Connect with us

Culture

Why Liberal Democrats Are Walking Away from Progressive Democrats to Join the Party of Lincoln

Published

on

“Liberalism . . . is based on the conception of civil society as by and large self-regulating when its members are free to act within the very wide bounds of their individual rights.  Among these, the right to private property, including freedom of contract and exchange and the free disposition of one’s own labor, is given a high priority.  Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum.”  —Ralph Raico, Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School

“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”  —John Adams

Were Democrats Ever Really Liberals—or Just Statists with a Dedicated Propaganda Arm?
One of the early propaganda pieces of “fake news” was the Democrat Party’s claim that it was the liberal party.  It never was.  Liberals historically have been pro-freedom.  It was classical liberals of the Enlightenment Era who wrote America’s gender-neutral, pro-tolerance, anti-slavery Constitution.  (Read more about America’s Free Republic and its Constitution here: https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Free-Republic-Blueprint-Constitution-ebook/dp/B07G3KY521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533488413&sr=8-1&keywords=keeping+a+free+republic).  The reasons classical liberals in America refer to themselves as “conservatives” is because they wish to conserve the US Constitution, which embodies America’s traditional culture based upon liberty (a word related to the true meaning of “liberal”).  Conservatives wish to keep freedom-based cultural values and not depart from them; they prefer gradual change to prevent unwise, hasty decisions that infringe or abridge the rights of the minority.

America’s Founders Would Have Called Themselves Liberals
America’s Founders were the real liberals.  Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans believed in a majority-limited democratic principle that protected the individual, something which only a democratic republic can guarantee.  The party of Lincoln—the Republican Party—was established with the abolition of slavery in mind; this is liberalism, as opposed to statism.  Slavery cannot exist in a free country based upon liberal notions.  Indeed, most of the Founders (about 70% of them) were abolitionists; the 3/5 Clause in the Constitution was its Anti-Slavery Compromise, with slaveholders wanting the slaves to count as an entire human being, so they would enjoy a larger representation in Congress, while the abolitionists wanted slaves to count zero in the census, to deprive the slave states of political power they would otherwise enjoy.  The reward for freeing slaves would be that the state freeing them would receive a higher census count and more representation in the House of Representatives.

Trending: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Sent Armed Police To Shut Down Black Baptist Church

Shutting Down Debate: Democrats Pull Lincoln’s Name from Southern Ballots
The Civil War occurred when Lincoln was elected to the presidency, despite the Democrats’ removal of his name from the ballots of many states of the Union.  The anger of the Democrats stemmed from the fact that Lincoln believed in the separation of powers and, therefore, that each branch of government had its own right to interpret the Constitution—not just the judiciary branch.  Because of Lincoln’s belief in Constitutional Supremacy over Judicial Supremacy, he decidedly ignored the Dred Scott ruling of the Supreme Court, insisting it was nonbinding on the executive and legislative branches, since it was un-Constitutional.  Lincoln’s position—that individuals had the right to resist state rules that slaves must be returned to their owners in other states—was unpopular among Democrats, who were the statist party of the South that believed in state-enforced theft of labor, via slavery, and state-enforced compliance with this violation of individual rights.

Jefferson & Lincoln Both Believed in the Abolition of Slavery
Even Thomas Jefferson, himself a slaveholder, was also a lifelong abolitionist who worked hard to abolish slavery for his entire adult life (https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Free-Republic-Blueprint-Constitution-ebook/dp/B07G3KY521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533488413&sr=8-1&keywords=keeping+a+free+republic), although this reality goes unreported by the fake-news media outlets and by the writers of fake history who now author so many of the history books for schools and colleges.  In the end, Jefferson was a classical liberal who wrote a law to abolish slavery in his home state of Virginia while governor of the state (although it did not pass), succeeded in abolishing the importation of slaves into Virginia (one of the first jurisdictions worldwide to do so), and succeeded together with the English, in 1808, in abolishing the international slave trade.  Jefferson would have been a Lincoln Republican, had he lived to cast a presidential ballot in 1860.

