COMMENTARY: government is not the answer for almost anything, government, to be blunt, does not work by and large because our supposed Congressional representatives, state elected officials or reps, county commissioners, and local mayors and council members rarely have any ideas of merit – instead they focus on words that sell, pet projects for their district or state or party or power group, while managing to literally throw away billions of dollars for little result – bureaucrats across the entire spectrum of federal, state, local and special government bodies have little or even no incentive to actually produce results usable by our population – let me put it this way: the ONLY matters the feds should work on are those few items mentioned in the Constitution, the rest are delegated to the states even though state government is probably the weakest of all levels – the feds should get out education, housing, health care, land management, and on and on – let’s face it: the first responsibility of the federal government is national and homeland security and it’s no shining example of anything! there is simply so much wrong with our military, homeland security, and DOJ resources that their many failings are obvious and no one ever addresses how to fix the many problems, they just mix them up a bit and carry on like nothing has happened which it mostly hasn’t – BFD! they spend, spend, and spend and are always looking for more funds but the outcome is all too often piss poor – that should not be a surprise to anyone – remember Ronald Reagan saying that government is not the answer, it is the problem – get the damn government out of our faces and our lives except for those few things they are mandated to do and let’s see them take action for our mutual benefit – sadly, I have no optimism on their chances for success – government is failure at its worst, yet the pols leave office with serious money in their pockets and cushy Jons in the private sector in industries they previously overseeing while bureaucrats get great pay and superb benefits without much in the way of public service – it’s just the way it is, folks, don’t expect much improvement since it’s NEVER about We The People but about them, their compensation and bennies, and their party – our population is being taken advantage of in a myriad of ways in a multitude of issues – the system is badly broken and cannot be fixed by anyone – it’s gross FAILURE and our future is quite bleak from so many standpoints – as some say, I’m glad I lived when I did because I will not be around to see the ever-collapsing mess we are headed for
|The CDC was Fighting Racism and Obesity Instead of Stopping Epidemics|
Posted: 16 Mar 2020
The Centers for Disease Control has a $6.6 billion budget and one job which it messes up every time.
The last time the CDC had a serious workout was six years ago during the Ebola crisis. Back then CDC guidelines allowed medical personnel infected with Ebola to avoid a quarantine and interact with Americans until they showed undeniable symptoms of the disease. There were no protocols in place for treating the potentially infected resulting in the further spread of the disease inside the United States.
At the height of the crisis, confidence in the CDC fell to 37%. Meanwhile, CDC personnel had managed to mishandle Ebola virus samples, accidentally sending samples of the live virus to CDC labs. And the heads of the health bureaucracy blamed the lack of funding for their failure to have an Ebola vaccine.
The self-quarantine measures adopted in response to the coronavirus outbreak are partially a response to the lessons of the Ebola disaster.
But during the Ebola crisis, Democrats tried to shift responsibility from the Obama administration by blaming Republicans for cutting the CDC’s budget from $6.5 billion to $5.9 billion. Sound familiar? Where do those billions for the CDC actually go? Among other things, pushing gun control. The terrible budget deal from December allocated $25 million to the CDC and NIH to study gun violence.
During the Ebola crisis, the CDC had been spending a mere $2.6 million on gun violence studies. But the CDC has a history of wasting money on everything from a $106 million visitor’s center with Japanese gardens, a $200K gym, a transgender beauty pageant, not to mention promoting bike paths.
The occasional outbreak only calls the CDC’s general incompetence to everyone’s attention. The rest of the time its incompetence, like that of other government agencies, just ticks along wasting money.
In 1999, the CDC announced a plan to end syphilis in 5 years. The Clinton era National Plan to Eliminate Syphilis was an unserious social welfare proposal that wanted to battle racism and was such a success that by 2018, syphilis rates had hit a new record high. But Democrat presidential candidates using the CDC for imaginary proposals to end a disease, not by utilizing science, but social welfare, had become a bad habit under Obama, diverting resources from what the CDC could realistically do for political scams.
In 2011, Hillary Clinton had promised an “AIDS-free generation” by, in part, using the CDC. Like her presidency, the “AIDS-free generation” never arrived and was never going to.
In 2016, Obama allowed Joe Biden to use the CDC for his Cancer Moonshot political stunt. “If I’m elected president you’re gonna see single most important thing that changes America, we’re going to cure cancer,” Biden promised last year. Joe Biden can’t cure anything. Including his own mental state. But, like Hillary, he can waste the resources of the CDC to make false promises to voters while weakening its core competencies.
The CDC is a classic example of a progressive success story, an agency created to fight malaria by spraying DDT, whose original mission has long since become politically incorrect and which instead adopted a politically correct search for the social root causes of diseases like syphilis and AIDS.
Unlike fighting malaria by spraying DDT, fighting syphilis by combatting racism doesn’t work.
The CDC’s fight against the “obesity epidemic” is even sillier. That includes funding 15 colleges to “work with community extension services to increase access to healthier foods and safe and accessible places for physical activity.” That meant giving LSU over a million bucks to work with farmers’ markets. Obesity obviously can kill people, but it’s not something that the CDC can or should be trying to fix.
America doesn’t need the CDC as a pipeline for pork to state schools. We do need the CDC to fulfill its original mandate by dealing with outbreaks of infectious diseases, initially malaria and smallpox, and now Ebola or the coronavirus. We need science, not social welfare.
Unfortunately, the CDC, like every federal agency, has drifted from its core mission into social welfare.
By the time the Clinton administration had gotten through wrecking the CDC, its labs were infested with mice and rats, and had leaky ceilings. Not only hadn’t it cured syphilis, but it was utterly unready to deal with the anthrax threat. The Obama administration rolled back Bush administration reforms and brought back the old broken CDC under Thomas Frieden. After Frieden botched the Ebola crisis, even mainstream media outlets joined Republicans in calling for his resignation.
The CDC left the Obama era even more damaged than ever before.
Every administration has tried to put its own stamp on the CDC by playing around with organizational charts and adding more pointless initiatives. Meanwhile all those billions of dollars that Americans think are going to fight the outbreaks of contagious diseases are going to anything and everything but.
There is a vast gap between what the CDC should be doing and what it does. What it ought to be doing is utilizing its unique specialties and capabilities to study dangerous contagious diseases. And the CDC’s capabilities in this regard are impressive. But what it ends up doing is battling social problems like obesity, the opioid crisis, or STDs because that’s what politicians, especially Democrats, want.
President Trump is right to hold the Obama administration accountable for the woeful state of the CDC. But the problem didn’t begin in 2008. And it isn’t limited to the CDC, but to the entire government.
The government is full of agencies, departments, and sections that do nothing but waste time and money. Some also manage to advance dangerous and destructive initiatives. But there are times when we urgently need these otherwise useless parts of the government to work correctly and quickly. And then we discover that they don’t work.
No one thinks about the CDC until we need it and discover it doesn’t work. And then the same story repeats itself a few years later while the CDC goes back to battling obesity and racism.
The solution begins with restating the mission of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, defining what a disease is, and what controlling or preventing it means. Rolling back mission creep starts with ending CDC campaigns against lifestyle behaviors and focusing on preventing actual disease outbreaks through science, not social welfare.
The old CDC studied behavior for targeted medical intervention. It would track malaria to its source and bring in the DDT or study smallpox outbreaks to find where they originated from. But the new CDC treats behavior as the object of study and the cure. It rolls out grandiose proposals to change behavior that never materialize. The CDC’s failure is fundamentally that of the big government welfare state.
Sociology isn’t science. Virology is.
Social welfare isn’t just a dangerous distraction, it prevents the CDC from making the right decisions about keeping infected people from entering the United States when lives are on the line.
The government doesn’t work because most of it is built on changing people’s minds, whether it’s winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan, or convincing everyone to drive electric cars in Wisconsin, instead of grappling with physical problems by applying physics and chemistry to the problem of the terrorists or economics to the cost of transportation.
We don’t need a CDC that changes people’s minds about eating chocolate or engaging in unprotected sex. There are already multiple redundant parts of the government that are trying and failing there.
We need a CDC that deals with viruses instead of trying to brainwash people.
COMMENTARY: frankly, there are far too many so-called sources claiming to have the real information on this pandemic – we need one primary source, whi, currently absent, while every ‘Tom, Dick, and Harry’ news organization (TV, radio, newspapers, and bloggers) are all vying for viewers / readers / listeners – it’s clearly chaotic out ‘there’, some information is good, others not so much, and even false news and scams (as expected) – it is bad enough when a metropolitan era is impacted but this is every state, every nation, every international entity, the damn world is in a state of panic – this is something the UN and other international orgs seem to ALWAYS screw up (FUBAR) – what’s yet to come? no one seems to know what, when, why, where, how, etc. – FAILING!
Secret Service warns of scams, disinformation campaigns around spread of coronavirus
It comes as the number of cases in the U.S. is increasing.
By Luke Barr and Alexander Mallin March 10, 2020
Early cases of COVID-19 are believed to be linked to a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.
The Secret Service issued guidance urging the public to use vigilance during any major news story, warning that criminals can use the “fear” to their advantage and prey on the most vulnerable.
They called the coronavirus outbreak “a prime opportunity for enterprising criminals because it plays on one of the basic human conditions … fear.”
The Secret Service said that the most common is phishing, which they described as “the fraudulent practice of sending emails purporting to be from reputable companies in order to entice individuals to reveal personal information, such as passwords and credit card numbers. Phishing scams have become ubiquitous through email communication and ecommerce.”
In one particular instance, they noted, “victims have received an email purporting to be from a medical/health organization that included attachments supposedly containing pertinent information regarding the Coronavirus.” Then either the person clicked on a link that contained malware or entered their email and password information, which is the nexus of many financial thefts.
As is common in uncertain times, the Secret Service warns of fake charity causes operating under the guise of helping people infected with the coronavirus.
“Increased caution should be exercised when donating to charitable organizations,” said the Secret Service, which issued these guidelines on Monday. And finally, one other scam the agency is seeing is criminals demanding upfront deposits or large sums of money for medical supplies.
In addition to the phishing scams singled out by Secret Service, the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration issued public letters on Monday warning seven companies, including televangelist Jim Bakker, to stop the promotion and sale of fraudulent products purporting to be treatments.
“There already is a high level of anxiety over the potential spread of coronavirus,” FTC chairman Joe Simons said in a statement. “What we don’t need in this situation are companies preying on consumers by promoting products with fraudulent prevention and treatment claims. These warnings are just the first step. We’re prepared to take enforcement actions against companies that continue to market this type of scam.”MORE: Social media companies partnering with health authorities to combat misinformation on coronavirus
The FTC said it has created a task force specifically dedicated to targeting the spread of such scams related to the coronavirus.
The warning echoed a message sent from the FTC early last month, warning consumers that scammers were already “setting up websites to sell bogus products, and using fake emails, texts and social media posts as a ruse to take your money and get your personal information.”
Going after ‘bad actors’
The Department of Justice on Monday also threatened to criminally prosecute individuals and companies who might take advantage of the spike in demand for personal health products like masks, respirators and plastic gloves to fix prices or rig bids against consumers.
“The Department of Justice stands ready to make sure that bad actors do not take advantage of emergency response efforts, healthcare providers, or the American people during this crucial time,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement.
It is not just scams that U.S. officials are concerned about – disinformation is also prevalent among the cyber community.
“In our view, we continue to be pointing people to trusted sources of information, CDC, the aspects of COVID itself, is always going to be the resource but also your local public health officials,” Chris Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the cyber arm of DHS, told ABC News after an event in Washington, D.C. “And then we continue to work with the law enforcement and intelligence community on any specific disinformation that we may see that, any foreign adversaries are pushing.”
The World Health Organization has also taken the lead on combating disinformation, posting a “myth busters” page, whose sole purpose is to debunk incorrect information about the coronavirus.
COMMENTARY: ah, but it all depends on the party giving the stimulus and those who receive those funds for proven purposes – looking back on the stimulus actions of ‘He Who Was Welcomed in the Presidency Although without Executive Experience’ threw the monies to cronies – recall that almost every company given these funds went bankrupt not long thereafter, the vast majority of dollars went into the pockets of the owners and executives, none of whom went to prison for corrupting the so-called ‘system’ – FAILURE on a massive scale thanks to His Majesty Obama, yet another sign of his corrupt nature of the man and those yet unnamed who paid his way onto the national scene and literally brought him to power – stupid albeit rich bastards!
When the government uses stimulus money to buy or build something it actually needs, it creates meaningful jobs and grows viable companies. Handouts, in contrast, increase dependency and slow economic recovery. Let’s not repeat our mistakes.
Adam Mill • March 17, 2020
The White House has now proposed a massive $850 billion stimulus package. This money should not be wasted on special interests or unrelated social priorities.
In 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The law called for approximately $550 billion in new spending. The money included an additional $144 billion in transfer payments to state governments to temporarily shore up potential shortfalls in public employee salaries and pensions. Another $86.8 billion was given to Medicaid. And $25.8 billion went to subsidize health care premiums for the unemployed.
