Category Archives: Left-Liberalism

Rationale & History Of Rod Rosenstein’s Comey Probe, Sans Revisionism Of ‘Thuggish MSM’

BAB's A List, Communism, Democrats, Donald Trump, Fascism, History, John McCain, Left-Liberalism, Media, The State

By Unz Review columnist Dr. Boyd D. Cathey:

A “fascist coup!”—a “massive cover-up!” —-“the most serious constitutional crisis in our history!” Wow. To hear these primal screams uttered by the Mainstream Media (MSM) and various Democratic leaders, in forcefully pained and apocalyptic tones, you would think that the nation teeters (or, is it “totters”?) on the brink of a coup d’etat, with Abrams tanks and the heavily-armed 82nd Airborne waiting in the suburbs to roll into Washington and seize control of our peaceful democratic republic, in the name of that “new Hitler” autocrat, SS Gruppenfuher Donald von Trump!

Yet the only startling element—although we shouldn’t be at all surprised— in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey was the obvious neo-Stalinism of the leaders of the Democratic Party and their advance Einsatsgruppen in the thuggish coterie called the Mainstream Media [MSM]. Yes, increasingly the Dems and the MSM remind me of the old Communist Party, and not just ideologically, but also in their everyday, turn-on-a-dime, praxis.

Consider: until Stalin and Hitler made their infamous “pact” in 1939 which essentially surrounded Poland with two hungry and powerful military powers, Communist parties worldwide had engaged in a constant campaign of attacks against “fascism” and “Naziism.” In France the Parti Communiste Francaise had supported the Popular Front with other so-called “democratic” and socialist parties. In the United States Communists had involved themselves in various “democratic” front groups and in support of various mainstream political candidates—all in the name of democracy and staunch opposition to “fascism.”

Then, after the sudden signing of the non-aggression pact on August 23, 1939, Communists parties throughout the Commintern—throughout the world—received the sharp directive: no longer attack Hitler and the Nazis. And The Daily Worker newspaper, which had only a few days earlier lambasted Hitler and his country in apocalyptic terms, all of sudden found nice things to say about them, and the PCUSA was told to cease and decease in criticisms.

For weeks, indeed, for months the very same Democrats and their advance units in the MSM now lauding Comey had been attacking him. Just a week ago Hillary Clinton once again blamed him for her loss last November. And Senator Chuck Schumer, on more than one occasion, had indicated that Comey should step down as FBI director for his antics during the 2016 election campaign. Same thing for the MSM. But then, after President Trump fired Comey, just like the old Commie Stalinists of yore, almost the entirety of the MSM/Democratic wing of the Deep State establishment came to his defense: now he was the valiant, brave, professional who was leading a fearless investigation into the supposed “collusion” between the Trump campaign and—shudder, shudder—Vladimir Putin!

Even some Republicans got into the act, mostly to question the “timing” of the firing, but, in effect, towing the Soviet—uh, I mean, Democratic Deep State—line. John McCain, the nation’s leading Russophobe politician, chimed in questioning the timing aspect, and he was joined by Senator Richard Burr, expressing similar disquiet. Such a response from the supposed “opposition” was fatuous, indicating that either those GOP solons had not really read through the sequence of events, or somehow gave credence to the completely hollow Deep State narrative that somewhere, somehow, hidden so profoundly in the minutiae of data that it had escaped our intelligence agencies for nine—nine!—months, there was “proof” of collusion.

Yet, this narrative—which not only James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence) and Comey have said repeatedly has no investigative basis whatsoever, and now Senator Dianne Feinstein and even Representative “Impeach the Prez” Waters from California admit has no basis in fact—this narrative re-appears suddenly like the dragon Fafnir of Norse mythology to explain why the president fired Comey. It was, they darkly claim and insinuate, to stop and to forestall the Trump/Russia collusion investigation! Aha! Thus, the timing: it happened just a few days before Comey was to testify before Congress, again, for the umpteenth time! And, of course, we all know that the former FBI director was going to spill the beans this time!

All of this is based on utter rubbish, a narrative that the MSM and Democrat left want to be true, that they work to make true, that they earnestly believe to be true, but, in fact, is completely and totally false. Just like the Communists of 1939, they have turned on a dime. Last week and for months they were demanding that Comey be drawn-and-quartered: “Give us the head of James Comey!” quoth Salome Hillary. Now, you followers of “Big Brother,” just forget what we said for the past nine months!

