“Yes, I do. Yes, I do.” No, this wasn’t a response from the vice president to a “marriage proposal.” Rather, such was the refrain of Kamala Harris who has apparently entered the “Trump is a fascist” phase of her wilting campaign. Asked at a CNN town hall whether she thinks Donald Trump is a fascist, Harris was not content with one “Yes, I do”; it took two. Goldberg argues that fascism shared roots in common with what we call modern liberalism or progressivism. Harris went on to say that while it is true that the American people care about the economy, they “also care about our democracy and not having a president of the United States who admires dictators and is a fascist.” The occasion for Harris’ new line of attack is former Trump chief of staff John Kelly telling the New York Times that Trump meets the definition of a fascist, and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley maintaining, according to Bob Woodward, that Trump is “fascist to the core.” But for scholars who’ve long studied fascism, defining fascism isn’t so simple. “We’re not just debating whether or not Trump fits that definition; we are not agreeing on what that definition is,” Sheri Berman, a political science professor at Barnard College, Columbia University, told ABC News in an interview. There is no scholarly consensus on the term, according to both Berman and Mark Bray, a political scientist from Rutgers University. This is, in part, because fascists historically have not been tied to “rational consistency,” Bray said, pointing to Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and Nazi Germany dictator Adolf Hitler, whose policy positions changed on a variety of occasions. Donald Trump is many things, but inconsistent in his reasoning — what he thinks — is not one of them. To Berman, fascists are totalitarian with the goal of not just controlling politics, but reshaping society and controlling the economy. Donald Trump advocates free markets to grow the economy, not control it. The Progressive Flirtation With Fascism There are other ways of looking at fascism and assessing who might fall under that rubric. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini have become, for many of us, generic personifications of evil or (in Mussolini’s case) an authoritarian buffoon. Yet, their ideologies were rooted in specific philosophical ideas — ideas which had many respectable adherents in their day. One person who articulates this view is Jonah Goldberg, author of the 2007 book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Goldberg argues that fascism shared roots in common with what we call modern liberalism or progressivism. People often argue over whether Hitler and Mussolini were “right-wing” or “left-wing.” More to the point is that, according to Goldberg, both men’s ideologies had roots in the Progressive movement of the turn of the 20th century. The Progressive movement was closely tied to the philosophy of Pragmatism: the belief that thought is a tool for action and change. In contrast to the ancient and medieval philosophers, for whom philosophy was the contemplation of reality, the Progressives were animated by the desire to mold reality and to harness knowledge for social betterment. Many in the vanguard of progressive thought initially were enamored of Mussolini and even Hitler, considering their dictatorships an interesting “social experiment.” H. G. Wells, the popular science fiction writer, was one such progressive. In a number of speeches and books he praised the militaristic social mobilization in the new fascist regimes: an entire society moving as a single unit under the rule of a Nietzschean superman. Complete state control of all aspects of life was seen as highly pragmatic and scientific by many. Nationalism and militarism — elements commonly associated with the Right — were actually key components of the Progressive Era, flourishing in particular under President Woodrow Wilson, as Goldberg documents in his text. Goldberg probably goes too far in his characterizations, but that fact does not diminish the weight of a further point. One does not have to cite progressive thinkers like Wells who considered early 20th century dictatorships a useful “social experiment,” or Democratic fans of eugenics, to underscore the totalitarian threat in America’s history. Moreover, frightening examples are still with us today in the form of woke ideology, Antifa, BLM, and others. Fascism Does Not Accord With Trump History illustrates that 20th-century fascists detested parliamentary democracy. They subscribed to the state as preeminent over the individual, holding bourgeois existence in contempt, promoting a cult of personality idealization. Violence was fundamental to fascist rule, illustrating nihilistic tendencies and the elevation of and reliance on the military to achieve its goal. Trump was presented with the perfect opportunity to use military force in 2020, when post-George Floyd rioters torched American cities in the most sustained and materially damaging riots in U.S. history. Many people called on Trump to do just that. Yet, for better or for worse, Trump refused to call in the National Guard, hardly the tendency of a Hitler or a Mussolini. In fact, the “Fuhrer” held to an existential struggle within our species, a conflict the “Aryan race” would perpetrate toward subjugation or annihilation of any peoples perceived as inferior. No one (including the Democratic candidate for president) provides any compelling evidence to support the idea of