Mediaboss Marketing

Continued below... While real refugees were kept out, Obama threw open the doors to Sunni Muslim migrants

Of the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrian Christians, Obama took in 125 in his final year.

While real refugees were kept out, Obama threw open the doors to Sunni Muslim migrants: many of whom sympathize with their Sunni Islamic terrorist side from Al Qaeda to ISIS. Obama had armed and aided the Sunni Islamic freedom fighters in Syria who were oppressing and displacing Christians.

These are the fake refugees on whose behalf the left is protesting at airports.

President Trump has pledged to overturn Obamas covert ban on Christian refugees. The leftist protesters arent there to support refugees, but to oppose his plan to help Christian refugees.

These arent pro-refugee protests. Theyre pro-migrant and anti-refugee tantrums. Their real message is to keep Obamas ban on Syrian Christian refugees while importing more migrant Muslim terror.

The left does not support actual refugees because the majority of those are fleeing either leftist or Islamist regimes. And the left is the unofficial lobby for the former and supports the latter.

Joe Biden, Jerry Brown and other leftists fought tooth and nail against bringing Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees to America. George McGovern insisted that they would be better off going back to their own land.

Amnesty International, which beats the Muslim refugee drum louder than anyone else, joined in the effort to cover up Communist genocide in Cambodia. Allegations made by refugees must be examined with care in view of their possible partiality, the left-wing organization warned. It claimed that it did not want to embarrass the Communist mass murderers by exposing their misdeeds in public.

Cambodian genocide denial lived on until the bodies could no longer be covered up.

The left has shamelessly invoked the plight of Jewish refugees from the USSR and Nazi Germany.

It was FDR, the great hero of the left, who sent Jewish refugees to die in Nazi concentration camps. While leftists like to place the blame on Congress, the FDR administration went to great lengths to keep out even those Jewish refugees that could have been legally admitted with security reviews.

These tactics were used to keep out as many as 117,000 Jews.

An administration memo called for removing discretion from consuls so that there would no Raoul Wallenbergs or Chiune Sugiharas on FDRs watch while advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.

The FDR administration even pressured other countries in the region not to accept Jews.

FDR had a long history of anti-Semitic remarks. He had even defended Nazi anti-Semitism in private conversations. The most horrifying of his remarks came when Stalin and FDR were discussing the Jewish problem. Stalin had already been engaged in massacring the Jews. FDR quipped to Stalin that he would give the six million Jews of the United States to King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile the left had spent a long time denying that Jews were even persecuted in the USSR.

The first boom in Soviet Jewish emigration occurred under Nixon. More Jews were able to leave the USSR in one year of Nixon than during LBJs entire term in office. In Nixons last full year in office, 35,000 Soviet Jews were allowed to leave. In Carters first year, the numbers were barely half that. There was an equally dramatic difference between Carters last year in office and Reagans first year in office.

Nixons Attorney General, John Mitchell, had intervened to offer parole to Soviet Jewish refugees while Carter had sought to suspend Jackson-Vanik which was forcing the USSR to free Soviet Jews.

It is the left that stands on the side of the leftist anti-Semites who oppress and persecute Jews.

When the Marxist Sandinistas persecuted Jews, they were the toast of the left. John Kerry lobbied for them and Bill de Blasio supported them. But President Reagan courageously denounced them.

The Nicaraguan Communists claim that theyre not anti-Semitic, theyre just anti-Zionist. Well, as anti-Zionists, they desecrated Managuas synagogue and drove the small Jewish community into exile, President Reagan said, describing graffiti reading, Death to the Jewish pigs.

Who cared about those Jewish exiles? Reagan. Not the left which glorified the Marxists scribbling, Death to the Jewish pigs on synagogue walls.

Today the left is doing the same thing to Christian refugees that it did to Jewish refugees.

Obamas people fought hard to prevent the Boko Haram terrorists who were massacring thousands of Christians and bombing churches in Nigeria from being named as a foreign terrorist organization. He sided with the Muslim Brotherhood church bombers in Egypt and with Palestinian Authority Jihadists killing Jews in Israel.

Everything Obama did is the policy of the left. Not just in America, but also in Europe and in Canada.

The left has formed an alliance with Islamic terrorists. Some of the lawyers who rush to airports to aid Muslims detained on immigration charges also rush to prisons to help Muslim terrorists detained in plots to massacre Americans. They dont love refugees. They hate America. They hate us.

The left hates real refugees. It hates them because real refugees want freedom.

Cuban and Soviet Jewish refugees voted for Trump because they know what its like to live under the left. The Christian refugees fleeing the Middle East are the first to warn about the dangers of Islam.

Thats why the left will do everything it can to keep them out of this country. There is nothing that a totalitarian movement hates and fears more than people who love freedom.

Behind the moral theater of the editorial page and the sanctimonious circus at the airport is a horrific crime. The left has aided and abetted genocide from the USSR to Nazi Germany, from Asia to the Middle East, while providing aid and comfort to the monsters behind these horrors. The greatest intellectuals of the left defended the horrific crimes of Communism as they whitewash Islamist crimes today.

Nothing has changed.

Leftists are really protesting at airports for the continuation of Obamas Christian refugee ban. They are screaming their lungs out to keep the Christian refugees fleeing Islamic terror out of this country.

The left hasnt turned out in force to save Muslims. It has marshaled its haters to kill Christian refugees.

Excerpt from:
The Left's Persecution of Real Refugees from Islam and Communism - Canada Free Press

In his bold book "The Demon in Democracy", the Polish philosopher and longtime dissident Ryszard Legutko explains how democracies can quickly turn to totalitarianism.

Polish philosopher and former politician Ryszard Legutko is the author of "The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies", published by Encounter Books (Photos: http://www.encounterbooks.com)

While dialogue with non-Catholics, non-Christians, or even anti-Christians may sometimes be perfectly appropriate, Ryszard Legutko is quite right, in The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies, to highlight the fine line which divides Catholics who are open to civil debate from those who act as useful idiots for the Left. In particular, Legutkoa professor of philosophy who held various high-ranking positions in the Polish governmentdescribes at length the problems which beset Catholic attempts to establish dialogue with the establishment of Communist Poland. When viewed in retrospect this nave effort to win over the Communists is not an uplifting spectacle, Legutko reflects soberly, and reveals an essential asymmetry between the two sides:

One [side] had to make serious concessions to accommodate itself to the communist reality. The other conceded nothing, promised nothing, and treated its opponents patronizingly. The Catholics concessions were the following: they spoke highly of socialism as both theory and practice and distanced themselves from those bad Catholics who did not appreciate the benefits and virtues of the new regime. They postulated that because Catholicism had much in common with socialism, the Church should be more listened to and its presence more recognized in the socialist society. The Marxists, in turn, made no concessions at all. They noted with satisfaction the fact that progressive Catholics finally came to accept socialism, although they should have done it sooner, and that they came to denounce the bad Catholics, although they should have done it more forcefully. To the Catholics postulate the Marxists responded that of course the Catholics could find their place in the process of building socialism, but they must be aware that socialism had the higher value and that because the historical record of the Church was ugly, they should try harder than others to earn the trust of the socialist community. [emphasis added]

Legutko argues that even if we admit that liberal democracy is less brutal than communism, the lessons of Communist Poland are nonetheless extremely relevant today. Like their Communist cousins, liberal democrats purge religion from culture, place totalitarian restrictions on thought and speech, and promote the revolutionary subversion of traditional institutions.

If we take the above quotation from Legutkos book and change terms like communist to egalitarian, Marxist to liberal, and socialism to democracy, we arrive at a remarkably accurate description of the dialogue now occurring between secular progressives and conciliatory Catholics in America. Liberals are always only one concession away from warming up to the Church and flocking to the baptismal fontor at least so some Catholic scholars and ecclesial authorities would have us believe. In reality, exaggerating the common ground Church teaching shares with the liberal ideology of human rights has accomplished remarkably little, except perhaps to indelibly stamp upon the plain mans mind the impression that Catholic faith equals globalism plus sacraments. When only one of the two parties takes the other seriously, dialogue devolves into little more than an elaborate ritual of submission.

And as time passes, the demands made upon those Catholics who have submitted to liberalism grow ever more extravagant:

In order for the Church to be praised, or even to be spared the heaviest blows, it is no longer enough to make the sacral architecture less hierarchical, and more democratic, or have the priest face the faithful during mass, or to consider the abolition of celibacy. Nowadays one must go much further: prohibit the condemnation of anything other than what the liberal-democratic orthodoxy mandates to condemn, and decree to praise everything that this orthodoxy mandates to praise.

Per the new democratic elite, sexism, homophobia, and nativism are the three deadly sins. Meanwhile greed, lust, and malice are virtues, provided they can be justified within the context of progressive politics.

