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.

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

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.

Q&A the Lefts False Narrative about President Trump

The following are obvious responses to the lefts false narrative about President Trump

"You don't think Trump and his minions connections to Putin and Russia are troubling?"

After a through investigation, the FBI has said they found no collusion between Trump and/or his minions with any suspected crimes by Russia.

"Wow, I guess anything unethical, dishonest, or potentially illegal done by those you agree with is a manufactured crisis."

No, there is so far no evidence that Trump has done anything illegal, nor members of his Administration. In the Flynn case, the FBI has reported Flynn violated no crime, period. Again this is a manufactured crisis that will again go nowhere, BTW, if Russia is so much of an adversary, why did the President tell their ambassador that he will have more flexibility to work with Putin after his re-election or why would HRC sell them all those US uranium rights? It's all just more liberal BS..

"You don't think delegitimizing the press, intelligence agencies, judges, and other such arbiters of truth and Constitutional authority is troubling?"

No, these entities  have long sense abrogated their Constitutional roles and are now ultra partisan and tied to an anti Constitutional agenda. On what planet does the President have no freedom of speech against the press or Supreme court  A cursory look at history shows an ongoing battle between the Presidency and the press and supreme court. Further criticism of the Supreme Court such as the Southern Democrat majority Supreme Court,  Dred Scott decision (1857), collated the abolitionist movement leading to freeing the slaves. Further, the Democrat run media is no longer the harbinger of our Democracy having abused it's position as seen by our Founding Fathers, rather the press is simply the propaganda wing for the Democrat Party (ie The Department of Enlightenment and Propaganda).

What is really un-Ameican is pushing the belief that somehow criticizing the press or judge decisions is somehow un-Constitutional, undermining or stifling the freedom of the press. Perhaps you have an example of Trump censoring the press in any way, beyond simply saying if the press mis-reports something about him he is going to speak up about it; and if a particular member or organization of the press is continually falsely reporting the news, he may not call on them during a press conference, something Presidents have done for decades (remember the battle between Obama and Fox news?). Further, the only entity that can undermine the press, is the press itself. As an example, when the press is openly in favor of one political party over another and OOO in continually demonizing and  delegitimizing one party candidate over another, the press will have successfully undermined itself, by the act of self- censoring to conceal the abuses of one party over another; this is what happens in nondemocratic countries, except in America is is not being forced, but truly self initiated and delegitimizing itself to the American people. 

The President and the Supreme Court have always had a confrontational relationship, which is by designed when you have a separation of powers. A good example was FDR, who was in constant battle with the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court shut down many of his programs, "He asked Congress to empower him to appoint an additional justice for any member of the court over age 70 who did not retire. He sought to name as many as six additional Supreme Court justices, as well as up to 44 judges to the lower federal courts" so he could pack the judicatory in his favor. There was also President Obama who took the opportunity during one of his State of the Union Addresses, to criticize the Supreme Court on their recent Citizens United decision; whether you agree with the decision or not, using his State of the Union Address with it's captive audiences including the Supreme Court seek directly in from the of the President, left no question as to his disdain for the ruling.

Every day Trump blames someone for his failures (media, judges, intelligence agencies, Democrats, foreigners, Muslims, Trump University lawsuit plaintiffs, women he's mistreated, workers he failed to pay"

In this list there is not one point where Trump is blaming anyone for a failure on his part at all; nothing. Most are simply cases of a civil nature and others are areas of contention that Trump is vocal about. Trump may blame some on the list for causing major problems in this country, and enough voters agreed with him make him President. While you may disagree with these contentions, Trump has not even been in office long enough for any of his policies to have failed, let alone any blame laying that might occur.

You have pretty much defined why Trump is President and why HRC is not. All the left does is try and drum up these manufactured crisis, and then regardless of the real story, they repeated the stories of suspected wrong doing and possible criminal activity, but never anything substantial that anything of note has actually occurred. It's all just BS and spin with nothing substantial. But hey, keep it up. The delegitimizing frenzy by the left on acts to confirm to those that voted for Trump (and some that did not) that they did the right thing and the left continues to have disdain for the working class Deplorables that simply don't know how to make an intelligent decision or even run their own lives, and forgotten that the US is all about self rule, not rule by the Democrat elite.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The Left is Still In Denial Why They Lost Presidency As They Double Down on Rhetoric

The Democrats have lost about 1200 political positions across the country in the last 6 years, with Republicans running primarily on the repeal of ObamaCare. With it's one size fits all, high premiums and even higher out of pocket prepays (averaging $4,000 to $6000 a year), ObamaCare meant most Americans are being forced to buy healthcare that only kicks in after some catastrophic episode;  IOW no different than not having healthcare, but having to pay for it nonetheless.

The Democrats lost if for no other reason they have lost touch with working Americans as they they have ruled against the will of the people. The Democrats also continues to encourages the reactionary alt-left to shout down anyone that disagrees, which has devolved into a violent opposition to countries Democratic principles and a war on free speech.

The Democrats have pushed for open borders and are demonizing the arrest of criminal illegal aliens. They support Black Lives Matter (an openly racist and terrorist organization), who openly push violence against the police, while they defend captured vicious criminals if they are black. The left refuses to even speak the word(s) "Muslim terrorists"or "Radical Islam". When it comes to Islam they seem to have lost all sense of sanity. They are forever apologetic for Islam, who's laws subjugate women to the level of property and arrest women if they report they have been raped (rape is also dolled out as a punishment). They ignore religious freedoms, when they push homosexuality and abortion on Christianity and Islam. Obama turned his back on Israel (actually sending operatives to Israel to campaign against Netanyahu) while he has ignored the atrocities and buddied up with Muslim terrorists countries, including Hamas who has just announced a collaboration with ISIS. Then Obama tries to bully schools into letting boys use the girls bathroom. All this while they campaign against the American voter calling them Deplorables; and of course racists. The point being the Democrats lost because they have drifted so far from the main stream, while Trump won because he said this idiocy and given a chance, he will make America great again.

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. 

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.

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.

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).