Under the category of “education,” $53 billion went to prevent layoffs or salary reductions for teachers. $15.6 billion increased the size of Pell Grants. Some $13 billion was allocated, vaguely, to low-income public school children. And another $40 billion extended unemployment benefits and increased the amount received by $25 per week. In addition, $19.9 billion went to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (a.k.a. food stamps) and $14.2 billion was given as a bonus to people already receiving Social Security payments.
How much is $550 billion? Let’s consider some things that could be done with that much money. The George H. W. Bush (“the Bush”), a Nimitz-class supercarrier, cost $6.2 billion to construct. It stretches 1,092 feet, can speed through the waves at 30 knots, and can operate 20 years without refueling her two nuclear reactors. The ship bristles with missiles and can hold up to 90 fixed-wing and helicopter flying craft. It has electronic warfare capability, sensor and processing systems, and makes a home for more than 3,000 sailors and airmen. The Bush is in the same class as the Nimitz, which was commissioned in 1975. The Nimitz is still in service. One can reasonably expect the taxpayers will receive 40 years of use out of the Bush.
In 2008, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) successfully fired the first protons in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s largest and highest-energy particle accelerator. The facility required the excavation of 17 miles of tunnels and thousands of special magnets beneath the French and Swiss borders. It cost approximately $4.75 billionto build and it is capable of accelerating protons three meters per second slower than the speed of light. If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, this modern marvel approaches the outer-bounds of theoretical physics and produces fantastic particle-smashing experiments that once could only be imagined. The experiments generated from this structure advanced science adding value to humankind for decades to come.
But we didn’t spend the 2008 stimulus on ships or scientific achievements. Nearly 12 years later, what do taxpayers have to show for this massive expenditure?
Unlike an aircraft carrier, a building, or a supercollider, these well-intentioned payments do not produce tangible, lasting, products. America could have built 80 aircraft carriers for the price of the stimulus. Society’s capacity to absorb well-intentioned transfer payments to the needy, elderly, poor, and unemployed is simply limitless. But our capacity to borrow or print money to pay for social benefits is not.
Years later, the vast surge in federal largess dissipated without significantly changing unemployment. Worse yet, the fiscal crisis of the states returned as soon as the stimulus ended. The poor, disabled, unemployed, and sick, remained more or less as they were without appreciable improvements in their numbers. What could we have built with that money? High-speed rail networks? A new space program? Modernization of the nuclear deterrent? Ironically, had we demanded more value for the public for the money we spent, we also would have procured the meaningful and highly-compensated skills necessary to deliver this value. Instead, the only jobs needed to disperse the money were those of low-paid paper-pushing bureaucrats.
If you ask to see some tangible proof of the great tidal wave of stimulus money that washed ineffectually over our nation, what could you find? Nothing.
And that is all that remains of most of the $550 billion.
Building great public works is not anti-capitalist. “The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth,” Adam Smith wrote, “is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.”
When the government uses stimulus money to buy or build something it actually needs, it creates meaningful jobs and grows viable companies. Handouts, in contrast, increase dependency and slow economic recovery.
COMMENTARY: this gets laid directly at the feet of Bush (W) and Obama – the former erred in not grasping the threat of Islam, the latter in politicizing the DOJ and FBI due to his need to continue political correctness toward jihadis – the primary responsibility lies with Obama and Holder and their lack of action and deliberate omissions and lies placed our entire population in jeopardy and were negligent by not impressing upon our military the need to to understand Islam and its dogma in its so-called ‘Holy Trilogy’ – thousands died and we were left in the dark (save for a few dedicated people who saw the threat and have been writing about it since before 9/11 (think Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, etc., a very select group of warriors to say the least) – Islamist openly declared war on Western Civilization and We The People were lied to, really told little or nothing of importance about the size of the threat around the world (an estimated 150,000,000 (15% of the total 2.5 BILLION Muslims) of extreme beliefs, Islamists, willing to lay down their lives for their god and his messenger, excited to join them in heaven (so they say), potential martyrs – THE WORST FAILURE in our lifetimes
If Not for the FBI’s PC Willful Ignorance, at Least 70 People Wouldn’t Have Been Killed
MAR 15, 2020 BY ROBERT SPENCER
My latest in PJ Media:
As if participating in the failed deep state coup against President Trump weren’t enough, the FBI has covered itself in glory once again. A new report released Wednesday documents how the feds missed opportunities to stop at least six lethal terror attacks on American soil. The report focuses on failures of “oversight” and “procedure,” but itself becomes part of the problem, in failing to note that the Bureau’s troubles go much deeper.
According to the Washington Times, those six attacks killed 70 people, and each of their perpetrators “had been on the FBI’s radar.” Nonetheless, “agents quickly closed the cases after concluding they were not national security threats, Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said in the report.”
The attackers, according to the Times, included these jihad terrorists:
⦁ Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in 2016.
⦁ Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who killed three people at the Boston Marathon in 2013.
⦁ Nidal Hasan, who massacred 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009.
⦁ Esteban Santiago, who killed five people in a 2017 attack at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
Santiago was a convert to Islam who said that he committed his murders in the service of the Islamic State (ISIS).
Horowitz observed that “the FBI has acknowledged that various weaknesses related to its assessment process may have impacted its ability to fully investigate certain counterterrorism assessment subjects, who later committed terrorist acts in the United States.”
Of course it did, because the FBI is still institutionally committed to ignoring, downplaying, or denying the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism. Failing to investigate suspected jihadis is all part of the same willful ignorance. The bureau doesn’t want to appear “Islamophobic” by scrutinizing these people too closely; such scrutiny would abet the impression that there is something about Islam that incites some believers to violence, and the feds have already ruled out that possibility.There is much more. Read the rest here.
COMMENTARY: had these people been Christians rather than Muslims, perhaps this expenditure might have gotten us payback over the years – this way not so much, betcha welfare cheats galore – FAILURE due to Obama, again
American Taxpayers Billed Up to $133,000 Per Refugee Resettled in the U.S.
By Pamela Geller – on March 6, 2020
Forced to work the Democrat plantation. Harder! Faster!
President Trump is doing everything in his power to correct this injustice.
STUDY: AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BILLED UP TO $133K PER REFUGEE RESETTLED IN U.S.
By John Binder, Breitbart, 5 Mar 2020:
American taxpayers are billed up to $133,000 per refugee resettled in the United States over the course of a lifetime, a new study reveals.
Research by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that each refugee resettled in the U.S. cost American taxpayers anywhere on average between $60,000 and $133,000 over the course of a lifetime.
CIS RESEARCHERS SAID THE AVERAGE REFUGEE WILL COST TAXPAYERS ROUGHLY $60,000 OVER A LIFETIME, THOUGH ADULT REFUGEES — DUE TO THEIR LOW EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT — COST TAXPAYERS UPWARDS OF $133,000.
“No plausible model, not even the National Academies’ best-case scenario, comes close to suggesting that refugees who enter as adults will be net fiscal contributors,” CIS researchers note. “Refugee-specific costs add about 22 percent over and above the cost of other immigrants, but low education by itself is enough to push adult refugees’ estimated fiscal impact well into negative territory.”
The researchers argue “it may be possible to help a greater number of displaced people overseas rather than paying to settle them” in the U.S.
“Overseas assistance could allow some refugees to eventually resettle in countries where they have stronger cultural or historical ties than they do with the United States,” the CIS researchers write.
For Fiscal Year 2020, Trump will continue cutting refugee admissions by reducing former President Barack Obama’s refugee inflow by at least 80 percent. This reduction would mean a maximum of 18,000 refugees can be resettled in the U.S. between October 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020. This is merely a numerical limit and not a goal federal officials are supposed to reach.
Trump sought to allow American communities and states to have a say in whether they wanted to resettle refugees in their towns and cities, giving them veto power. A federal judge, though, has temporarily blocked that executive order from taking effect.
The federally mandated refugee resettlement program has brought more than 977,000 refugees to the U.S. between 2002 and 2019 — a population nearly double the size of Wyoming, where 577,000 residents live. In that period, about 109,000 refugees have been resettled in California, 85,000 resettled in Texas, nearly 59,000 resettled in New York, and more than 48,000 resettled in Florida.
Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to the latest research. Over the course of five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.
COMMENTARY: this woman is a fanatical Islamist, anti-Semite, and anti-American her very core – how she was ever elected to any office had to be based on multiple false ‘flags; among which is something which has to be evidence of the need to expel her from Congress and to terminate her citizenship which she falsely pledged – another Muslim bringing her values from her real homeland to our country with little of no readiness to acclimate to our core values – FAILING, FAILING, FAILING….
The Book Ilhan Omar Doesn’t Want You to Read
A review of ‘American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party.‘Mar 4, 2020 Daniel Greenfield
“A right-wing extremist just dedicated a racist, Islamophobic book to bashing Ilhan,” the Ilhan for Congress fundraising email read. And then asked donors for $5 or $100 because the book might “turn more people away from bold progressive ideas, and incite violence against her.”
The book is American Ingrate: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive-Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party. And in it, Benjamin Weingarten, has written a damning indictment of Omar and her allies.
The fundraising letter’s claims that it incites violence and that it’s racist are false. But American Ingrate might very well make people question some of those “bold progressive ideas”, because Weingarten’s scope goes beyond a grifter from Minnesota trailing accusations of infidelity and even incest through her twisted political career, while romancing her fundraising strategist. They go to the very question of how someone like Omar, with all her issues, personal and ideological, was able to rise so high.
On a personal level, it’s understandable why Omar wouldn’t want anyone reading, American Ingrate. Her own memoir, This Is What America Looks Like is due out in the spring. And after a series of stories digging into her past, her alleged marriage to her brother, her infidelity to her ex-husband, and her campaign finance issues, not to mention the torrent of anti-Semitism coming from her on Twitter, the Islamist politician would like to change the subject and get back to enjoying some positive publicity.
But American Ingrate is more about the political environment that made Omar possible.
Omar’s upcoming memoir is mistitled. Her arrogance, disdain for America, bigotry, and embrace of conspiracy theories is not what America looks like. But it is what the Democrat Party looks like.
American Ingrate is not just an examination of Omar’s scandals, but of the Democrat scandal.
Beginning with her privileged background in Somalia, Weingarten explores Omar’s personality through the lens of her ideology. He charts the mix of Islamism and Marxism of her background, and how it prepared her for her role in the post-9/11 Democrat Party. He describes her rise as “Obamaesque” and, indeed, the parallels are obvious. Both Omar and Obama share deliberately obscured backgrounds, familial hatred for America and embrace of radical politics. And these two elements, the lack of background information and a background built on hatred for this country, are intertwined. Omar and Obama both had to disguise their anti-American roots to realize their American political ambitions.
Obama and Omar both redefined their anti-American identities as quintessentially American. Omar’s upcoming memoir is her own attempt at repeating the trick Obama had pulled with Dreams From My Father. As American Ingrate notes, Omar is ambitious and aggressive in seeking higher office. It is unlikely that she intends to climb no higher than the House of Representatives in Washington D.C.
Her aggressive fundraising in response to American Ingrate and her biography highlight a politician, who faces few real political challenges at home, but is building a machine intended to elevate her further.
Omar, as Weingarten points out, is both a symbol of the transformation of the Democrat Party and of the alliance between Islamists and the radical Left, and one of the engines driving the transformation.
“There has never been a U.S. representative so perfectly positioned at the intersection of these two ideologies aimed at undermining our country, who has garnered such widespread support, not only from her Squad but from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and the Democratic Party itself.”
Anti-Semitism is, in some ways, incidental to this alliance. And yet in other ways it’s the litmus test. It’s often been said that Jews are the canary in the coal mine. Anti-Semitism signals the death of a civil society and the rise of a totalitarian order. The perpetrators often use anti-Semitism because it’s easy. The Jews are a wedge issue for an escalating series of attacks on a society’s norms of decency.
Omar’s anti-Semitism isn’t just about Jews. Like most Islamists, she violates the norms of bigotry both to show that the Jews are defenseless, in much the same way that the Nazis did in Germany, but also, because successfully violating them sets the stage for further violations. Similarly, her attacks on America, her dismissal of 9/11, are an escalated version of the same pattern of ideological warfare.
Once the Democrats began defending her, they became complicit in her future offenses. And then it was too late for them to stop. Every time she escalated her hateful rhetoric, they had to go on covering for her. It was either or admit that they had been wrong to defend a politician who really is a bigot.
Islamic anti-Semitism and leftist anti-Semitism, Weingarten notes, represent a bridge between Islam and the Left. The fusion of the two, which he traces back to the KGB and Edward Said’s Orientalism, transformed racism into anti-racism, and imperialism into anti-imperialism, reversing western morality.
Despite her own privileged background, Omar’s status as a minority woman allowed her to legitimize anti-Semitism by reducing it to power relationships. The Left insists that real racism can only be directed by those who have more power at those who have less power. But every racist movement insists that the people it hates have too much power. Even if it has to rewrite reality and truth to make that claim.
The Left’s insistence that real racism can only be a function of power relationships legitimizes racism. Its insistence on determining which races really have power and which don’t is a classic racist strategy.
Omar is one of the most recognizable figures in the country. Yet she insists that she’s the victim. In her fundraising email, her campaign claims that she risks being “drowned out by the smears and conspiracy theories.” But her upcoming memoir is being put out by one of the world’s largest publishing companies. It’s already being promoted by the mainstream media though it’s a long way from being out.
American Ingrate, a critical look at Omar, is unlikely to be reviewed by any major media outlet.
Who then has the real power?
In American Ingrate, Weingarten asks that, “Rep. Omar be held to the same standard of scrutiny as every other politician.” But the function of identity politics is the obliteration of equal standards. As long as Omar insists that she’s the victim, she can never be held to the same standard.
Victimhood creates multiple tiers, whether through a formal caste system such as intersectionality or the informal one of guilt and rage, and lefties and Islamists both excel at exploiting this system.
That is why Omar reacted to the publication of American Ingrate with false claims of victimhood.
Being a victim means never being held accountable. It also allows Omar to use crybullying tactics in an effort to intimidate and silence journalists like Weingarten, David Steinberg, who did much of the original investigating of Omar, or Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker of PowerLine, and many others.
The Omar campaign’s fundraising email calls American Ingrate an “unprecedented attack.” And it is. Not because, as Omar falsely claims, it incites violence, but because it exposes the ideological roots of her hatred for America. That’s why Omar doesn’t want you or anyone else to read it.
COMMENTARY: the writer sees this as just so many words – the reality is quite another thing – were Haley to be brought forth, she would certainly become the first female VP – also she would be ideally suited to step up to the presidency in 2024 – she represents the very best of female ex-governors and has international standing not possessed by anyone else at this time – go fo it, President Trump, make that decision and see her succeed you in the office – HURRAY!
It’s ‘a Certainty’ That Trump Will Dump Pence and Replace Him With Nikki Haley, Begala Says
BY RICK MORAN MARCH 3, 2020
Long time Democratic aide and former Bill Clinton staffer Paul Begala told the AIPAC conference that it is a “certainty” that Donald Trump will remove Vice President Mike Pence on July 16 when the Democratic nominee is scheduled to give his acceptance speech at the Milwaukee convention. Begala says the president will replace Pence with former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley “to try and get those suburban moms.”
The former “Crossfire” co-host “guaranteed” Trump will throw Pence “under the bus” because of his handling of the coronavirus, which the president tapped Pence to lead a task force on last week.
“This is not a prediction. It’s a certainty. On Thursday, July 16 — that’s the date the Democrat gives his or her acceptance address — on that day, to interrupt that narrative, Donald Trump will call a press conference at Mar-a-Lago. He’s going to dump Mike Pence and put Nikki Haley on the ticket to try to get those suburban moms,” Begala predicted during a panel discussion at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) conference in Washington, D.C.
“You watch. Guaranteed,” Begala said. “Trump put Pence in charge of coronavirus to throw him under the bus.”
Begala is supposed to be some kind of expert. Either he’s been asleep or just hasn’t been paying attention for the last three years if he’s going to use the words “certainty” and “Donald Trump” in the same sentence.
This is not the first time that Haley’s name has been floated to replace Pence. Haley denied it most recently last November.
“The vice president and the president are a great ticket together,” Haley told “Fox & Friends” in November. “They’re solid. Solid enough that they’re going to win together. There is no truth whatsoever that I would ever in any way look to get that position. I think Mike is great for that job and I think that he’s the right partner for the president.”
“Mike Pence is a great vice president,” Trump said in November, while noting Haley would “absolutely” be involved in his 2020 campaign.
Trump admires Haley. She’s one of the few people who actually stood up to Trump and maintained his goodwill.But it’s not going to happen. Chris Cillizza writing at CNN sees where Begala is going but dismisses the Pence-for-Haley scenario.
Now, I see where Begala is coming from here. He’s absolutely right that Trump is, at heart, a showman and provocateur. And that Trump likes nothing more than drawing attention away from his opponents to ensure the spotlight is shining on him. And that if Trump likes anything more than being the center of attention, it’s freaking out the squares — doing something wildly unpredictable that no one saw coming.
Except, in this case, everyone saw this coming. It’s been discussed ad infinitum in the media. It’s said that Trump himself brings up the subject of replacing Pence with Haley on occasion.
Now, doing it just before the Democratic nominee goes on stage to deliver his acceptance speech is no doubt “wildly unpredictable.” And it would be just like Trump to troll the nominee and make earth-shaking news at the same time.
But even with all that said, it’s still a verrrry long shot. Like very long.
Here’s why: Trump cares deeply about perception. And projecting an image of utter certainty and strength. A last-minute swap-out of your vice president because you think you can’t win without someone new is the exact opposite of that message. It suggests weakness and, even worse, panic.
That’s how the media would spin it, anyway. Trump could probably win in 2020 running with Bozo the Clown, given the circumstances. Begala is a pretty smart politico, but he really goofed it up here.
COMMENTARY: the man’s attitude and words are unconscionable and far too partisan to permit to stand – there must be a way for the Senate to at least censure him – FAILING
Chuck Schumer Just Threatened Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch
Katie Pavlich. Posted: Mar 04, 2020
Today the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about a law in Louisiana that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals.
Pro-life proponents of the law, which is sponsored by Democratic Louisiana State Senator Katrina Jackson, argue this requirement protects women with emergency medical care in case of abortion complications. Pro-abortion advocates argue the law is simply a way to make it more difficult for women seeking abortions to obtain them from providers.
More on Jackson from Fox News:
As a pro-life Democrat, Louisiana State Sen. Katrina Jackson isn’t an anomaly in her home state, but she is in Washington, D.C. And she wants to change that.
Jackson will be in the nation’s capital Wednesday, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on why her abortion clinic regulations – requiring that doctors who perform the procedure have admitting privileges at local hospitals – should pass constitutional muster. Her bill, she argued, should unify Democrats and Republicans behind a common interest in protecting women.
“It’s really a pro-women’s health bill because I’m not going to ignore those women,” she told Fox News during an exclusive interview in January. “I’m not going to ignore their health care needs.”
This is the first abortion case since new Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, both nominated by President Trump, were confirmed by the Senate.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attended a Planned Parenthood rally outside of the Court this afternoon and openly threatened Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Over what? It’s unclear.
Schumer: “I want to tell you Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch: You have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 4, 2020
Are you really threatening 2 Supreme Court justices before they rule on a case?
How will they “pay the price”?
What does this even mean?
If the Republican Senate leader did this = Scandal.
But, of course, most of the media will give Schumer a pass on this. https://t.co/68sE03WPyf— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) March 4, 2020
Keep in mind Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million in taxpayer funding each year.
COMMENTARY: folks, as a basic principle, every new president should require all political appointees and ambassadors from an earlier administration to resign on Day 1 of the new president’s time in office, the transition team having made the necessary directives ready to be signed that very day – of course, the new president can review those identified and can choose to retain some at his/her pleasure – one of the major problems in dealing with civil service personnel is the laws, directives, and rules for Civil Service, a difficult path to get the results needed plus it is very time consuming – it is often stated to a new senior official that he/she has a fixed time in office, while civil servants will still be employed there well after he/she is gone – there has got to be a practical solution to this dilemma (there may be but my public service ended almost four decades ago and I am not knowledgable on the current state of affairs)
President Trump: Purge of disloyal staffers is for the ‘good of the country’
By Pamela Geller – on February 26, 2020
Of course it’s good for the country, but don’t expect the disloyal media or the disloyal party to go along.
DONALD TRUMP SAYS PURGE OF DISLOYAL STAFFERS IS FOR THE ‘GOOD OF THE COUNTRY’
By Dave Boyer, The Washington Times, February 25, 2020
President Trump carried out his campaign against his opponents in government on two fronts Tuesday, acknowledging that his new White House personnel director is systematically ferreting out disloyal administration officials and calling on two liberal Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases involving him.
The president said Johnny McEntee, a trusted former aide who was rehired shortly after Mr. Trump’s impeachment acquittal in the Senate, is looking at various agencies to identify government employees who oppose him. High on the list are the Justice and State departments.
“I don’t think it’s a big problem. I don’t think it’s very many people,” Mr. Trump said. “We want to have people that are good for the country, that are loyal to our country.”
The president also targeted Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said Justice Sotomayor recently tried to “shame” conservative justices into voting against the administration and that Justice Ginsburg “went wild” with criticism of him during the 2016 campaign. “I just don’t know how they cannot recuse themselves from anything having to do with Trump,” the president said at a press conference in India, where he was wrapping up a two-day visit. He also tweeted that the two justices were unfair to him.
Critics call the president’s post-impeachment personnel moves a purge, but his allies say it is a housecleaning that should have started sooner.
“I think this is a great and refreshing change in strategy from the president’s team,” said Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union. “It’s long overdue and, by the way, it’s consistent with the will of the American people, who have never given the president higher approval ratings than right now.”
Former Trump White House aide Sebastian Gorka called the hiring of Mr. McEntee “a clear sign to those around him in the White House and in the agencies of the U.S. government that the president is reasserting control over the government he was elected to head.”
Since the start of his presidency, Mr. Trump has railed against the “deep state” officials and entrenched bureaucrats who have at a minimum tried to block his agenda. At worst, he blames them for instigating the “witch hunt” investigations by special counsel Robert Mueller and by House Democrats leading up to an impeachment inquiry last year.
In his comments Tuesday, the president singled out the “fake” anonymous government whistleblower who initiated the impeachment complaint against him, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a former National Security Council aide who testified against him in the impeachment inquiry. “That was a disgraceful situation,” the president said.
The NSC has moved out Col. Vindman in the midst of a major reorganization; he has returned to a job at the Pentagon. The whistleblower is believed to be still working at the CIA after a temporary stint at the White House.
Among those who have been ousted or transferred in recent weeks is Jessie K. Liu, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia whose nomination for a Treasury Department post was withdrawn after renewed criticism of her handling of cases involving Mr. Mueller’s investigation.John Rood, a Pentagon official who certified that Ukraine met anti-corruption criteria, was let go. Victoria Coates was transferred from her post at the NSC to the Energy Department amid speculation that she could have been “Anonymous,” an unidentified staffer who wrote a book and op-ed critical of the president. Ms. Coates and her boss denied the rumor.
Adding to the administration’s internal search for disloyal officials is a reported parallel effort organized by Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Some have called for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the administration, but a Republican source said Mrs. Thomas “has a long history of Republican activism” apart from her status as the wife of a high court justice.
Longtime conservative figure Richard Viguerie, chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said such an effort is needed. “Every conservative I know wishes it happened three years ago,” he said in an interview. “This is way overdue, and I’m thrilled.” He is a friend of Mrs. Thomas but said he doesn’t know whether she is leading the effort called “Groundswell,” but he believes she is well-suited for the role. “Ginni’s got a huge following out there. She’s a very, very important conservative leader with great energy,” he said.
Mr. Schlapp, who dealt with similar personnel issues in the George W. Bush administration, said all Republican presidents encounter a predominantly liberal federal workforce in Washington, Maryland and Northern Virginia. “The problem for Republican presidents is the civil service is populated with people who are 80% opposed to the president’s policies,” he said in an interview. “If they’re honorable people who keep their politics in check, it’s not a large issue, just a small issue.”
But, he added, “when they become radicalized and they get told by the national media that you’re saving America by joining ‘#resistance,’ you have a constitutional crisis on your hands, which is what we’ve had for the last 3½ years. When they become politicized as they have under President Trump, it’s a nightmare for that president. And it was a nightmare for President Bush over time,” Mr. Schlapp said.
He said he believes employees in the intelligence community, in particular, “felt even more muscular to do flagrantly felonious activities, assuming that their allies at the Justice Department would look the other way.” “And I think there’s a recompense coming, and it’s been needing to happen for a long time,” Mr. Schlapp said.
Ms. Liu was a political appointee, but the White House apparently is also willing to confront civil service employees deemed problematic. Mr. Schlapp said of his experience in the Bush administration that “you do everything you can legally.”“You look to reassign people. You work with the general counsel in the agency,” he said. “There has to be … transgressions by the civil service in the swamp, when they are literally opposing the president’s policies that the American people voted in. They’re not somehow above the law. They just have a sweetheart deal on making it nearly impossible to fire them.”
Democrats accuse Mr. Trump of carrying out a purge of enemies since he was acquitted in his impeachment trial this month. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Col. Vindman “was only the start of the ‘loyalty’ purge.”
“The rule of law can’t tolerate 4 more yrs of a president who thinks he’s above it,” she tweeted. “Our democracy can’t tolerate 4 more yrs of a president who thinks he can bulldoze through it.”
Critics primarily on the left have accused Mr. Trump of something more sinister. They say he is trying to clear out any opposition against illegal acts he is planning. Mr. Schlapp called the suggestion “paranoid.”
COMMENTARY: apparently, the various governors involved did not take the time to read the Constitution on federal versus states rights – due to their claim for sanctuary, criminals have been allowed to roam free committing various crimes, even murder, without fear of federal penalties or deportation – do wrong, goodbye and good riddance! a win for We The People
A Big Win Against ‘Sanctuary’ States
Second Circuit Court’s ruling sets up SCOTUS to weigh in on leftists’ “sanctuary” policies.