Jim Crow Democrats Lynched Blacks, Not Republicans
After the Civil War, the Jim Crow Democrats established the Ku Klux Klan to keep blacks down, while, at the same time, blacks were becoming the founders of the state Republican parties of the South.  The Texas Republican Party was founded by Texas blacks.  Liberal white people soon joined with them to enlarge the party, although the Republican Party in Texas only became dominant in the 1980s, a generation after Brown v. Board, as Texans left institutional racism far behind—and, along with it, the Democrat Party.  When Ronald Reagan ran for the White House, Texas voted heavily for the Party of Lincoln, in a clear demonstration that the institutional racism of the Democrats had no future in Texas.

90% of News Is Controlled by the Big Six
In the latest presidential contest, the truth about Democrats and Republicans was, as always, well-obscured by the Democrat-controlled media (the Democrats own all six media outlets now, even News Corp, which has fallen into the hands of Rupert Murdoch’s progressive heirs, who could eventually make dramatic changes to Fox News, as contracts expire with news anchors).  The Big Six media companies are as follows: CBS, Comcast, Disney, News Corp, Warner Media, and Viacom.  The truth—generally unreported in the media—is this: Democrats wrote the Jim Crow laws—all of them.

The Racist Compromises of FDR
Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in order to be elected president, needed support from Southern Democrats, so he agreed to turn a blind eye to the lynchings of blacks in the South as president.  FDR also promoted “redlining” of minority areas, according to government policy, in order to help banks discriminate legally when making home loans (https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/fdr-promoted-racial-segregation/): “Neighborhoods were marked as A (green), B (blue), C (yellow) or D (red).  An ‘A’ neighborhood was suburban with recent construction, low crime, business and professional people—a white neighborhood.  A ‘D’ neighborhood was inner city, old buildings often in need of repair, sometimes high crime—a minority neighborhood.  HOLC avoided ‘D’ neighborhoods.  This was how official redlining began.”  FDR also refused to let Jews into the United States who requested permission to disembark from the SS St. Louis, forcing the ship they were on to return to Hitler’s Germany, which consigned many of them to die in Europe (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373131).  Allowing those Jews into the United States could have cost FDR votes in the racist, illiberal South at the time.  Due to FDR’s refusal to admit them, many of those Jews died in concentration camps.

LBJ Steals the Republicans’ Thunder, to Win Black Votes
While Republicans supported the Civil Rights Movement early on, it was eventually LBJ who stole their political thunder in order to gain black support and solidly switch blacks from Republican to Democrat on the voter rolls.  However, it is still true that Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in higher percentages than the Democrats—80% to 65%—although the newspapers did not widely report this fact.  LBJ was able to twist enough arms of Democrats to support the Civil Rights legislation, despite the efforts of Democrat Senator and Klansman Robert Byrd to filibuster the act in the US Senate.  Also, Republicans voting against the act only did so because they objected to provisions permitting the government to dictate rules governing privately-owned property; otherwise, Barry Goldwater and all the rest of the Republicans would have voted for the bill as well.  This kind of nuance is never elaborated by the Democrat media, who simply label people as being “racist” in any case where they end up opposing the Democrats.  It is wrong not to explain why someone ends up opposing an issue, due to a principled reason, but Democrats only explain that sort of thing in news stories when it is necessary to defend a Democrat.  Even in the 1960s, the media were already stacked against the Republicans.

Big Lies about Trump: Suddenly, His Entire Biography Was Inadmissible in the Hollywood Media
One Big Lie about Trump is that he is racist.  He is not (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm8n9qVIK_8&t=6s); success in business demands a willingness to hire only the best, regardless of race or religion or anything else that is unimportant to succeeding in business.  Another Big Lie is that Trump is anti-Semitic; he is not, his grandkids are all Jewish due to Ivanka’s being Jewish, and he is the only president to keep his promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.  Yet another Big Lie is that Trump hates Latinos; not true, Trump’s comment about not wanting a Mexican-American judge to rule on the wall, since it would be unfair to allow, was due to the fact that the specific judge mentioned was a member of La Raza (https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/06/trumps-questioning-federal-judge-not-racist/), a Latino supremacist group.  Trump actually loves all the American people—Muslims who came here for freedom, included—whom he wishes to protect against jihadist Muslims who would not only murder non-Muslims, if they are not properly vetted, but would also harm Muslims who came to America to be free of Islamic Sharia Law.