Trump deploying a paramilitary wing of the GOP to intimidate and war with his “enemies” on America’s streets. Yes, Trump utters crude and undignified remarks and acted unwisely after the 2020 election. But the notion that there is any meaningful correlation between the former president and the horrific movements or despots of the past is absent of any reasonable merit. Rather than pursuing the classic fascist objective of territorial expansion and self-aggrandizement through conquest, Trump often contends against his own party’s war hawks — frequently getting him into trouble. For years now, Trump has campaigned on his success in keeping the U.S. out of wars, and it is difficult to think of a president who has consistently stood up to and confronted the top military brass. In Trump’s first term in the White House, he appointed strict constitutionalist judges, most of whom have sought to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Trump extolled the virtues of free enterprise, restored due process on college campuses, and proved, like no other president, a profound friend of the Jewish state — recognizing Jerusalem as its capital, the Golan Heights as Israeli sovereign territory, and sponsoring the Abraham Accords. Instead of pursuing a fascist politics of racial purity, his efforts of his campaign for president are directed towards putting together a more multi-racial political coalition, and he is, in fact, demonstrating success in this regard. The accusations against Trump as a fascist rely on misinformation, deceit, innuendo, and frankly just plain ignorance of history. And it comes — especially in the case of disgruntled former generals John Kelly and Mark Milley — from those unable to succeed without diminishing the capabilities of someone they can’t measure up to or, more the point, that they just don’t like — it’s personal. Fascism is not endemic to American soil, but Donald J. Trump, to borrow General Milley’s own phraseology, “is American to his core.” This is precisely the type of American we should want as president of the United States. READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: The Election Prognosticators: Experts vs. the Crowd Tolerance Is Just One of Many Important Virtues The post Fascism Is a Progressive Tendency — Not a Trump One appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Although I am not a betting man, I would wager that the vast majority of American citizens cannot wait for this election cycle to be complete. Those who pay the closest attention to campaign messaging are not snowed by the avalanche of policy half-truths, innuendos, and lies of omission emanating from Vice President Kamala Harris and her acolytes. It is hard for most Americans to conceive of the motivation behind the lack of effective illegal immigration controls. Early in her current electoral quest, Harris put out a statement regarding the hot-button border/immigration issue that read “Congress must act. Unfortunately, we have too often been met with those who sought to play political games instead of participating in solutions.” I do not know if Harris has ever seriously reflected on this border and immigration statement, but should she do so, her own conclusions might be quite alarming. One particular immigration misrepresentation by Harris and her like-minded Senate colleagues is that the Republicans have been AWOL when it comes to advancing serious border initiatives. There is ample evidence to the contrary. Democrat Tricks on Border Bills There were two distinct initiatives by Republicans that ran completely counter to the “playing games instead of participating in solutions” assertion. The first was that Sen. James Lankford did propose legislation, which, after negotiation with the Democrat majority, was very deeply flawed. It allowed up to an additional two million immigrants to enter the U.S per year; that was defeated on a procedural motion in the Senate. The second was a Democrat tactical ploy she also fails to mention. The House passed HR 2, the Secure the Border Act, in May 2023 and was sent to the Senate. So, when the Lankford bill was introduced, the White House and Senate Democrats came up with a scheme to stop a House/Senate border bill conference and at the same time reframe the immigration deliberations. By stopping any border bill in the Senate, the Democrats sought to hang the border crisis around former President Donald Trump’s neck, calculating that this immigration mess could be turned into a winning campaign issue for them. During debate on Lankford’s bill, Democrat senators stated that they and the Biden–Harris administration were, of course, for securing the border, but still very much committed to being pro-immigrant. In stark contrast, they asserted that Trump was only focused on mass deportations and, as a xenophobe, stopping immigration altogether. Consequently, they argued, it was Trump’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering that killed Lankford’s immigration bill. Indeed, a conference on the border legislation could not be scheduled since the Lankford legislation or a substitute was never passed; the bill was then exiled to the Senate “calendar,” where it has been parked ever since. What is never discussed by partisans or the media is that if Lankford’s Senate bill had been passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate, a conference committee would have taken up both the House and Senate versions of the border legislation. In that scenario, it is likely it