But the reality—that is, the real reality—is otherwise. The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was charged just a couple of weeks ago with preparing a report on James Comey’s tenure. Now, Rosenstein is a career Justice Department official, having served for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including under George Bush and Barack Obama. He was just recently confirmed by the Senate by an overwhelming 94-6 vote, with Chuck Schumer praising his probity of character, integrity, and professionalism. Only after his confirmation was he, quite properly, charged with this investigation. Rosenstein is apolitical, and that was the precise reason the AG Jeff Sessions entrusted him with the duty to examine Comey’s record. And that detailed report, when it was ready, was presented to the president who, then, acted upon it.

Certainly, the White House recognized that its enemies would attempt to make an issue out of this dismissal, but the crass, fly-in-your face hypocrisy and the Soviet-style volte-face response is, to put it mildly, incredibly revolting and blatantly offensive.

Nevertheless, the Deep State cultural Marxists, continuing to exist in their “Russia did it” reality bubble, have gone literally berserk. For them it’s all a part of a new Watergate, an attempted coup, et cetera, et cetera. And, sadly, there are millions of Americans, deformed by decades of higher educational indoctrination, a corrupted bowl of intellectually soured ideological porridge, who will believe this pushed, baseless narrative.

In fact, the only players in any attempted “coup” are those Deep State establishmentarians, the MSM and their epigones in the Democratic Party (and their fifth columnists in the GOP), who are doing their damnedest to weaken, de-legitimize, and destroy this president and his presidency. They are the real culprits here. And just like the Soviets and the Nazis of seventy-eight years ago, they will call white, black, and black, white, should it serve their nefarious political and cultural purposes.

Here, then, I pass on the detailed memo of Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. This action was overdue, and it was done legitimately, with due process, and was right.

~ Dr. Boyd D. Cathey

************************
Rod Rosenstein’s letter recommending Comey is fired

Memorandum for the Attorney General
===============================================================================
May 9, 2017

FROM: Rod J Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Restoring public confidence in the FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.
Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the FBI’s decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.
My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, department from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision”. Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorneys General under President George W Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision “was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI”.
Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual event as “read-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice”.
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President HW Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was “astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”
We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.
Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

UPDATE II (5/11): You’re Fired, James Comey

America, Christianity, Democrats, Donald Trump, Left-Liberalism, Objectivism, Politics, Propaganda, Russia

James Comey is out. Donald Trump fired the FBI Director. (Read the ‘You’re Fired’ letter.) One wonders what took POTUS so long? Was he waiting for Congress and Comey to orchestrate another career-advancing hearing? Comey provided “four hours of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” on May 3. Boy, did he put on an act. This was Careerism 101 by Comey.

A Republican president fired someone. And OMG! The freaks are free associating. Russia. Putin. Shades of Nixon. Impeach. Tyranny. Is there any doubt Democrats control the received “narrative”?

It’s an alternate reality. Most of it is just not true. Russia, Putin; this that: you know it’s as manufactured as was the invasion of Iraq.  “The proof is not in the Putin“:

The same vague nomenclature deployed by CIA analysts to take Americans to war in Iraq is evident in the agency’s unsubstantiated claims against Russia. In trying to incriminate absent hard evidence, the CIA, as reported by the Washington Post, alludes to “a secret assessment,” nowhere apparent, identifying only “anonymous sources and individuals” in “closed-door briefing.”

During the Bush era, the mantra of Washington operatives like Karl Rove was, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” Not much has changed. Deep State creates reality as they go.

Ignored or rejected as rogue is a reality not of the making of America’s entrenched punditocracy, its self-anointed intelligentsia, slick Big Media, slimy politicians, Democrat and Republican, spooks and bureaucrats.

Back on earth, Hillary lost. Deplorables triumphed over Hillary’s “Antifa” by a smidgen. The degree of contempt for Americans among Democratic leadership and their candidate was revealed through the good works of WikiLeaks, which had exposed the Bush government before Hillary. Deep State doesn’t like to be exposed. Hence the convulsions.

UPDATE (5/10):

Putin channels Bart Simpson, “I didn’t do it.” Whatever IT is:

FBI is rotten:

UPDATE II (5/11):

Syrian Christians:

How The French Lost Their Place In Their Country By Aping America

America, EU, Europe, Homeland Security, Islam, Left-Liberalism, Multiculturalism

On May 7, 2017, the French elected to get down on their knees, face to Mecca, butt to Brussels. Patriot Marine Le Pen lost to an inconsequential Obama-like figure called Macaroni, or something.