Trump is a classical liberal, which is why he is a Constitutional conservative.  Trump used to support liberal Democrats in New York, in fact, but the truth is there are few of those left, most having been converted to socialist progressives nowadays.  Trump is not a majoritarian socialist, but a defender of minorities, so his only choice was to run for president as a Republican.  The only honest thing about the Democrats is that they believe in democracy, so that they may one day convince a majority to vote down the rights of individuals, forcing the minority to submit to the collective in order to appeal for privileges.  In opposition to the Democrats’ socialist philosophy, Republicans wish to preserve the Constitutional protections of individuals and minorities, so that they may stand on their rights, even in the face of overwhelming majority opposition.

Brandon Straka’s Walk Away Campaign
The latest exodus of classical liberals out of the intolerant, and increasingly-violent, Democrat Party is by members of the Walk Away Campaign (https://www.theepochtimes.com/viral-walk-away-videos-highlight-growing-movement-of-democrats-leaving-the-party_2578446.html), who are releasing videos on Youtube now, the most popular of which is still likely to be Brandon Straka’s own video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UGcghHZsk&t=63s).  These people are realizing how at-home they feel among tolerant conservatives who are genuinely interested in their ideas.  Although Brandon Straka is a gay man, he sees why conservatives think the way they do and why they simply want to try to solve as many problems as possible without the government stepping in.

Constitutional conservatives/classical liberals are not anti-gay; they merely wish to work out the issues surrounding gay marriage at the state level, per the Constitution.  According to the Constitution, there is no federal jurisdiction to pass laws regarding marriage.  Marriage is a state issue under the federal system, per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  What conservatives cannot stomach is the Supreme Court’s claim that there is a gay-marriage right in the Constitution, because it sets a precedent that the Court can make up new Constitutional rights (or possibly even cancel such rights), without regard to what the people’s law actually states within the actual text of the Constitution.  Constitutional conservatives do not wish to live under a black-robed oligarchy.  That is the point, not what Democrat media dishonestly propagandize by smearing all conservatives as anti-gay.

