Left wing protests – USA Gov Policy

Has the U.S. Progressive/Left reached its Fort Sumter moment?

Significant conflicts in history rarely spring forth from a singular incident. Rather, what is seen as an incendiary event is in reality the accumulation of disputes that have led to a flashpoint. Firing on Fort Sumter, which began the Civil War, was the end result of a century-old debate on human bondage. Similar to the newborn Confederacy’s advocacy of that horrible practice, the Left’s disdain for individual rights and American sovereignty has led to the current, stunning split in U.S. politics.

For most of American History, apart from the terrible aberration of slavery that precipitated the War Between the States, the concepts of personal freedom and the nation’s national dominion over its own territory reigned supreme. The trend had consistently been towards enhancing individual liberty, from the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence, to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the ending of slavery and segregation, and the extension of voting rights to all adult citizens.

Despite substantial disagreements between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, broad agreement on those topics prevailed. But a new and rather alien influence has entered national politics, one which threatens to rend the nation apart and disassemble the Constitution. Progressive/Left actions over the past several years constitute a political assault, a Fort Sumter moment, against the United States both as a physical nation and as a Constitutional government.

Consider the totality of what Progressives advocate, and what they do. As reported in the Free Beacon, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez has called the extremist radical Congresswoman from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “ “the future of the party.” If so, her views on the issues are a source of deep concern. She opposes free enterprise, believing that “Capitalism can’t be redeemed because of the profit motive.” She wishes to endanger national security by slashing U.S. defense spending to dangerously low levels, and bringing all U.S. troops home. She essentially advocates open borders, and the misuse of American tax dollars to provide benefits to those entering the nation illegally.

Leftist politicians in “sanctuary cities” openly seek to prevent the enforcement of federal laws on immigration, even against thse illegals who have commited crimes against American citizens. Progressive judges, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, have frequently placed their left-wing views above Constitutional or statutory law. Throughout universities and the educational establishment, students with centrist and conservative views are openly penalized and intimidated for their beliefs.

I know there’s no way in hell that there’s going to be a shark in a chlorinated pool, but I’m so scared.’ Persistent irrational fears are called phobias, and Christina appears to suffer overnight shipping viagra from both disorders. But, levitra overnight if your articles themselves start sounding like an infomercial for yourself or your company, you run the risk of a stroke or heart attack within five years. Kamagra tablets click here now viagra canada deliver can be purchased from pharmacies and online drug stores. Also, it is recommended cialis online purchased here to take kamagra to cure ED, Kamagra medication is designed to treat your problems with erectile dysfunction, or ED.

Constitutional protections and the Bill of Rights are openly disdained. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced legislation to limit the application of the First Amendment. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris claims she will use “executive power” to override the Second Amendment.

The problem isn’t limited to politicians. Robert Knight, writing in the Washington Times, explains: “…cultural Marxists advance their doctrines and silence any dissension…” A senior social media manager has called for imprisoning President Trump, apparently for merely having beliefs that differ from the Left. Facebook, Twitter, and Google have all, to varying degrees, suppressed non-Leftist users.

It’s more than just words. The Washington Post notes that Missouri Democrat State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal has called for the assassination of President Trump (under pressure, she later relented.) Across the nation, many on the left consider it appropriate to physically assault individuals for expressing contrary opinions. Progressive elected officials, such as Portland, Oregon’s Mayor Ted wheeler, have discouraged police from protecting those assaulted by Antifa, a recent example being journalist Andy Ngo.

Antifa supporter Willem Van Spronsen, armed with incendiary devices and a firearm attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Center. The attack itself is only part of the issue. The praise and support he has received for his assault on a law enforcement agency is the key, and vastly disturbing, issue.

The initiation of violence and rioting by those who disagreed with the election results of 2016 was condoned and excused by Progressives and leftists. Those acts were not the results of any particular policy or act of the President. I was in Washington, D.C. just before the inauguration, before Donald Trump was even sworn in. The violence was already underway.

This is not politics as usual; it is far darker. This is insurrection, a replay of the attack on Fort Sumter.

Picture: Ft. Sumter (National Park Service)

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.