Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Seperated families and conflating with NAZIs

 In the debate over separating children from their families at the Southern Border, Democrats seem comfortable that while President Obama locked up hundred of thousands of unaccompanied minors in sordid conditions, he did not separate most them from their families. What the Democrats want you to ignore is the fact every unaccompanied minor is the result of separated family and the flood of unaccompanied minors that showed up on the Southern border was the result of President Obama policy of giving unaccompanied minors a pass into the country.  The Democrats also bemoan the  lasting affects of children being separated from their families; how is this different from what unaccompanied minors have been through, where they were no only separated from their families but had to travel unaccompanied an extremely dangerous trip of near 2000 miles, where many of the unaccompanied minors  had to endure attacks, robberies and the females rape. Certainly this will also have a lasting affect on their psyche

At least the media is covering what is going on and President Trump is trying to change a poorly thought out policy. Now the left is accusing President Trump of suspension of due process. The immigration policies have been broken for decades, and now the left expects President Trump to fix it with just a phone and a pin; something of course that is the suspension of due process.

"Donald Trump likes to divide families when they first cross the U.S.-Mexico border; Barack Obama preferred to let them get settled in the interior and then send ICE agents to arrest mommy or daddy at home or work, leaving the children behind...During the Obama years, more than 40,000 U.S.-born kids whose parents had been deported were dumped into foster care." https://www.oregonlive.com/... This compared to the 2000 family separations that occurred under President Trump at the border.
President Obama also caged over 90,000 unaccompanied minors in a tidal wave of foreign nation children that flocked to the border are President Obama said they would get a pass into the country. So the fact is President Obama forced the separation of families with his unaccompanied minors policy. This is much like the Democrats separating fathers from black families when they offered much more welfare money to single mothers, then families still living in poverty.  

The term fascists defines a type of totalitarian collective government that eliminates indivual rights in the name of security, often using reactive violence to quite dissent;  but to the left it means any action they don't like, even though the left is renown for using fascists tactics to crate fear from the puplic and forward their political worldview.  Here is a little education, fascism excludes any president that advocates indivual rights and liberty, as fascists rule is by governmental fiat through more and more suffocating regulations. President Obama increased the power of the government by implementing a slew of regulations all intent on controlling the means of production and trying to create a collective that would kowtow to world governance. President Obama also ignored court orders, while President Trump has adhered to all the court orders from activist judges that have interfered with President Trumps Constitution powers; he complained but he followed them and waited for a Supreme court ruling that have found on his side every time. A fascist regime is also against the will of the people because the powers that be know better. This is exemplified by the left making up allegations and forcing a fishing expedition without any predicate crime; which has never happened before in the history of the DOJ; all to overturn a legal election.

The left has also become a apologist for NAZI tactics, as they trivialize the horrors the victims when they conflate the detention of illegal foreign Nationals, to NAZI death camps and other atrocities. The end result is many are ignorant the level of debauchery by the NAZIs. Some of this ignorance comes from the fear of microaggressions (in the case of learning about NAZI atrocities there is nothing "micro") by snowflakes. There are many that would be so traumatized just by reading about the NAZI death camps, they would rather be ignorant of the horrid reality and assume it was no worse that ICE separating families that illegally crossed the border. There is simply nothing that the illegal foreign nationals have experienced that is in any way comparable to being marched into gas chambers. As someone said, the moment one mentions NAZI they have lost the argument.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

The Ambush of Trump by Rep(D) Frederica Wilson.

