This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Michael Cutler Moment with Michael Cutler, a former Senior INS Special Agent.
Michael discussed How Hillary Hurts Black People and Minorities,unveiling how figures don’t lie but how liars can figure. http://jamieglazov.com/2016/08/25/how-hillary-hurts-black-people-and-minorities-a-michael-cutler-moment/
Don’t miss it!
Back in 2009, as a conservative student, and thus a walking trigger warning in a pre-trigger warning era at Columbia University, I heard that Andrew Breitbart was coming to New York to speak about his mission to “diversify Hollywood.”
With glee, I signed up for a ticket and listened to Andrew speak, frenetic as ever, about the importance of culture and how all of us starry-eyed students should come to Hollywood and train to become movie moguls.
His ultimate vision was for the next generation of young conservatives to eschew politics — which he viewed as largely a lost cause consisting of people only focused on the next election — and instead build a sustainable conservative base by infiltrating Hollywood agencies and studios, and building our own.
The goal was to get conservatives into positions of power in the culture, who could produce compelling content with an alternative narrative, and thus challenge progressivism’s chokehold on society.
For as Andrew rightly advocated, “Politics is downstream from culture.” He saw that it was in popular culture where the field was cleared for elections to be won, and a country to be fundamentally transformed. He knew that the Left’s dominance in the space, and the conservatives’ lack of resistance, let alone interest in it, meant we would always be fighting uphill battles while losing the war.
Andrew evidently felt that his highest and best use was to go about delegitimizing and destroying the Left’s sacred cows in culture by exposing their rank hypocrisy and corruption. But he knew that when the Left’s cultural house of cards came tumbling down, there needed to be a credible alternative.
Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.
The Roman Empire worked as long as Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Gauls, and myriad other African, Asian, and European communities spoke Latin, cherished habeas corpus, and saw being Roman as preferable to identifying with their own particular tribe. By the fifth century, diversity had won out but would soon prove a fatal liability.
Rome disintegrated when it became unable to assimilate new influxes of northern European tribes. Newcomers had no intention of giving up their Gothic, Hunnish, or Vandal identities.
The propaganda of history’s multicultural empires — the Ottoman, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the British, and the Soviet — was never the strength of their diversity. To avoid chaos, their governments bragged about the religious, ideological, or royal advantages of unity, not diversity.
Nor did more modern quagmires like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Rwanda, or Yugoslavia boast that they were “diverse.” Instead, their strongman leaders naturally claimed that they shared an all-encompassing commonality.
When such coerced harmony failed, these nations suffered the even worse consequences of diversity, as tribes and sects turned murderously upon each other.
For some reason, contemporary America believes that it can reject its uniquely successful melting pot to embrace a historically dangerous and discredited salad-bowl separatism.
Is there any evidence from the past that institutionalizing sects and ethnic grievances would ensure a nation’s security, prosperity, and freedom?
America’s melting pot is history’s sole exception of e pluribus unum inclusivity: a successful multiracial society bound by a common culture, language, and values. But this is a historic aberration with a future that is now in doubt.
Some students attending California’s Claremont College openly demand roommates of the same race. Racially segregated “safe spaces” are fixtures on college campuses.
We speak casually of bloc voting on the basis of skin color — as if a lockstep Asian, Latino, black, or white vote is a good thing.
We are reverting to the nihilism of the old Confederacy. The South’s “one-drop rule” has often been copied to assure employers or universities that one qualifies as a minority.
Some public figures have sought to play up or invent diversity advantages. Sometimes, as in the cases of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, and Ward Churchill, the result is farce.
Given our racial fixations, we may soon have to undergo computer scans of our skin colors to rank competing claims of grievance.
The eyes of the nation were on Wisconsin once again because of the August primary elections, principally because Paul Ryan was being challenged in the First Congressional District. The challenger, Paul Nehlen, was widely perceived as a Trumpkin, even though Trump himself had finally been coerced by the party into endorsing Ryan at a rally in Green Bay mere days before the primary. Nehlen enjoyed endorsements from the likes of Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter, but was nonetheless crushed by Ryan, who won with more than 70% of the vote.
However, there was another primary race which deserved at least as much attention.
In the Eighth Congressional District, a three-way contest developed for the chance to replace the retiring Reid Ribble. The contest was handily won (also with over 70% of the vote) by Mike Gallagher, a 32-year-old native of Green Bay with an impressive resume for his age.
After graduating from Princeton, Gallagher entered the Marine Corps and spent seven years on active duty. He served in Iraq, where he was responsible for the gathering and analysis of human intelligence (information from human sources is known as Humint, as opposed to signals intelligence, or Sigint, and electronic intelligence, or Elint). A fluent Arabic speaker, his last duty station in Iraq was the town of al-Qaim on the Syrian border. There he helped hand out school books and soccer balls to children who, just a year before, had been too terrified of al-Qaeda goons to go to school.
