theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer

Sunday, April 23, 2017

O'Reilly RETURNS with NEW Podcast Monday

Eli Blumenthal 

Bill O'Reilly is coming back!

The former Fox News host is set to appear Monday with a new episode of his "No Spin News" podcast. The news was revealed in an update to O'Reilly's personal website Saturday night.

The podcast, available to premium subscribers of O'Reilly's website, would be the former cable news host's first time speaking publicly since his ouster at Fox News Wednesday following an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. O'Reilly was previously the host of The O'Reilly Factor on the network, anchoring a steady ratings winner for the network for over two decades.




MANILA, Philippines (AP) -- The Philippine president has warned that he can be 50 times more brutal than Muslim extremists, saying he'd even eat them if they're captured alive by troops.

President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly threatened drug suspects with death, but he raised his shock rhetoric to a new level Sunday when he said in a speech during the opening of a national sports tournament what he could do to terrorists who have staged beheadings and other gruesome attacks.

Duterte ordered troops to kill fleeing Muslim militants behind a foiled attack in the central resort province of Bohol, calling the extremists "animals."
He said he can "go down what you can 50 times over ... just give me vinegar and salt, I'll eat his liver."


Democrats Were Here BEFORE and TORE the Nation ASUNDER – Consider Lincoln

Image result for lincoln

 Michael S. Goldstein

The Democrats, through their rhetoric and their actions, are opposing the Trump administration at every turn.  Through Obama administration government holdovers, they intend to bring down the present government and maintain and expand the bureaucratic Administrative State which is destroying federalism, taking away Americans’ individual rights, and nullifying large swaths of the Constitution of the United States.  Their presidential candidate failed to win the office, and the Democrats’ expected triumph of the Administrative State will at best be postponed and at worst be dismantled to a great extent by President Trump and his appointees.

The Democrats are furious, and, as has been reported in these pages and in other sources, their reaction has been militant, irrational, and destructive to our nation.
We have seen this before.  Over 150 years ago the issues were cogently examined and argued by presidential hopeful Abraham Lincoln in his Feb. 27, 1860 address at Cooper Union in New York City.  The issue then was slavery, whether the federal government had a right to prevent its expansion into U.S. territories not yet organized into states.  Because of the Dred Scott U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lincoln predicted that the right to own slaves would spread to the entire nation if Democrats had their way.
Today the issue is the Administrative State and whether it will destroy federalism and our citizens’ G-d given individual rights, some of which are enumerated in the Constitution as amended, and our representative republic.
In 1860 the Democratic Party was divided.  The slave states were the exclusive territory of the Democratic Party.  It was, without argument, the party of slavery.  In the North, the policy of the Democratic Party as to slavery was expounded by its leader, Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, who refused to express an opinion as to whether slavery was good or bad, or whether it should or should not expand into the territories.  In the end, the Democrats attempted to take their slave-holding states out of the Union and tore the nation apart because they held that slavery was a wonderful condition for the slaves, and that some men had a G-d given right to earn their living in leisure at the expense of other men’s sweat and toil.  In consequence, over 600,000 Americans lost their lives in an armed struggle to restore the Union.
Today the Democratic Party would intentionally ruin our unique-in-history federalist and constitutional republic in order to replace it with an Administrative State not far removed from what we read about in Brave New World, 1984, andDarkness at Noon.  Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, teaches a course on tyranny which, for good reason, incorporates these books, among others, in its syllabus.
Lincoln’s Cooper Union address preceded his gaining the presidential nomination of the Republican Party in May 1860 and his election to the office of president of the United States in November of that year.  He was inaugurated in March 1861, by which time seven southern states had already voted to leave the Union.  Comments by Lincoln in his February 1860 Cooper Union address find us nodding our heads because Democrats’ behaviors toward Republicans then are conceptually identical to present-day Democrats’ reactions to the election of Donald Trump to the presidency.  As Mr. Lincoln states:
And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people [Democrats].
I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. . . .
Lincoln pointed out that the Democrats’ arguments were denying the validity of the policies set by the framers of the Constitution and of our initial American government, “our fathers,” as he said:
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. . . .
Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. . . .
This sounds as modern as recent speeches and comments by Senator Schumer:
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. . . .
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision [Dred Scott] as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" . . .
The Democrats, then and now, would be satisfied solely by Republican surrender.  Today this means by Republican adoption of the rightness of the imposition of the Administrative State:
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. . . .
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. . . .
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. . . .
In my reading of this following paragraphs, I replace the word “slavery” with the term “the Administrative State” when considering the Democratic Party’s present goal:
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.  . . .
If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
These are the words of the father of the Republican Party, words for us to live by and to act upon.  It is up to our majority party, both those in office and those who are not, to get this done, to deliver us from the pernicious destruction of our constitutional republic by the Administrative State.

Bill O'Reilly RETURNS with NEW Podcast Monday

Eli Blumenthal 

Bill O'Reilly is coming back!

The former Fox News host is set to appear Monday with a new episode of his "No Spin News" podcast. The news was revealed in an update to O'Reilly's personal website Saturday night.

The podcast, available to premium subscribers of O'Reilly's website, would be the former cable news host's first time speaking publicly since his ouster at Fox News Wednesday following an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. O'Reilly was previously the host of The O'Reilly Factor on the network, anchoring a steady ratings winner for the network for over two decades.


The GENIUS of Trumpism

Supporters of President Donald Trump Tristan Pitera, left, and Jesse Michaelson of Sound Beach, N.Y., take part in a March 4 Trump rally on Fifth Avenue near Trump tower, Saturday, March 4, 2017, in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

David Scharfenberg

JULIUS KREIN sits in a cafe on the ground floor of his office building in downtown Boston, wearing a green corduroy blazer and a neat part in his hair.
He’s just launched a tweedy magazine called American Affairs, and the press has dubbed it “the intellectual journal of Trumpism.”
It’s a useful label, in some respects. “Frankly,” Krein says, poking at an apricot tart, “it gets me a lot of clicks.” But it’s also made the magazine a target for criticism.

Trump, as one skeptical columnist put it, is a “deeply flawed tribune” for an intellectual movement — an anti-intellectual, a former reality television star who changes positions at the speed of Twitter.
Can there really be a Trumpism, the skeptics ask, in the face of Trump’s flip-flops? How do you reconcile the president’s many, glaring contradictions?
It’s “ism” as game-changer, as once-in-a-generation challenge to political orthodoxy. And while it’s not clear that Trump himself will stay faithful to Trumpism — he’s already broken from it in some big, public ways — Krein is betting that the idea will survive nonetheless, that the energy the president unleashed will re-order public life in important ways.
Trump’s wild swings are a blow to Trumpism. They may be fatal in the end. But the bet here is that “isms” are built more on the salience of the big idea than the intellectual purity of its namesake; that a malleable “ism” isn’t doomed to irrelevance, but equipped to endure; that you start with a big personality and a big moment, and you go from there.
History suggests that’s a pretty good bet.
ARGENTINE WORKERS streamed into the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires by the hundreds of thousands.
They waved homemade banners and belted out popular songs. One woman dressed as the Argentine republic, complete with a white and blue sash.
After years of waiting, they had finally found a champion in Juan Perón, a charismatic colonel-turned-labor-friendly-government-official, only to see him detained by political rivals. Now, on this October day in 1945, they were demanding his release. And they got it.
Within hours, Perón was standing on a balcony speaking to the adoring throngs. Months later, he was elected president.
Perón stood for something big — the dignity of labor and economic nationalism. But there was a flexibility to Peronism from the start. The colonel embraced a leftist push for social justice even as he drew succor from authoritarian intellectuals on the right.
Matt Karush, a history professor at George Mason University, says Peronism is best understood not as an ideological phenomenon but as a class one, with broad appeal to working people whatever their politics.
“What he empowered was the low cultural elements of society,” said Karush. “Upper class and middle class people with aspirations really looked down their nose at the people who became Peronists.”
Peronism’s wide ideological berthwas evident after the military deposed Perón in a coup in 1955 and pushed him into exile. Opponents of the new regime declared themselves “Peronists” whatever their political persuasion. Fascist-admiring nationalists on the right.Moderates. Leftist guerrillas dressed up Perón’s late, beloved wife Eva as a revolutionary on their posters and magazine covers, her hair pulled out of its iconic bun and draped loosely around her shoulders.
Peronism would survive for decades, through Perón’s brief return to power in the 1970s and up to the present day — its flexibility giving it staying power.
In the 1990s, it was a Peronist president who cut spending and pressed for privatization. And when he left office, it was Peronists who turned the government back to the left. Peronism, the Argentines like to say, is not an ideology but a mystique.
No more coherent than Trumpism — arguably far less — and potent, nonetheless.
Supporters in a crowd watch as President Donald Trump aboard Air Force One arrives at the Palm Beach International Airport, Thursday, April 13, 2017, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (Richard Graulich/Palm Beach Post via AP)
The crowd awaits President Trump’s arrival aboard Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport.
REAGANISM, THE ONLY “ism” of consequence in modern American politics, is more ideological than Peronism. It is, unmistakably, a creature of the right.
But it roams over a remarkably broad territory there. And little wonder. That’s what it was born to do.
Reaganism has its roots in “fusionism,” a union of free-market capitalists and cultural traditionalists arranged on the pages of the Gipper’s favorite magazine, National Review.
It was an awkward marriage from the start — a marriage of convenience, designed to deliver political power to the right.
But it worked for awhile. Hard-charging Wall Streeters and small-town churchgoers shared a common enemy after all — the Soviet Union. In the presidential election of 1980, they found a common hero in Ronald Reagan.
Reagan wasn’t always faithful to his constituency, though. He was a conservative, of course. But he was also a politician, more prone to compromise than Republicans like to remember. He insisted on cutting taxes, except when he raised them. He was a fierce cold warrior who befriended Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and pursued nuclear disarmament.
Reaganism was built not on a rigid policy program, but on the glow of a former Hollywood star — bright enough to draw together very disparate strands of conservatism during his time in office and for decades to come.
As late as the fall of 2015, at the Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, candidates from across the conservative spectrum were declaring themselves the former president’s rightful heir — the libertarian Rand Paul, the social conservative Ben Carson, the union buster Scott Walker.
But the truth is, Reagan’s Republican coalition, always a bit of a patchwork, had been fraying for decades, ever since the collapse of the USSR, really.
No longer bound to the GOP establishment by the existential fight against the Soviets, the Republican heartland had slowly pulled away — first with Pat Buchanan’s populist campaigns for president in the 1990s and later with the Tea Party.
Rust Belt voters were no longer finding the internationalist orthodoxies of their establishment partners so appealing. Free trade was killing their jobs, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were killing their sons.
Then along came a blunt-spoken candidate for president who called the wars stupid and the free-trade deals bad. Along came a man determined to wipe away the old “ism” and maybe, just maybe, give rise to a new one.
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 21: U.S. President Donald Trump leaves a House Republican closed party conference on Capitol Hill, on March 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. President Trump urged House Republicans to support his American Health Care Act. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
IT SHOULD BE said here that Donald Trump is no Reagan.
He doesn’t have the broad, personal appeal that helped make Reaganism a lasting concern. And it seems possible — even likely — that Trump will stray further from Trumpism than Reagan from Reaganism.
The protectionist fervor of his campaign seems to be dimming. There are endless stories of Trump administration nationalists like Steve Bannon losing ground to moderates like Jared Kushner.
But even if the president retreats to a more conventional posture, it’s hard to imagine American conservatism — or American liberalism, for that matter — reverting to pre-Trump patterns after he leaves office.
Even the president’s staunchest critics seem to be waking up to that reality. Just a few weeks ago, Bill Kristol, editor-at-large for the Weekly Standard and a prominent #NeverTrumper, declared that “we live in a new moment.”
“At home, the forces of technology and globalization have changed the economic landscape,” he wrote. “The various cultural revolutions of the last half-century have changed the social landscape. Changes in policy, demography, and economy have altered the political landscape. Abroad, it’s a quarter-century since the collapse of the Soviet Union. History, once allegedly ended, has restarted with a vengeance. New thinking is surely needed to deal with threats quite new.”
The fight, at this point, is not over whether we need new thinking, but what shape it should take and who should do the shaping. Krein, the founder and editor of American Affairs, is doing his best to position himself as a shaper.
He graduated from Harvard in 2008, and his brief professional life reads like a tour through the wreckage of George W. Bush’s America.
He did a stint with private equity giant Blackstone Group, restructuring companies hollowed out by the Great Recession. And at one point, he worked as a subcontractor for the Department of Defense, doing economic development work in Afghanistan. “I saw, a bit, where the reality didn’t match the rhetoric,” he said.
The old conservatism, it seemed clear, was not working anymore. But the GOP establishment refused to accept that reality, Krein says, as evidenced by its response to Trump’s rise in the polls during the campaign.
“The response was, ‘Trump is terrible because Trump is not conservative in the conventional sense,’ ” he said. “I thought this response was incredibly weak. Trump was winning precisely because he was not a conservative in the conventional sense.”
Krein and a group of friends tried to get their Trumpist essays published in the established conservative journals, but were rejected. So they started publishing anonymously on a barebones blog with the cheeky name The Journal of American Greatness.
It did better than they ever expected, Krein said, with the hits reaching the low hundreds of thousands per day. Eventually they had to shut it down, with some contributors worried they’d be unmasked and could lose their jobs.
American Affairs picks up where the blog left off. But the magazine will not defend the president at every turn, Krein says. He is opposed, for instance, to the Trump-backed plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, arguing that a more socialistic approach to health care is probably required.
But even as it breaks with Trump on policy, American Affairs will embrace what Krein sees as the basic premise of his campaign, however poorly articulated: a rethinking of the neo-liberal order.
The lead essay in the first issue calls the election of 2016 “a revolt in the name of national sovereignty” — a rejection of the globalism that “has benefited a narrow swath of America” and a call to focus anew on “the success of the middle class.”
The trouble with the free-trade orthodoxy, Krein says, is that it puts the American economy outside of the control of the American people, sacrificing the interests of the average worker to an elusive “global common good.”
The real common good, he suggests — the manageable one — is the good of a country, with defined borders and an electorate that can hold its government accountable. “The only democratic institutions that we have,” he says, “are national institutions. So if you get rid of the nation-state, what you’re really doing is getting rid of democracy.”
Retreating to the nation-state could, of course, be a disaster. The new nationalism has already stirred a dark ethnocentrism. It will make it harder to deal with the existential threat of climate change. It could even set off trade wars that will sting the white working class Trump purports to defend.
But the nationalism coursing through the West is real: Brexit, the surge of the far right in France, and the presidential election of 2016. This is a big moment — an age of “isms” if ever there was one.
And the best name, the only real plausible name, for the American variant is Trumpism.