Legutko advises those who would resist current trends to consider the strategy of the faithful Polish Primate Stefan Wyszynski, a churchman who did not trust the intellectuals, and in fact had never trusted them. Wyszynski opted to make the Catholicism of the peoplethe folk Catholicism, so to speakhe stronghold of the Catholic faith, Legutko notes. This decision

had far-reaching and generally positive effects: by relying on rural religiosity the Church managed to preserve a large area of social practices and religious traditions that was not accessible to the communist ideology. In countries where this type of folk Christianity did not exist or was considerably weaker, the communist system managed to wreak more havoc and penetrated deeper into the social fabric.

Legutkos account of Wyszinski only reinforces my own longstanding conviction that American Catholicism accords too little weight to the collective experience embodied in small towns and farming communities, and too much to an intelligentsia and bureaucracy sequestered within metropolitan bubbles like D.C., New York, Boston, and Dallas. As Marx himself acknowledged with his sneer at the idiocy of rural life, country folk tend to be conservative, and so are wont to resist political pressure to reinterpret the Faith in terms of equality or diversity or some other chic new god-term. By contrast, Catholic intellectuals have consistently proven themselves extremely susceptible to fashion and the allure of power, seeking (as Legutko puts it) acceptance of Catholicism not as Catholics but as a group whose creed does not threaten liberal democracy and can evenonce they present their case with sufficient skill and credibilitybe considered as supportive of it.

Legutkos treatment of religion would by itself make this book well worth the while, but let the reader note that the former anticommunist dissident also dwells fruitfully and at length upon other fundamental dimensions of liberal modernity including politics, utopia, and history. In the chapter entitled Ideology, Legutko describes how various fanatical ideologies are the inevitable consequence of egalitarianism:

Because egalitarianism weakens communities and thus deprives men of an identity-giving habitat, it creates a vacuum around them. Hence a desire exists for a new identity, this time modern and in line with the spirit of militant egalitarianism. The ideologies fulfill this role perfectly. They organize peoples consciousness by providing them with the meaning of life, an individual and collective purpose, an inspiration for further endeavors, and a sense of belonging. With the emergence of ideology the problem of a lonely individual in an egalitarian society no longer exists: feminism makes all women sisters; all homosexuals become brothers in struggle; all environmentalists become a part of an international green movement; all advocates of tolerance join the ranks of a universal antifascist crusade, and so on. [emphasis added]

Having shattered religious traditions and undermined cultural integrity, the liberal revolution set into motion what conservative scholar Robert Nisbet famously called the quest for community. Lost, frantic, restless, modern man tries to compensate for the disruption of natural order and absence of inherited identity by embracing artificial order and manufactured identity. The results have not been such as to inspire optimism.

Worse still, says Legutko, propaganda and distorted teaching of history has instilled in the intellectual class a superstitious fear of leaving the secure territories of liberal-democratic orthodoxy, so any attempt to criticize liberal democracy will run up against an army of loud and assertive defenders:

[L]iberal democracy, like communism, produced large numbers of lumpen-intellectuals, [so] there is no shortage of people who ecstatically become involved in tracking disloyalty and fostering a new orthodoxy. It happens that both systems never suffered from a shortage of people willingoften without being askedto survey the political purity in communities, institutions, groups, and all types of social behavior.

Naturally Legutkos chief interest is his native Poland, so he does not mentionand indeed may not even be awarethat in America enforcers of liberal democratic orthodoxy very frequently style themselves conservative. The writings of the late Christopher Hitchens are within the pale for the conservative establishment, as are defenses of Hitchens inspiration, the Marxist Leon Trotsky. Patrick Buchanan is not. Why? To borrow Legutkos wording, democratic liberals intuitively sensed they had a deeper bond, no matter how unclear, with the communists than with the anticommunists.

Having established such hegemony over discourse as to render their own suppositions almost invisible, liberal democrats have far surpassed the Communist Party when it comes to effecting a revolutionary transformation of society. In the modern West there is no need for anything like a liberal democratic faction as such, for nobody feels obliged to argue on behalf of liberal democracy. It is simply assumed, like the air we breathe. Yet according to Legutko the air is poisoned. Those who want something fresh whereby they might clear their minds are advised to seek out this bold and extraordinary book.

