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?
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
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Comparing Deportations to the Holocaust
ICE rounds up illegal aliens and deports them, something done by every country in the world to protect their sovereignty, except many other countries imprison their illegal aliens. The N@zi's rounded up their own citizenry and annihilated them; it's the difference between the routine and the ungodly evil. It's sad that one would trivialize the unspeakable horror her family faced from the Holocaust simply because her political party lost an election and she disagrees with the rule of law being enforced. The end result of throwing up Hitlerian similarities of the opposing party, as the Democrats do on a constant basis, is based entirely on the trying to delegitimizing those they oppose by inferring that their opponents are horrible, mean, and totally uncaring, while they have a monopoly on caring and riotousness. The Democrat Party, rather than arguing their policies and worldview, demonize and try to delegitimize their opponents, in an effort to say, "Look at me, I'm a wonderful caring person and they are contemptible", as if attempting to pushing down their opponent raises them up. Well the people have wised up, and thrown them out of office, not only in Washington but across the country. The Democrats are responding by doubling down, now advocating violence against their opponents and randomly destroying property.
There was a time when no matter how much you disagreed with your opponent, the use of violence was mutually abhorred and demonized, but today it is being encouraged (or tacitly approved) as Democrats move to instill fear, disrupt and silence their opponents. It's just another example of how low the Democrats have fallen
There was a time when no matter how much you disagreed with your opponent, the use of violence was mutually abhorred and demonized, but today it is being encouraged (or tacitly approved) as Democrats move to instill fear, disrupt and silence their opponents. It's just another example of how low the Democrats have fallen
Monday, February 20, 2017
Trump wants to outlaw abortions and other lies
The Democrat controlled media, continue to take it upon themselves to ambush Republicans with pointless hypothetical questions, which are designed to create a completely false narrative. Just like Romney, Trump was confronted with a hypothetical situation
about an imaginary country with laws similar to the US, where abortion
was illegal. Trump's response was if something is illegal, then there is
a punishment for breaking the law. To Trump it was a law and order
question that had nothing to do with women's rights and/or abortion. In other words, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. The left then sprung it's trap accusing Trump of wanting to make abortion illegal. What? He was in no way
advocating the abortion be made illegal, but that didn't matter to the
shameless press and their war on reality; anything to defeat an
opponent; ethics be damned. And even today the left still pushes this BS as news.
This was the same as Romney being asked the question, “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Thinking this was a Constitutional question he tried to answer it, eventually saying it was an "unusual topic" and he really didn't know the answer. What Romney didn't know was he was being set up by George Stephanopoulos. The result of this exchange had the liberal press screaming that Romney wanted a law to forbid contraception. It was a total made up story with no facts to support such bizarre accusation, but the Democrat media wanted their Republican's war on women, so they pushed the premeditated lie becasue they wanted to delegitimize Obama's opponent.
So no, there is no Republican war on women, it's just the Democrat war on reality. The first time with Romney it worked, but it didn't work this with Trump. And the left is going guano crazy trying to figure out how they could have failed.
This was the same as Romney being asked the question, “Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Thinking this was a Constitutional question he tried to answer it, eventually saying it was an "unusual topic" and he really didn't know the answer. What Romney didn't know was he was being set up by George Stephanopoulos. The result of this exchange had the liberal press screaming that Romney wanted a law to forbid contraception. It was a total made up story with no facts to support such bizarre accusation, but the Democrat media wanted their Republican's war on women, so they pushed the premeditated lie becasue they wanted to delegitimize Obama's opponent.
So no, there is no Republican war on women, it's just the Democrat war on reality. The first time with Romney it worked, but it didn't work this with Trump. And the left is going guano crazy trying to figure out how they could have failed.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
The real issue with Flynn and the Russains is rogue US intelligence agents
The real issue with Michael Flynn's from resignation Homeland Security is not a possible violation of
the Login Act (a law that has never been charged). Rather
what is emerging as a shadow government made of Obama operatives left behind by Obama when he
left office. The idea that rogue intelligence officers working for the
US intelligence department forwarded highly sensitive (and a possibly
classified conversation) to the press, for the sole purpose of
destabilizing a new Presidents Administration, smells of a criminal
conspiracy. This is not the same as someone hacking into someones email
account by guessing the password. This is US intelligence officers
using information gleamed using highly invasive NSA technology to be
used for Homeland Security, that is strictly controlled to preserve the
peoples constitutional rights (the use of such information requires a
court order), for a political assassination.