Thomas Gallatin · Feb. 27, 2020
President Donald Trump got a big immigration win on Wednesday when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Justice Department’s decision to condition Byrne Program federal grants to states upon the requirement that they cooperate with federal immigration law. The ruling came after New York, which declared itself an illegal-alien “sanctuary” state in 2017, entered a lawsuit with several other sanctuary jurisdictions against the Trump administration for withholding the grant funding. Under its “sanctuary” policy, New York refuses to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, specifically regarding honoring ICE retainer requests for criminal aliens.
Second Circuit Judge Reena Raggi recognized that other circuit courts had ruled in favor of “sanctuary” states. But in the decision she argued that based upon the plain reading of the law, “we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants at issue.” She explained, “These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.” Raggi also cogently observed that a “state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
This split between the courts will likely result in the Supreme Court weighing in on the issue. This is good news for both the Trump administration and the American people, as SCOTUS has more often than not sided with the Trump administration on cases concerning immigration enforcement. Furthermore, the Second Circuit’s appeal to the “plain language of the relevant statutes” for its decision provides the most compelling argument yet in support of the Trump administration’s position.
The court victories for Trump regarding his administration’s immigration enforcement have been rare but significant, as his administration has slowly but steadily worked to overcome Democrats’ resistance to his enforcement policies. And the administration has recently ramped up its efforts against leftist state governments that have been undercutting federal law enforcement. Just two weeks ago, Attorney General William Barr announced new sanctions in what he is calling a “significant escalation” to combat lawless sanctuary cities.
COMMENTARY: don’t you just love it when the man says what he means and takes the steps to achieve his goals? the result of supposed ‘compromise’ in Congress remains to be seen, in all likelihood, the Demos continuing their ‘resistance’ to anything he promotes, anything beneficial to We The People – an initial WAY TO GO Mr. President!
Trump proposes a new approach to the broken budget process
By John Merrifield and Barry Poulson. February 24, 2020
President Trump’s 2021 fiscal year budget proposal has created yet another firestorm of controversy.
The proposal calls for a decrease in non-defense discretionary spending of 2 percent annually over the next decade and an increase in defense spending of 1.3 percent per year. This will set off another battle in Congress between Democrats, who support increased non-defense spending, and Republicans, who, generally speaking, want more defense spending.
The likely outcome of this battle in Congress will be a so-called “compromise” similar to this year’s budget resolution that boosted non-defense and defense spending above what the president proposed.
What is unique in the 2021 budget proposal is that Trump is the first president to call for a rules-based fiscal policy. This is not just a proposal to restore budget process rules, such as discretionary spending caps and PAYGO — rules that Congress suspended in recent years. Trump proposed new spending rules that are similar to the fiscal rules used in other countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, and Germany. The purpose of these rules is to balance the budget in the near term and reduce debt to sustainable levels in the long run. With the new fiscal rules in place, those countries were able to respond to the financial crisis without a U.S.-like debt blowout.
The president also proposed a wide range of reforms in entitlement programs, as well as discretionary spending programs required to achieve these goals.
Critics argue that Trump’s budget proposal is not realistic because it assumes higher rates of economic growth than projected in other long-term forecasts. Even The Wall Street Journal referred to many of the president’s proposed fiscal reforms as aspirational goals that will never see the light of day in Congress.
The Trump administration should be given credit for recognizing that the budget process is broken and that current fiscal policies are not sustainable in the long run. Without fiscal reform, the federal government will incur trillion-dollar deficits and increase debt to more than 150 percent of national income in coming decades. The United States has emerged as one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world. Countries in southern Europe with comparable debt burdens have become insolvent and unable to pay their bills.
If the United States continues to accumulate debt at the rate projected under current law, it will begin to look like Japan, the most highly indebted country in the world. In Japan, higher debt burdens have, in fact, resulted in retardation and stagnation in economic growth. These fiscal policies violate the “law of holes”: if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
In our research, we project that with effective fiscal rules in place, a downsizing of federal spending as a share of national income, combined with lower tax rates, would significantly boost the rate of economic growth in the long term. With rules-based fiscal policies, the United States could balance the budget and reduce debt to sustainable levels, just as other countries have.
On the other hand, we project that under current law, higher levels of federal spending and increased debt will be accompanied by retardation and stagnation in economic growth in the long term, just as they have in Japan. We question whether the United States now has the fiscal space available to respond to a fiscal shock, such as the financial crisis. (By “fiscal space,” we mean the ability to pursue countercyclical fiscal policy without triggering a debt crisis.)
If the United States is to avoid sliding into a Japan-like economic downturn, Congress should take seriously President Trump’s proposal for a rules-based fiscal policy. With such a policy in place, the United States would finally have an actual budget, rather than just a spending plan for elected officials.
COMMENTARY: first, there is a certain majesty about orations by gifted speakers such as JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., even Barack Obama at times – however, in many cases, the speaker often failed to put his words into action, even over time – in this instance, President Trump, despite the vitriol spewed by his many enemies, often based on little but ‘resistance’, the man goes on to fulfill promises and to bring order in the areas he acts in, with his mind focused on We The People – not party, elites, or self – some of what he says or even does is offensive to a degree to even his supporters, yet we watch and wait for the shoe to drop on another achievement – what he has done in three years is legendary -in a sense, he is the Everyready Bunny in human form
TRUMP: EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO NEW WORLD ORDER
By James D Veltmeyer, MD. October 1 2019
The ongoing attacks by the political establishment on President Donald Trump –which began even before he was elected – are without parallel in history. The savagery, frenzy, and outright hysteria displayed by the President’s enemies within the Democrat Party, the media, and the various power centers of the globalist elites have no prior precedent.
This President has been spied on, lied about, made the subject of phony foreign dossiers, insulted, ridiculed, scorned, mocked and threatened. We have witnessed Hollywood celebrities advocate for blowing up the White House, demand the President be beaten, jailed or even assassinated, and his children tortured and sexually abused. We have seen politicians in Washington try to convict the President of non-existent crimes, investigate him and his family members for everything from tax returns to guests at his hotels, project on to him crimes that they themselves have committed, and seed his Administration with leakers and double-agents.
No other President in American history has been treated in such a shameful manner. Not Lincoln. Not FDR. Not Nixon. Not Reagan. What is it about this President that has roused such demons in his political foes? What is it about this President that drives his opponents to the brink of insanity? What is it about this President that so terrifies and terrorizes the Pelosis, Schiffs, Schumers and the George Soroses? Is it simply that he is not part of the club, a brash outsider with a different style? Is it merely because he’s outspoken and tramples on political correctness? Is it because he’s sometimes unpresidential in his demeanor (at least in their minds)? Not at all. After all, aren’t these the same folks who loved Bill Clinton whose extracurricular activities involved cigars and staining blue dresses in the Oval Office?
Of course, Clinton was beloved by the globalist elites who pull the strings on world governments. He gave them NAFTA, after all. He gave them the WTO. He made tens of billions of dollars for them and their stockholders through these unfair trade deals that cost America five million manufacturing jobs and closed 70,000 factories. He also gave the military-industrial complex plenty of profit-making military interventions, from Haiti to Bosnia to Serbia and Iraq, Bill Clinton, for all his corruption, delivered the goods for the New World Order.
Donald Trump, of course, never played ball with these globalists. He was elected explicitly on an anti-globalist platform that put America first. From day one, he started to implement that America-first agenda, earning him the undying enmity of all those whose profits are secured by selling out American workers, American jobs, and America’s national sovereignty. President Trump pulled us out of the TPP. Billions in lost profits for the globalists. President Trump pulled us out of the job-destroying Paris Climate Accords. Billions in lost profits for foreign nations like Communist China, at our expense. Read NASA’s Report. President Trump began the process of securing the U.S. border. Billions in lost cheap illegal immigrant labor for the Business Roundtable.
President Trump imposed tariffs on China, becoming the first President ever to address Beijing’s annual $500 billion rape of our economy. Billions in lost profits for corporations who ship our jobs to one of the worst tyrannies on the planet. President Trump renegotiated NAFTA. Again, billions in lost profits for the cheap labor crowd, President Trump launched the process of extricating the U.S. from endless foreign wars and avoiding new wars with nations like Iran and North Korea. Billions –perhaps trillions – in lost profits for the globalist war machine.
Is the picture becoming a little clearer? In each instance, the President’s policies have represented a dramatic upending of the globalist agenda of both parties, the Carter-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama agendas of continuous war and the continuous looting of America’s wealth and hollowing out of the American middle class. With both parties and their representatives in Congress beholden to campaign donors whose profits are threatened by Trump’s America-first initiatives, is it no wonder that both Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans, all Globalist-Socialist , are determined to bring this President down? Most of the mass media is controlled by these same global corporations. After all, doesn’t Amazon’s Jeff Bezos—the richest man in the world – own the Washington Post? As was said in Watergate, just follow the money. And while you’re following the money—see if it leads to a $500 million left-wing slush fund run by a shadowy Soros and Clinton linked group called Arabella Advisors which is funding the anti-Trump political agenda through dozens of high-sounding front groups.
Folks, the New World Order gang is in full retreat all over the globe. From Brexit in the UK to the populist governments of Hungary and Poland to the Yellow Vest movement in France and Salvini in Italy, the middle and working classes are demanding the overthrow of their nation-destroying overlords. The overlords who have flooded their countries with unassailable immigrants from North Africa and surrendered their sovereignty to the European Union and its unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. They have lived the unfulfilled promises of the globalists, that giving up national sovereignty and relocating jobs abroad would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. The exact opposite has happened. The globalist vision has resulted in $7 trillion of pointless wars in the Middle East, an immigration crisis, the loss of jobs, and declining standards of living.
In the United States, Donald J. Trump has emerged as the New World Order’s most tenacious and determined foe as he fights the good fight for the American people, our constitutional rights and liberties and the sovereignty of our nation. He is an existential threat to the New World Order. Unlike other Republican presidents of the recent past, he can’t be bought and has no price Unlike them, he doesn’t give in and he doesn’t give up.
Go ahead, globalists. Try your impeachment games. Try your Senate trials. It won’t work In fact, it will backfire on all of you as – after three years of trying to prevent the Electoral College from voting for Trump, stopping the inauguration, unleashing Jim Comey and the FBI, CIA spying, Robert Mueller and his phony Russiagate probe, tax returns, emoluments, Kavanaugh, and all the rest — the patience of the American public is wearing thin. We aren’t as stupid as you think. something you will recognize clearly come November 3, 2020.
“How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!” ― Thomas Jefferson
COMMENTARY: Not only are the costs for these Muslims obscene, but little selection of Christian refugees has taken place – let’s face it: if we cannot vet each and every one of these ‘refugees’, none should be allowed in until they are in fact vetted – to deny that from happening is to open our doors to welfare recipients who cannot fill jobs because they lack English skills and we thus permit rapists, thieves, pedophiles, and other undesirables to come in – common sense says no, no, no – FAILING
Posted: 22 Feb 2020
The latest battle over Special Immigrant Visas pitted Stephen Miller, President Trump’s senior advisor, against the Pentagon. The military brass was lobbying for 6,000 special immigrant visas for Iraqis who worked for American forces in the country. These visas were once again billed as helping “interpreters”.
That’s a lot of interpreters considering that there were only 5,200 American troops in Iraq.
How could there be more Iraqi interpreters for American troops than there are troops?
The Special Immigrant Visa scam has been sold for over a decade using the same claim that it’s needed to save the lives of Iraqi and Afghan interpreters who are risking death by helping American soldiers.
In one decade, the United States has handed out 75,250 of these visas to Iraqi and Afghan employees, and their dependents. Between 2007 and 2017, they represented 1 percent of all immigrant visas.
The truth is that the military brass has wrongly used the incentive of Special Immigrant Visas to recruit local personnel and cut costs by promising them resettlement in the United States. Considering the costs of resettling even the nicest Iraqi or Afghan families, it would have been cheaper to pay each of them a six-figure salary. But that would have come out of the defense budget. The SIV scam passes the buck to local cities and states, to ordinary taxpayers and communities who have to hire interpreters who speak Pashto to interact with the children of the interpreters who are swamping local school systems.
One Iraqi or Afghan employee brings a lot more dependents and expenses with him. In 2017, the 4,677 Iraqi and Afghan employees brought 13,713 dependents with them for a total of 18,390 refugees.
Those were the worst numbers since before Obama took office.
While conventional refugee numbers have been slashed, the number of Special Immigrant Visas for Iraqis and Afghans drastically shot up because the Pentagon was getting its way on immigration. Few of these visas were for actual interpreters. That number tends to be capped at 50 a year. Most of the SIV applicants coming in had to have only worked for a few years in often vaguely defined capacities.
Some were actual interpreters. Many more were cultural advisors and linguists.
All they have to do is claim that they received threats over their work for the US or the ISAF, the multinational force in Afghanistan, and they are resettled in the United States as refugees.