The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societiesby Ryszard Legutko Encounter Books Hardcover, 200 pages

Read the original post:
Is Liberal Democracy Closer to Communism or Catholicism? - Catholic World Report

Jan Nmec in 1967 (via Wikipedia)

Perhaps better translated simply as The Party and the Guests, since the word report does not really exist in the Czech title, O slavnosti a hostech, Jan Nmecs 1966 film, A Report on the Party and the Guests, is an allegorical work with truly Kafkaesque elements, leading the Czech Communist government to ban the work. It was released in 1968 during the brief Czech period of freedom, but was again banned forever in 1973. It was released on DVD by Criterion three years ago, and I watched it yesterday in memorium of Nmecs recent death.

On the sly, so to speak, the film asks its viewers how to believe. But only one guest attending the titular party, performed by Czech film director Evald Schorm whose own works had already been banned actually seems to know the answer to that, thus becoming the only party attendee to leave the affair behind, an act for which is he horribly punished.

The film begins with a group of seven apparently bourgeois city-dwellers celebrating a day the country, much like the characters in Jean Renoirs Partie de campagne. After picnicking, they spot a group of what appear to be wedding-goers and whistle for them stop presumably to congratulate them, but these party celebrants just as quickly disappear.

The three women decide to bathe in a nearby stream, but as they return, a group of thuggish-looking young men surrounds the men and women, ordering them to separate by sex. One of the thugs draws a circle in the dirt, insisting that they must remain within it. The groups head, Rudolf (Jan Klusk) sets up a desk in front of picnickers and interrogates them in the manner of Ks interrogators in The Trial. When one of the picnic-goers breaks their rules by crossing over the designated circle, he is grabbed by the henchmen.

A sudden explosion stops these abuses, as a man, looking a bit like Lenin, appears and scolds Rudolf his adopted son, so he reports and the other men for their behavior, explaining that it was all an elaborate joke. Being the father of the bride from the wedding party, he invites everyone to a party nearby, at which he is also celebrating his birthday.

Confused and a little taken aback, the four men and three women follow the host (Ivan Vyskoil) and discover in a nearby river cove, beautifully set tables piled high with food and wine; inexplicably even place cards with their names upon them appear beside the plates. Several conversations of little consequence follow: toasts, empty platitudes, etc. And gradually we realize just how empty-headed the picnickers really are, awed so easily by the bounty of the food and party presents.

After the meal, the host asks each of the guests whether are happy, and one by one they admit they have been won over, despite the confusing situation that is, all but one, who has silently departed, fed up with the meaningless gibberish and imposed behavior.

Quickly, the host commands his henchmen to fetch his mastiff and guns, and they move into the woods to track down the missing guest who has refused to be happy with the situation. The other original picnic-goers quietly remain behind, sipping their wine without seeming to comprehend the consequences of their passivity.

Although Nmec himself argued that the work was not a political statement as much as a kind of allegorical fable about the society at large, it is hard not to read A Report on the Party as an actual report, as in its English title, on the behavior of the Communist Party or any totalitarian regime wherein original thinking and disagreement are outlawed, and wherein a pretense of happiness is paramount.

Long seen as the enfant terrible of Czech cinema, Nmec constantly found himself in trouble with Czech government authorities, and was almost arrested for making this film. Almost all of his Czech films were banned, and when he finally moved to Paris, other European cities, and later to the United States, where he lived for 11 years, he found himself unable to work as a filmmaker under the Hollywood studio stipulations. He returned to the Czech Republic when the Communist government fell, but resented his countrys admiration so late in his life, returning metals awarded him by then Czech president Vaclav Havel.

Nemec died on March 18thof 2016 in Prague at the age of 79. If there was ever a profound artist whose work was nearly censored out of existence, it is Jan Nmec. A Report on the Party is not only a testament to his genius, but has now again become a highly relevant film.

View post:
Invitation to the Party: Jan Nemec's 1966 Satire of Czech Communism - Hyperallergic

In one word - volatility. The market will keep see-sawing from optimism to pessimism with each executive order that is signed.

While the markets reacted positively to Trump post his election win and even after he was formally sworn in, the executive order on immigrants and refugees has vitiated the outlook.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning and there is more to come, which can make the markets even more jittery.

While markets have blissfully for now ignored the insidious effect of President Trump ordering CEOs to bend to his saying, it will not be long before market forces take over and have their say in the feasibility of several of these decisions.

The viability of auto companies relocating their manufacturing from Mexico to the USA will ultimately be determined by markets and the cost will be paid by US consumers.

If this armtwisting is not regressive enough from an economic standpoint, it raises the more profound question of where is capitalism headed over the next decade. How will a de-globalised world economy look like and will it be pretty or ugly?