Evaluate Whether You Are a Classical Liberal/Constitutional Conservative
So, what is genuine classical liberalism, according to the likes of Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell?  Classical liberalism holds individual liberty and freedom from coercion in high regard.  Socialist progressives, now masquerading as Democrats, have no qualms about the majority’s coercing of people who hold minority views into acting against their beliefs.  Evaluate your positions against ten principles of classical liberalism (below), to see where you stand:
One: Liberty is the top political and cultural value.  Whenever a decision is made, the overriding concern is whether that decision will expand or reduce individual freedom and the individual’s pursuit of happiness.
Two: Individual Rights are respected over collective rights.  Indeed, the only legitimate collective rights devolve from individual rights.  This is why the Bill of Rights protects the rights of each individual from the tyranny of rule by the mob.  Individual rights cannot be canceled at the whim of any temporary majority that might be whipped up by the emotions running high at the moment.  Ayn Rand said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
Three: Distrust of State Power is considered to be more than reasonable, since, as Lord Acton has said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  When politicians claim they are making a law for people’s own good, what they are planning is really for the politicians’ own good.   Classical liberals believe the individual alone is the best judge of his or her own interests, thus every problem should be solved with the most freedom possible.
Four: Rule of Law is highly valued, in order that the United States live up to John Adams’ famous contention that “We are a nation of laws, not of men.”  There is no liberty in a world where the rules can change abruptly.  End-runs by government officials, around established law—by means of legislating from the judicial bench or the issuing of un-Constitutional executive orders—makes of the world a hostile and unpredictable arena, based upon the whims of men, and not upon the enduring will of the people.  Carefully laid plans can be dashed in a heartbeat, making life difficult for responsible planners.  And temporary beneficiaries of such policies risk getting hurt eventually, when the illegal rulings and actions are undone and the rule of law reëstablished.
Five: Civil Society is considered the preferred way of life among classical liberals.  Classical liberals believe problems can best be solved by voluntary associations and actions.  Private charities help the poor more flexibly and responsively than far-away central planners.  Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) make more relevant suggestions concerning school governance than any government body.  In neighborhoods, solutions to problems should be sought from worship communities or other civil-society groups before state authorities are ever involved, often imposing solutions that serve only the purposes of the politically-connected.  Government solutions are always in the form of a diktat.  No government rule has ever increased individual choice or made any community of freedom-loving individuals more free.
Six: Spontaneous Organization can create societal order out of spontaneous interactions, without government.  A woman living in a neighborhood can decide to organize a community-watch group, ask for volunteers, and become, at least initially, the de facto leader of the group.  A man might decide to organize a church, synagogue, or charity along the same traditional lines.  Many of the best societal institutions have formed in this way.  The rules of civil society are traditionally self-structuring and based on real-world, common-sense notions and experiences.  While many spontaneously-organized institutions dissolve when no longer needed, others go on to attain a more permanent status in addressing ongoing problems in order to keep those issues at bay, so they do not flare up again in unpleasant ways.
Seven: Free Markets are highly valued.  Economic exchange is a voluntary activity between individuals and can never be forced, by government entities or anybody else, if the highest quality at the lowest price is to be made available to the people.  To mandate such activity would mean the commandeering of private property for a state purpose never intended by its owner.  It would also mean the violation of individual rights, including the right of a service provider to freely set prices or terms of service in response to the laws of supply and demand.  Essentially, such socialist mandates against individual liberty become forced upon the people by the state, with the ultimate threat against the noncompliant being imprisonment at gunpoint.  Leaving economic interaction to free markets—rather than government force—increases prosperity and well-being, while reducing poverty and misery.  Free markets promote wealth creation, which, in turn, grows individual liberty and economic opportunity.  Liberty always works to enlarge life, whereas socialist mandates always curtail and contract all options and opportunities for the pursuit of happiness.
Eight: Tolerance is the belief that, as long as an action does not infringe anyone’s rights, it should be permitted.  “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” are the famous words of Voltaire biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall.  These words, often erroneously attributed to Voltaire himself, are a prime example of tolerance.  It is not an example embraced by socialists and democrats who prize majoritarian coercion to those of individual liberty and civil society.  Government should never regulate speech, for, in so doing, it requires that people hold their tongues, out of fear of government reprisal for any remarks deemed politically offensive.  Political satire, stand-up comedy, or even a full-throated debate of important issues could all become remnants of the past, reducing the public’s ability to fully air concerns and solve problems about such important matters as budget-balancing and welfare-overspending by government.  Salman Rushdie perhaps put it best: “Without the freedom to offend, free speech ceases to exist.”
Nine: Peace is desirable, but it is not possible, if no one would honor the principle of free movement of capital, labor, goods, services, and ideas.  Without universal respect for this principle, there will always be conflicts about how money should be used, what goods and services should be permitted, and which ideas should be allowed into speech or print; such censorship is the hallmark of majoritarian socialism and state regulation, as existed under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.  This has become of major concern in the world of social media, where the ideas of classical liberals—Constitutional conservatives—are now prohibited on Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other social networks; this is in clear violation of the people’s rights, due to the fact that the Internet these businesses use to earn profits was built by the American people’s tax dollars—all of the people’s tax dollars.  This clearly disrupts the peace under which all Americans deserve to live.  Instead, Facebook, among others, has declared a civil war on its platform against classical liberals, “shadow-banning” them and limiting their freedom to post freely.  It is pure prejudice on the basis of political views.  But the socialists who run social media are unperturbed.  Their rule is that only views conforming to their own political ideology are allowed.  Freedom is banned.  Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would smile proudly upon the situation, if only they knew.
Ten: Constitutionally-Limited Government is a must.  There are very few powers that the government should be permitted.  The main job of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, according to the rule of law.  Ronald Reagan once clarified this principle, saying, “Government exists to protect us from each other.  Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”  Reagan’s classical liberalism stands out in his perpetual defense of individual rights (which are, ultimately, the same thing as minority rights) and by promoting policies to reduce the size and scope of government activity.  The Constitution’s enumerated powers should be strictly adhered to by the federal government, and the Tenth Amendment should be faithfully enforced to keep Washington from overdoing the making of decisions and writing of rules for the sovereign states.

