial quantities of carbon into the atmosphere?

Unfortunately, instead of the sciences of historical geology and climatology that contradict their unproven and unprovable climate beliefs, liberals accept as gospel the ‘settled science’ pronounced by the ‘world renown climatologists’ Barack Hussein Obama, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., and John Forbes Kerry. The liberal inexplicable, unquestioning acceptance of man-caused ‘climate change/global warming’ should not even be tolerated in a 7th grade science class, but nevertheless allegedly educated liberal people are ‘true climate change/global warming believers’! A large segment of the liberal American people has apparently lost the ability to reason logically. Again, a wake-up call is desperately needed.

The Abrahamic Muslim Religion of Peace

It is Islamic dogma that Islam is a ‘religion’ that traces its roots to the Jewish and Christian patriarch Abraham through Abraham’s son Ishmael, who was born of Abraham’s Egyptian slave concubine Hagar. Ishmael’s birth would have occurred circa 2000 B.C. Then in 610 A.D. Mohammad began to concoct the dogma with which he crafted a ‘religion’ that he used to attract, reward, and disciple a mafia-like tribe of cut-throat, desert brigands. So after more than 2,600 years, and with no tangible evidence or even verbal tradition, Mohammad alone in a cave conceived the linkage of Islam’s religious lineage to Abraham in order to tie Islam to the already well-established and respected religions of the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity, for credibility. Mohammad used that credibility to inspire his gang of marauders, which employed pillage, rape, and murder to sustain their ‘religion’ and to recruit more and more new followers to the plunder gained from their caravan raiding banditry.

The entire theology of Islam was purportedly imparted periodically (as Mohammad needed) from Allah to Mohammad through the Angel Gabriel when Mohammad was alone in a cave or alone in other solitary settings. These ‘Allah-dictated revelations’ were supposedly committed to memory by Mohammad and later spewed out to his followers in order to give divine authority to Mohammad’s decisions. Since the ‘Allah-dictated revelations’ were situational and made on-the-fly, there were frequent contradictions from situation to situation. When Mohammad was confronted with these contradictions, he went into solitude, allegedly consulted with Allah and Gabriel, and returned with dictums from Allah to pacify the followers and to explain why the Allah ‘god’ changes his mind.

Quran 2:106 – “We [Allah] do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”

Quran 13:39: “Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.”

Quran16:101: “And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know.”

These three Quranic verses (suras) explain the ‘Law of Abrogation’ that became necessary when the followers of Muhammad realized that Allah’s instructions were conflicting or inconsistent, so purportedly Allah told Muhammad to tell the Muslims that Allah had changed his mind and was just giving the followers better instructions that replaced earlier instructions or suras.

While the theology of Judaism and Christianity evolved from Moses, a long line of prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, the theology of Islam rests solely on the word of Mohammad, Allah’s one and exclusive prophet. Rather than divine inspiration as the basis of Islamic theology, Islam is decidedly anthropogenic in origin. The difference is apparent time and again, for instance, when the Christian Bible’s instructions to Christians are compared and contrasted with the Islamic Quran’s instructions to Muslims. Perhaps no example of the difference of the divine versus the human is clearer than treatment of one’s enemies. Jesus counselled his followers:

Matthew 5:43-45: 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

While according to Mohammad, Allah counselled his followers:

Quran 8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”

It is at this point that the Islamic dogma proclaiming Abrahamic roots of Islam completely falls apart. One needn’t be a religious theologian or a member of Mensa to comprehend that ‘a god’ cannot be the same ‘deity’ when that ‘divine source’ issues completely contradictory instructions to followers on how to behave regarding one’s enemies in exactly the same circumstances. In order to deter non-Muslims in the U.S. and Europe from discovering and discussing that Islam is an anthropocentrically conceived religious cult rather than the claimed Abrahamic religion, the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ was invented to prevent examination of tell-tail evidence like the ‘Law of Abrogation’ and the obvious disparities between the theology of the God of Abraham and the theology of the god of Mohammad. For instance, to even quote verbatim from the Quran in order to illustrate the contradictions of Islam is immediately decried as ‘Islamophobic’ by Muslims and the liberal defenders of Islam!

The reason why it is imperative to discredit ‘Islamophobia” and rip off the Abrahamic mask from Islam is because the alleged common origin of the religions has provided Muslims with entrée into Western Civilization to conduct stealth jihad undermining Western societies from within. Americans must demand that political, religious, and social leaders educate themselves about the Islamic enemy and begin to formulate national security, religious, and social policies that realistically deal with the existential threat of Islam.

Multiculturalism/Diversity’s Debilitating Effects On America

‘Multiculturalism’ is a social weapon conceived by the Cultural Marxist ‘Frankfurt School’ to undermine and destroy Western societies because, in order for a new Marxist culture to take root (see ‘wealth transfer’ above), the existing Western cultural must be destroyed. Under the multicultural rubric that all cultures are equal, Cultural Marxism is attacking:

the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.

Liberal Democrats have used ‘multiculturalism’ to defend their ‘open border/ illegal alien amnesty’ policies by accusing their rational opponents of ‘bigoted, hateful racism’ for disagreeing with the Democrat stratagem to import a large, low-information, low-skilled population that will become a permanent, welfare-dependent Democrat Party voting constituency. For liberals, ‘multiculturalism’ is all about changing U.S. voting demographics in their favor. The Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass to support its big government welfare.

An equally deleterious conceptual social weapon for undermining Western societies along with ‘multiculturalism’ is ‘diversity.’ The alleged purpose of mandating ‘diversity’ throughout the U.S. and the wider Western world is ‘social fairness’ to give all people equal access to the public arena. However, ‘diversity’ of skin color and/or gender is essentially used as a diversion to preclude ‘diversity’ of opinions, specifically conservative opinion is excluded from idea forums by the liberal forces of so-called ‘diversity.’

The pretenses of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ must be challenged and exposed as false each time they are employed to undermine Western culture and exclude conservative ideas from the public forum.

‘Institutional Racism’ born of ‘White Privilege’

‘Institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ are two more deleterious conceptual social weapons that have no basis in fact, but they are constantly given lip-service by the forces of liberalism working against traditional America. Barack Obama as president, along with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch as attorneys general, whose positions at the top of the U.S. Government should make those charges preposterous, but instead these three individuals fed the ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ narratives during the ‘Skip Gates’/ ‘Trevon Martin’/ ‘Ferguson’/ ‘Baltimore’ fiascos. Growing from those fiascos the baseless ‘hands up-don’t shoot’ and ‘black lives matter’ memes perpetuate the groundless ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ charges.

When three blacks have held the two most important U.S. law enforcement positions for six plus years, one would think that common sense would smash the ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ slander, but liberals repudiate common sense whenever common sense invalidates their unsubstantiated, venomous agitprop. Since liberals are obviously immune to common sense, discrediting the ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’ calumnies will be difficult, so all the practical forces of traditional America can do is to continually proclaim the truth and do the right thing, while directing their common sense message to those Americans that are not low-information, knee-jerk liberals.

‘Political Correctness’ is necessary to ensure ‘Civil Discourse’ that doesn’t marginalize the disadvantaged

‘Political correctness’ is the Cultural Marxist social weapon that makes possible the widespread, unquestioning acceptance of ‘wealth transfer,’ ‘climate change/global warming,’ ‘Abrahamic Muslim religion of peace,’ ‘multiculturalism/diversity,’ and ‘Institutional racism/white privilege.’ ‘Political correctness’ in the U.S. today is self-censorship that is eerily reminiscent of the politically-sterilized life described in George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ The effect of ‘political correctness’ is that:

genuine moral discourse on difficult social issues can become impossible when the risks of upsetting some portion of one’s audience are too great. Reliance on euphemism and platitude should be expected in this strategic climate.

When a problem cannot be honestly and correctly identified, resolution of the problem is impossible.

Conclusion

Since ‘political correctness’ self-censorship is the fundamental reason why all of the liberal lies are succeeding in undermining America, it is the first obstacle that must be removed. Not until honest discourse is returned to the American political, intellectual, religious, and social idea-marketplaces can Americans break the liberal death-grips of ‘wealth transfer,’ ‘climate change/global warming,’ ‘Abrahamic Muslim religion of peace,’ ‘multiculturalism/diversity,’ ‘Institutional racism/white privilege’ and ‘political correctness’ that are inhibiting America’s progress by stifling or misdirecting national efforts. (For more from the author of “The Liberal Lies Undermining America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces That Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked out in New Document

Judicial Watch today released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

The first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time – 3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC. The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning – 6 p.m. ET.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

(Read more from “New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces That Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked out in New Document” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russia Launches New Airstrikes in Syria

Photo Credit: APRussia has unleashed another barrage of airstrikes against targets in Syria, including the first combat launch of a new cruise missile from a Russian submarine in the Mediterranean Sea, the country’s defense minister said Tuesday.

The Kalibr cruise missiles launched by the Rostov-on-Don submarine successfully hit the designated targets in Raqqa, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported to President Vladimir Putin. The submarine was in a submerged position during the launch, he added.

Putin noted that the new cruise missile can be equipped with both conventional and nuclear warheads, adding he hopes that the latter “will never be needed.” (Read more from “Russia Launches New Airstrikes in Syria” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fox Suspends Retired Army Officer for ‘Profane’ Response to Obama Speech

Two Fox News contributors were suspended Monday for using inappropriate language about President Barack Obama while discussing his speech on terrorism the night before in two separate episodes.

The analysts, former U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and actress Stacey Dash, were each ordered off the air for two weeks . . .

“This guy is such a total p—-, it’s stunning,” Peters said. After he spoke some more, Varney said that while he could tell Peters was “super angry,” he shouldn’t use such language. (Read more from “Fox Suspends Retired Army Officer for Profane Response to Obama Speech” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.