No more complicated than this.
No more complicated than this.
First, from the WashingtonTimes.com:
Millennials would rather live in socialist or communist nation than under capitalism: Poll
by Bradford Richardson
‘This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society’
The majority of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist, communist or fascist nation rather than a capitalistic one, according to a new poll.
In the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s “Annual Report on U.S. Attitudes Toward Socialism,” 58 percent of the up-and-coming generation opted for one of the three systems, compared to 42 percent who said they were in favor of capitalism.
The most popular socioeconomic order was socialism, with 44 percent support. Communism and fascism received 7 percent support each.
Marion Smith, executive director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, said the report shows millennials are “increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”
Thank you very much, American “educators” (I bandy that term quite very loosely), Leftists, Demorats and, naturally, the American Media Maggots for doing such a spectacular job of disseminating your staggeringly-slanted, agendized bias. Your lies are working on the mush-minds of our youth.
“This troubling turn highlights widespread historical illiteracy in American society regarding socialism and the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago,” Mr. Smith said in a statement.
This very interesting point:
Millennials were the only age group more likely to say America’s economic system “works against me” rather than “works for me.” Gen Z had the most positive impression of the economy, with 66 percent saying it “works for me,” although many of them have yet to enter the workforce.
On that note, we recently noted 100 years of Communism. From WSJ.com:
100 Years of Communism—and 100 Million Dead
by David Satter
The Bolshevik plague that began in Russia was the greatest catastrophe in human history.
Armed Bolsheviks seized the Winter Palace in Petrograd—now St. Petersburg—100 years ago this week and arrested ministers of Russia’s provisional government. They set in motion a chain of events that would kill millions and inflict a near-fatal wound on Western civilization.
The revolutionaries’ capture of train stations, post offices and telegraphs took place as the city slept and resembled a changing of the guard. But when residents of the Russian capital awoke, they found they were living in a different universe.
And then all the buttery political fun began.
Although the Bolsheviks called for the abolition of private property, their real goal was spiritual: to translate Marxist- Lenin ist ideology into reality. For the first time, a state was created that was based explicitly on atheism and claimed infallibility. This was totally incompatible with Western civilization, which presumes the existence of a higher power over and above society and the state.
Now you begin to see the clouds parting, yes? Western civilization, i.e. more and more citizens in the United States, eschew the existence of a higher power like some tin idol named “godd” or “Bill” or “Berford.” As far as they are concerned, all good things come from The State in terms of our government with one major, vitally-important exception: those damned pesky papers called our “foundational documents” like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
They are, like, so totally uncool, dude.
The Bolshevik coup had two consequences. In countries where communism came to hold sway, it hollowed out society’s moral core, degrading the individual and turning him into a cog in the machinery of the state. Communists committed murder on such a scale as to all but eliminate the value of life and to destroy the individual conscience in survivors.
In a 1920 speech to the Komsomol, Lenin said that communists subordinate morality to the class struggle. Good was anything that destroyed “the old exploiting society” and helped to build a “new communist society.”
Starting to sound a bit familiar?
This approach separated guilt from responsibility. Martyn Latsis, an official of the Cheka, Lenin’s secret police, in a 1918 instruction to interrogators, wrote: “We are not waging war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. . . . Do not look for evidence that the accused acted in word or deed against Soviet power. The first question should be to what class does he belong. . . . It is this that should determine his fate.”
Then there’s this disturbing part that today’s educators and students miss entirely — perhaps the most disturbing.
Such convictions set the stage for decades of murder on an industrial scale. In total, no fewer than 20 million Soviet citizens were put to death by the regime or died as a direct result of its repressive policies. This does not include the millions who died in the wars, epidemics and famines that were predictable consequences of Bolshevik policies, if not directly caused by them.
The victims include 200,000 killed during the Red Terror (1918-22); 11 million dead from famine and dekulakization; 700,000 executed during the Great Terror (1937-38); 400,000 more executed between 1929 and 1953; 1.6 million dead during forced population transfers; and a minimum 2.7 million dead in the Gulag, labor colonies and special settlements.
To this list should be added nearly a million Gulag prisoners released during World War II into Red Army penal battalions, where they faced almost certain death; the partisans and civilians killed in the postwar revolts against Soviet rule in Ukraine and the Baltics; and dying Gulag inmates freed so that their deaths would not count in official statistics.
If we add to this list the deaths caused by communist regimes that the Soviet Union created and supported—including those in Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia—the total number of victims is closer to 100 million.