While the media has repeatedly accused President Trump of stopping interpreters from coming to this country even though they, allegedly, risked their lives, the number of SIV visas for Afghans and Iraqis shot up from 10,681 in 2014, to 14,383 in 2016, to 18,390 in 2017.
That’s when Stephen Miller tried to slam on the brakes.
The media complains that visa processing isn’t fast enough. And that the lives of SIV applicants are at risk every day they’re living in their own country. But bypassing vetting puts American lives at risk.
As a measure of how bad the vetting is, Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, the Emir of an Al Qaeda group in Fallujah, entered this country as a refugee and applied for disability. He then went to work as a military contractor on a California base, teaching soldiers deploying to Iraq about the local culture. That’s the typical sort of task that many SIV visas are provided for which require little more than English skills.
Was an Al Qaeda Emir employed by the US military in Iraq? Did Al-Nouri come here on an SIV visa? The answer is he probably did, but no one seems to be especially willing to ask or answer that question.
Bilal Abood came to the United States on an SIV visa. Like many SIV applicants, he had worked as a contract linguist in Iraq. Like most SIV applicants, he claimed to have faced threats because of his work. Once in the United States, Abood began viewing ISIS beheading videos and tweeted, “I pledge obedience to the Caliphate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” That was the leader of ISIS.
“The United States is the enemy of Allah,” he had said.
Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon and Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori, Mustafa Sataar Al Feraji, Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori, and Yasir Jabbar Jasim, 5 Iraqis who who came to America on SIV visas, took part in the rape of an American woman in Colorado Springs who was abused so badly that there was blood splattered on the wall. Her mistake was sympathizing with the poor hapless refugees.
That’s our mistake as a country.
Ramadon, like the other SIV applicants celebrated by the media, had an NCO lobby for him. He appeared on Oprah, was featured in a book, and became a celebrity. Then he was hit with a restraining order for choking and threatening to kill his girlfriend. His crimes ended with the brutal rape of an older woman.
But the SIV lobby doesn’t care about the woman he nearly killed. Or the threat to Americans.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee involved in controversial decisions, like inventing a right to taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal migrants, ruled that the Trump administration must immediately start processing visa applications for SIV migrants and bring them to America.
Meanwhile the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 provided 4,000 more SIV slots for Afghans.
Shutting down the SIV pipeline has been painfully difficult because the refugee program has broad bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and from military brass.
In this case, it’s actually the bureaucracy that has saved American lives by slowing SIV visa processing.
The United States has spent years figuring out exactly how to throw in the towel in Afghanistan through some sort of meaningless deal with the Taliban, even as we continue passing out SIV visas to Afghan employees in a country we may be leaving at any time. And we are handing out SIV visas like candy to Iraqis even though we have a very limited military presence there that is not expected to last for long.
But facts have never stopped the SIV express from barreling through America at an incredible cost.
85% of SIV recipients have received refugee resettlement benefits. Over 17,000 have been dumped in California, over 10,000 in Texas, and over 7,000 in Virginia. In Virginia, that meant that over 800 Iraqi children and almost 2,000 Afghan children became part of the system. In Northern Virginia, SIV holders increased tenfold and doubled in just one year, putting a potential terrorist population close to the center of government, to top terror targets, including the headquarters of the CIA in Fairfax County.
Meanwhile a GAO report found that 60% of SIV refugees were unemployed after three months and 94% were on food stamps. 70% of Iraqi SIVs were unemployed. In one single year, SIV refugees racked up $80 million in federal aid from two agencies alone. That doesn’t account for some federal refugee assistance programs that go on for as long as 5 years.
How many American soldiers could have been trained to speak Arabic or Pashto for that money?
As their number has grown, so has the monumental expense of subsidizing them. In 2008, SIV refugees accounted for only 1% of resettlement assistance. By 2017, SIV refugees made up a quarter of costs.
After 75,000 Iraqi and Afghan SIV recipients, maybe it’s time that we shut down the SIV scam, instead of expanding it, as politicians from both parties and Pentagon brass, keep insisting that we must do.
We currently have 14,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 55,000 Afghans here through the SIV program. There are 5,200 American military personnel in Iraq and over 20,000 Iraqis through the SIV program in America. We’ve resettled enough “interpreters” to fill Kalamazoo, Wilmington, or Boca Raton.
America is all “interpreted” out.
The US Army began deploying the Machine Foreign Language Translation System (MFLTS) in 2011. Millions of dollars have been signed in contracts for MFLTS systems that can provide automatic translations of Arabic, Pashto, Urdu, and many other languages. The system was deployed in 2017.
MFLTS is no doubt inferior to living translators. But software doesn’t shoot our soldiers in the back, rape women in Colorado Springs, demand food stamps, swamp social services in Virginia, or join ISIS.
COMMENTARY: None needed
On a Democratic Socialist Government: Is It Even Legal in the United States?
Communism forces men into slavery by force. Democratic Socialism does it by votes.
Feb 20, 2020 Jason D. Hill
When I first applied for US citizenship and subsequently became a United States citizen, there was a question on the qualifying exam that asked if I had ever been a member of the communist party or had ever advanced the ideas of communism. As a committed conservative Democrat at the time (I am now a committed conservative independent) the question caused me no turmoil. I answered: NO to both. It was a disqualifying question. It seemed uncontroversial to me. Communism and the ideals of the American commitment to freedom, liberty, property rights, individualism and free market capitalism were philosophical and political antipodes. If I had answered yes to those questions, I would properly have been deemed an enemy of the state and regarded as unqualified to become a naturalized American citizen, not on political grounds — but, fundamentally, on moral ones.
The right to regard oneself as an end in oneself, the right to carve out a conception of the good life for oneself independent of government interference, the right to voluntarily deal with others (or not) by means of one’s own independent judgment and, further, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of personal happiness — are indelibly constitutive features of our American system of government and socio-political ways of life.
The right to also create unlimited wealth that is a material application of a value produced by one’s mind — and tangibly ratified and endorsed by consumer support — is protected by the traditional American system. When I produce something tangible and I manifest it in the world, and it is rewarded by others, I know that this is a function of the application of my values and rational faculty to the problems of human survival that others have rewarded me for.
So when the Democratic Socialist Congresswoman from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, says we have enough billionaires, I know she is placing a moratorium on the precondition for wealth creation: the stupendous creativity of the human mind, and, therefore, a strike against the mind and the human brain. When her idol, the presidential hopeful, Democratic Socialist Senator from the state of Vermont, Bernie Sanders, declares he is a Democratic Socialist who intends to change the overall structure of the values of not just the trading market, but of Americans themselves, it is time to pause and ask: what’s going on here? Is there a fundamental difference between socialism and communism? If one can be regarded as constitutionally inimical to the United States Constitution, can the other — democratic socialism — be just as anathema to our political DNA and legal system? I think the answer is yes. I think that if a so-called democratically-elected socialist government were elected in November of 2020, that it would need to be rendered illegal and overturned immediately.
Socialism advocates vesting ownership and control of the means of production, capital and land in the community as a whole. It advocates the denial of individual property rights, which is the right of the individual to use and dispose of the efforts exercised on behalf of his or her mind in pursuit of his or her survival. Remember that property is the material application of the product of the usage of your mind and values to support your life. The overall goal of socialism is the abolition of private property, which means the right of the individual to use the materialized application of his labor and reason to support his life. The government arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the products of your efforts — you the producer — arbitrarily among the non-producers of society: the moochers and looters and parasites all of whom cannot answer one question posed by economist Walter Williams: “What exactly is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has earned?” Socialists operate by a twisted, inverted greed of the worst type: a sense of entitlement to the earnings (the thinking) of others.
The only difference between communism and socialism is the means they employ in achieving the same end. As philosopher Ayn Rand noted: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism — by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
Socialism is not a morally neutral system. Any system of governance presupposes an answer to the questions: are you a sovereign entity who owns your life, work and mind? Is your mind something that can be nationalized and its material contents distributed by the state? Socialists think the answer is yes. They believe that the products of one’s efforts belong to the community; that the state and society have a moral and financial responsibility to care for other people’s children; and that the most successful and productive people should be the most penalized.
Bernie Sanders and his socialist comrades are dangerous, not just because they want to fundamentally change the fundamental values of the United States of America, but because of the nature of what that change would entail. First, it would involve a massive form of social engineering that would inculcate in Americans the idea that they have an entitlement to the wealth creation and achievements of others. This rests, in part, in allowing them to bypass the fundamental moral law by which they and all of us must live by: are we or are we not responsible for the procreative choices that we make in life? All children are born of a sex act which results in a human life. Socialism at its core says: the consequences of the consensual sex act you engage in are the moral responsibility of all society. This dispensation from moral accountability leads to the second moral violation socialists are able to execute without accountability: legalized fiscal theft.
It takes a lot of money to finance the reproductive choices that others have made through their sex acts: free education, free health care, subsidized housing, Medicaid for all — you name it. They all stem from a Savior Complex that will allow the state to appropriate your financial resources on a scale that violates what I call a decency or moral threshold. To tax individuals at more than fifty percent of their income is so egregious a violation of the right to property that any government that comes to power in the U.S. and implements such a means should be abolished immediately.
Imagine the issue of voting black Americans back into slavery being put to a referendum in the South — a region out of which the institution of slavery in America emerged in the first place. This would clearly be a putative violation of individual rights. So too, I submit, that, given the political DNA of our country’s constitutional makeup, the goals of socialism are inimical to the moral and political structure of the United States of America. No one has the right to vote anyone into a system of economic or political enslavement. Individual rights are inalienable and cannot be abrogated.
Taxes are appropriated to fund the legitimate branches of government which protect the only proper function of government: the protection of individual rights. Therefore, taxes are moral, one could say, to the extent that they finance the institutions that protect those rights: law enforcement to protect us from criminals; the armed forces to protect us from foreign invaders; and the law courts to settle and arbitrate among disputes among individuals in which rights claims are contested. The application of these three categories to concrete situations is complex.
What is not philosophically complicated, however, is the self-arrogated right of the government to identify who and what ought to count as a moral good in my life. The government that identifies that social good for me and then forces me to pay for it, is expropriating my agency, infantilizing me, eviscerating me of my sovereignty and independent rational judgment, and has therefore reversed the proper role of government in our Republic from that of servant to a dictator who carves out a comprehensive sense of what ought to constitute my sense of the good life for myself and who forces me to pay for it.
This is exactly what Bernie Sanders and the whole phalanx of “value-changers” have as their goal. This is un-American and unacceptable. If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination in July and, unlikely, becomes the President of the United States in the November 2020 elections, Americans have a right to know the type of future that awaits them. Because Bernie Sanders is clearly not a “democrat” in any sense of the word. How Americans will deal with such a politically anomalous state of affairs remains to be seen. We have a modified system of capitalism with some vestiges of a welfare state, but not a full-fledged socialist state. I have a feeling that should a socialist government be elected in November, Americans will fight fire with fire.It will not be a pretty sight. It is a fight, however, that will be the most moral and necessary fight to have been waged in this nation’s history. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/democratic-socialist-government-it-even-legal-jason-d-hill/
COMMENTARY: The writer has hit the nail on the head! The One We were All Waiting for proved to be a dilettante at best and his promises were so much garbage as was his delivery on them – Trump? the achievements he had made in three years is simply astounding by comparison
What Exactly Is Wrong with a President Putting America First?
BY ROBERT SPENCER FEBRUARY 17, 2020
TODAY IS THE DAY WE OSTENSIBLY REMEMBER THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTS, AND AS IT COMES AROUND THIS YEAR WE ALL KNOW THAT TO SAY “AMERICA FIRST” IS RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC, AND EVIL IN ALL KINDS OF OTHER WAYS, AND THAT THE BEST U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN THOSE WHO WERE MOST RESPECTED AROUND THE WORLD, IN PLACES SUCH AS COMMUNIST CHINA, THE SOCIALIST EUROPEAN UNION, AND THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.
WELL, THERE ARE STILL A FEW DISSENTERS AMONG US. WHILE ROUGHLY HALF OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION TODAY THINKS THAT THE CURRENT OCCUPANT OF THE WHITE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE WORST PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY, AN ACTIVE DANGER TO THE NATION, THERE IS STILL THAT PESKY OTHER HALF, WHICH REFUSES TO BOW TO OUR SOCIALIST, INTERNATIONALIST MORAL SUPERIORS AND REGARDS PRESIDENT TRUMP AS AN UNPARALLELED CHAMPION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, A TRUE DEFENDER OF THE COMMON MAN IN A WAY THAT HAS NOT BEEN SEEN IN WASHINGTON FOR MANY, MANY DECADES.
ON THIS PRESIDENT’S DAY, IT’S WORTHWHILE TO ASK THE QUESTION: WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG WITH BEING AMERICA FIRST? IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOESN’T PUT AMERICA FIRST, EXACTLY WHICH COUNTRY SHOULD HE PUT FIRST? OR SHOULD HE PUT SOME NEBULOUS IDEA OF “GLOBAL INTERESTS” FIRST, WITH THOSE INTERESTS BEING DEFINED NOT BY AMERICANS, BUT BY THE LIKES OF CHINA, THE EU, AND IRAN?