When Rep (D) Frederica Wilson (a rabid anti-Trump zealot) contacted news agencies saying the wife of Sgt. La David Johnson was angered by the President Trump, a simple look at the facts show  this was an ambush designed to use the death of a soldier purely for political purposes; violating what has been a sacred process. by the military. First one has to ask how Rep Wilson happen to be present when the call was made. One has to assume either Rep Wilson called the widow when she learned of Sgt. La David Johnson death, or the widow, Myeshia Johnson, or a close family member called  Rep Wilson; why would this have occurred? When the President wants to console the family of a fallen soldier, a  "pre-call" is made to determine if the family will take the call. Now Trump has made similar calls in the past, at least 34 of the 43 KIA soldiers since Trump became President, and probably consoled the family members in a similar fashion. So we  find the widow has decided to take the call, while in her car on speaker phone, with  Rep Wilson also in attendance and then made the call into a political scandal. The whole story makes no sense, unless it is in the context of left using the death of a soldier and the sacred manner in which the military consoles the family, for nothing more than political posturing and the inability to accept they have been rejected by much of the American people.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

More about the false narrative about the"Southern Strategy"

A while ago I wrote an essay regarding the  The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Recently I had an occasion to revisit the subject.

There is a difference between a platform and a worldview. Millions of people do not just decided one day that they will forsake a premise of their life long value system against racism, and decide they want to be racists to get more votes. It is more than intellectually dishonest to propose such a thing, it is ludicrous. As has been seen over and over, people with solid moral compass, attempt to maintain their course (and even if they fail they still no what is right and what is wrong); it is those with abhorrent and selfish values, that believe people are inferior to them, that often times seem the light and change their moral compass. Further the whole idea of the Southern Strategy is Republicans took over the Democrat oppression of blacks, something there is no evidence of. In fact during the 1960s Republicans took control of Presidential elections no state and local elections. So regardless of who Southern racists voted for President, the Democrats would stay fully in charge of the state and local government for decades.

The whole Southern Strategy revisionist history was nothing more than identity politics, pushed by the likes of the extreme left wing by people such as Paul Krugman (Krugman says the Dixiecrats became Republicans, but fails to mention the Dixiecarts Party was founded and dissolved in 1948. So somehow the ex- Dixiecrats waited some 16 years to become Republicans. The truth is all the Dixiecrats fell back into the Democrat party and only 3 ex-Dixiecrats actually switched sides in the 1960s and became Republicans. The point is numerous historians and political scientists have written exposés on the false narrative of the flip/ flop Southern Strategy.

"Political scientist Nelson W. Polsby argued that economic development was more central than racial desegregation in the evolution of the postwar South in Congress.[104] In The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South, the British political scientist Byron E. Shafer and the Canadian Richard Johnston developed Polsby's argument in greater depth. Using roll call analysis of voting patterns in the House of Representatives, they found that issues of desegregation and race were less important than issues of economics and social class when it came to the transformation of partisanship in the South.[105] This view is backed by Glenn Feldman who notes that the early narratives on the southern realignment focused on the idea of appealing to racism. This argument was first and thus took hold as the accepted narrative. He notes, however, that Lassiter's dissenting view on this subject, a view that the realignment was a "suburban strategy" rather than a "southern strategy", was just one of the first of a rapidly growing list of scholars who see the civil rights "white backlash" as a secondary or minor factor. Authors such as Tim Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W. White follow the lead of Lassiter, Shafer and Johnston in viewing suburban voters and their self interests as the primary reason for the realignment. He does not discount race as part of the motivation of these suburban voters who were fleeing urban crime and school busing.[10] " wikipedia

 "If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. History Lesson: Racist Democrats and the Big Lie

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

The Myth of the Southern Strategy (2)

The "Southern Strategy" Myth

Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment

The Myth of the Racist Republicans

"Their Democratic Party home during America’s most horrible years of racism and bigotry – murder and; mayhem – hatred and terrorism – intolerance and exclusion. But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationists became Republicans after 1964. Only these three (3) switched parties, how surprising!

Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. D-VA
Sen. Jesse Helms, Jr. D-NC
Sen. Strom Thurmond D-SC"

Did the Democrats and GOP “Switch Sides” after the Civil Rights Act in 1964?