It is presumed that Flynn was recorded by US intelligence that was monitoring telephone calls to the Russian government. The law as I understand it says, that once the phone call was captured, the intelligence operators must get a court order to continue any investigation becasue it involved a US citizen. However, some rogue US intelligence officer bypassed this constitutional barrier, pretty much doing what Eric Snowden has been convicted of; the release of classified and/or sensitive intelligence information without permission.
As of now only the FBI, Trump and probably the person that leaked it to the press, have a transcript, however, some that have seen the transcript say Obama's sanctions against Russia were mentioned, but not discussed; something along the lines of the Russian saying he wanted to talk about what the Trump Administration was going to do about the Obama sanctions and Flynn told told the Russian that was something he would have to take up with Trump. So it's false news that any law was violated. Where Flynn screwed up is he told Vice President Mike Pence the subject of the sanctions never came up in the phone call with the Russians, resulting in Pence defending Flynn based on Flynn's denials. However it turned out Flynn lied to Pence (or the very least was not forth coming) and left Pence hanging with his lack of candor. If the Trump Presidency is to succeed, all of his cabinet and advisers have to be on the same page. As a supervisor I often explained that I would do whatever I could to back my officers up when mistakes that are made, as long as they were honest mistakes. But there are two things that are in their best interest; 1) be completely honest (ie don't make me look stupid defending you) and 2) let me hear about it first from you; I don't like surprises. Flynn broke both rules, which pretty much showed him not to be the team player he needed to be and Trump said so much. So the issue was not so much a violation of decorum or even the law, Flynn made Pence look bad as Flynn violated an expected level of trust, so he had to go.
It is presumed that Flynn was recorded by US intelligence that was monitoring telephone calls to the Russian government. The law as I understand it says, that once the phone call was captured, the intelligence operators must get a court order to continue any investigation becasue it involved a US citizen. However, some rogue US intelligence officer bypassed this constitutional barrier, pretty much doing what Eric Snowden has been convicted of; the release of classified and/or sensitive intelligence information without permission.
As of now only the FBI, Trump and probably the person that leaked it to the press, have a transcript, however, some that have seen the transcript say Obama's sanctions against Russia were mentioned, but not discussed; something along the lines of the Russian saying he wanted to talk about what the Trump Administration was going to do about the Obama sanctions and Flynn told told the Russian that was something he would have to take up with Trump. So it's false news that any law was violated. Where Flynn screwed up is he told Vice President Mike Pence the subject of the sanctions never came up in the phone call with the Russians, resulting in Pence defending Flynn based on Flynn's denials. However it turned out Flynn lied to Pence (or the very least was not forth coming) and left Pence hanging with his lack of candor. If the Trump Presidency is to succeed, all of his cabinet and advisers have to be on the same page. As a supervisor I often explained that I would do whatever I could to back my officers up when mistakes that are made, as long as they were honest mistakes. But there are two things that are in their best interest; 1) be completely honest (ie don't make me look stupid defending you) and 2) let me hear about it first from you; I don't like surprises. Flynn broke both rules, which pretty much showed him not to be the team player he needed to be and Trump said so much. So the issue was not so much a violation of decorum or even the law, Flynn made Pence look bad as Flynn violated an expected level of trust, so he had to go.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Jeff Sessions Victory After Being Railroaded 30 Years Ago
The Coretta King letter read by Elisabeth Warren was just another
delegitimizing attempt by the left, that has no basis whatsoever. For
those that don't know, the incident that prompted the anti-(Jeff) Sessions,
Coretta King letter centered around allegations of voter fraud in 1984
in Perry County, Alabama. "Perry County has long been plagued by
accusations of voter fraud in local elections. As former Alabama
Democratic congressman Artur Davis said, “The most aggressive
contemporary voter suppression in the African American community” that
he saw in Alabama was “the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the
polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.” What the left fails to
explain that both the suspects and victim's were black. Yes black
candidates complained of voter irregularities having to do with absentee
ballots that was being perpetrated by other black candidates. The
Loretta King letter was anger against Sessions for doing any
investigations on black politicians, as (she said) there are white
politicians doing the same thing.
Further this was by no means
some crusade by Jeff Sessions,"Von Phillips, a black legal assistant in the
Perry County district attorney’s office, later testified, his office
received numerous complaints during the 1984 election cycle. Black
voters and incumbent black officials reported that voters were receiving
absentee ballots they had never requested." How black Democrats stole votes in Alabama ... and Jeff Sessions tried to stop it
A result of the investigation led to a County Grand Jury indictment, not filed by the Federal DOJ (Sessions), but the Perry County DA. "On April 20, 1983, a local county grand jury (with a majority of black members and a black foreperson) issued a report concerning problems in the balloting process that targeted the “aged, infirmed, or disabled.” The grand jury called for the “vigorous prosecution of all violations of the voting laws” and requested “the presence and assistance of an outside agency, preferably federal, to monitor our elections and to ensure fairness and impartiality for all."