Did You Like the Classically-Liberal Ideas of Constitutional Conservatives, or Are You a Statist?
If you agreed with six or more of the above principles, or supported at least four of five of them strongly, you are likely to find a comfortable home among the tolerant crowd you will find in the Big Tent of classical liberalism/Constitutional conservatism.  Or, as Larry Elder might put it, “You’re a libertarian, but you just didn’t know it.”  Remember, America is not only a sovereign state, America is an idea.  So, welcome to the Big Tent of the Friends of Lincoln, where, even if someone disagrees with what you say, he will defend to the death your right to say it!  Welcome to an America where you are free!

Keeping a Free Republic
For anyone who enjoyed reading this article, its author Paul Dowling has recently completed writing his book (priced to sell, at $0.99 on Kindle) on the US Constitution; it is called Keeping a Free Republic: Learning the Blueprint for Liberty in the Constitution & the Bill of Rights(https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Free-Republic-Blueprint-Constitution-ebook/dp/B07G3KY521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533488413&sr=8-1&keywords=keeping+a+free+republic).

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Culture

Former Van Halen Lead Sammy Hagar Blasts Coronavirus Lockdowns, Refuses to Comply

Rock legend and former Van Halen lead singer Sammy Hagar says he is no longer willing to abide by the left’s coronavirus lockdowns.

Published

on

Rock-N-Roll legend and former Van Halen lead singer Sammy Hagar says he is no longer willing to abide by the left’s coronavirus lockdowns.

Hagar sat down with KSHE-FM radio on Friday and said that he is “not locking down anymore.”

The now 72-year-old rocker said that when he first heard of the virus and how it was so devastating for people over 60, he was like “Whoa, whoa, whoa!”

“I got a little nervous,” he told the audience.

“And then I thought about it, and after three weeks of lockdown, I was really getting bored, but I also started kind of liking it,” he continued.

But as the days ticked by, Hagar realized he was missing those close to him in his life.

“My whole life I worked every day of my life,” he said. “Sunday, it may be the Lord’s day off, but it’s not Sammy Hagar’s day off. I worked every freakin’ day of my life in some fashion on one of my projects. Either I’m recording, or I’m writing, or whatever. So all of a sudden, I went, ‘Man, I don’t have anything to do.'”

After a few weeks he woke up to a new realization.

“[Y]ou know what I thought of?” he said. “I thought, ‘You know what? I’ve had the best life of any human being on this planet. If the damn thing wants to come and get me and kill me, let it be. Life isn’t gonna be any better from this day on for the rest of my life than it has been.”

“I swear to you: I came to grips with it, and I was not afraid. I didn’t want to get anyone else contagious if I had it, but I don’t have it — I’m healthy as a freakin’ tick,” Hagar said.

The whole thing got him thinking about the plight others have found themselves in because of this virus nonsense.

“[T]hen I got jumped up about it,” he exclaimed. “I said, ‘This is bullcrap, people being afraid and staying away from their own children and their own parents.’ It just took the love out of families. I hate it. I don’t say the word ‘hate’ very much, but I hate this freakin’ coronavirus crap. And I’m not afraid of it, and I’m not locking down anymore.”

The “I Can’t Drive 55” singer concluded that he now refuses to live in fear and is ready to go about living his life.

“I’m not afraid of it anymore,” he insisted. “That’s all I’m saying. Everybody, be their own self. I’m not trying to sway anyone any direction. But Sammy Hagar, I’m not afraid of it. There you go.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Memorial Day Special: Never Forget What American Troops Are Made Of

Published

on

To honor our troops for Memorial Day this year, I am going to share this story about their mettle. What follows are excerpts from remarks by Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Kelly made to the Semper Fi Society of St. Louis on November 13, 2010. While leading his platoon on a combat patrol, Kelly’s son, Marine 1st Lt. Robert Michael Kelly, had been killed in action four days earlier in Sangin, in southern Afghanistan. Lt. Kelly was only 29-years-old.

Giving Thanks for Our Warriors

“Those with less of a sense of service to the nation never understand it when men and women of character step forward to look danger and adversity straight in the eye, refusing to blink, or give ground, even to their own deaths… No, they are not victims but are warriors, your warriors, and warriors are never victims regardless of how and where they fall. Death, or fear of death, has no power over them. Their paths are paved by sacrifice, sacrifices they gladly make… for you….