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Jesus was the new covenant of love, ending the old covenant of judgement on earth

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

The teachings of Christ often conflicted with the strict law of the Pharisees of the Old Testament. Here Christ was saying that the old ways will not pass away until "Everything is accomplished" or "All is finished". Many have said this means that Jesus continued to judge many by their life style (ie anti-homosexual) after his death and resurrection. However, a more enlightened reading tells us he was saying that the old ways will die with him. In John 19:30: Jesus on the cross said, "It is finished", just before he died. This would appear to coincide with his previous statement, "not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished". In other words with his death, "all was accomplished" so the old covenant of strict rules (that no one could ever follow in total; demonstrating the foolishness of man thinking they could earn their way to heaven) and animal sacrifices, dies and a new covenant centered around grace (god giving his unearned love to humanity), the love of God and showing love and kindness to your fellow man, free from judgements, was born. In this way heaven and earth pass away, as they existed before, and a new earth and heaven was born with the new covenant.

Mark 12:28 "One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

The message of Matthew 5:19 is Jesus is reinterpreting the "commands" and his disgust with "the Pharisees and the teachers of the law." Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves......31 Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets.32 Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. 33 You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?

There is also debate on what Jesus meant by the commands, whether he was talking about Mosaic law in general or specifically the 10 Commandments.

Given Jesus’ repeated contrasts between his teaching and that of the law and of the teachers of the law, given Jesus’ call to his followers to embody a greater righteousness than that of the teachers of the law, it is necessary for Jesus to remind his followers that the law pointed forward to his greater righteousness all along. Neither the law nor the prophets were ever ends in themselves. Jesus is saying that if you really want to follow the Law and the Prophets, you need to follow him. In fact, later in Matthew’s gospel he will portray representatives of the law and the prophets (Moses and Elijah) meeting with Jesus in the Transfiguration, and what does the voice of the Father in heaven say? “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). It’s arguably the central theme of Matthew’s gospel.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Accusations and Investigations Looking for an Undefinable Crime

 Prior to Trump becoming President, he like many Presidents before him reached out to other countries and their leaders so they could understand what positions and policies they would have to contend with. This is not any attempt to usurp the authority of the President, it is simply taking advantage of the 2 months between the election and swearing in of a new President.  These so called back channel network are very common (what to you think the Russian "red phone" is?), it's very likely Obama had one to Russia, the UN, Germany, Saudi Arabia (and quite probably Iran for his secret treaty negotiations) as Obama was probably the most secretive and leak paranoid President the US has ever had). There is no ethical or criminal violation of the law, as there only purpose is to screen out Intelligence players to prevent the leaks that have become so prevalent. It is the speculated nefarious purposes of such a network (even though it appears it was never followed through with) from the secretive informants, that is the fake news. Obviously there has been an avalanche of  fake news, many of which have been debunked, including the Russian (golden shower) dossier, that Comey asked for more resources for his investigation from DOJ before we has fired by Trump, which was debunked by then Deputy Secretary of the FBI, Andrew McCabe; and it is “Totally false,” from DOJ spokesman Ian Prior and from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "I want to address the media claims that the FBI asked for additional resources for the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. I'm not aware of any such request. (Comey would have needed to go to Congress for more resources, not DOJ). Speaking of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, unnamed sources said he wanted to resign as a result of Trump saying he based the firing of Comey based on his uncomplimentary report; something Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also denied.

There is also fake news from again "unidentified sources" that the FBI investigation  into Russian interference was zeroing in on Trump; again a named source, Andrew McCabe told Trump the media coverage of the FBI investigation was very overstated or a fabrication; Trump also said then FBI head Comey told him he was not a subject of their investigation, something Comey has not denied.

The media is now directing an attempted coup to to try and remove President Trump, using the same tactics and have the same goals they accused the Russians of; the goals are to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, and denigrate Trump. Not to be burdened down with responsible reporting (during the Nixon investigation, the Washington demanded that all the information be verified by at least three people, who where both named and quoted; today it is any information from unnamed sources or not, that is designed to show collusion between Trump and Russia. The media then reports this unverified information as factual (accept for a disclaimer buried in the article that that  no evidence has been found the shows any collusion between Trump and Russia).  Not only that, the media can not even even describe what is was the Russians needed from Trump, to aid them with their so called "interference" in the 2016 election; it's not as if Trump could supply the Russians with intelligence they didn't already have or help with hacking computers or even increase access to social media; nothing that the media has claimed led to the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election. In other words we are dealing with the media claiming nefarious actions by Trump, but they still can't explain what Trump brought to the table with his so called collusion (or example of what Trump could have possibly done to aid the Russians in hacking the election), nor can they even define how the collusion would have resulted in the loss of the election. The result is accusations and investigations looking for an undefinable crime. 