Fox News and its British neoconservative pundits celebrated the defeat of a “nationalist anti-Semite who cozied up to Vladimir Putin. Le Pen, again. (Pray tell again why you watch Fox News?) Le Pen had told the little runt, her rival Emmanuel Macron, that, “France will be led by a woman. It will be either me, or Mrs. Merkel.” The French chose Merkel and her house boy.

But did they?

What’s happening? Christopher Caldwell explains, with reference to the work of French geographer Christophe Guilluy. “The French, Coming Apart”:

A process that Guilluy calls métropolisation has cut French society in two. In 16 dynamic urban areas (Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, Toulouse, Lille, Bordeaux, Nice, Nantes, Strasbourg, Grenoble, Rennes, Rouen, Toulon, Douai-Lens, and Montpellier), the world’s resources have proved a profitable complement to those found in France. These urban areas are home to all the country’s educational and financial institutions, as well as almost all its corporations and the many well-paying jobs that go with them. Here, too, are the individuals—the entrepreneurs and engineers and CEOs, the fashion designers and models, the film directors and chefs and other “symbolic analysts,” as Robert Reich once called them—who shape the country’s tastes, form its opinions, and renew its prestige. Cheap labor, tariff-free consumer goods, and new markets of billions of people have made globalization a windfall for such prosperous places. But globalization has had no such galvanizing effect on the rest of France. Cities that were lively for hundreds of years—Tarbes, Agen, Albi, Béziers—are now, to use Guilluy’s word, “desertified,” haunted by the empty storefronts and blighted downtowns that Rust Belt Americans know well.

Guilluy doubts that anyplace exists in France’s new economy for working people as we’ve traditionally understood them. Paris offers the most striking case. As it has prospered, the City of Light has stratified, resembling, in this regard, London or American cities such as New York and San Francisco. It’s a place for millionaires, immigrants, tourists, and the young, with no room for the median Frenchman. Paris now drives out the people once thought of as synonymous with the city.

… there’s no reason to expect that Paris (and France’s other dynamic spots) will generate a new middle class or to assume that broad-based prosperity will develop elsewhere in the country (which happens to be where the majority of the population live). If he is right, we can understand why every major Western country has seen the rise of political movements taking aim at the present system.

… When France’s was a national economy, its median workers were well compensated and well protected from illness, age, and other vicissitudes. In a knowledge economy, these workers have largely been exiled from the places where the economy still functions. They have been replaced by immigrants. … Again, Paris’s future seems visible in contemporary London. Between 2001 and 2011, the population of white Londoners fell by 600,000, even as the city grew by 1 million people: from 58 percent white British at the turn of the century, London is currently 45 percent white. …

… In certain respects, migrants actually have it better than natives, Guilluy stresses. He is not referring to affirmative action. Inhabitants of government-designated “sensitive urban zones” (ZUS) do receive special benefits these days. But since the French cherish equality of citizenship as a political ideal, racial preferences in hiring and education took much longer to be imposed than in other countries. They’ve been operational for little more than a decade. A more important advantage, as geographer Guilluy sees it, is that immigrants living in the urban slums, despite appearances, remain “in the arena.” They are near public transportation, schools, and a real job market that might have hundreds of thousands of vacancies. At a time when rural France is getting more sedentary, the ZUS are the places in France that enjoy the most residential mobility: it’s better in the banlieues. …
Our Immigrants, Our Strength,” was the title of a New York Times op-ed signed by London mayor Sadiq Khan, New York mayor Bill de Blasio, and Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo after September’s terrorist bomb blasts in New York. …

…The real divide is no longer between the “Right” and the “Left” but between the metropoles and the peripheries. The traditional parties thrive in the former. The National Front (FN) is the party of the outside. …

… Indeed, with its opposition to free trade, open immigration, and the European Union, the FN has established itself as the main voice of the anti-globalizers. At regional elections in 2015, it took 55 percent of workers’ votes. The Socialists, Republicans, Greens, and the hard Left took 18 percent among them. In an effort to ward off the FN, the traditional parties now collude as often as they compete. In the second round of those regional elections, the Socialists withdrew in favor of their Republican rivals, seeking to create a barrage républicain against the FN. The banding together of establishment parties to defend the system against anti-system parties is happening all over the world. Germany has a “grand coalition” of its two largest parties, and Spain may have one soon. In the U.S., the Trump and the Sanders candidacies both gained much of their support from voters worried that the two major parties were offering essentially the same package. …

… Western statesmen sang the praises of the free market. In our own time, they defend the “open society”—a wider concept that embraces not just the free market but also the welcoming and promotion of people of different races, religions, and sexualities. The result, in terms of policy, is a number of what Guilluy calls “top-down social movements.” He doesn’t specify them, but they would surely include the Hollande government’s legalization of gay marriage, which in 2013 and 2014 brought millions of protesters opposing the measure onto the streets of Paris—the largest demonstrations in the country since World War II.

French elites have convinced themselves that their social supremacy rests not on their economic might but on their common decency. Doing so allows them to “present the losers of globalization as embittered people who have problems with diversity,” says Guilluy. It’s not our privilege that the French deplorables resent, the elites claim; it’s the color of some of our employees’ skin. French elites have a thesaurus full of colorful vocabulary for those who resist the open society …

… It’s not our privilege that the French deplorables resent, the elites claim; it’s the color of some of our employees’ skin. French elites have a thesaurus full of colorful vocabulary for those who resist the open society: repli (“reaction”), crispation identitaire (“ethnic tension”), and populisme (an accusation equivalent to fascism, which somehow does not require an equivalent level of proof). One need not say anything racist or hateful to be denounced as a member of “white, xenophobic France,” or even as a “fascist.” To express mere discontent with the political system is dangerous enough. It is to faire le jeu de (“play the game of”) the National Front. …

… The “American” society that Guilluy describes—unequal and multicultural—can appear quite stable, but signs abound that it is in crisis. For one thing, it requires for its own replication a growing economy.

Important read: “The French, Coming Apart.”

Paul Gottfried Ponders Richard Spencer’s Strategy (& My Paleolibertarian Take)

Conservatism, Critique, Left-Liberalism, Logic, Multiculturalism, Old Right

Well, at least some in the Moron Media have corrected course and are calling Richard Spencer a “white nationalist,” instead of a white supremacist.

Watching Richard’s performance at Auburn University, renowned scholar of the Right Dr. Paul E. Gottfried shared these impressions:

When I criticize him, I am not making moral judgments, except when I note his futile attempt to keep up with leftist Millennials by siding with gay rights and abortion. What I object to in Richard is his, well, strategic stupidity, not the fact that he has committed the “sin” of being a white nationalist. Since “educated” whites are taught to hate their own race, I can’t see how one can appeal to Millennials and leftist college students by calling for white nationalism. Nor does one win their sympathy by mimicking their positions on feminism and homosexuality while trying to convert them to a racialist ideology. What seems to me the only chance left to the Right to be effective is by mobilizing the “Deplorables” and then turning them against the social-cultural Left. I was delighted to see how the pro-Trump people took it to the Antifascists at Berkeley. And I knew these counter-demonstrators were on the side of the angels when David French at National Review began to rail against them.

My impressions? The young, white men in the audience seemed receptive, even enthusiastic, although Richard may be talking above their heads. What Richard was saying conjured an interview I gave, “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.” My views are decidedly LIBERTARIAN, a slant Richard Spencer rejects:

Multiculturalism as practiced in the West amounts to top-down, centrally enforced and managed integration. Show me a historical precedent where forced integration has worked. As it works across the Anglo-American and European spheres, one group (the founding, historical majority) is forced by self-anointed and elected elites—no contradiction there—on pain of public and professional ostracism, to submerge its history, heroes, customs, culture, language, and pander to militant minorities, who’ve been acculturated by the same elites in identity-politics warfare. As a libertarian, I believe that the right to include or exclude; associate with or dissociate from, is inherent in the right of private property. Private property is a civilizing institution. How better to keep the peace than to respect the right of free private-property owners to keep their distance (or not)—to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will? This foundation of civil society is being dismantled for the sake of militant multiculturalism and policed pluralism.
An interesting new book, reviewed by one Barnaby Rogerson, makes the point that the Levant of the 18th century was peaceful and prosperous (and surprisingly libertine), because it was made up of “a grid of self-governing communities.” Integration between disparate communities was not enforced. And surprise, surprise: communities freely chose to live in complete segregation. This freedom fostered “remarkable tolerance” among diverse communities across the cities of the Levant of that time. “Deals before Ideals, City before State, Trade before Politics,” as the reviewer puts it. This freedom of association was the source of strength. These autonomous ethnic communities were free of the top-down, punitive, forced integration that has become the hallmark of the 19th-century nation-state that usurped their authority.

See: “Self-Segregation Trumps Imposed Multiculturalism.”