“Two years ago when I was the commander of all U.S. and Iraqi forces, in fact, the 22nd of April 2008, two Marine infantry battalions, 1/9 ‘The Walking Dead,’ and 2/8 were switching out in Ramadi… Two Marines, Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 22 and 20 years old respectively, one from each battalion, were assuming the watch together at the entrance gate of an outpost that contained a makeshift barracks housing 50 Marines… Yale was a dirt poor mixed-race kid from Virginia with a wife and daughter, and a mother and sister who lived with him and he supported as well. He did this on a yearly salary of less than $23,000. Haerter, on the other hand, was a middle-class white kid from Long Island. They were from two completely different worlds… But they were Marines, combat Marines, forged in the same crucible of Marine training, and because of this bond they were brothers as close, or closer, than if they were born of the same woman.

“The mission orders they received from the sergeant squad leader I am sure went something like: ‘Okay you two clowns, stand this post and let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass. You clear?’ I am also sure Yale and Haerter then rolled their eyes and said in unison something like: ‘Yes, Sergeant,’ with just enough attitude that made the point without saying the words, ‘No kidding sweetheart, we know what we’re doing.’ They then relieved two other Marines on watch and took up their post at the entry control point of Joint Security Station Nasser, in the Sophia section of Ramadi, al Anbar, Iraq.

“A few minutes later a large blue truck turned down the alley way–perhaps 60-70 yards in length–and sped its way through the serpentine of concrete jersey walls. The truck stopped just short of where the two were posted and detonated, killing them both catastrophically. Twenty-four brick masonry houses were damaged or destroyed. A mosque 100 yards away collapsed. The truck’s engine came to rest two hundred yards away knocking most of a house down before it stopped. Our explosive experts reckoned the blast was made of 2,000 pounds of explosives. Two died, and because these two young infantrymen didn’t have it in their DNA to run from danger, they saved 150 of their Iraqi and American brothers-in-arms…

“What we didn’t know at the time, and only learned a couple of days later after I wrote a summary and submitted both Yale and Haerter for posthumous Navy Crosses, was that one of our security cameras, damaged initially in the blast, recorded some of the suicide attack. It happened exactly as [Iraqi policemen on the scene] had described it. It took exactly six seconds from when the truck entered the alley until it detonated.

“You can watch the last six seconds of their young lives. Putting myself in their heads I supposed it took about a second for the two Marines to separately come to the same conclusion about what was going on once the truck came into their view at the far end of the alley. Exactly no time to talk it over or call the sergeant to ask what they should do. Only enough time to take half an instant and think about what the sergeant told them to do only a few minutes before: ‘Let no unauthorized personnel or vehicles pass.’ The two Marines had about five seconds left to live.

“It took maybe another two seconds for them to present their weapons, take aim, and open up. By this time the truck was halfway through the barriers and gaining speed the whole time. Here, the recording shows a number of Iraqi police, some of whom had fired their AKs, now scattering like the normal and rational men they were–some running right past the Marines. They had three seconds left to live.

“For about two seconds more, the recording shows the Marines’ weapons firing nonstop… the truck’s windshield exploding into shards of glass as their rounds take it apart and tore into the body of the son-of-a-beech who is trying to get past them to kill their brothers–American and Iraqi–bedded down in the barracks, totally unaware of the fact that their lives at that moment depended entirely on two Marines standing their ground. If they had been aware, they would have known they were safe… because two Marines stood between them and a crazed suicide bomber. The recording shows the truck careening to a stop immediately in front of the two Marines. In all of the instantaneous violence Yale and Haerter never hesitated. By all reports and by the recording, they never stepped back. They never even started to step aside. They never even shifted their weight. With their feet spread shoulder-width apart, they leaned into the danger, firing as fast as they could work their weapons. They had only one second left to live.

“The truck explodes. The camera goes blank. Two young men go to their God. Six seconds. Not enough time to think about their families, their country, their flag, or about their lives or their deaths, but more than enough time for two very brave young men to do their duty… into eternity. That is the kind of people who are on watch all over the world tonight–for you.”