Then this fact — not a suggestion, but a fact:
That makes communism the greatest catastrophe in human history.
What is it I’ve said for years? “Everybody always thinks they can do Socialism/Communism better than the last guy.” Except: it never works.
Also this, ripped from today’s screaming headlines about the opinions regarding “freedom” (hok-putui, such a nasty word) on today’s university campuses, from of all places the WashingtonPost.com:
A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech
by Catherine Rampell
Here’s the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants “safe spaces,” or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech.
Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”
That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.
We already know about speech being the “same” as violence according to Leftists.
In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.
Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.
The most shocking?
For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred — or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred — may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.
Freedom of speech “important”? Nah.
51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.
by Robert Spencer
Really, what did you expect? A considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history. But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.
51% of Muslims living in the U.S. just this June (2015) told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.
These are all clues. These are all indicators of America in the desperate grip of those who wish to tear this country apart from within. Presently there is an active attempt to install mob rule in the United States utilizing not just overt violence, but a highly-funded, organized and systematic undermining, overtaking, eliminating and rewriting of our fundamental founding documents, our history in written form, in oral form, in photographic form and in physical form.
Universities, once admirable towers of higher learning and critical thought now tolerate none of it. The past two generations are shockingly willing to relinquish almost every freedom they possess — to have the government, when it deigns so, to sell those freedoms back. More and more the government is disinterested in such a sale. It simply wants to acquire and keep the power and control.
Is it for this that 500,000 Americans died in the Civil War — so we can become slaves of the government? Do the 1.5 million American deaths during service in war time mean nothing? Must we do it all over again? Historical Alzheimers? Must we go out of our way to prove George Santayana correct anew?
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Communism and Socialism have been tried numerous times in numerous — dozens — of countries in the past two centuries. It always fails. And every new dictator thinks that, in the past, it simply wasn’t “done right.” As I wrote, they believe they are the ones who can “do it right” this time. Then they fail and kill hundreds if not thousands if not millions of their own countrymen.
If there is one lesson the communist century should have taught, it is that the independent authority of universal moral principles cannot be an afterthought, since it is the conviction on which all of civilization depends.
Is the US condemned?
Frequently the American Media Maggots are so daft as to defy human ken.
This is one recent example from the past day that is altogether too chock full of buttery idiocy that even I cannot fail to make an immediate post about it.
Look at the above pictures. Stir, and add sarcasm to taste.
Then draw your own conclusions.
Don’t forget this.
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.
I labeled this the Skewer Leftists Night because, after all, I skewered Leftists. Not difficult, as they exposed their soft white underbelly to me. They always do. Most recently much worse than normal.
Tonight in the Saloon:
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on the yellow start button at the upper left.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on the red start button.
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here. Want to watch the show live on Facebook? Go to the SHR Media page on Facebook here. Want to watch the show on Lone Star TV? Go here.
Everyone remembers the meeting between Demorat former president William Jefferson Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona on June 26th, 2016.
Leftists swear it was nothing more than an innocent meeting between Clinton and Lynch, who stopped to simply catch up on grandkids and such.
Those of a more free-thinking and questioning spirit looked upon the meeting as an update or a decision proffered to Clinton by Lynch regarding his wife Hillary Clinton, who was then in the midst of her home-grown email server scandal. The FBI Director at that time, James Comey, had not yet released his opinion on the investigation of Hillary Clinton. That was done only a week later on Tuesday, July 5th.
Total coincidence. To those with weak and uninquisitive minds, such as Leftists, Demorats and specifically the American Media Maggots.
Despite the fact that James Comey stated under oath he became “influenced” by the tarmac meeting between Lynch and Clinton. And by Lynch insisting that Comey refer to the Hillary Clinton investigation as a “matter.”
“You have been criticized on your Clinton email decision. Did you learn anything that would have changed how you chose to inform the American people?” Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr, R-N.C., asked the fired FBI director.
“Honestly, no,” Comey answered. “It caused a lot of personal pain for me – I think it was the best way to protect the justice institution—including the FBI.”
Translation: it was the best way to protect James Comey. No one else. The FBI can and always will take a second seat to his own personal protection. Have you ever heard of an FBI director undermining an investigation publicly?
James Comey subsequently became influenced to the point where he believed he was going to leak FBI documents in order to instigate an investigation — which became that which Robert Mueller is spearheading.