would have forced a Senate compromise on the Democrat demands of allowing an additional two million unvetted immigrants entry into the U.S. That provision alone killed any chance of Republican votes, much to the delight of the Democrats and to the detriment of most American citizens. What Republicans Wanted for the Border Here are some of the most salient provisions of HR 2 that the Senate Democrats sidestepped by killing the Senate bill. The bill required the Department of Homeland Security to resume and complete construction of the border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The proposal required detention of those who attempted to enter the U.S. outside of designated ports of entry and it ended the “catch and release” program. It called for an increase in the number of Border Patrol agents to at least 22,000. Their focus would be changed from expediting processing of immigrants for entry to the U.S. to assessing asylum claims. They were to restrict entry to those who were able to prove they were “more likely than not” to qualify for asylum because they were fearing persecution. Thus, Borer Patrol agents would be charged with evaluating well-rehearsed, uniform “fear” declarations that cartel members had immigrants practice prior to approaching the border. Many border personnel have been quoted as saying that, in their experience, an exceedingly minute percentage of immigrants were actually motivated by these fears. (READ MORE: Unchecked Immigration Has Transformed America) Most were focused on the magnet of enhancing their economic well-being, whether through U.S. government support programs or by attaining illegal employment. But under the House provisions, U.S. businesses would have been required to use E-Verify to check the work eligibility of newly arrived immigrants for those seeking employment. Additionally, the House bill would have reinstated the Remain in Mexico policy, which mandated asylum seekers deemed reasonably safe from persecution or violence to be sent back to Mexico to await adjudication of their claim. And it would have granted access to information that ensured Border Patrol access to the criminal history records of the illegals’ home countries prior to entry. It seems evident that the House measures represented a stringent, enforcement-focused approach to border security and immigration control, which is why it was never pushed to a conference by the Senate Democrats. They had no appetite to reconcile the status quo brought about by President Joe Biden’s rescinding of 94 related executive orders, which grew the illegal U.S. population by millions. It is hard for most Americans to conceive of the motivation behind the lack of effective illegal immigration controls. The answer, despite the vehement protestations of the open border crowd, is a lust for political power, which in the U.S. comes by way of the ballot box. But how can noncitizens possibly gain access to the ballot box? Illegals Vote By law, only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. But it has been clearly demonstrated in a number of states that illegals certainly do participate in elections. After all, the vast majority of states do not require any proof of citizenship to vote. None. Thus, a peer-reviewed study in 2014 estimated that about 25 percent of noncitizens were registered to vote in 2008 and 2010. Moreover, they suggest that as many as 2.8 million of them actually voted. (READ MORE: Non-Citizens Have Been Voting Since 2008) What’s more, the states that have enacted “Motor Voter” laws only require an applicant to check a box stating that they are legal citizens in order to be registered; it is based on the honor system and is generally never questioned. If that is not enough, there have already been moves in Democrat-run states and cities to “legally” allow noncitizens to vote in elections. Municipalities in New York, California, the District of Columbia, and Vermont have now granted noncitizens (including illegals) access to voting in state and local elections (though the courts, in some instances, have intervened). Initiatives of this sort will undoubtedly grow unless Congress intercedes. But intercede it must if we hope to retain the bedrock principle of the consent of the governed. Finally, it should be noted that the Democrats under Senate rules certainly had the right to slow-walk border bills to a conference committee for negotiation. But by doing so, they well knew that they were submerging the House border bill deep into amber so it could not emerge to bring about border and immigration solutions on their watch. Marc E. Zimmerman is a former legislative assistant to a member of the U.S. Congress. The post Harris and the Dems Have No Border Credibility appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Revolver News: We’re approaching the four-year anniversary of the infamous January 6 pipe bomb case, and still the FBI pretends to be clueless as to the identity of the suspect. In this same span of time, Revolver News is proud to have broken countless stories regarding the pipe bomb case that overwhelmingly point toward […]

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: “TRUMP PRAISED HITLER” was projected onto the side of Madison Square Garden during the latest Democratic National Convention. The rhetoric comparing Donald Trump to Nazi madman Adolf Hitler has been overwhelming over the past week. Holocaust survivors are now speaking out against the Democrats for their dangerous and insensitive pomposity. […]