ACTION

The Force Awakens opened this Friday to packed theaters across America. I haven’t seen it for a number of reasons, among which is an unwillingness to tent out for days just to buy tickets. The film will nonetheless make oodles of money, I’m sure, as Star Wars has replaced the Bible as Western civilization’s primary cultural commonality, both relevant and accessible to people across the societal spectrum.

This seventh chapter of the epic space opera may be the first to steer clear of political themes. According to film critic Matt Singer, “The Force Awakens is — arguably to its detriment — completely uninterested in politics.” This newfound political disinterest may have something to do with the fact that Star Wars is no longer the property of its creator, George Lucas, who infused the prequels and, to a lesser extent, the original trilogy, with political overtones.

Star Wars has never been what it appears to be—good clean fun with spaceships and laser beams. Don’t feel bad; that’s what I thought it was too when I was a little kid playing with action figures.

Space ships and laser beams are the packaging not the story. To get to the real story it’s necessary to turn the clock back to April 1973, a time of great disillusionment, when the last American combat troops were withdrawing from Vietnam and the Watergate hearings were only a month away. With these generation-shaping events as a backdrop, twenty-eight year old George Lucas began typing the story of a courageous farm boy from the galaxy’s rural backwaters who took on a rotting empire replete with militarism and darkness—and won.

He told his audience that it all took place “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” but its actual setting was both contemporary and terrestrial. Star Wars was an allegory for the world as seen through the eyes of a baby boomer who had come of age on a college campus in the 1960s, who had felt the draft board breathing down his neck, and who had imbibed the spirit of San Francisco, where he was living at the time. The militaristic empire he imagined was his own country and the rebels were communist Vietnamese, though they could have been any number of “anti-imperialist” forces around the globe—the ANC in South Africa, the Tupamaros in Uruguay, etc. The Death Star was a warning against the destructive power of nuclear weapons, though it could be seen as analogous to the Pentagon. Darth Vader? Probably Dick Nixon or just a stand-in for the soulless admirals and generals in command of the war machine.

Lucas had other influences, of course, because inspiration is never that simple. Star Wars was also one part Flash Gordon serial and one part gun-slinging western with a whole heap of Kurosawa’s samurai cinema thrown in. The story also paralleled the Third Reich, starring Darth Vader as Hitler and stormtroopers as, well…stormtroopers.

But it was always about America, the only country George Lucas had ever known. If the film evoked images of Nazi Germany, the logical conclusion was that that’s what America had become or was on the verge of becoming. Star Wars could be read as a cautionary tale of what might happen if we didn’t change course.

Consider some of the notes Lucas scribbled in late 1973: “Aquilae is a small independent country like North Vietnam, threatened by a neighbour or provincial rebellion, instigated by gangsters aided by empire. Fight to get rightful planet back. Half of the system has been lost to gangsters…The empire is like America ten years from now, after gangsters assassinated the emperor and were elevated to power in a rigged election…We are at a turning point: fascism or revolution.”

That’s not exactly the Star Wars we all know and love, largely because Lucas’s concept still had a lot of growing to do, but the framework was there. From its earliest drafts, the script told the story of a scrappy underdog, patterned after North Vietnam, doing battle with a corrupt American empire. The underdog had only his convictions to give him heart, while the empire, which seemed invincible, was actually rotten to the core.

The politics got even more heavy in the prequels, culminating in the hyperpolitical Revenge of the Sith, which the Washington Post jokingly dubbed The Empire Strikes Bush. Actually, the Galactic Empire is Bush, but I understand it’s a fun witticism. Sith’s subliminal messages were not lost on The New York Times’s film reviewer A.O. Scott, who wrote: “’Revenge of the Sith’ is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power. Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader…echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, ‘If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.’”

That wasn’t really Darth Vader; or not yet. It was Anakin Skywalker, but clearly he was mimicking Bush’s post-9/11 admonition to foreign leaders, “Either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

So you can imagine my disappointment when I learned that the newest film would abstain from political commentary. That’s really unfortunate because we need it now more than ever. We’re a nation adrift, led by a corrupt, unprincipled political class that seems to have pulled the wool over the eyes of half the population.

Consider for a moment the scene in Revenge of the Sith in which Emperor Palpatine convinces the Senate to cede unprecedented power to him, thus establishing the Galactic Empire “in order to secure the security” of the Republic. Queen Amidala famously remarks “So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.” Lucas was surely knocking Bush though it’s even more relevant today. The scene seemed a clever reference to the PATRIOT Act which, in case you haven’t noticed, is still the law of the land because Barack Obama approved its extension. But the Senate scene was about a lot more than just the PATRIOT Act; it was about our willingness, in times of trouble, to cede the power vested in the people and their elected representatives to a single charismatic leader. In light of Obama’s imperial presidency, the scene has assumed new meaning.

Richard Nixon and George W. Bush weren’t great presidents but neither were they Emperor Palpatine. I can’t say the same about President Obama who really does bear a striking resemblance to that wrinkled geezer in a hoody. So why can’t we make a movie about his policies, about his administration?

The Obama Administration has given us so much material to work with, the script would practically write itself. Imagine an evil Sith Lord who sweeps away any restraints on his authority with the words, “If the Senate won’t act, I will” or “We can’t wait for (fill in the blank).” The same Sith Lord could go to war in a sandy place resembling Tatooine without the approval of the Senate. Here’s a better one—the aforementioned villain pits one alien race against another (Jawas vs. Ewoks?) with his constantly divisive rhetoric, then uses the crisis to snatch up all the blasters and lightsabers in the galaxy. Stormtroopers go planet to planet, kicking down doors and confiscating anything that resembles a weapon. One of the Sith Lord’s closest advisors then turns to his boss and mutters something like “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Another idea: A council of supposed sages, call them judges if you will, abandon their fidelity to the law they swore to uphold and begin making decisions based on their own personal agendas. Here’s a good one—the Jedi are prohibited from practicing their ancient religion for fear that some people might get their feelings hurt.

Why, oh why, did Star Wars stop being political at the very moment that the most Palpatine-esque president ever to defile the Oval Office came to power? Maybe it’s because George Lucas isn’t at the helm anymore, though it’s doubtful that his directing and/or production would have made a difference. I suspect that The Force Awakens would still avoid criticizing the president because Lucas has, or once had, a man-crush on him. Said Lucas in 2008: “We have a hero in the making back in the United States today because we have a new candidate for president of the United States, Barack Obama.” Whether Lucas still feels that way is unknown. Perhaps he’s been appalled with what he’s seen in the ensuing seven years but I doubt it.

It’s almost as if political commentary just isn’t cool in show biz anymore. Would a major movie studio even make a film that was so obviously critical of this president and his policies? I have my doubts. Dissent isn’t patriotic anymore, less so in Hollywood, so I guess we’ll have to settle for spaceships and laser beams. What a pity.

On December 18, 2014, Barack Obama officially began the war on police as he signed an Executive Order establishing the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Since the signing of this Executive Order, 55 Officers have been killed in the line of duty. Yet, this mattered little to Obama who justified his Executive Order as he spoke about “the distrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities – the sense that in a country where our basic principle is equality under the law, too many individuals, particularly young people of color, do not feel they are being treated fairly.” In the name of equality, the President wrote that the purpose of his task force was to identify and “bring unity and consensus on best practices to a nation with 18,000 separate law enforcement agencies.”

On March 4, 2015, the task force released its interim report on 21st Century Policing in which the report identified “six pillars on how policing practices can build public trust and promote effective crime reduction” based upon “input from community members, law enforcement officers, associations, stakeholders, academic experts, and civic leaders across the country.” In order to implement the strategies identified in the report, the federal government will “provide funding for state and local police, dependent upon such police departments meeting requirements established by the federal government.” In short, what this means is that the administration will attempt to gain federal control of local police practices via conditions placed on the receipt of federal funds.

According to a multitude of recommendations under the report, the administration stresses the need to change the culture in which police do their work noting that “the use of disrespectful language and the implicit biases that lead officers to rely upon race in the context of Stop and Frisk”, must be abolished. Moreover, the report recommends that the “Federal government create a Law Enforcement Diversity Initiative to help communities diversify Law Enforcement departments to better reflect the demographics of the community…with discretionary Federal funding for Law Enforcement programs influenced by that departments efforts to improve their diversity.”

Lastly, the report notes that the “U.S. Department of Justice should charge its office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) with assisting the law enforcement field in addressing current and future challenges by establishing benchmarks and best practices for Federal, State, and Local police departments.” The report goes on to conclude that the President should “prioritize grant funding to departments meeting benchmarks.” Thus, creating the incentive for over 18,000 separate law enforcement agencies to follow the federal guidelines in order to receive funding.

In order to bring about the systemic reform of policing called for in the report, multiple activist organizations aided by the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, have gone about exploiting local police communities throughout the country by using actual and perceived instances of injustice to reform entire police departments. Last week, James Cadogan, a senior counselor to the U.S. assistant attorney general, took to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council to highlight and condemn our police on the international stage for their “racism and brutality.”

Cadogan highlighted the past cases which have been exploited by the DOJ beginning with, “The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina.” Cadogan then noted that these cases “have renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed administration of justice” as “these events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress — through both dialogue and action.”

Cadogan concluded by adding that the Department of Justice has opened more than 20 investigations in the last six years — including an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department — as well as the release of a report of the Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing in March, which included more than 60 recommendations. A glaring theme becomes apparent within each of the cases that Cadogan highlighted, primarily that being the exploitation of local police communities by Vanita Gupta, the head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division.

On Tuesday, Gupta spoke to the Colorado Lawyers Committee in remarks about the work of the Civil Rights Division. Gupta explained that the source of mistrust between police and the communities they serve couldn’t be “explained away as the kneejerk reaction of the ill-informed or the hyperbolic.” Gupta then went on to state,  “It’s in part the product of historical awareness about the role that police have played in enforcing and perpetuating slavery, the Black Codes, lynchings and Jim Crow segregation.”

