Tactics of Tyranny – USA Gov Policy

The facts are manifest, evident, and incontrovertible: since the start of the Obama Administration and reaching its height under the Biden Presidency, those who disagree with progressive Democrat polices have been unlawfully and substantially attacked. Victims include ordinary citizens, conservative organizations, and even Supreme Court justices.

One of the earliest episodes of this war on Americans outside the circle of leftist compliance began with Lois Lerner, an IRS official who targeted the Tea Party. The Justice Department declined to bring charges against Lois Lerner, despite the clear fact that it was eventually proven that she used her position to suppress the Tea Party. The IRS official was held in contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to questions. The failure of the Justice Department to move forward with charges was never punished.

The lack of law enforcement against Lerner gave Progressives the incentive to launch an even larger assault. As now fully proven by the Durham investigation, the Clinton campaign, conspiring with intelligence agencies, falsely alleged that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russia in his 2016 campaign. In addition, intelligence agencies worked with social media to defame the Republican candidate. When the allegation failed to gain traction with a skeptical public, Democrats, led by Adam Schiff (D-CA) attempted to sabotage the new president with non-stop hearings and impeachments.

With Democrats back in control of the White following the 2020 election, and with confidence that their criminal actions would not be punished, a massive attack was launched. Parents who disagreed with woke policies such as explicit sex lessons, drag queen lectures, and similar acts in the lower grades were labelled as “domestic terrorists.” Religious groups that merely followed their own millennia-old principles were similarly treated.

Supreme Court Justices were not immune. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Charles “Chuck” Schumer threatened that they would “Reap the whirlwind” if they voted against a Leftist position. Federal law enforcement agencies held back on providing adequate protection at the homes of the judges. Schumer is also the Senator who introduced legislation to limit the application of the First Amendment. Tyranny and terror go hand in hand with him,

In a fiery speech in Philadelphia, Biden stated that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic…There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.” Labelling political opponents as outlaws is a standard tactic in repressive regimes, a tactic the current White House employs liberally.

An analysis by the New York Post reported that Biden warns that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic…’There’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country…’ The Biden administration was caught red-handed … funneling $100,000 from the State Department and $545,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy to the Global Disinformation Index, which used confidential blacklists to scare advertisers away from conservative-leaning news organizations.”

In contrast, the Biden White House would not characterize groups such as BLM and Antifa, who have rioted, invaded police stations, attacked federal court houses, burned and looted on a large scale, as terrorists.

Of course, it doesn’t stop with progressive presidential politics that resemble the secret police tactics of socialist regimes. The educational system that has bred this contempt for free speech was recently illustrated by a New York professor who attacked conservative students and threatened a reporter with a machete when he sought to interview her. She was just one example, who lost her job following all the publicity. But there are many, many more like her. In California, law students shouted down a visiting judge because they disagreed with his moderate views.

Disagreements about policy and party are healthy. However, when the machinery of the federal government is employed to suppress one side, that is tyranny. That is what America now faces from the Democrat left.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.