(Originally published by The Weekly Standard in December of 2010)

Tales like this are legion in the annuls of the military history of the United States of America. Our citizen soldiers are some of the best ever seen by mankind. This Memorial Day, please do remember them, pray for them, support them.

Please Enjoy Our Memorial Day Posts

Continue Reading

Culture

Judge Sullivan Hires High-Profile Attorney To Argue His Reasons For Not Dropping Flynn Case

Published

on

The federal judge Emmet Sullivan overseeing the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn has hired a high-profile attorney to help with his response to an appeals court, The Washington Post reported.

The judge was ordered by an appeals court this week to explain his unorthodox handling of Michael Flynn’s ongoing case in district court. The DOJ this month moved to drop its case against Flynn, but Sullivan declined to immediately do so, instead, he’s appointing a retired judge to argue against dismissing the case.

He has retained Beth Wilkinson to represent him in defending his decision to a federal appeals court in Washington, according to a person familiar with the hire who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Twitchy:

As you know by now, the Department of Justice moved to drop the federal government’s case against Michael Flynn in light of new evidence, but the presiding judge in the case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, has resisted. He opened the case to public comment and appointed a retired judge, John Gleeson, to look into the possibility of trying Flynn for contempt of court for perjury. Gleeson had said he’d have his amicus brief filed by June 10, but on Thursday, a three-judge appeals court panel gave Sullivan until June 1 to explain his reasoning for not dropping the case.

Now it looks like Sullivan is pushing back even harder, as he’s hired a prominent trial lawyer to argue his desire to investigate whether dropping the case would be legal and ethical.

Sullivan is looking for all the help he can get not to dismiss the case and to charge Flynn with contempt of court. The Washington Post reports:

The federal judge who refused a Justice Department request to immediately drop the prosecution of former Trump adviser Michael Flynn has hired a high-profile trial lawyer to argue his reasons for investigating whether dismissing the case is legally or ethically appropriate.  More

You know I am not an attorney, but if a very experienced sitting Judge can’t articulate the reasons that he made a decision or order then the decision/order is probably unfounded.

Also, if a very experienced sitting federal judge needs to hire a high-profile attorney to shield himself then the order/decision is probably not just unfounded but possibly illegal too.

Continue Reading

Culture

Coronavirus Death Counts Found Wildly Over Reported

The number of people who have died from the coronavirus have been inflated by states hoping to milk the deaths for federal dollars.

Published

on

More proof is coming out each week that the number of people who have actually died from the coronavirus have been greatly inflated by states hoping to milk the deaths for federal dollars.

On Saturday, it was reported that Colorado had to amend its death count because the reported numbers were far higher than the really are.

Per Fox News:

The change came after Colorado’s Department of Public Health admitted that its COVID-19 death toll was counting those who tested positive for the coronavirus but had died of other causes, Fox 31 Denver reported late Friday.

The department now says 1,150 Coloradoans who died had COVID-19 but only 878 of those deaths were “due to” COVID-19.

“We have been reporting at the state, deaths among people who had COVID-19 at the time of death and the cause of that death may or may not have been COVID-19,” said Dr. Eric France, the health state department’s chief medical officer.

France noted that state officials began hearing from hospitals, medical examiners, doctors, and others that the numbers were suspect.

One such story emerged from Montezuma County where a 35-year-old man was added to the coronavirus death rolls, but who didn’t actually die from the virus.

“The state is reporting that death as a COVID death, but our health department wanted to let people know that even though the person did have the virus, they did not die from it,” county officials said.

The numbers in Michigan have also come under a cloud.

“I think a lot of clinicians are putting that condition (COVID-19) on death certificates when it might not be accurate because they died with coronavirus and not of coronavirus,” Macomb County, Mich., Chief Medical Examiner Daniel Spitz told the Ann Arbor News last month.

“Are they entirely accurate? No,” Spitz said. “Are people dying of it? Absolutely. Are people dying of other things and coronavirus is maybe getting credit? Yeah, probably.”

Similar miscounting is occurring in states across the nation.

Per Fox News:

Illinois has been accused of skewing its COVID-19 death count. The CDC on Friday reported 3,792 coronavirus deaths in Illinois, which has been hard hit by the pandemic.