IN DONALD TRUMP’S INAUGURAL ADDRESS ON JANUARY 20, 2017, HE DECLARED: “FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, A NEW VISION WILL GOVERN OUR LAND. FROM THIS MOMENT ON, IT’S GOING TO BE AMERICA FIRST…. WE WILL SEEK FRIENDSHIP AND GOODWILL WITH THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD — BUT WE DO SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS THE RIGHT OF ALL NATIONS TO PUT THEIR OWN INTERESTS FIRST.” IN RESPONSE, NEOCONSERVATIVE (AND NOW DEMOCRAT) ELITIST WILLIAM KRISTOL TWEETED: “I’LL BE UNEMBARRASSEDLY OLD-FASHIONED HERE: IT IS PROFOUNDLY DEPRESSING AND VULGAR TO HEAR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT PROCLAIM ‘AMERICA FIRST.’”
PROFOUNDLY DEPRESSING AND VULGAR FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF A NATION TO PUT THE INTERESTS OF THAT NATION BEFORE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS? REALLY? THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, MOST AMERICANS WOULD HAVE FOUND KRISTOL’S STATEMENT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN BAFFLING AND TREASONOUS. YET TRUMP’S STATEMENT THAT “IT IS THE RIGHT OF ALL NATIONS TO PUT THEIR OWN INTERESTS FIRST” PRIMARILY, RATHER THAN THOSE OF THE WORLD AT LARGE, HAS BEEN OUT OF FASHION SINCE WORLD WAR II, AND IN MANY WAYS SINCE WORLD WAR I. IT HAS BEEN MISLABELED, DERIDED, AND DISMISSED AS “ISOLATIONISM,” A FEAR OR UNWILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE WITH THE WIDER WORLD, EVEN AS IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY INTERCONNECTED AND INTERDEPENDENT.
BUT TO BE AMERICA FIRST DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AMERICA WILL WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD; IT ONLY MEANS THAT IN DEALING WITH THE WORLD, AMERICAN PRESIDENTS WILL BE LOOKING OUT PRIMARILY FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICANS. THE TERM AMERICA FIRST HAS ALSO BEEN ASSOCIATED, QUITE UNFAIRLY, WITH RACISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM. THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE REPUBLIC, NOTABLY THE PROPOSITION THAT, AS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE PUTS IT, “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS,” SHOWS THAT PUTTING AMERICA FIRST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUCH PETTY AND IRRATIONAL HATREDS.
IN FACT, THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND EVERY PRESIDENT UP UNTIL WOODROW WILSON TOOK FOR GRANTED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD PUT HIS NATION FIRST AND WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT STRANGE IN THE EXTREME THAT THIS IDEA SHOULD EVEN BE CONTROVERSIAL. INDEED, THIS IS THE OLDEST CRITERION OF ALL FOR JUDGING THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF VARIOUS PRESIDENTS: WERE THEY GOOD FOR AMERICA AND AMERICANS, OR WERE THEY NOT? THIS SHOULD STILL BE THE PRIMARY WAY THAT THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF PRESIDENTS IS JUDGED.
IT IS THE GUIDING CRITERION THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS, AND FOUNDING FATHERS WHO WERE NOT PRESIDENTS SUCH AS ALEXANDER HAMILTON WOULD LIKELY USE WHEN JUDGING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE UP TO THE PRESENT DAY.
THE PRESIDENT’S MOST IMPORTANT JOB IS CLEAR FROM THE OATH THAT EVERY PRESIDENT RECITES IN ORDER TO ASSUME OFFICE, AND IT ISN’T TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, OR TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMALIA ISN’T RIVEN BY CIVIL WAR, OR TO MAKE SURE AMERICA IS “DIVERSE.”
IT IS SIMPLY THIS: “I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WILL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”SO WHAT MAKES A GREAT PRESIDENT? ONE WHO PRESERVED, PROTECTED, AND DEFENDED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. OR TO PUT IT EVEN MORE SIMPLY, A GREAT PRESIDENT IS ONE WHO PUTS AMERICA FIRST.
THAT’S THE CRITERION I USED IN MY FORTHCOMING BOOK, RATING AMERICA’S PRESIDENTS: AN AMERICA-FIRST LOOK AT WHO IS BEST, WHO IS OVERRATED, AND WHO WAS AN ABSOLUTE DISASTER.
TODAY THERE IS MORE REASON TO REVISIT AND EMBRACE THE “AMERICA FIRST” PRINCIPLE THAN THERE HAS BEEN IN A CENTURY. SOCIALISM AND NATIONALISM HAVE FOUND FAVOR AMONG SOME AMERICANS SINCE BEFORE THE FIRST WORLD WAR. NOWADAYS, HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS EMBRACING SOCIALISM, IT IS STILL MASSIVELY DISCREDITED AS A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. ITS SISTER IDEOLOGY, INTERNATIONALISM, IS FACING MORE OPPOSITION TODAY THAN IT HAS SINCE BEFORE WORLD WAR II.
ACCORDINGLY, IT’S TIME THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE LIKES OF WILLIAM KRISTOL AND THE MODERN HISTORIANS WHO RATE PRESIDENTS WERE CHALLENGED. THIS IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT TO DO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF AMERICAN CHILDREN HAVE NOW BEEN RAISED TO DESPISE THE FOUNDING FATHERS AS RACIST SLAVE OWNERS, AND TO CONSIDER AMERICAN HISTORY TO BE ONE LONG RECORD OF RACISM, IMPERIALISM, AND OPPRESSION.
AMERICANS NEED TO RECOVER AN APPRECIATION OF THEIR HISTORY, AND FOR THE HEROES OF THAT HISTORY. RANKING THE PRESIDENTS ON AN AMERICA-FIRST STANDARD REVEALS THAT DONALD TRUMP, WHO WAS RATED THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER IN ONE RECENT SURVEY AND THE THIRD-WORST IN ANOTHER, IS ACTUALLY, AFTER JUST THREE YEARS IN OFFICE, ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS THE UNITED STATES EVER HAD, IF NOT THE VERY BEST. AND BARACK OBAMA, WHO IS RATED IN THE TOP TWENTY IN FOUR POLLS AND IN THE TOP TEN IN ANOTHER, IS ACTUALLY THE MOST DAMAGING AND DISASTROUS PRESIDENT THIS NATION HAS EVER HAD.
THIS IS NOT SIMPLY MY POLITICAL OR PERSONAL PREFERENCE. THIS IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT IF ONE EXAMINES THE U.S. PRESIDENTS WHILE HOLDING IN MIND THE DESCRIPTIONS OF EXECUTIVE POWER IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENCY AS EXPLAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE LIKE.IF GEORGE WASHINGTON OR THOMAS JEFFERSON WERE ALIVE TODAY, I DON’T THINK IT TERRIBLY HUBRISTIC TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD LARGELY AGREE WITH MY EVALUATIONS. AFTER ALL, I’M USING THE CRITERIA THEY FORMULATED.
COMMENTARY: California is off the tracks, to put it mildly – the Demos form a super majority in both the state Senate and Assembly and do what they want, the law, especially federal law, be damned – again, it’s all about getting illegals the right to vote, thus bolstering the party’s end game regardless of whatever costs accrue – they seek to undue laws whenever and wherever they can in their ongoing drive for resistance – never looking out for the nation or We The People, they have become dangerously anti-American – FAILING!
Trump Demands Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities
It’s time for leftist jailers who free dangerous illegal aliens to pay the price.
Feb 14, 2020 Matthew Vadum
Crime victims harmed by dangerous illegal aliens should be able to sue the so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that unleashed them on an unwitting public in defiance of federal immigration authorities, President Donald Trump declared in his State of the Union address. At the same time, he endorsed pending legislation that would accomplish this goal.
This is another politically astute immigration-related proposal from Trump who demonstrates time and time again that he is one of the few Republican presidents in modern American history who actually knows how to fight the Left. It puts the illegal alien-coddlers and open-borders fanatics on the defensive and educates the public in clearly understandable terms about who the bad guys really are in this fight over the nation’s future. It comes almost a year after Trump proposed shipping immigration detainees to sanctuary cities, which are Democrat strongholds.
As FrontPage readers know, the sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement. Some left-wingers call sanctuary jurisdictions “civil liberties safe zones” to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S. Leftists also like to refer to all migrants, including illegal aliens, simply as “immigrants” in order to further muddy the waters. This helps the Left portray conservatives, who are generally not anti-immigrant –they’re anti-illegal immigration— as xenophobic bigots.
Sanctuary cities really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States just as much as the Confederate Army was when it opened fire on Fort Sumter.
President Trump railed against the sanctuary laws of California in his address. “Senator Thom Tillis has introduced legislation to allow Americans like Jody to sue sanctuary cities and states when a loved one is hurt or killed as a result of these deadly practices,” Trump said Feb. 4, referring to Jody Jones, a guest at the speech whose brother, Rocky Jones, was allegedly shot and killed by two-time deportee Gustavo Garcia, an illegal alien wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Local authorities in California ignored ICE and let Garcia go. The December 2018 killing happened after California, which is home to more than 2 million illegals on which the state lavishes unearned benefits, enacted “an outrageous law declaring their whole state to be a sanctuary for criminal illegal immigrants — a very terrible sanctuary — with catastrophic results,” the president said.
The illegal, who had prior arrests for robbery and assault, was released under California’s sanctuary laws that mandate resistance to federal immigration law. Jones “was at a gas station when this vile criminal fired eight bullets at him from close range, murdering him in cold blood,” Trump said.
And Jones was just one of Garcia’s victims during what Trump called “a gruesome spree of deadly violence.” He killed another person, committed a truck hijacking, an armed robbery, and got into a firefight with police.“
Before SB 54, Gustavo Garcia would have been turned over to ICE officials,” Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said previously, according to the Washington Post. “That’s how we’ve always done it, day in and day out. After SB 54, we no longer have the power to do that.”
California laws curb the power of state and local law enforcement to hold, question, and transfer detainees at the request of ICE, and punish employers for cooperating with the federal agency.
AB 450 prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with ICE—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts. SB 54 prevents state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to the feds about the release date of criminal illegal aliens in their custody. AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme on the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts.
Legal challenges to the state’s sanctuary regime have not met with success.
In 2018 the Trump administration sued California, arguing state laws prevented ICE from enforcing federal law. The next year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the suit, finding improbably that California law was not in conflict with U.S. immigration law.
Charter cities are allowed in some circumstances to enact legislation that differs from state law, according to the League of California Cities. There are 121 charter cities across the state, including Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Fresno, Irvine, Los Angeles, Palm Springs, San Diego, San Jose, and Vallejo.
But in January, a California appellate court overturned a lower court ruling, finding that Huntington Beach and other charter cities have to follow the sanctuary laws. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes blames the sanctuary laws for a surge in crime. “SB 54 has made our community less safe,” Barnes said earlier this month, according to the Washington Examiner. “The law has resulted in new crimes because my deputies were unable to communicate with their federal partners about individuals who committed serious offenses and present a threat to our community if released.” “The two-year social science experiment with sanctuary laws must end,” he added.
The federal legislation touted by Trump could do just that, though with Democrats in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the bill won’t go anywhere for the time being. Control of the House could shift in November, allowing the next Congress to approve it.
The bill Sen. Tillis introduced, S. 2059, the proposed “Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act,” would allow a victim of a crime committed by an illegal alien to sue the sanctuary jurisdiction that shielded the alien from ICE for compensatory damages. Among the original co-sponsors of the bill are Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). S. 2059 would allow “a civil action [to be] brought against a sanctuary jurisdiction by an individual (or the estate, survivors, or heirs of an individual) who— (A) is injured or harmed by an alien who benefitted from a sanctuary policy of the sanctuary jurisdiction; and (B) would not have been so injured or harmed but for the alien receiving the benefit of such sanctuary policy.” (Its companion bill in the House is H.R. 3964.)
In addition to creating a private right of civil action for victims of sanctuary jurisdictions, the measure would allow the feds to cut off Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to any jurisdiction that blocks victims from proceeding with lawsuits. “If politicians want to prioritize reckless sanctuary policies over public safety, they should also be willing to provide just compensation for the victims,” Tillis said when he launched the bill.
“The Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act is commonsense legislation that will enhance public safety and hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for their refusal to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”
Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr announced Feb. 10 that the U.S. Department of Justice is cracking down on sanctuary states and cities that have “policies and laws designed to thwart the ability of federal officers to take custody of these criminals and thereby help them escape back into the community.” “These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society,” Barr said at the National Sheriffs’ Association Winter Legislative and Technology Conference. “Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible.
”Barr said the DoJ is taking legal action against New Jersey, King County in Washington state, and California. Of course, it’s not enough, but it’s a good start.
COMMENTARY: hopefully, this is a lesson learned for the GOP – appointees such as ambassadors and hires for the NSC and other agencies ought to be fired on Day 1 of a new presidency to preclude the presence of moles throughout the new administration – there is certainly precedent for such actions (even Obama did it to the then-present ambassadors and DOJ personnel – FAILURE!