To those with questions, however, like Judicial Watch, the situation required answers in order to discover if there was a provable link between Comey’s decision at the FBI and the meeting between Clinton and Lynch. Was the “fix” already “in” at least a week prior to the announcement by then-FBI Director James Comey?
Initially, Judicial Watch sued the FBI for the documents in October of 2016. They were told, by FBI representatives, that no such documents could be located.
Let us remember that the New York Post wrote an article that contained this quote by an FBI agent:
Meanwhile, FBI agents expressed their “disappointment” over FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton, sources close to the matter told The Post.
“FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source.
Another source from the Justice Department was “furious” with Comey, saying he’s “managed to piss off right and left.”
Let us also remember that in Edward Klein’s book Guilty As Sin, he wrote:
Bill Clinton’s private jet was cleared for takeoff and was taxiing toward the active runway at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport when a Secret Service agent informed him that Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane was coming in for a landing.
“Don’t take off!” Bill barked.
Instigated by William Jefferson Clinton? Apparently so.
As his plane skidded to a halt and then headed back to its parking space, Bill grabbed a phone and called an old friend — one of his most trusted legal advisers.
It was June 27, 2016 — one year into the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails.
“Bill said, ‘I want to bushwhack Loretta,’ ” the adviser recalled. “ ‘I’m going to board her plane. What do you think?’ And I said, ‘There’s no downside for you, but she’s going to take a pounding if she’s crazy enough to let you on her plane.’
“He knew it would be a huge embarrassment to Loretta when people found out that she had talked to the husband of a woman — the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party — who was under criminal investigation by the FBI,” the adviser continued. “But he didn’t give a damn. He wanted to intimidate Loretta and discredit [FBI Director James] Comey’s investigation of Hillary’s emails, which was giving Hillary’s campaign agita.”
Bill hung up the phone and turned to a Secret Service agent.
“As soon as her plane lands,” he said, “get the attorney general on the phone and say the president would like to have a word with her.”
Once inside Lynch’s plane, Bill turned on the Clinton charm. He gave Lynch’s shoulder an affectionate squeeze and shook hands with her husband, Stephen Hargove.
“Bill said he could tell that Loretta knew from the get-go that she’d made a huge mistake,” his adviser said. “She was literally trembling, shaking with nervousness. Her husband tried to comfort her; he kept patting her hand and rubbing her back.
Translated: Lynch knew precisely what she’d done and how it would look.
“Bill made small talk about golf and grandchildren and [former Attorney General] Janet Reno, and he kept at it for nearly a half-hour. It didn’t make any difference what they talked about; all he wanted to do was send a message to everyone at Justice and the FBI that Hillary had the full weight of the Clinton machine, the Democratic Party, and the White House behind her.
“It was clearly tortuous for Loretta. Bill told me later that he noticed there were beads of sweat on her upper lip.”
Message sent and received? But wait; there’s more.
One week later, Barack Obama invited Hillary to fly with him to North Carolina for a campaign rally. He wouldn’t have let her use two of the greatest symbols of presidential power — Air Force One and the podium with the Seal of the President of the United States — if he thought there was even the slightest chance she was going to be indicted. But Attorney General Lynch had privately assured him that she wouldn’t let that happen, and that the fix was in.
Oh my, the fix was so in.
Now, almost one year later, we discover the FBI made a discovery. Some cabinet door or desk drawer was opened and, magically, here we now have 30 pages of documents related to that tarmac meeting that — zounds — the Department of Justice just couldn’t. A lot of shoulder-shrugging at DOJ.
Is the DOJ incompetent? Or did the DOJ simply lie? It’s one or the other. It’s no oversight or mistake.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, one of my favorite analysts, weighed in on October 16th. He repeats BZ’s DC Axiom:
“It’s an institutional culture in government. We don’t want to go after our predecessors because we don’t want our successors to come after us.”
Oh, but wait, Judge Napolitano. There is so much more.
Judicial Watch says FBI has found Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting documents
by Brooke Singman
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch said Friday that the FBI has uncovered 30 pages of documents related to the controversial 2016 tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
The newly uncovered documents will be sent to Judicial Watch by the end of November in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, a spokesman for the group told Fox News.
Judicial Watch originally filed a FOIA request in July 2016 — which the Justice Department did not comply with — seeking “all records of communications between any agent, employee, or representative” of the FBI for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server use, and all records related to the June 27, 2016 meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton.
“We presume they are new documents. We won’t know what’s in them until we see them, unfortunately,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Fox News in an email Friday. “The fact they just ‘found’ them is yet another scandal.”