Clinton EMAIL PROBE Caused RIFT Between Comey, Lynch

FBI Director James Comey reportedly did not trust former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other senior officials at the Justice Department, speculating they might provide Hillary Clinton some political cover over her email scandal during the presidential election.
FBI Director James Comey reportedly did not trust former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other senior officials at the Justice Department, speculating they might provide Hillary Clinton some political cover over her email scandal during the presidential election.
Comey’s so-called “go-it-alone strategy” in the Clinton investigation emerged from suspicions that Lynch and other Justice Department officials might look to down play the email probe, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Comey’s suspicions may have been confirmed in a 2015 meeting when Lynch reportedly told him to use the word “matter” instead of “investigation” when publicly discussing the probe. According to the Times, Lynch said that using the world “investigation” would raise other questions and argued that the department should maintain its policy of not confirming whether an investigation was ongoing.
Lynch was called to recuse herself from the Clinton email investigation after she had a private discussion with former President Bill Clinton in an airplane on the tarmac of Phoenix’s airport in June 16. Lynch did not recuse herself, but was forced to say she would accept the any conclusions reached by federal authorities.
Tensions boiled over after new emails were found through a separate investigation into former New York congressman Anthony Weiner, who was married to top Clinton confidant Huma Abedin.
Comey wanted to alert Congress about what it found on the laptop and feared that if he did not notify lawmakers, it would look like the FBI was withholding information before the election.
Lynch did not want Comey to send the letter to Congress about the findings, but decided against ordering him not to send it, according to The Times.