In April, the state’s Director of Public Health Dr. Ngozi Ezike told a coronavirus news briefing that the state’s COVID-19 death toll was counting those who died of “a clear alternate cause” but had the virus at the same time.

Another death in Arkansas was tallied as a COVID-29 death despite the truth of the matter.

In Arkansas, where 97 COVID-19 deaths have been reported, the count includes a woman who died at a nursing home in April.

But KTHV-TV reported interviewing the woman’s daughter, who had questions about including her mother in the count.

“My mother was 91 when she passed,” the daughter, who requested anonymity, said. “She had been in hospice since January. I feel the diagnosis of ‘respiratory failure due to COVID-19’ is not true. To add a death due to the virus just to inflate the numbers is not right.”

Indeed, San Diego recently had to admit that it has had only six actually COVID-19 deaths despite recent claims.

This sort of nonsense is going on everywhere.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Secret Service Busts Nigerian Crooks Defrauding U.S. Unemployment System for Hundreds of Millions

The U.S. Secret Service has busted a Nigerian fraud ring bilking America for “hundreds of millions” in fraudulent unemployment payments.

Published

on

The U.S. Secret Service has busted a Nigerian fraud ring that has been bilking America for “hundreds of millions” in fraudulent unemployment payments.

As if the U.S. isn’t bankrupting itself fast enough with the massive loss of jobs amid this coronavirus hysteria, now we find the Nigerians stealing millions from us with our obviously easily defrauded unemployment benefit system.

A Secret Service memo obtained by the New York Times described the attack as a well-organized Nigerian fraud ring that may be stealing “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

“We are actively running down every lead we are getting,” Roy Dotson, a special agent who specializes in financial fraud at the Secret Service, told the paper.

The foreign crooks are using stolen Social Security numbers and other personal information likely purchased by hackers to file for unearned benefits.

The fraud ring jumped into action thanks to the millions of lost jobs because of the coronavirus lockdowns.

The first place the growing fraud was seen was in the State of Washington where people who did not file for unemployment found that their names were being used to file for fraudulent benefits.

The Secret Service noted that the fraud is slowing down response time for people who are legally filing for benefits.

At Bellingham, Washington’s Western Washington University, more than 400 of 2,500 employees have been targeted with fake unemployment claims, the university’s spokesman told the Times.

“This is a gut punch,” said Suzi LeVine, the commissioner of the Washington State Employment Security Department.

The Secret Service said they are also finding evidence of the fake claims in Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Wyoming.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Culture

Nancy Pelosi Admits What Democrats Want Would Cost An “Endless Amount Of Money”

Published

on

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits that the coronavirus relief measures that the Democrats are planning would cost an “endless amount of money.” From an interview on CNN with host Jake Tapper.

 

Continue Reading

Culture

Outrageous: Now Leftist L.A. Mayor Proclaims that City ‘Will Never Completely Open’

Published

on

The left-wing mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, has issued the shocking proclamation that the city will “never” fully re-open because of the coronavirus.

The liberal mayor insisted this week that the city will never fully reopen until there is a “cure” for the feared coronavirus.

This, though, is an utterly unscientific proclamation because science has yet to cure many viruses like the coronavirus. So, if Garcetti is going to wait for a “cure,” he may never be ready to allow his city to reopen.

These outrageous comments come on the heels of his decision to keep much of L.A. shuttered through August.

In a rambling interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, Garcetti attempted to clarify comments made by county public health director Barbara Ferrer that initially suggested the coronavirus lockdown would stretch into August.

Garcetti scolded residents telling them not to “overreact” to Ferrer’s comments, but added that L.A. would “never be completely open” until there is a vaccine for COVID-19.

“I think we have to all recognize that we’re not moving beyond COVID-19,” Garcetti exclaimed. “We’re learning to live with it.”

“We’ve never been fully closed, we’ll never be completely open until we have cure,” he said.

But even the left-wing media’s favorite doctor, Anthony Fauci, noted that there may never be am effective vaccine. “There’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective,” he said.

So, if Garcetti intends to shut down L.A. permanently, the city will be entirely destroyed.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend