American Elephants


Who Would Have Ever Dreamed that American College Students Would Have So Little Understanding of Freedom? by The Elephant's Child

cf
They have noticed that their climate change propaganda has not been as effective as it used to be, that countries are backing away from their subsidies for wind and solar energy, or perhaps it’s that the Paris Accords didn’t transfer enough wealth to the have-nots. In any case, the effort to prosecute climate skeptics for “denying” the urgency of battling climate change is not going as well as it was.

The letter that 20 professors fired off urging President Obama to investigate climate skeptics for suspected violation of the RICO laws for denying that climate change is an earth-shaking problem, has been described as a “big mistake.”

The professors have hired Climate Nexus, a PR firm that specializes in global warming publicity and spin, and they’ve gone into full damage control mode. Activists have been urged to emphasize the role of fossil fuel companies instead. More people are susceptible to the idea that fossil fuel companies are somehow evil. Besides they’re big and rich.  The American people just don’t rank climate change among their most urgent issues. It usually ranks at the bottom of their concerns.

The California Senate failed to take up a landmark bill arguing for the prosecution of climate change dissent. It would have “authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have ‘deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.'”

This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.

The big deal here is not the argument about whether or not climate change is a major threat. The big deal is the push by the Left to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Freedom of speech is under attack across the globe, which simply emphasizes how far to the left the Left has moved.

The President of the unelected executive arm of the European Union has stated that he will block all “right-wing populists” from power across the continent. Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission promised to exclude Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party from all EU decision-making if elected ahead of yesterday’s presidential vote. Across the continent there has been a surge to the right, and the decidedly undemocratic Commission could be in for a battle if they attempt to exclude every elected government that they choose to call “far right.

On college and university campuses across the country, the effort of student activism has been to silence dissent, eliminate any trace of free speech, and forbid anyone from saying anything whatsoever that might offend sensitive feelings. Surely all of this denial of the most basic speech rights protected in America by our Constitution is not a mere coincidence. Who would ever have dreamed that our college students would know so little about American history, the U.S. Constitution and how it came about, or the importance of free speech in keeping a people free. Or, as far as that goes, why there is any particular value in freedom anyway.



The Pentagon Calls the Founding Fathers “Extremists” by The Elephant's Child

Major Nidal Hasan the U.S. Army Psychiatrist who opened fire on dozens of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, has been found guilty of murdering thirteen people and of attempted murder of thirty-two by a panel of senior officers. In the sentencing phase of the trial, the panel has recommended that he be put to death, an unusual punishment for a military tribunal.  The entire incident remains classified by the U.S. government as “workplace violence” — a ludicrous euphemism for what was clearly a jihadist attack, and what Major Hasan has admitted that he intended.

Hasan, a U.S.-born Muslim, admitted responsibility for the shooting at the start of the trial, saying he had been on the wrong side of a war against Islam and had switched over. During the proceedings, he declined to call any witnesses, testify or give a closing argument. He was prohibited by military law from entering a guilty plea.

At a pretrial hearing, the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, ruled that Hasan could not defend himself by arguing that he carried out the killings to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. Instead, the defendant chose to make his case to the public through communiques and authorized leaks to newspapers, arguing that he was waging jihad because of the United States’ “illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the trial enters an appeals process, which will take several years. Hasan clearly prefers the death sentence, but appeals courts are unlikely to allow him to represent himself.

Those not on trial were those who, out of reluctance to offend or to appear Islamophobic, passed him on through training, ignoring his Jihadist outbursts, close association with Anwar al Awaliki the Muslim Imam who had decamped for Yemen, and statements about Islam. Even after the shooting, a ranking officer in his division remarked that it would be the greatest of tragedies if our diversity is harmed.

There are increasing signs that political correctness has reared its ugly influence in our nation’s military. So far it has killed far more of our soldiers than just the 13 at Fort Hood. The “Blue on Green” attacks in Afghanistan, where our troops are forbidden to carry loaded weapons to show their trust of their Afghan trainees is an inexcusable violation of basic safety — yet such a thing could not happen without orders and policy from above.

The “workplace violence” designation deprives the Fort Hood’s wounded of benefits, and recognition in a shameful way. The Obama administration still insists that Nidal Hasan was not a terrorist — an ongoing and embarrassing lie.

In the meantime, military training has become a strange world where the Founding Fathers have become depicted as extremists and conservative groups are defined as “hate groups.”

Saying “Give me liberty or give me death” qualifies Patrick Henry as an extremist, according to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training guide which has been obtained by Judicial Watch under a Freedom of Information Act Request. …

Under a section titled “Extremist Ideologies,” the document states, “In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”…

“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place,” the Pentagon guide advises.

This is an emerging, and very troubling pattern.




%d bloggers like this: