WASHINGTON—Claiming that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot 37-year-old Minneapolis resident Renee Good as she drove away from him was “fully justified,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warned Thursday that any action taken by Americans would be treated as domestic terrorism. “Make no mistake: Anything and everything Americans do, from the second they wake up to the second they fall asleep, will be treated as a national security threat and dealt with accordingly,” said Noem, who added that even seemingly trivial activities like picking up groceries, calling friends on the phone, or sneezing would warrant the use of lethal force by a federal agent. “To any U.S. resident currently considering leaving your house, walking down the street, breathing, or hugging your loved ones, you have been warned. We will find you. And we will kill you.” Noem added that she had formally charged over 340 Americans with acts of domestic terrorism for engaging in the act of being born.
Los Angeles and New York – The following is a statement from the Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) and Writers Guild of America East (WGAE):
The right to speak our minds and to disagree with each other – to disturb, even – is at the very heart of what it means to be a free people. It is not to be denied. Not by violence, not by the abuse of governmental power, nor by acts of corporate cowardice.
As a Guild, we stand united in opposition to anyone who uses their power and influence to silence the voices of writers, or anyone who speaks in dissent. If free speech applied only to ideas we like, we needn’t have bothered to write it into the Constitution. What we have signed on to – painful as it may be at times – is the freeing agreement to disagree.
Shame on those in government who forget this founding truth. As for our employers, our words have made you rich. Silencing us impoverishes the whole world.
The WGA stands with Jimmy Kimmel and his writers.
The Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) are labor unions of writers working in motion pictures, television, cable, digital media and broadcast news. The Guilds negotiate and administer contracts that protect the creative and economic rights of their members; conduct programs, seminars and events on issues of interest to writers; and present writers’ views to various bodies of government. For more information on the Writers Guild of America East, visit http://www.wgaeast.org. For more information on the Writers Guild of America West, visit http://www.wga.org.
Donald Trump has a new plan for his next term in office, if he wins in 2024. He will be Dictator on Day 1! Then he will give up this power after he crams his policy goals into inauguration day mandates and decrees.
Fox personality Sean Hannity interviewed Trump recently, to give him a chance to debunk allegations that the former President had plans to use the power of the Presidency to punish his enemies and perceived enemies.
According to Axios Media, Hannity asked Trump: “Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Trump replied “Only on Day1!” He asserted that he wants to “…build the wall and drill, baby, drill.”
“Except for day one,” Trump said. “I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
“That’s not retribution,” Hannity said.
Trump replied: “I love this guy, he says, ‘you’re not going to be a dictator are you?’ I said no, no, no, other than day one.”
Trump has since adopted his off the cuff answer as his new campaign theme. A day after the interview, Trump spoke at a campaign rally, and told his supporters that he wants “to be a dictator for one day, to build the wall and drill, baby, drill.”
When I was young, there was a television show titled “Queen for a Day.” Every day, five days a week, the show would choose from several contestants a housewife, giving a profile of her life, with mentions of problems she might be facing. The chosen contestant would be crowned “Queen” for a day, and given an assortment of prizes at least partly personalized to deal with some of her problems and make her life easier. A washing machine, a new stove and similar prizes would make up her winnings.
The next day, another housewife would be chosen “Queen” with her own prizes, but no power, dictatorial or otherwise. A new Queen each day, five days a week. Rotation in office, no sore losers with window breaking supporters.
Donald Trump is no more qualified to be a housewife than he is to be President. A look at how he stores classified documents at Mar a Lago shows his unfitness for either position.
Certainly, the Donald would find the role of housewife too limited in the powers he wants, especially the power to destroy his enemies. Now it seems, Trump finds the role of President too limited in power, and he dreams of being a Dictator, if only for one day.
Presidents in the past often wanted more power than that granted them by the Constitution of the United States.
In the early 20th Century, Theodore Roosevelt took more power even without taking America into a war. The War Presidents – Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson all worked to expand their power in war and in peace.
In the 21st Century, George W Bush combined a program of expanded federal power over education and social policy, with greater expansion of police power after 9/11 and declaration of a ” War on Terror” as well as real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Republican, his affinity for federal power places him in the company of his fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson.