Obama ‘planted moles’ in White House to torpedo next president
By Pamela Geller – on February 12, 2020
Purge the Obamites. Every leftover should be thrown out on their ….
OBAMA ‘PLANTED MOLES’ IN WHITE HOUSE TO TORPEDO NEXT PRESIDENT
‘All roads in the effort to get rid of Trump lead right back to the top’
By WND Staff, Published February 11, 2020:
It’s abundantly clear now that the Obama administration tried to torpedo Donald Trump, first as a candidate and then as president-elect, using a Democratic Party-funded “dossier” of Russian propaganda to obtain warrants to spy on Trump’s campaign.
BUT TALK-RADIO HOST RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WENT EVEN FURTHER, BY PLANTING “MOLES” THROUGHOUT THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY TO UNDERMINE TRUMP.
He noted Tuesday that Barack Obama grew the National Security Council staff from about 100 employees to well over 200.
Trump didn’t immediately fire the extraneous workers when he took office.
TRENDING: Obama officials who approved spy warrants now in charge of ‘FISA reform’
Among Obama’s hires were the Vindman brothers, one of whom testified against Trump in the House impeachment investigation. Another was Eric Ciaramella, the reported whistleblower whose hearsay claim triggered the Democrats’ impeachment campaign. And there was Sean Misko, who was heard plotting with Ciaramella to bring down Trump just weeks after the inauguration. Misko then went to work for the lead impeachment manager, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
“And then you remember how Obama multiplied the number of federal agencies who had access to classified data? I think what this actually was… I think as Obama was leaving office, he expanded the National Security Council staff and then enlarged the number of agencies that had access to whatever classified data they did. He planted moles,” Limbaugh said.
“This is where they planted the moles. This is where they planted the moles all over the NSC. The Vindman twins, Fiona Hill, the whistleblower, Abigail Grace (who left the NSC shortly after the Trump phone call). She went to work for Schiff. So did Sean Misko. Every one of these people is an Obama holdover. I remember asking, ‘Why in the hell are they still there? Why didn’t Trump clean house and reduce this number back down to 75 to a hundred people who are working for him?’ I don’t know the answer.
“But my guess would be that he had people advising him not to do it,” he said.
“But I think that’s where all of this came from. I think it’s where the Trump-Russia collusion and all of this came from, the FBI and that element of it, too. But the inside Trump administration moles, the turncoats, whatever you want to call ’em. They are Obama appointees that had jobs expanded as Obama was leaving office for the express purpose of protecting Obama’s achievements and sabotaging whoever was to come next — in this case, Trump,” he said.
He said the “garbage coming out of these NSC people and the leaks” was possibly the most damaging to Trump.” “Obama holdovers in the National Security Council. I mean, all roads in the effort to get rid of Trump lead right back to the top of the Obama administration. I don’t think there’s any question about it.”
COMMENTARY: of necessity, the US has had to reverse our own perception of our place in the world previously set by Obama and to encourage allies and even those on the fence to view us in a new light – our actions, not just words, will show the way for other nations to reconsider their individual places in the world based on an improved perspective of how we see ourselves – bottom line? it’s working but much remains to be done in the near and distant future – in part FAILING
‘A Force for Good’: Pompeo Explains the Trump Administration’s Vision for America’s Role in the World
Nolan Peterson September 11, 2019
KYIV, Ukraine—America’s post-9/11 global fight against terrorism is another year older. After 18 years, American troops are still deployed around the world combatting terrorism; a fight in which they will likely remain engaged for another generation, or more.
Yet, even as America’s counterterrorism campaigns go on and on, and casualties continue to mount slowly, the country’s foreign policy challenges have become far more diverse—and arguably far more dangerous—than they were when dawn broke on Sept. 11, 2001.
After a generational focus on counterterrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. policymakers are adapting to a new reality in which so-called strategic competition between nation-states and the specter of major conflicts are once again driving world events.
This new era requires a top-to-bottom rethinking of how America should exercise its role as the world’s top power. To that end, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says, the Trump administration has given American foreign policy a much-needed course correction after the Obama era.
“My sense, from having now traveled a bit, is that when President [Donald] Trump came into office people were confused that [President Barack Obama] had traveled much of the globe apologizing for many of the things that America had done around the world over the past decades,” Pompeo tells The Daily Signal in an exclusive, wide-ranging telephone interview.
“I and President Trump have a very different take. Every place we go, America is a force for good. I believe that with all my heart,” Pompeo says, adding:
We don’t always get it right. Not always perfect. But our efforts are noble and important, and we try to make America secure and at the same time [improve] the lives of people in every country … to improve their capacity for freedom and liberty in their own nation.
Totalitarian governments in China and Russia are increasingly turning to foreign adventures to advertise their legitimacy to domestic audiences. Meanwhile, with the rising use of “gray zone” tactics among America’s adversaries, a country’s power on the world stage no longer is measured by economic clout, military force, or even diplomatic sway.
Rather, the audacious use of misinformation to shape public opinion at home and abroad allows countries like Iran and Russia to punch well above their hard and soft power weight classes in influencing world events.
The world not only is a dangerous place, but numerous global hot spots remain just one so-called Franz Ferdinand scenario away from disaster. To name a few: Russian artillery thunders daily in eastern Ukraine; Iran’s aggression is ratcheting up in the Strait of Hormuz and across the Middle East; China and the U.S. are embroiled in a trade war as Beijing ramps up its militarization of the South China Sea; Venezuela muddles along as a failed socialist state in waiting; and the denuclearization of North Korea remains elusive. The list goes on.
“When President Trump took office there were a … number of places where America had been absent from the stage and allowed challenges to be presented to American national security,” Pompeo tells The Daily Signal.
“An America that seeks to be everywhere and police everything is destined to minimize its capacity to actually achieve good ends for America, and frankly, for the most countries as well,” Pompeo says, making the case for the Trump administration’s “America first” doctrine of prioritizing U.S. interests. Evidently, the arc of history is not automatically bending toward a global utopia. Consequently, in the eyes of the Trump administration, the world needs American leadership. However, choosing the country’s foreign policy commitments requires some tough tradeoffs, Pompeo says.
“So when I think about our role, it’s in that light,” Pompeo says. “It’s about making sure that where we go, wherever we expend our energy and our time and our resources, wherever we put our young men and women in the military at risk, that we’re doing so with a clear vision of how it makes America more secure.”
A key plank of Trump’s “America First” philosophy, Pompeo says, is to shore up America’s economy as a hedge against today’s myriad international threats.
“The president has focused very much on the fact that without a strong American economy all of these risks become greater,” Pompeo says. “Much of the diplomatic effort we’ve been engaged in … has been aimed at ensuring that America has access to markets, that we are using our diplomatic efforts to help make sure that America’s economy can continue to grow and prosper; knowing that when we get that right, we can … handle the security issues appropriately as well.”
Afghanistan is one place where the Trump administration believes the U.S. can streamline its military footprint, freeing up counterterrorism resources to wage a fight that is now more globally dispersed than in the period immediately following the September 2001 terror attacks.
“The question today is how do we make sure that we match today’s requirements with American resources to most effectively keep America safe,” Pompeo says.
Today, about 14,500 U.S. troops remain deployed to Afghanistan, providing air support and other types of assistance to Afghan forces.
After more than a year of negotiations, Washington and the Taliban appeared to be nearing a breakthrough deal last week for the partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. However, Trump announced Saturday that he was cutting off those talks after a deadly Taliban attack in Kabul killed an American soldier—the 16th U.S. fatality in Afghanistan this year.
Peace talks with the Taliban, for the time being, are dead in the water. So, too, is the prospect of an American exit from Afghanistan in the near future.
Yet, the global fight against terrorism cannot be reduced to one theater. And, according to Pompeo, the Trump administration scored a key win in that broader conflict in March with the territorial defeat of the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate.
“ISIS had risen when [Trump] came into office. We’ve laid out a strategy and now have delivered the defeat of the caliphate in Syria,” Pompeo says, using an alternative name for the Islamic State terrorist group.
“We know … the radical Islamic terrorists are still out there and they want to do harm to America,” Pompeo adds. “But we took down the caliphate and reduced the risk from that particular place, so we’ve been very focused on that and we’ll have to continue to be.”
A frequent criticism of the Trump administration’s foreign policy is that by pursuing “America First,” it has diminished the nation’s global standing. Critics contend that Trump’s sometimes-sharp criticism of America’s allies has unnecessarily chafed formerly dependable relationships.
Also, the president’s challenge of the utility of legacy international institutions—NATO, in particular—has led to warnings from many quarters about the impending ruination of the liberal world order.
“The order that has structured international politics since the end of World War II is fracturing,” wrote the authors of a December article in Foreign Affairs magazine. Trump has “upended” the “rules-based international order,” which, the authors noted, concurrently is under assault from countries such as Russia and China.
Pompeo doesn’t discount the historic security challenges facing Western democracies. Yet, the secretary of state also challenges the notion that America’s national esteem is on the decline, or that the Trump administration’s “America First” doctrine somehow had dimmed the global promise of democracy and undercut the stability of the so-called rules-based world order.
For his part, Pompeo argues that the U.S. brand is as strong as ever in the eyes of those who want to achieve a better life by emulating America’s founding values in their own countries. The world is always watching, and the example set by America’s democratic republic—warts and all—has global repercussions, the secretary of state says.
America’s role in the world is to “be that beacon, to be that shining light, to be demonstrably right when it comes to freedom and liberty,” Pompeo says. “That exceptional place that we know America to be, we can never lose sight of that. We have to demonstrate that each and every day.”
U.S. foreign policy cannot rely solely on either coercion or enticement to influence the behaviors of foreign governments. And not every outcome that America seeks to achieve around the world comes at a price.
Rather, Pompeo says, the U.S. retains a singular ability to effect geopolitical change through the inspirational power of “those founding ideas that underlay the American vision and the American story.”
“When you exert America’s influence around the world in a way that is reflective of our country and its founding ideas of individual liberty and freedom, and a sense [that] each nation has its own sovereign right to make decisions for itself, [then] we’re going to do things that are best for the American people,” Pompeo says.
“When you start to get that right, we can travel around these conflict regions and conflict issues … and see that in every case we’ve put America in a better place than we were, even in the course of just two and a half short years,” he adds.
Ongoing protests in Hong Kong against Beijing’s rule, along with the recent anti-government protests in Russia, suggest that the global appeal of freedom and democracy may not be as passé as the Trump administration’s critics contend.
“I see this in many pockets of the world where authoritarian regimes are in control,” Pompeo tells The Daily Signal. “I see human beings seeking to make life better for themselves and their family. That’s certainly economically. But more broadly, I see them seeking to assert their rights.”
In the interview, Pompeo doesn’t link the parallel protest movements in Hong Kong and Russia as part of a gathering global tide against authoritarianism. He does, however, say that free access to information in today’s digitized world has helped spread expectations of basic human rights and freedom worldwide.
“As we now live in this age where information can flow across boundaries in a way that it couldn’t five years ago, or 25 years ago, and the world now has the capacity to see that there is opportunity … and that freedom and democracy actually work to deliver better economic outcomes as well,” Pompeo says. “I do see this happening in countries across the world, and I’m thankful for that.”
A Human Face
Pompeo has worn a lot of hats in his life—Army officer, congressman from Kansas, CIA director, and, since April 26, 2018, America’s 70th secretary of state.
Through it all, the 55-year-old California native has participated in the exercise of American power abroad at nearly every level of government.
During Pompeo’s sweeping career, some experiences stand apart, offering a uniquely human face to the consequences of decisions made at the very pinnacle of U.S. governmental power.
One such moment happened while he was in North Korea in May 2018. As the new secretary of state paved the way for the first summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, he also negotiated for the release of three American prisoners held by Pyongyang.
“We’d had a long day of discussions with Chairman Kim and we believed we were going to get these three Americans out, but we weren’t sure,” Pompeo recalls.
After 13 hours in North Korea, including a 90-minute meeting with Kim, Pompeo reboarded his jet, still unsure whether the prisoners would be released.
Then the vehicles pulled up, and the three Americans got out.
“I remember when they climbed out of the van, and they could walk, and it looked like their health conditions were good,” Pompeo recalls of the prisoners’ last-minute deliverance.
“What a relief it was for me. What a proud moment it was for me to have been able to be there and engage in the conversation on behalf of President Trump that led these three men to be able to return to their homes and to their families,” Pompeo says.
“And it was truly, personally rewarding to watch as they climbed the stairs into the airplane and get a chance to shake their hand and give them a hug and tell them they were on their way home.”
With the frenetic pace of his duties as secretary of state, Pompeo has little time to reflect on his place in history. But, given that America is on the cusp of a new era of geopolitics, the Trump administration is, perhaps, setting the tone for American policy for generations to come.
“This isn’t academic,” Pompeo says of his responsibilities as secretary of state, adding:
This isn’t just about something that happened at a think tank, or a policy that someone’s going to write about in a magazine. The decisions we make, and the way that we execute them, impact real people every day. It keeps me going. It reminds me of how focused I need to be and how good my team needs to be.