PC is Ruining Our STRATEGY to DEFEAT Terrorism

 Michael Goodwin

A gunman opens fire in Paris,  killing one police officer and wounding two. Islamic  State quickly claims responsibility, naming the gunman as “a soldier of the caliphate.”
The savage attack is the latest of many in Paris, understandably sparking widespread fears of terrorism. But some Parisians desperately seek convenient explanations that will let them avoid the necessary conflict.
“Is it because we’ve joined forces and joined a coalition in Iraq and Syria against Islamic State?” one businessman asked on Paris television.
Ah, a perfectly French reaction. If only the country had been nicer to Islamic State, it wouldn’t have this problem. Right, and if only the French had been nicer to Herr Hitler, he would have left them alone.
Yet the habit of ducking a fight with evil is not limited to the French, with some Americans also infected. Appeasement here is expressed as fears that France’s unwashed masses might actually vote to do something about terrorism in Sunday’s presidential election.
Read even a few lines in any American or European elite media outlet and coverage of the attack quickly morphs into worries about its impact on the first round of presidential voting.
Will it strengthen the candidates who propose a stronger hand on terrorism? Will voters abandon the candidates who say unchecked Muslim immigration and refugees pose no threat to public safety?
Heaven forbid. The implicit conclusion is that it’s better to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and suck up the slaughter.
With many on both continents more afraid that French hard-liner Marine Le Pen will become president than they are of radical Islam, the establishment once again looks both clueless and feckless. It never learns.
First came Brexit, where Londoners were shocked that a majority of their countrymen wanted out of the European Union. Then came Donald Trump, with Washington, Democrats and the media still having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Hillary Clinton is not sitting in the Oval Office.
Trump, as a candidate, supported Brexit, while President Barack Obama opposed it. A similar split is happening over the French elections.
Obama called the liberal, pro-European Union candidate to urge him to campaign hard to the very end, while Trump predicted the Paris attack would “probably help” Le Pen, but he did not endorse her.
The president also tweeted, “Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!”
It’s hard to argue with his conclusion, though Le Pen is far more incendiary than Trump and her election would rock Europe to its core.
Still, the troubles in France, England and the US share root causes. In all three, incumbent government leaders and other centers of power refused to address longstanding and legitimate complaints from an unhappy public.
Facing common issues of jobs, immigration and terrorism, the encrusted establishments have only themselves to blame for the rise of Brexit, Trump and Le Pen. Sensible compromises and progress might have prevented voter revolutions.
Their refusals to act are inexplicable — except for pure arrogance and greed. The problems in all three nations are undeniable, with the benefits of the existing economic and immigration policies clearly benefiting some groups at the expense of others.
Yet there was zero attempt to bridge the gap. Instead, those who felt left out were demonized as stupid and racist, and the establishments’ main argument was fearmongering. The sky would fall, the economies would crash and Islamophobia would win if the disrupters took power.
It’s a knee-jerk, one-size argument that has failed.
Indeed, despite warnings of a collapse, the British economy and stock markets have grown faster than Europe’s since the Brexit vote.
In America, rising consumer and business confidence have pushed the Dow Jones index up about 1,000 points since the November election. And as Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, predictions of calamity and nonstop demonstrations are losing their sting.
Of the three nations, France has the biggest problem with terrorism. Thursday’s murder amplifies the lethality and frequency of attacks over the last two-plus years.
A partial list of the slaughters includes the January 2015 attack in the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine, and related attacks, including on a kosher market, which together left 17 17 victims dead.
In November of that year, 130 people were killed in bombings and shootings around Paris, with 90 of them killed in the Bataclan theater in less than eight minutes.
And last July, on Bastille Day in the French Riviera city of Nice, a terrorist stole a truck and plowed into celebrating crowds, killing 86 people.
A French state of emergency has existed since November 2015, and police powers have been expanded. Although authorities say they foiled some attacks, too many have been successful. The fears, along with the sluggish economy, made it impossible for François Hollande, a sad socialist, even to seek another term.
Perhaps most troubling, it is frequently revealed that the jihadists involved were on French authorities’ radar beforehand. So it is with the latest shooting, with The Wall Street Journal saying police had investigated the Paris gunman two months ago on suspicion he was plotting an attack on police officers.
Once again, in Europe as in America, political correctness kills.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

OpEd: Life Before Morality

theodore  M I R A L D I.

Throughout Antiquity the use of unbridled violence against Individuals, Communities, City States and Nations raged across the planet leaving behind pockets of power ruled by the Sword, Knife and later the Gun.

Individuals were slaughtered by marauding invaders from near and far citing ideology, or access to power and resources. This was the way human life existed. Slavery was non-discriminatory and anyone, at any given moment could be enslaved by the sheer power of others.

The Brutes, Bullies and Murderers, raped wives, daughters and even sons of the oppressed and downtrodden.  Life was tenuous at best, and if you survived, the destruction left behind only the carcasses of the dead.

This unfortunate paradigm succeeded for the few at the costs of hundreds of millions of lives that had little more than the inhale and exhale of existence.

It took humankind hundreds of thousands of years to examine these behaviors and make a valiant attempt to work together, socially, economically, and yes even politically to give a small minority of
people and countries, a life worth living.

What we are experiencing today is a return to Instinctual Type Behaviors in the most socially integrated and technologically advances societies. 

My question; Why are we just standing and watching the savagery and not wiping it off the face of the planet once more?

Like it, or not, no amount of rationalizations and logic will reverse the course of real hatred. The kind of hatred based on an idea. One idea prevalent today is Death equals Paradise, and killing anyone and everyone is how to get there.

The second oxymoron is Political Ideology which constitutes itself as Morality. The higher purpose of humanity to hate anyone that disagrees with you, Family, Friend or Neighbor.

Sometimes Common can be Exemplary like Common Sense and Shared Goals. Different, yet Alike.

The Savages are trying to make a comeback. Maybe Common Sense is too hard for some to understand.