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

The Left's Hatred of Trump, Hypocrisy and Lies Now Threatens US National Security

The left continues with it's wishful thinking. The FBI is investigating the possibility that Russia interfered with the Presidential election, not Trump. After 10 months the FBI have found no evidence of any collusion between Trump and the Russians, so much so that both McCabe and Comey have said the FBI is not even investigating Trump at this time. Further the reports that Comey had asked for additional resources from DOJ for his FBI investigation is once again the result of leaks from unnamed "congressional officers". Those directly involved, while those directly involved Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and then Deputy FBI Director McMabe have said not only did this absolutely not happen, but there would have been no reason for Comey going to DOJ for more resources, becasue congress is who could give the FBI more money or resources, not DOJ. Further there was as a report by anonymous sources that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein threatened to quit when Trump said Comey's firing was based on his letter; something Rosenstein vehemently denied.

So the question is, why would Trump be accused of obstruction of justice of an investigation he is no longer a party to? Further, even the Democrats have demonized Comey and have called for his ouster. Yes, it sounds questionable that Comey was fired regarding his handling of Hillary Clinton's criminal behavior. but that really doesn't matter becasue Comey simply wasn't doing his job and needed to go. It's also intellectually dishonest to suppose that if Comey was fired, an FBI investigation would be compromised, as if Comey was an independent prosecutor, not an administrator of an investigative organization that will continue to follow through with whatever it is doing regardless of who is charge. IOW, it's not as if Comey has information that is not the result of the FBI personnel that actually does the investigation.

There is also the recent information about Comey's notes with the Michael Flynn investigation and the obvious spin by the Democrats.

"According to the director’s notes, Comey did not respond directly to the president’s entreaties, only agreeing with Trump’s assertion that Flynn “is a good guy.’’ The notes also described how the president said that he wanted to see reporters in jail for leaks and expressed his dissatisfaction with what he viewed as the FBI’s inaction in pursuing whoever leaked , according to Comey associates." 

 Once again no one has seen these notes, the information is coming from more (or perhaps the same) anonymous sources.  Trump was telling Comey to concentrate on the leaks more than Flynn's actions (nothing of which has been determined to be illegal), but in no way was this proof that Trump was pressuring Comey to end the inquiry into Flynn. It should alos be noted that if Comey believed we was be pressured to stop his investigation of Flynn, he would be mandated to report the offense to the DOJ. The idea that Trump has some how tried to obstruct Comey in his investigation is also contrary to Comey's sworn testimony in March.

 “So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation? ..."Has it happened?"” Hirono asked.

Not in my experience,” Comey responded.

This is 2 two months after the dinner between Comey and Trump, where Trump allegedly tried to get Comey to stop his investigation on Flynn.

It's no different than the fact that Trump compared information with the Russians about ISIS bomb makers; it's as if WP has forgot we are at war with ISIS, not Russia. First you have the Washington Post (WP) claiming Trump gave the Russians classified intelligence information, when 1) the President can decide what information can be declassified and 2) even though it may have been technically classified, the information was already in the public domain and according to the very well respected H.R. McMaster and National Security Advisor to Trump, "denied that Trump had revealed the intelligence sources and methods used to glean this information. But when asked by a reporter on Tuesday whether Trump revealed the city from which the ISIS plot was detected, McMaster replied that what Trump discussed with the Russians about the Islamic State "was nothing you would not know from open-source reporting...All of you are familiar with the threat from ISIS," McMaster said on Tuesday. "All of you are very familiar with the territory it controls. If you were to say, 'Hey, from where do you think a threat might come, from territory that ISIS controls,' you would probably be able to name a few cities...It had all to do with operations that were already ongoing and had been made public for months," he said.