In the resulting trail the black jury failed to convict (not unusual at the time),"this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is,a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind".
"The bogus accusation (that Sessions is racists) would be laughable, were it not such a familiar tactic. But this is just another instance of so-called “progressives” going all out to protect their own — even when the victims are black voters."
What seems most likely, besides trying to delay confirming of all of Trumps cabinet positions, is that unlike Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, Sessions would apply the law equally, even if the law beaker is black; something the Obama DOJ refused to do.
A result of the investigation led to a County Grand Jury indictment, not filed by the Federal DOJ (Sessions), but the Perry County DA. "On April 20, 1983, a local county grand jury (with a majority of black members and a black foreperson) issued a report concerning problems in the balloting process that targeted the “aged, infirmed, or disabled.” The grand jury called for the “vigorous prosecution of all violations of the voting laws” and requested “the presence and assistance of an outside agency, preferably federal, to monitor our elections and to ensure fairness and impartiality for all."
In the resulting trail the black jury failed to convict (not unusual at the time),"this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is,a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind".
"The bogus accusation (that Sessions is racists) would be laughable, were it not such a familiar tactic. But this is just another instance of so-called “progressives” going all out to protect their own — even when the victims are black voters."
What seems most likely, besides trying to delay confirming of all of Trumps cabinet positions, is that unlike Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, Sessions would apply the law equally, even if the law beaker is black; something the Obama DOJ refused to do.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
The US Constitution is not a living document
Regardless of what you have been by the liberal mantra, the
Constitution is not a living document, nor is the verbiage of the
Constitution evolving. The US Constitution is a legal document that is
very specific as to rights and restrictions of the Federal Government,
the rights of human beings and the meaning has not changed in 200 years.
That fact is there is an American culture based on theses beliefs and
that sacrifice and hard work will reap rewards, while being lazy reaps
nothing. That there is a god that is bigger than any or all of us, and
he tells us to take care of each other and love your fellow man. The
American world view is based on the many of our founding documents, one
of the most defining is Thomas Jefferson explaining the rights of man
and the purpose of government in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"*
*I am reminded how Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated during her conformation that there is no place in her legal world view for such a belief system as Jefferson described..
The left has tried to create a government that controls and oppresses the people; a country where the power comes not from the people but from the government.The left has always pushed for less indivual rights so they can institute a collective society, where the government controls the actions of the people and where indivual rights are a threat.. More laws, more regulations, and a slipping of constitutional rights have all led in the direction of less rights and more governmental control. When Democrats loose, they talk about too much Democracy and too much freedom. When voices are raised against their agenda, they scream, too much free speech and as they create a small army of terrorists to try and silence those they have not been able to bring under their influence and/or control.
The US Constitution is as relevant today with it's amendments, with the same meanings to the same words as the day they where written. What many might not understand is that freedom and limited government is a balance. Change one part and it is thrown out of balance. It is entertaining to watch the fits of the left as their undoing of American culture is snapping back under Trump. You will hear the same hollow rhetoric of racism, hatred, xenophobia and their unending identity politics. Rather keeping the people united, they try to delegitimatize and separate people and then play them against each other. But the people have seen this for too long and they know the game. The people want to take their country back. One of Trumps primary weapons is the rule of law. The left is now taking the stance that enforcing the law is unconstitutional; you couldn't make something like this up and have it be believable.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"*
*I am reminded how Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan stated during her conformation that there is no place in her legal world view for such a belief system as Jefferson described..
The left has tried to create a government that controls and oppresses the people; a country where the power comes not from the people but from the government.The left has always pushed for less indivual rights so they can institute a collective society, where the government controls the actions of the people and where indivual rights are a threat.. More laws, more regulations, and a slipping of constitutional rights have all led in the direction of less rights and more governmental control. When Democrats loose, they talk about too much Democracy and too much freedom. When voices are raised against their agenda, they scream, too much free speech and as they create a small army of terrorists to try and silence those they have not been able to bring under their influence and/or control.
The US Constitution is as relevant today with it's amendments, with the same meanings to the same words as the day they where written. What many might not understand is that freedom and limited government is a balance. Change one part and it is thrown out of balance. It is entertaining to watch the fits of the left as their undoing of American culture is snapping back under Trump. You will hear the same hollow rhetoric of racism, hatred, xenophobia and their unending identity politics. Rather keeping the people united, they try to delegitimatize and separate people and then play them against each other. But the people have seen this for too long and they know the game. The people want to take their country back. One of Trumps primary weapons is the rule of law. The left is now taking the stance that enforcing the law is unconstitutional; you couldn't make something like this up and have it be believable.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
American Values vs Middle East Refugees
Recently some have questioned what exactly are American values. . American values are based in our founding documents; there is probably not an American that at one time has not said "this is a free
country". We are also a country of indivual rights; that all men are created equal (endowed with rights that can
not be taken away by a government). We are a country of laws, not men
and of course what has been coined the Protestant work ethic; in our free country self generated hard work, discipline, frugality and delayed gratification is the key to success and godliness. Like any
moral code we often fall short, but as long as we strive toward such
lofty goals, we will continue to get closer.
The vast majority of those coming from middle east countries are not immigrants; they are refugees, with no desire to assimilate into American jurisprudence . When the Syrian and Libyan refugees (most are military aged men that don't want to be forced into service with ISIS) are questioned, about a quarter back the mission of ISIS and over 95% prefer Sharia law over the American Criminal Justice system. Many of these refugees, when they settle in non-Muslim countries want to live in segregated communities ruled by Sharia law, and while other countries are welcome to do what they want, this is not possible in America, as it is in direct contradiction to the Constitution and our system of Criminal Justice. Further. "these seven nations were not chosen at random. They were all singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. In fact, President Trump’s order does not even name the seven countries. It merely refers to the sections of U.S. Code that were changed by the Terrorist Prevention Act". The fact is there is a reason these countries were named as provocateurs of terrorism and just becasue they have not yet murdered anyone in the US yet, does not mean the terrorists from these countries have not wreaked havoc and murdered in other countries. And while some have questioned the nature of the roll out of President Trumps "extreme vetting", US intelligence, ICE and Homeland Security have said that this type vetting has been too long over due.
Speaking of Criminal Justice, there is nothing that President Trump has done that is in any way illegal. It was Obama that continually talked with contempt about the Constitutional restrictions of the Executive Branch, including the separation of powers. The reason President Trump can so easily strike down the legacy of Obama is becasue he never used the rule of law to create his policies, rather he attempted to rule by fiat with Executive Actions; and what was created by Presidential decree, can just as easily be revoked by Presidential decree. As a matter of fact, much of what President Trump has done is to demand by EA that currently laws be enforced, rather than be ignored as was done by Obama's EA. Yet you have Democrats that will insist that any policy they don't like must be illegal, and even more absurd, that the enforcement of current law is unconstitutional; you just can't make stuff like this up! No one would believe such things would occur in the real world (until it does).
The vast majority of those coming from middle east countries are not immigrants; they are refugees, with no desire to assimilate into American jurisprudence . When the Syrian and Libyan refugees (most are military aged men that don't want to be forced into service with ISIS) are questioned, about a quarter back the mission of ISIS and over 95% prefer Sharia law over the American Criminal Justice system. Many of these refugees, when they settle in non-Muslim countries want to live in segregated communities ruled by Sharia law, and while other countries are welcome to do what they want, this is not possible in America, as it is in direct contradiction to the Constitution and our system of Criminal Justice. Further. "these seven nations were not chosen at random. They were all singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. In fact, President Trump’s order does not even name the seven countries. It merely refers to the sections of U.S. Code that were changed by the Terrorist Prevention Act". The fact is there is a reason these countries were named as provocateurs of terrorism and just becasue they have not yet murdered anyone in the US yet, does not mean the terrorists from these countries have not wreaked havoc and murdered in other countries. And while some have questioned the nature of the roll out of President Trumps "extreme vetting", US intelligence, ICE and Homeland Security have said that this type vetting has been too long over due.
Speaking of Criminal Justice, there is nothing that President Trump has done that is in any way illegal. It was Obama that continually talked with contempt about the Constitutional restrictions of the Executive Branch, including the separation of powers. The reason President Trump can so easily strike down the legacy of Obama is becasue he never used the rule of law to create his policies, rather he attempted to rule by fiat with Executive Actions; and what was created by Presidential decree, can just as easily be revoked by Presidential decree. As a matter of fact, much of what President Trump has done is to demand by EA that currently laws be enforced, rather than be ignored as was done by Obama's EA. Yet you have Democrats that will insist that any policy they don't like must be illegal, and even more absurd, that the enforcement of current law is unconstitutional; you just can't make stuff like this up! No one would believe such things would occur in the real world (until it does).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)