Radicalism in American Politics

The familiar American political landscape of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives has been dramatically altered. Concepts once considered completely foreign and unacceptable are now openly and vigorously competing in the marketplace of ideas.

This newly empowered radical movement consists of socialists, environmental extremists, and dissenters from the Judeo-Christian ethic that has essentially formed the underpinnings of western thought. Although disparate in many of their beliefs, they share a common enmity for American culture, the U.S. Constitution, and free enterprise. This unites them, at least until the existing order is overturned. They also have in common a particular disdain for the First Amendment, and the rejection of the supremacy of facts over ideology.

A hallmark of the radical left is a constant trend to censor and outcast any comment they disagree with. Their influence is not to be taken lightly, and their success rate is alarming.

This was rather dramatically illustrated recently by separate incidents affecting conservative commentator Jeanine Pirro and Chelsea Clinton, the liberal daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Pirro questioned whether Rep. Ilhan Omar, (D-Minn.), who has made aggressively anti-Semitic comments and has also accused the U.S. of planning a coup in Venezuela, placed her personal beliefs above the Constitution, allegedly symbolized by her clothing. Her FOX program was subsequently suspended.

Clinton’s comments were so innocuous as to seem not even worthy of attention. While attending a vigil for the Muslims killed at a New Zealand Mosque, the former First Daughter was sharply criticized and absurdly accused of being the cause of the massacre simply because she disagreed with an anti-Semitic tweet by the same Rep. Omar.

The fact that a commentator was suspended for merely raising a question is noteworthy, another example in a growing list of successful censorship activities engineered by a vigorous radical left. The fact that many students agreed with the criticism of Clinton is indicative of the success that the left’s anti-fact drive has enjoyed.

The radicals also differ from traditional politics in their condonation and actual employment of force and the threat of violence, particularly in their assault on the First Amendment. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson’s home was assaulted by an ANTIFA mob, a group which is, essentially, the equivalent of the Nazi (National Socialist) Party’s “Brownshirts” who terrorized Jews and other dissenters of Hitler’s rise to absolute power. A Breitbart study described over 600 acts of violence against Trump supporters. Reports of individuals being assaulted for merely wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap are a regular occurrence.

These fruits include moment quantities cialis line of cyanide within just their seeds which is an extremely threatening and a probably deadly substance even in trace quantities. It may also affect someone’s social life levitra cheap online leading to certain medical disorders- stress, depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, men mistake them for erectile dysfunction (ED) generico viagra on line and hoping to reignite their sexual experiences. Just make sure that you do not take the pill before the completion women viagra online of 24 hours.

Universities are a key power center of the radical left. The descent of American colleges was first significantly noted in 1987, when author Allan Bloom published his landmark book, “The closing of the American Mind.” He reported that the curriculum rejected rationality and reality. The situation has since grown worse.

Throughout the nation, professors, students, and guest speakers alike who challenge the leftist orthodoxy are harassed and marginalized. Insane policies that defy the very foundation of the First Amendment have been enacted to prevent the free exchange of ideas. Political correctness—which in practice can include the rejection of anything that challenges left wing biases—has replaced open discourse.

Clear examples of an increasingly totalitarian bent can be seen in the treatment of teachers and guest lecturers who refuse to kowtow to the Leftist academic establishment.

The radical’s anti-fact emphasis has attained sacred-cow status. Environmental extremists insist that there is no dissent from the man-man climate change mantra. Completely ignored are the 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, who signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. Yet anyone even acknowledging contrary views is labelled a “denier” with the same hostile vigor reserved for alleged heretics during the Inquisition, despite clear example of intentionally altered data.

The push to employ the same socialist policies that have consistently failed in nations as diverse as the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and Venezuela is in and of itself a clear example of the Radical’s rejection of facts.

The unprecedented mainstreaming of violence, suppression of free speech, and the rejection of facts is a dangerous new reality in American politics can no longer be ignored.

Photo: Nazi Brownshirts (Holocaust Museum photo)
The Sturmabteilung, or SA, was a paramilitary organization associated with the Nazi Party. The SA was integral to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, violently enforcing party norms

Many in the media, who should know better, have been disturbingly reticent about the growing acceptability and advocacy of concepts which will eliminate the constitutional framework which has preserved American freedoms since the founding of the nation. While singular bad ideas have been discussed and occasionally criticized, the totality of the approach many on the left have pursued has been ignored. Consider the list.

Democrat presidential contenders such as Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand and Kamala Harris have discussed “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that Progressive outcomes win. In an era when one branch of the judiciary, the Ninth Circuit, frequently issues rulings based on its political preferences rather than statutory or Constitutional law, this represents a combined, dangerous attack on the sanctity of the legal process.

Fearing an overbearing central government powerful enough to trample individual rights, the Constitution’s framers rendered presidential elections subject to an Electoral College which prevents a few large states from dominating Washington. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg have discussed eliminating it.

The Founders also provided for a Senate where the states would be equally represented. The late Rep. John Dingle (D-Michigan) proposed abolishing that, too.

The Bill of Rights is under full-scale assault, with barely a whimper of protest to be heard in most news outlets.

In 2014, Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and Charles Schumer (D-New York), proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee hearing in 2014, Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute.” The Republican minority was able to block the measure.

The Second Amendment is under constant attack. In many Democrat-controlled jurisdictions such as New York City, it has, in practice, been wholly ignored.

Treating narcolepsy viagra price requires a combination of therapy and living with critical sexual problem. Not just does it works the same route as generico viagra on line, and can be taken as and when required. Jayski also helps NASCAR fans understand the qualifying procedure for the Daytona 500, and NASCAR’s Top 35 rule, levitra overnight shipping with updates and scenarios. This product is made so appropriate and effective for levitra 40 mg http://www.devensec.com/bylaws/bylaws07.html man who is undergoing the influence of impotence.

The Tenth Amendment, which mandates that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government belong to the states or the people, has been virtually wiped out by an ever-growing federal presence in the daily lives of the American people.

The Obamacare mandates that private organizations cover procedures that are directly opposed to their belief principles were a direct attack on Freedom of Religion. That assault on faith is growing more brazen. Senators Diane Feinstein, Kamala Harris, (Both D-California) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have implied that Catholics may not be fit to serve as judges.

And, of course, there is the growing acceptance of anti-Semitism on the part of the left.

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris and independent presidential contender Howard Schultz, announced that they will not attend this year’s AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) event, which had traditionally been an important stop for presidential hopefuls seeking the support of Jewish voters. That’s just the icing on the cake. The growing tolerance of anti-Semitic leanings within the Democrat Party is highlighted by the rise to the position of Deputy DNC chair during 2017–2018 by Keith Ellison, (now the Attorney General of Minnesota) who travels within anti-Semitic circles. The harsh statements about Jews of several newly-elected Democrat members of the House of Representatives continues that trend.

Any of these individual enumerated attacks on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be worrisome. Taken as a whole they are a cause for the deepest concern, particularly since they have received high-profile backing. Yet these consolidated attempts to radically alter the core substance of American government, which has produced more freedom for more people than anything humanity has ever attempted, have barely been given any attention.

That silence, particularly on the part of those in the media, elected office, and elsewhere has its own dire significance. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

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.