Donald Trump has on several occasions suggested that a military attack on Iran might be justified, if such a war would help him get re-elected. Just prior to November 2020, he contemplated ordering an attack on Iran in a last minute bid to defeat Joe Biden. He has exercised executive power to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and to stop US entry into the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Trump as President and as wannabe President has often promised more than he can deliver – as have other Presidents and wannabes. The promises often imply rule by decree rather than making decisions with consent of Congress. He now wants to be “Dictator” for one day – to build a wall on the border with Mexico. In the four years he held office, he could not get the wall built. Can he now get a wall built in one day?
The idea of “Dictator for a Day” implies that on Day 2, President Trump would give up the power of a Dictator. Yet it is clear that Donald Trump does not believe in term limits. When he was President, and thought he would be re-elected, he talked up the idea of dispensing with the Constitution, with that pesky amendment that limits Presidents to two terms.
When President Trump was defeated in 2020, he refused to accept defeat, as every previous President had done, and tried to refuse to tranfer power. The violent attempt at a coup on January 6, 2021 was undertaken for the purpose of keeping the defeated Donald Trump in the White House. If this is his response after four years, why would anyone think that Trump the Dictator would give up power after one day?
Who among Republicans in Congress or at the Republican National Committee, would have courage on Day 2 to suggest to Trump that he give up the power he so dearly wants?
The Constitution of the Roman Republic provided for the temporary appointment of a Dictator, to serve the Republic during wartime, or deal with civil unrest. The Dictator would serve for six months, then surrender the power. Several times, a former Consul would be called upon to hold this power, and they would accordingly surrender the power as called for in the Roman Constitution.
In 44 BCE, General Julius Caesar led his troops inside the city walls of Rome, in violation of the Constitution. Backed by his troops, he demanded power. He was made Consul for ten years – the normal term was six months – and appointed Dictator for Life.
In response, a group of Senators took action to end his term in both offices early. The Dictatorship was ended. But soon the Roman Republic came under control of the successors of Julius Caesar, who took the title of Caesar and assumed power over the Roman Empire.
The American Republic faces danger now, and now is the time to defend Republican Liberty. I don’t want to wait til January 2025 to find out if any Republican has the courage to tell Donald Trump that he is not qualified to be President, or Dictator. Is there a Republican Congressman or a member of the Republican National Committee with the courage to stand for America and tell Trump he is not qualified to lead America in any capacity? (by Gene Berkman, Editor, The California Libertarian Report)
True enough, but we don’t have to go that far geographically, or that far back in time. In the 1960s and after, Fidel Castro would call people who opposed Cuban Communism “Gusanos” which means “worm” in Spanish.
Seems like The Don uses “vermin” in the same metaphorical way Castro used “Gusanos.”
Given Trump’s reverence for Vladimir Putin, and his professed “love” for Kim Jong-un, it seems he is more like Castro than like Hitler.
Of course, Castro’s favorite book in college was “Mi Lucha” – “My Struggle” – or “Mein Kampf“‘ in the original German. I guess if you are talking about a totalitarian megalomaniac – whether it is Fidel Castro or Donald Trump – you are never that far from the comparison to Hitler.
This summer, a UN panel received reports of a human rights crisis unfolding in China’s far western Xinjiang province. The information showed that as many as two million people had been subjected to an intense political indoctrination and reeducation program. The backlash has largely focused on the ethno-religious nature of this crisis. Pakistan, China’s closest and most economically dependent ally, has asked China to ease restrictions on Muslims, and Uighurs (the ethnic minority group targeted) living in America are beginning to condemn China’s human rights abuses.
But over-interpreting the religious aspect of the crackdown distracts from the true nature of repression in China. The crisis in Xinjiang should be interpreted more as an assault on basic freedoms and the expansion of a totalitarian tyranny than an expression of ethnic superiority. To be sure, this is nothing less than a cultural genocide. But as far as we know, the Chinese government is not Sinicizing this group simply because they are Muslim or ethnically Turkic. It is doing so because they are a perceived threat to the power of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Intense repression has been rapidly growing throughout the country, cementing the power of the CCP in all corners of society. Indeed, the human rights abuses in Xinjiang are strikingly similar to what’s been happening elsewhere in China since Xi assumed office. Human rights reports of Xinjiang describe mass political indoctrination, the creation of a digital police state, arbitrary detention, and pervasive controls over daily life. Let’s look at each of those components individually.
Indoctrination: Mass political indoctrination is the central purpose of the reeducation camps established in Xinjiang. Elsewhere in the country, however, the Chinese government has instituted a wide variety of indoctrination programs, with the explicit goal of expanding the CCP’s control over people’s minds. This includes overhauling all of China’s major educational institutions, increasing the ideological content of all media, and controlling the spread of foreign ideas and influences within the country.
During a speech given at a Beijing kindergarten in 2015, President Xi Jinping outlined his vision of party control over education, saying, “Children should memorize the core socialist values by heart, have them melt in their hearts, and carve them into their brains.” The CCP plans to overhaul the nation’s university system to turn it into an ideological education machine. Students will undergo a hefty political indoctrination program all the way through university. Chinese professors will be forced to teach CCP propaganda. According to recent government plans, university faculty will be judged foremost by their “ideological and political performance.”
And while indoctrination and reeducation programs outside of Xinjiang do not have the same force and severity as those within the province, they are nonetheless very invasive, and are a core component of the country’s move towards totalitarianism.
Q:”Why do Nazis rally around statues of Confederate heros?”
A:”There are no statues of Hitler in Germany for Nazis to rally around.”
Now that civic and business leaders in the south are beginning to deal with the statues of confederate politicians and generals, some are defending the statues as more about nostalgia than about racism. Of course, it is hard to separate nostalgia for the old south from the racist society that it stood for.
At the recent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA, another kind of nostalgia was on display. A couple hundred night-time marchers carried tiki torches and chanted “Blood & Soil” and anti-Semitic slogans, in a juvenile parody of a Nuremburg rally. Americans, in the early 21st Century, nostalgic for the Third Reich – National Socialist Germany.
The National Socialist Party held power in Germany for 12 years, from April 30, 1933 to June of 1945. When the National Socialist reign came to an end, German cities had whole neighborhoods turned to rubble. Millions of Germans were homeless – they even created their own party, Bund der Heimatlosen. Factories and shops were damaged, and people were reduced to selling anything they had or could find to occupation soldiers in the hopes of making a little money to make survival possible.
Today, Germany is a major economic power, producing and exporting precision equipment and high quality consumer goods. Each year, Germany exports almost a trillion dollars worth of products. Germans have the highest standard of living and lowest taxes in Europe, except for the Swiss. And millions of foreigners have found in Germany a place to live and be creative.
Germany has achieved its economic success by restoring the market economy that the Nazis had destroyed, by enacting guarantees for civil liberties, and adopting a foreign policy based on avoiding conflict. Modern Germany has made a clean break with the Nazi past, and it has prospered.
Only a fool with a very low IQ, or someone with serious psychological problems, would think that the Third Reich was a better place to live than contemporary Germany. In Germany only a real loser would be nostalgic for a system that destroyed their country. In America, we have losers too, and they were on display in Charlottesville just recently.
The losers in Charlottesville included some who carried confederate flags, and others who carried flags with swastikas, mixing two forms of nostalgia. And who can deny that in the southern states today, life is better for everyone than it was during the 4 years of the slaveholders rebellion? After 4 years of the confederacy, millions in the south were in want, their dreams of a prosperous life dashed in a war caused by the defenders of slavery. How can anyone be nostalgic for that?
Today (August 12th, 2017), the “Unite the Right” rally is scheduled to proceed in Charlottesville, VA. The “Right” being united there isn’t just any “Right,” but one that welcomes white supremacists and self-described fascists. Multiple speakers will say this themselves, and the chants at a chaotic pre-event march the night before included Neo-Nazi slogans.
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the role for libertarianism in this rally – which is no role at all.
That clarification is necessary because it might appear otherwise. Three of the listed speakers have at one time or another identified as libertarians: Mike Enoch, Augustus Invictus, and Christopher Cantwell. Mike Enoch previously called himself a libertarian, but now mocks the philosophy as “autistic.” Augustus Invictus previously attempted to run for Senate through the Libertarian Party. Recently, though, he publicly changed his registration to Republican in disgust. Christopher Cantwell now seems ambivalent about his relationship with libertarianism and anarchism, but his primary identification is with fascism.
Regardless of how any speakers or attendees have identified in the past or present, we want to make clear that this event is not in any way a place for libertarianism. Among libertarians, some identify as “right-wing,” some as “left-wing,” and some as “radical centrists.” Virtually the entire outside political spectrum is mirrored within libertarianism, and this makes for no shortage of infighting. One area where the undersigned have consensus, however, is in a rejection of any attempt to connect white supremacy and fascism to libertarianism. Libertarians, including those who see themselves as on “the Right,” have no interest in uniting with the horrifically authoritarian “Right” – often called the “Alt-Right” – rallying in Charlottesville.
All this should be exceedingly obvious from even a cursory glance at the two movements.
On a historical note, modern-day libertarianism largely took root in the English-speaking world through Jewish intellectuals, some of whom fled the Nazis. Our movement grew as a revolt against fascism, Communism, and early twentieth-century progressivism. As Thomas Leonard has shown in his Illiberal Reformers, that third enemy’s intellectual history is closely interwoven with eugenics.
On the level of philosophy, libertarianism stresses the freedom of individuals even when that freedom goes against some supposed collective will. The entire point behind a politics of white supremacy is to replace free association with endless central planning and regulation on collectivist racial grounds. “Unite the Right” speaker Richard Spencer actively seeks to turn the United States into a 100% white ethno-state. It is impossible to conceive of this happening without a return of the total state and its horrors.
Despite the obvious incompatibility of that totalitarianism and libertarianism (of any kind), an attempted association between the two is unsurprising. Attempts at rebooting authoritarian movements often operate through a tactic called entryism. Entryism is where a smaller political movement attempts to capture a larger one and seize its resources. In cases like fascism and Communism, the tendency towards entryism is probably a joint product of amoral opportunism and an inability to rationally defend their views.
It is necessary, then, for libertarians to restate the exceedingly obvious and insist on the stark differences between our views and those of anyone with any affinity for National Socialist Germany.
On April 4, 2017 more than 180 art house movie theaters in 165 cities will be screening “1984” based on the novel for George Orwell, and starring John Hurt as Winston Smith. The film will also be shown at five theaters in Canada, one in the UK and one in Sweden.
The nationwide screening of this anti-totalitarian classic is inspired by the election of President Trump and the threat to freedom that his actions pose. Every President poses a threat to freedom, but we can be thankful that this President has generated a response – a desire to reaffirm our understanding of freedom and the threats to freedom posed by a powerful government.
The nationwide screening can also be seen as a way to honor John Hurt, who died last month after a distinguished career in movies.
Three quarters of a century ago, on June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, an attack on the Soviet Union across a front 3,000 miles long. Barbarossa moved the war into its global stage. It prefigured the final alliance system. It moved the Final Solution to the industrial level of killing. It helped bring the United States into the war, and certainly opened the floodgates of “pre-Lend-Lease” from the United States to Stalin’s Russia. As Ralph Raico has pointed out, the presidential powers inherent in Lend-Lease amounted to one of the great expansions of power in American history. On this aspect, see Raico’s review essay on Justus Doenecke’s Storm on the Horizon, as well as Raico’s rethinking of FDR, in which addresses the character of Hopkins.
But apart from Raico, Doenecke, and other historians in the libertarian and Old Right revisionist tradition, and in spite of the enormous impact this single event has had on world history, what a bundle of historical misinformation and misunderstandings surround it! In essence, two totalitarians agreed to divide Europe. After nearly two years of relatively close cooperation in invasion, mass killing, deportations, and forced labor, the two great apostles of the state parted ways, largely because their long range territorial, strategic, and economic plans were mutually exclusive. They were both still totalitarians, both still mass murderers.
Yet this whole issue of Hitler and Stalin as two roads to the same total state had to wait, really, until the 1980s and early 1990s before any hint of historical comparisons reached the mainstream, meaning college textbooks, academe, popular history, etc. Even all those years later, even when specialists among mainstream historians knew very well that the research on Stalin portrayed a horrifying record, treatment of the Man of Steel in textbooks, in the news media almost always pulled punches.
The amazing thing is that during the Cold War, educated Americans could hold both images in their minds: “Uncle Joe” on the one hand, and the evil Cold War Stalin on the other. A truly Orwellian feat.
Full Commentary by T. Hunt Tooley on the Anniversary of the German invasion of Russia in 1941, @ The Mises Institute https://mises.org/blog/when-soviet-totalitarians-became-american-allies
California Libertarian Report 