This fringe viewpoint by Gupta epitomizes the mainstream view among the leftists who populate not only the Civil Rights Division but the Department of Justice as well. “It was no accident that these same leftists produced an absurd self-fulfilling report on Ferguson”, writes J. Christian Adams of PJMedia. “But that hasn’t stopped Gupta from trumpeting the report, or better still, using the report to shake down police departments across the country to change their ways or else.”

Gupta illustrates this point by concluding her speech to the Colorado Lawyers noting that, “in many ways, Ferguson is not an anomaly. Through our work around the country, we know there are similar police and court practices in many places..[and] cities around the country are beginning to re-examine their policing and municipal court practices, though we know there is much more work to do.”

Its unprecedented that our own DOJ would continue to use the example of Ferguson to highlight the need for changes within police communities given the fact that Michael Brown was in no way innocent of the actions that led to his death. The entire narrative that surrounded his death was fabricated and built upon a lie that to this day the media, the DOJ, and the Obama administration continue to peddle. Moreover, by attempting to claim that slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow, and lynchings are apart of the “implicit bias” and historical context in which police today continue to enforce, the DOJ justifies the actions of thugs whom have used this same argument in order to commit acts of violence against our officers.

This view of our police officers is becoming the norm under the Justice Department, which at the same time is set to further exacerbate this hatred as Obama is set to unleash and fund community organizers on crime filled cities across the nation. By awarding $163 million in grants to various community-activist groups in order to combat urban crime and reduce tensions between racial minorities and the police. The Justice Department is looking for 10 localities to participate in a “collaborative reform” process to serve as a model for the rest of the country, emphasizing “procedural justice” and “implicit bias training.” This will only fuel further unrest by funding many of the so-called “community organizers” responsible for creating anti-police sentiment in American cities.

It should come as no surprise then that in the wake of recent events and events to come that law enforcement officers are at a “tipping point” that could spell dangerous consequences for the communities they serve. Testifying before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke articulated this point. Clarke noted “We’re at a tipping point and it is something that I expressed not too long after what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, about the psyche of the police officer who watches these things go on, just like anybody else does, and the constant bashing and maligning of the profession is starting to take its toll.” According to Clarke, the result of the constant and unrepentant backlash against law enforcement by the Obama administration is inevitably leading to an erosion of “self-initiated” police work.

This is what the war on police looks like, officers are forced to second guess their actions out of fear of being exploited for simply doing their jobs. Look no further than officer Darren Wilson to confirm this fear. To make matters even worse it appears the war against our officers is only just beginning as the president ramps up his effort to polarize, dehumanize, and ultimately destroy the will power that is so essential to each and every individual police officer throughout the country.

Article from PoliticallyShort.com

Vice President Biden prepares to submit presidential  task force strict gun control measures to Obama

There is a sickening aroma in the air that is beginning to permeate the very soul of independent freedom embracing Americans. It began to originate long before the shooting at Aurora, Colorado, or recently in Newtown, Connecticut. Its rancid fragrance seeps into the fabric of the U.S. Constitution and is emitted by the control terrorists who manipulate the facts and perceptions of Americans who watch the news. These purveyors of stricter gun control measures seek to erode your defenses so that in your weakened state you will accept their sweet smelling tyranny.

The nation that was represented as a symbolic shining city on a hill that President Ronald Reagan spoke about over 30 years ago is now becoming a broken mud hole of shattered dreams. America’s morning that has dawned over the nation is now bearing witness to the shredding of constitutional protections which have safe guarded families since the infancy of the republic. Obama has given the order to Vice President Biden: full steam ahead to obliterate gun rights in your town. You and your family are the targets and what will you do?

The reaction by gun owners and even prospective gun owners to Obama’s desperate executive order zeal is to hurry up and buy up all the potential guns and now legal weapons. The worry is that these legal weapons might be taken by edict or by force by the government. That may be a logical solution, but it is only a temporary one.

Once Obama’s federal government has quenched its thirst on stripping away gun rights, it will not hesitate to take the next step to criminalize actual possession of legally held banned weapons!

Then what will you do?

What is the response to a government that embraces tyrannical rule over the constitutional guarantees and protections contained within the U.S. Constitution?

What are you, the father, the mother, the son or the daughter prepared to do when, the government official, acting on direct orders from a new commission set up by President Obama to confiscate your guns, comes to your home’s door?

Where are the defenders of the U.S. Constitution who are elected in Congress? Are you absolutely certain they will not give in, and knuckle under Obama’s determination which is aided by the mainstream media talking heads?

Remember these are the same talking heads that avoided Obama’s dismissive behavior in not enforcing congressional legislation. This is the same mainstream media that buried the White House Benghazi murder cover up as if it never happened. Think about your choices when seeking to rely upon the once independent fourth estate, which has been rendered a useless patsy for the Obama administration.

Do you really believe that once your guns are banned, and the weapons that were grandfathered in and off limits from government seizure, will not be taken in the second round of gun control legislation?

(Click - to read more)