But wait; there’s more. Again from FoxNews.com:
Judicial Watch clashes with DOJ over ‘talking points’ from Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting
by Brooke Singman
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is clashing with the Trump Justice Department over access to “talking points” the DOJ prepared under the Obama administration to explain the controversial tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton last year.
Judicial Watch is seeking the documents as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The group complained late Wednesday that it had received “heavily redacted” emails pertaining to the department’s internal preparations last year to press inquiries on the Lynch-Clinton meeting.
Judicial Watch says Peter Kadzik, then-assistant attorney general, was involved in handling the Justice Department’s response to media inquiries regarding the tarmac meeting at the time. But one email exchange shows a redacted response from him to an email with the subject line: “DRAFT: Statement/Talking Points” on June 28, 2016.
Another email shows then-director of the Justice Department Public Affairs Office Melanie Newman emailing with colleagues to “flag a story” about a “casual, unscheduled meeting between former President Bill Clinton and the AG.”
I want you to see and hear just how incredibly rife with corruption is your government and more pointedly and even more sadly, your federal law enforcement agencies.
First, it is crystal clear from the evidence released by the FBI after the first investigation that the former Secretary of State used a private email server to transmit national security information rather than safeguard such information, as required by law, and that she subsequently made statements contrary to the facts as we continue to learn.
Second, the real actor in this Theater of the Absurd is the Justice Department’s decision to commence an investigation that was a sham from the very beginning. After all, it was the Justice Department that failed to convene a grand jury, issue search warrants for computers, place witnesses under oath and appoint a special prosecutor who could operate free from conflicts of interest. Hey, just like Robert Mueller, right?
Then FBI Director James Comey “cleared” Hillary Clinton of all wrongdoing on July 5th of last year.
Comey admits that Clinton lied. But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).
You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough. But you should not lie to the FBI. My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours. And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded. Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary.
But James Comey outed himself to Jason Chaffetz:
Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.
“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “
And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision. He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization. All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.” That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs. They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.
As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”
That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.
Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation.
“[AG Lynch] said…she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made…” –NYTimes July 1, 2016
Of course she would. The fix was in. And Comey was predestined to take whatever fall occurred, not her. After all, he is white and male; she is black and female.
But wait; there’s more.
Comey drafted letter on Clinton email investigation before completing interviews, FBI confirms
The FBI released documents Monday proving former FBI Director James Comey began drafting a letter regarding Hillary Clinton’s email investigation months before conducting several key interviews, including speaking to Clinton herself.
The document release was titled “Drafts of Director Comeys July 5, 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server Investigation Part 01 of 01.”
The contents of the email were largely unclear as nearly all of it was redacted. The now-public records show the email titled “Midyear Exam — UNCLASSIFIED” was sent by Comey on May 2, 2016, to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, general counsel James Baker and chief of staff and senior counselor James Rybicki.
On May 16, the documents showed a response email from Rybicki, saying “Please send me any comments on this statement so we may roll into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date. Thanks, Jim.”
Hello. “Fix,” meet “in.” Shake hands and keep dissembling.
The existence of the documents, reported by Newsweek, were first brought to light by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also a member of the committee, after they reviewed transcripts of interviews with top Comey aides who alluded to the email’s existence. The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating Comey in his role as FBI director and President Trump’s decision to fire him in May.
The senators penned a letter on Aug. 30 to newly-appointed FBI Director Christopher Wray noting their findings, saying that “it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work,” the letter said. “The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.”
Apparently it was the dog who ate Samantha Powers’ homework.
And why have you not heard that astounding information trumpeted all across the fruited plain by the American Media Maggots? You know why. Agenda. Narrative.
I said and wrote this back in late 2016 and, with each passing week, I find myself more vindicated. I stated that with this false emphasis on President Donald Trump and Russia, in order to account for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s absolutely corrupt and disastrous abortion of a campaign — and because the Demorats and Leftists haven’t yet even stepped into November 9th — the insistence of narrative pressure will surely arc back like a fine bladed boomerang and embed itself in their asses.
We are discovering more, with each passing day, how the Demorats are like putty in the hands of Russians, as we certainly believed, and that the exposure isn’t on the side of Trump or his team, it’s with the Demorats.
Hillary Clinton’s Russian uranium, anyone?
Hello? Bladed boomerang meet Demorat, Leftist and American Media Maggot ass.