He was convinced at the time that his job was over, that we had won. This was before the rise of Daesh and their invasion of Iraq. The town is now controlled by Daesh.
From there, he went to work for General Petraeus at CENTCOM, where he acquired some sense of the high-level, strategic thinking behind the tactical measures he’d earlier been involved with. He also worked with the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and other federal agencies, and eventually he was the Middle East point man for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
From there, he was tapped to become national security advisor to Scott Walker’s short-lived presidential campaign. He moved back to the Green Bay area and went to work for an energy firm when the campaign folded.
The State University of New York at Binghamton is actually hosting an event titled “#StopWhitePeople2K16” at a training for resident assistants. Yet again, the politically correct social justice warriors have let slip their own racial prejudices, in the name of opposing systemic injustice and “white privilege.”
The “Stop White People” class reportedly aims to help others understand “diversity, privilege, and the society we function in.” In an Orwellian twist, the teachers promise to “give attendees the tool to” debunk “‘good’ arguments from uneducated people.” Anyone who disagrees with the assertion that we live in a society with inherent advantages for white people is “uneducated” and needs to be corrected.
Nevermind the intellectual diversity and open dialogue from multiple perspectives that truly fosters education, or the fact that white people are still people and should not be discriminated against, or the simple truth that organizations focused on “stopping white people” are just as racist as ones set up to hold back other races.
No, the State University of New York at Binghamton is committed to the closing of the liberal mind and the conspiracy theory that somehow “white people” are all out to get everyone else. Here is the full description of the event:
The premise of this session is to help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within. Learning about these topics is a good first step, but when encountered with ‘good’ arguments from uneducated people, how do you respond? This open discussion will give attendees the tools to do so, and hopefully expand upon what they may already know.
Student Howard Hecht explained the mentality behind such overt racism. “If you subscribe to the extremely leftist notion that to be racist against white people is ‘reverse racism,’ and therefore white people cannot experience racism because ‘reverse racism’ does not exist, then the title of this conference will not bother you. For the rest of the student population, however, the title may come as a bit of a shock, or at the very least spark interest in understanding the hashtag.”
This is just the latest in a long string of rather questionable anti-white events on college campuses and elsewhere. A group of “people of color” students at the Claremont Colleges specifically tried to prevent getting any white roommates. Back in May, a group of young people formed an organization aimed at convincing white men not to run for political office. Perhaps more terrifying, the Black Lives Matter protest in Milwaukee not only chanted “Black Power,” but also specifically called for violence against white people.
The news shows reported yesterday that the FBI discovered 14,900 emails that Hillary had not turned over to the State Department. This news again focuses attention on the July 5, 2016 report by FBI Director Comey that no criminal charges be pursued against Hillary, although he criticized her handling of the emails as “extremely careless.” In his report, Comey said there were “several thousand work-related emails” that Hillary did not turn over to the State Department. The question is, are those “several thousand” part of the 14,900, and if so, why didn’t Comey say on July 5 that there were 14,900 emails not turned over to the State Department and further explain the nature of the balance of the “several thousand emails”? It again raises the issue of Hillary’s intent in using a private server.
The relevant text of Comey’s report is as follows:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013[.] …
… I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.
The Democrat will to power is only possible if conservatives are scapegoated as sub-human compared to the wonderfulness of liberals. First they demonize fellow Americans. Then they announce they are morally compelled to suppress us. Trump is our answer.
The media can land a few punches, but they will not win this fight on their terms, because the media itself has become a central part of the problem. Their attacks are not on Trump, they are on all of us. That is why they will backfire very, very quickly. Glenn Reynolds in USA Today:
… the thoughts of a 22-year-old Trump supporter … a prosperous post-collegian in the San Francisco Bay area — someone who should be backing Bernie, or Hillary, or maybe Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. But instead he’s backing Trump, and so is his Asian fiancée. And the reason he gives is political correctness.
“For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. … If Trump wins, we will have a president that overwhelmingly rejects PC rhetoric. Even better, we will show that more than half the country rejects this insane PC regime.”
Political correctness is not, as some might claim, just an effort to encourage niceness. …it’s an effort to control people. Like the Newspeak in George Orwell’s 1984, the goal is to make it impossible for people to speak, or even think, unapproved thoughts.
In the 2012 book titled Stalin’s Secret Agents by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein, there is a chapter detailing Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s serious and obvious decline of health as he entered the pivotal Yalta talks at the end of World War II. FDR’s health had been an issue “from the day in 1921 when he was struck down by polio, as a result of which he would never walk again unaided.” While the Washington press corps concealed his infirmity from the public, there were,
however, other health problems of a more daunting nature in terms of his official performance. These concerned not the paralysis of his lower body or even his physical health in general, but involved instead his mental balance, judgment, and powers of comprehension.
In recent decades this information has become more publicly available. But at the time,
“…hundreds of persons, high and low, reported… that [FDR] looked bad, his mind wandered, his hands shook, his jaw sagged and he tired easily.” Notwithstanding the fact that FDR couldn’t “survive another presidential term” he went to Yalta and “seemed to have made ‘absolutely no study of the German problem'” facing the group. In fact, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins recalled the change in Roosevelt “with the oncoming of a kind of glassy eye, and an extremely drawn look around the jaw and cheeks, and even a sort of dropping of the muscles of the jaw and mouth [.]”
Nonetheless, all of these concerns about FDR’s health “were kept secret from the public.” In fact, Roosevelt’s own physician maintained that “there had been no previous signals of a [health] disaster.” Yet, Churchill’s personal physician maintained that “[w]henever FDR was called on to preside over any meeting, he failed to make any attempt to grip it or guide it, and sat generally speechless, or, if he made any intervention, it was generally completely irrelevant.” At one point, FDR made the outlandish comment that in dealing with Middle Eastern issues, there was one concession that might be made and that “was to give Saudi Arabia’s King Ibn Saud the six million Jews in the United States.” One explanation of this response was a kind of aphasia — the lack of the sort of mental filter that keeps people from blurting out impulsive statements.”
Moreover, there were times when Roosevelt “signed or agreed to things of which he later said he had no knowledge. Thus, many of the cables and memos issued in his name during the last year of Roosevelt’s life were routinely the work of others.” It appears that Roosevelt’s administration was, “in its last months, a kind of ghost ship, running on inertia.”
The latest political pile-on over alleged pharmaceutical price gouging is officially underway now that Hillary Clinton joined the scrum on Wednesday. Usually these exercises are inspired by cures or important clinical innovations that happen to be expensive. The irony this time is that the target is a monopolist created by the same government that Mrs. Clinton wants to hand far more power over drugs.
In a statement, the Democrat assailed the “outrageous” cost of EpiPen, an emergency treatment for allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis, and she demanded that drug maker Mylan “immediately reduce the price.” Federal and Senate investigations are pending into these spring-loaded syringes filled with epinephrine (adrenaline) used primarily by children with life-threatening sensitivities to food or insect stings.
Mylan has raised the price of EpiPen in semiannual 10% to 15% tranches so that a two-pack that cost about $100 in 2008 now runs $500 or more after insurance discounts and coupons. Outrage seems to be peaking now because more families are exposed to drug prices directly though insurance deductibles and co-pays, plus the political class has discovered another easy corporate villain.
Still, the steady Mylan rise is hard to read as anything other than inevitable when a billion-dollar market is cornered by one supplier. Epinephrine is a basic and super-cheap medicine, and the EpiPen auto-injector device has been around since the 1970s.
On May 25, the University of California, Irvine (UCI) witnessed a shocking display of blatant anti-Semitism coupled with egregious suppression of free speech and open discourse. Campus Brown Shirts from the hate group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) violently disrupted a movie screening organized by pro-Israel groups. The screening featured the acclaimed documentary, Beneath the Helmet, which documents the personal experiences and challenges of Israeli soldiers while undergoing basic training in a paratroop battalion.
A large and vocal group of SJP hooligans initiated a campaign of violent intimidation aimed at disrupting the event and causing harm to the attendees. They blocked entrances and exits preventing ingress and egress to and from the building. Those already inside were literally trapped while others who tried to attend were physically blocked. One female student who tried to attend was threatened and chased by a number of SJP members. She was ultimately forced to call the police while taking refuge in a nearby building. Additional police were dispatched to escort the attendees out of the building where the screening was held.
As noted by Lea Speyer of the Algemeiner, the disruptive rabble shouted slogans like, “Long live the intifada,” “f*** the police,” “displacing people since ’48 / there’s nothing here to celebrate,” and “all white people need to die.”
Though the event was not canceled and the screening went on as scheduled, the upheaval and environment of fear caused by the SJP’s antics distracted from the event and dissuaded many from attending. A re-screening was subsequently held on June 8 and also featured the short film, “Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus,” which was shown before the screening of “Beneath the Helmet.”
Given the magnitude of the SJP disruption and the blatant display of racism and anti-Semitism, one would have thought that campus officials would have instituted stern action against the vile offenders. Shockingly, however, administration officials gave the SJP what amounted to a mere slap on the wrist. An email from the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Thomas A. Parham, noted in part:
“After a thorough review, the student conduct investigation is now complete. The investigators found that SJP, the group that organized and led the protest, violated Student Conduct Policies regarding disruption: ‘Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, or other University activities.’ As a result, SJP was issued a written warning, effective immediately and continuing until March 29, 2017. As part of the sanction, SJP must host an educational program by November 18, 2016.”
University officials acknowledged that the SJP violated the student code of conduct and disrupted free speech and university activities. Nonetheless, officials decided to limit the sanction to a pathetic warning and requiring the SJP to host an “educational program.” No doubt the SJP will use the “educational” opportunity to advance their pernicious, anti-Semitic venom thus defeating the purpose of the sanction.
Top Stories @ Fox News