Is government intervention in independent companies the new norm? If so, is this not communism? For now, the popular opinion in the USA and in the UK and Europe is clearly with such populist policies.

Further, a full-blown trade war is increasingly becoming a probability and it can have a far worse effect on markets than the current executive order on refugees.

If this is not bad enough, the possibility of increased military tension with China can lead to a markets meltdown.

On the positives, the loosening of regulations and revamping of the tax code, especially allowing companies to bring back cash hoarded overseas, has the potential to significantly enhance US growth.

So, in conclusion, this will not be a ride for the faint-hearted.

On the domestic front, while we will continue to be periodically buffeted by global headwinds, our economy is on firm ground and the implementation of GST, transformation to a cashless economy and improving fundamentals augur well for the economy and by extension the equity market.

Retail investors should continue to invest through SIPs and have a long-term outlook.

(The author is CEO at Sundaram Mutual Fund. Views are personal)

Go here to see the original:
Trump actions have communist undertone, won't be long before market forces take over - Economic Times

Bucharest (AFP) - Hundreds of thousands of people hit the streets across Romania to protest against the government's decriminalising of a string of corruption offences, the largest demonstrations since the fall of communism in 1989.

Between 200,000 and 300,000 protesters, according to media estimates, braved sub-zero temperatures to demonstrate, with some shouting "Thieves!" and "Resign!" a day after the government passed an emergency decree.

In the capital Bucharest some demonstrators hurled bottles, firecrackers and stones at security forces, who responded by firing tear gas. A few police and protesters were lightly injured.

For the second straight night crowds also hit the streets in other cities across the country -- including in Timisoara, cradle of the 1989 revolution.

Over a matter of days that uprising nearly 30 years ago forced dictator Nicolae Ceausescu from power, ending with he and his wife being summarily executed on December 25, 1989.

In the emergency decree issued late Tuesday, the government decriminalised certain corruption offences and made abuse of power punishable by jail only if it results in a monetary loss of more than 44,000 euros ($47,500).

Romania's left-wing government under the Social Democrats (PSD) has only been in office a few weeks after bouncing back in elections on December 11, barely a year since mass protests forced them from office.

The government had remained silent since Tuesday evening, but on Wednesday Justice Minister Florin Iordache wrote on his Facebook page that there was "nothing secret, illegal or immoral" about the emergency decree.

Bucharest said it is putting legislation in line with the constitution.

But critics say the main beneficiary will be PSD leader Liviu Dragnea, currently on trial for alleged abuse of power, as well as other left-wing politicians.

Dragnea, 54, is already barred from office because of a two-year suspended jail sentence for voter fraud handed down last year. His abuse-of-power trial, which began on Tuesday, concerns 24,000 euros.

Another initiative, which Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu will submit to parliament, will see around 2,500 people serving sentences of less than five years for non-violent crimes released from prison.

The government said that this will reduce overcrowding in jails but critics say that, again, the main beneficiaries will be the many officials and politicians ensnared in a major anti-corruption drive of recent years.

- 'Scandalous' -

The anti-corruption push saw Romania make history in 2015 when then-prime minister Victor Ponta went on trial over alleged tax evasion and money laundering, charges he denies.

Only last week the European Commission commended the efforts of ex-communist Romania, which joined the European Union together with neighbouring Bulgaria in 2007 as the bloc's two poorest members.

But this week's latest move set off alarm bells in Brussels, with European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker and his deputy Frans Timmermans issuing a joint statement expressing "deep concern" on Wednesday.

"The fight against corruption needs to be advanced, not undone," they said. "The Commission warns against backtracking and will look thoroughly at the emergency ordinance... in this light."

Centre-right President Klaus Iohannis, elected in 2014 on an anti-graft platform and a sharp critic of Dragnea, on Wednesday called the decree "scandalous" and moved to invoke the constitutional court.

Both decrees were published earlier this month, sparking protests last Sunday that drew 40,000 people including 20,000 in the capital, and more than 15,000 a week earlier.

The laws have been heavily criticised by several Romanian officials and institutions, including the attorney general, the anti-corruption chief prosecutor and the president of the high court.

"I am outraged. The PSD won the elections but that doesn't mean they can sneakily change the penal code in the middle of the night," said protester Gabriela State, 46.

On Wednesday some 20,000 demonstrators gathered in the western city of Cluj, an AFP correspondent said, while there were 15,000 in Timisoara and 10,000 in Sibiu in central Romania.

Read the original:
Romania anti-govt protests biggest since communism fell - Yahoo News