McMaster also said the WP printing leaked information from an intelligence meeting between the US and Russian intelligence personnel has done more damage to US national security and the trust of other countries sharing intelligence with the US, than anything Trump might have said. These intelligence agencies need to know that their conversations with the President will not end up on the Front Page of a newspaper the next day. What has become obvious is the lefts hatred of Trump overshadows US National Security.

Sunday, March 26, 2017

It's the leak Stupid

The question comes up again and again, what is more important, the leak (or hack) or the damaging information. Well that depends on the leak and who it's likely to damage. The press will always ignore the leak if it's damaging to Republicans and ignore the information if it's harmful to the Democrats. Such was the hack of the DNC supposedly by the Russians. The only thing that mattered was the leak advantaged the Republicans, proof enough that the Republicans were colluding with the Russians, never mind the Democrats has been much more friendly in it's business deals with Russia than the Republicans. First Russia has been the darling of the left, since WW ll and Stalin (this certainly includes Hillary Clinton when Secretary of State under President Obama).Never a word that former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, John Pedesta (of the Pedesta Group) successfully lobbied on behalf of the Russians when they were petitioning the US and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State for oil drilling and Uranium mining rights...."The Russian Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom, purchased in January 2005 a Canadian company — UrAsia — with uranium stakes stretching from Central Asia to Western America, reports the New York Times. This purchase made the Russian agency one of the largest uranium producers in the world....Leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have donated in excess of $25 million according to the Clinton Foundation’s website, built and eventually sold the Russians the aformentioned company that is today known as Uranium One. These Are The Two Companies That Might Land Clinton’s Foundation In Big Legal Trouble

The FBI has been investigating Trump and his campaign staff since July 2016 and they have found absolutely no evidence that they had colluded with the Russians (none, nada); this is the only information that is germane to this argument. Yet if this point is brought up in a discussion, those leaning left has turned theses accusations backwards with the illegitimate question, "Well what proof do you have that Trump and/or his campaign staff didn't collude with the Russians?"  Of course the idea that the one needs to prove a negative, is a pointless and intellectually dishonest demand. One of the first leaks the Democrats glommed onto showed that Gen Mike Flynn (then Trumps appointed national security advisor prior to being sworn in as President ) had been less than honest, when he told the future Vice President, Mike Pence, about phone conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador. General Flynn told Mike Pence that the subject of President Obama's sanctions of Russia (the result of the DNC hack), never came up. In what appears to be an illegally released of "unmasked" surveillance information, in the conversation between Gen Flynn and the Russian Ambassador, was leaked to the media, showing the subject was briefly discussed; the FBI said Gen Flynn broke no laws during the phone conversation, meaning the Ambassador most likely brought up the subject and Gen Flynn simply told the Ambassador he would have to discuss the subject with Trump. The leak led to Gem Flynn being fired becasue he was not truthful with Mike Pence, but the leak was downplayed by the media.

In this case, the leak itself was one of the most egregious violations in the history of US Intelligence. The government (NSA/FBI) is forbidden to listen in on phone conversations of Americans without specifically authorized in a VISA warrant; this is to protect American citizens from the intelligence agencies in the US from violation their Constitutional rights of privacy. However, there are sometimes when incidentally American citizen conversations are heard as the intelligence agencies routinely listen to foreign entities, such as the Russian Ambassador. In those cases the American's identity is kept secret (masked) by the intelligence agent(s) that are listening to the conversation, so the American's identity is not released, even within the intelligence agency itself. The guaranteeing of masking incidental surveillance of American citizens is the corner stone of the VISA ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) court  allowing for the "requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies" To date, this may be the first time such an unmasking violation has been leaked to the media and the public at large; in essence since it involved the future President of the United states, it is not only flagrant violation of the VISA warrant and the Constitutional rights of the citizenry by the government, but it becomes a serious case of espionage by a person (or persons) inside the government.

So yes, it is the leak that takes president, especially since the unmasked information is at best embarrassing, without showing any illegal activity by any of the parties involved, except the leaking itself. These intelligence agencies have a serious problem on their hands, and unless it is addressed,  their ability to keep Americans safe will be seriously compromised.