Ultimately, Pompeo says, he aspires to put America’s interests, as well as those of its partners and allies, “on a trajectory that will lead to good outcomes … that go far beyond the time of service that I’ll have.” “But I spend my time focused on trying to deliver outcomes, and then the history books will be written,” he says.
COMMENTARY: the unintended consequences of incompetence lies in Pelosi’s lap – it clearly appears that she has become an embittered old woman whose only direction is one of ‘Resistance’ – gee, Nancy, how’s that working out for the Demos and you? from our perspective, EPIC FAILURE is EPIC!
September 7, 2019. By Larry Schweikart
The suicide of the House is complete
The recent announcement by James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that he would not seek re-election in 2020 sparked new worries among the GOP that retaking the House in 2020 might be nearly impossible. Although Sensenbrenner’s district should be “safe” (as should about half of the more than a dozen seats in districts where Republicans are retiring), it never helps to lose an incumbent.
That said, in 2020, the control of the House may be well near irrelevant.
Over time, the House has had one major constitutional duty: the budget. All spending and taxation bills must originate in the House. But in all likelihood, the decline of the House started in 1995, when the newly elected Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich caved in to media pressure to give Bill Clinton his bloated budget. Since then, no House has even attempted to control the deficits or the debt. For eight years under George W. Bush, the rationale was to fund the War on Terror. Then, under Barack Obama, the Democrat House had no intention of dealing with the deficits or the debt. For eight years, under both Democrats and Republicans, nothing was done to recapture the budget process. Continuing resolutions were the rule of the day.
Enter Nancy Pelosi, whose Congress openly and energetically vowed to do utterly nothing in the way of actual legislation, but instead to investigate and otherwise obstruct President Donald Trump. This marked the final transition of the House into irrelevance.
Meanwhile, Trump marched through his presidency like Sherman through Georgia, canceling bad trade deals, negotiating new ones, imposing tariffs, and most recently building the wall. Yes, quietly, while everyone was watching Robert Mueller testify, Trump’s reallocation of Department of Defense funds to build the wall was upheld, and wall construction has already started (and in some places been completed) in California and Arizona. Trump predicted that fully 500 miles of the Wall will be completed by 2020.
And the House had nothing whatsoever to do with it. It would be possible for a Democrat House to pass a budget that would not be anything close to what the Senate would pass — then fight it out in reconciliation — and see a Trump-unfriendly budget get vetoed. Even if the Republicans lose a few more seats in 2020, they won’t have a veto-proof majority. The House cannot override a Trump veto.
When it comes to another signature issue for Trump, judges, Mitch McConnell in the Senate has been a machine. Trump’s appointees are closing in on 30% of the federal bench total, and more wait in the wings. It is entirely possible that Trump will get at least one, and perhaps more, Supreme Court picks. What role does the House play in all this? None.
Trump has already canceled NAFTA. In its place, he has negotiated a new trade agreement that must be approved by both the House and the Senate — but if the House refuses to act, NAFTA is still dead. The House can only confirm and add to Trump’s power, not reduce it.
Two rules apply here. Rule 1: A muscle that is not used atrophies. The House’s constitutional muscle is budget-making. If it has voluntarily abdicated that role, who needs it? Rule 2: Nature abhors a vacuum. If the House doesn’t pass immigration bills (as Trump has begged it to), or address DACA (as Trump has begged it to), or write a budget that Trump can sign, then it has consigned itself to irrelevance.
I write this with some sadness. It certainly was not the Founders’ vision for the House to be the least relevant of the legislative process, and in the minds of many of the Founders, it was to be the most “democratic” and responsive to the people. Once the House ceded its most fundamental responsibilities, it was inevitable that those duties would be done by the Executive.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that some or many of the House retirees intuitively know that the House has become meaningless. They may well know that, although the process was long in developing, Nancy Pelosi has turned the House of Representatives into the American equivalent of the House of Lords.https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/the_suicide_of_the_house_is_complete.html
COMMENTARY: if the US were to eliminate the Electoral College, the seven (7) largest states would be able to elect the president, offering no input from the others not among the seven – thus, so-called ‘democracy’ would adhere to only pols in those states and no voices would be tolerated from those not included, no campaigning in the rest, no say in how government operates or the issues it must handle – a terribly bad idea but one that the Dems openly seek so as to constitute their power until such time as our ‘system’ collapses as it would following history’s pattern – of course the Dems care NOTHING for our country, only for their own power! a failure heading our way! Beware We The People changing to We The Anti-American Democrats! FAILING miserably!
September 7, 2019. By R. Quinn Kennedy
Reminder to Liberals: The USA Is Not a Democracy
Semantic infiltration within the political realm is typically defined, in its various forms, as unknowingly adopting the terms used by an opponent in such a way as to undermines one’s own argument.
With the help of their cronies in the mainstream media, leftists are exceptionally good at semantic infiltration. Take, for example, the words “illegal alien.” The term is simple enough. When a citizen from a foreign country enters a country not of his origin, he is alien to that newly entered country because, by birth, he is not a citizen of it. When the individual has entered the new country in violation of that country’s immigration laws, he can be properly termed an “illegal alien.”
Throughout the late 1990s, in order to shift the emphasis away from the very real fact that Mexican nationals crossing the border into the United States were doing so illegally, the Left coined the disingenuous term “undocumented immigrants.” The mainstream media, clearly understanding Nazi Germany’s propaganda techniques used to influence public perception, began repeating the term “undocumented immigrant” relentlessly.
“Undocumented,” in this case, infers that illegal aliens simply lack the correct documentation that affords them the same basic rights as a legal citizen of the United States. Since Americans take pride in our country having risen to greatness in large part through mass legal immigration, the term “immigrant” seemingly provides a level of equal status.
Through semantic infiltration, the Left and mainstream media paint the perception that those who have traveled into our country illegally are not at all different from those who have immigrated. The proof of the Left’s effectiveness in establishing politically correct semantic infiltration is when we observe Republican politicians, right-leaning political pundits, and even Fox News adopting the term. This is despite a 2012 ruling by the Supreme Court in which it used the term “illegal alien” because of its descriptive precision.
In a very similar manner, the Left uses the word “democracy” to describe the United States’ form of government. In her attempt to justify the abolition of the electoral college as a form of electing the president of the United States, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently stated that the electoral college is “democracy-altering.” This would be an absolutely true statement if not for the fact that she was referring to the United States of America, which is not a democracy.
Does this basic detail hinder Ocasio-Cortez, leftists, the mainstream media, and even many on the right from repeatedly referring to the United States as a democracy? Not in the least. The reason is because of the astonishing success the Left has had using semantic infiltration to frame our form of government as a democracy rather than using the correct term, “representative republic.” The term “representive” refers to the manner in which our republic functions.
Ironically, in an effort to further graft democracy into societal lexicon, the Left has begun using the Euro-inspired term “representative democracy” in its never-ending semantic infiltration assault. On November 6, 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” He could not have been more correct. A democracy cannot have an electoral college since, by definition, a democracy is not representative.
There’s a simple yet crucial reason for arguing the distinction between a republic and a democracy. By blurring the definition by which our form of government was founded, the Left attempts to float any outrageous politically correct notion to the American public under the pretense of “This will help make our democracy work the way it should.”
When Benjamin Franklin was asked at the end of the Philadelphia Convention which form of government the American people were given, Franklin famously answered, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
To appreciate Benjamin Franklin’s response, it’s important to recognize that our Founding Fathers were scholars in the highest sense. They recognized that before Rome was an empire, it was a republic — a collection of city-states that made up the whole. Individual city-states oftentimes lacked the military and economic capability to adequately defend against foreign invaders. However, by banding together, the city-states got a considerably stronger military and an economic republic that would have to be reckoned with should a foreign army attempt an invasion. By joining the collective republic, each city-state’s security was significantly increased.
With this historical knowledge, our Founding Fathers wisely determined that each of their thirteen individual states were made much more secure when united together as a single republic. The Constitution, the Electoral College, and subsequent representation from each state were all based on a republic government comprised of a collection of states. Significantly, this is why the Pledge of Allegiance begins with citing an allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, which is the representation around the world of the republic of the United States of America.
The precise distinction of the United States as a representative republic rather a democracy is vital to individual freedom because it prevents “tyranny of the masses.” In today’s heated political environment, a representative republic form of government makes it far less likely that the 11,506,364 people in California and New York who voted for the Progressive candidate in the last presidential election can impose their political will on the 11,382,874 people in Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Montana, Arizona, West Virginia, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, and Idaho who did not. Since our form of government is a representative republic, the freedoms we enjoy are not dependent upon the political winds that blow in and out of the course of American history.
In 1814, John Adams wrote, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”
Why do democracies never last long? Because they ultimately give way to authoritarianism and dictatorship. Even as early as 1814, John Adams recognized this. In the world today, we have a preponderance of historical evidence to support his claim.
Having experienced a life of oppression under the rule of dictatorial King George III, John Adams had a forceful belief in the principles of individual liberty and how precious that liberty is. To risk its loss to a democracy style of government was unimaginable to Adams and the host of other Founding Fathers willing to risk their wealth, family, and their lives to establish the republic of the United States of America.
Maintaining our republic form of government has created economic, political, and military security within the U.S. that has made it the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.
The intentional semantic infiltration by the Left that our country is a democracy may, on its surface, seem relatively inconsequential. However, upholding the distinction that we are, indeed, a republic is foundational to a way of life that makes the United States the envy of the world. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/reminder_to_liberals_the_usa_is_not_a_democracy.html
COMMENTARY: there remain in government many appointed or hired by the Obama Administration, people whose daily agenda is resistance to President Trump and his administration – add to this the left- and liberal-leaning members off the Demo Party and one can easily see what they have been up to in the last three years – as in the mindset of their Imperial Majesty, thankfully no longer in office, they seek only to bring down Pres. Trump in any way they can, wherever it can be achieved across the wide spectrum of federal activities – their deliberate efforts and continual lies impacts federal action in countless areas – it is truly time to ‘drain the swamp’ – the Demos are FAILING.
Revealing the Real Cause of Deep State Corruption
America is threatened by a loss of its constitutional system. The threat does not come from the current occupant of the White House, but from those who would seek to expel him.
Stephen B. Presser December 29 2019
What could possibly explain the transparent nonsense that is the attempt to impeach and remove President Donald Trump? The farrago of exaggerations and outright lies that the leadership of the Democrats in the House of Representatives are currently peddling makes little sense.
Impeachment was a remedy crafted by the Founders to remove a corrupt official who put his or her interests ahead of those of the country. But when a president has managed one of the most successful economic recoveries in modern times, and when he has succeeded in reducing taxes, regulations, and in reforming the federal judiciary, that president doesn’t seem like a problem the Constitution’s Framers sought to cure.
Could it be, instead, that those seeking to remove President Trump are themselves the beneficiaries of the kind of corruption the framers feared?
The idea is gaining some currency, as some observers have begun to suggest what we are witnessing is a distraction by the “deep state,” to shift our attention away from the revelations of the extreme misconduct of our entrenched bureaucracy in our intelligence, foreign service, and law enforcement agencies during the Obama Administration. The misconduct is detailed in Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s recent report and could be the subject of prosecutions by U.S. Attorney John Durham.
There is much merit in that analysis. It makes good sense to understand the smokescreen of impeachment as a means of obscuring what appears to be the extraordinary corruption of the Biden family and former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, or even the “pay to play” assertions concerning the Clinton Foundation, the concealing of which is the best explanation for Hillary Clinton’s shenanigans regarding her “homebrew” server which was used to shield her misconduct from public view.
If, as President Trump maintains, he is the sworn enemy of such corruption, it certainly would make sense for those who have benefitted and continue to benefit from a misuse of the power and largesse of the federal government to fight him tooth and nail.
Punishing such corruption would be reason enough to support Republicans if they are sincere in their effort to do this. But understanding a deeper cause of the rot that has beset our national government is also necessary.
What makes it possible for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to claim they are protecting the Constitution? The Constitution they purport to be safeguarding bears no relationship to the original understanding of the actual document.
How can Pelosi refuse even to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate unless Majority Leader McConnell permits Democrats to implement Senate proceedings, such as the calling of witnesses who did not appear in the House, or provides her assurances of “fair play,” such as were denied President Trump in the House’s hearings?
How could this strategy be something concocted by liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe? How could other purportedly respected liberal law professors such as Noah Feldman and Pamela Karlan support the transparently absurd impeachment theories of the House Democrats?
Could it be that the explanation for this is also something of an answer to the question of why so many Democrat officials of blue-state cities are emboldened to defy our immigration restrictions, or why blue state officials believe they can ignore the federal government’s laws on cannabis, or even the Constitution’s Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms?
Is there a parallel between Pelosi’s flaunting of the Constitution and its structure and President Barack Obama’s decision that he could implement DACA without the benefit of federal legislation?
What is it that has made the federal Constitution so plastic, that has empowered so many Democrats—many of them educated at our finest law schools—to believe that the clear constitutional provisions regarding the separation of powers and the limitations on the federal government could be ignored?
We are, it would seem, reaping the harvest of the seeds sown by the New Deal and the Warren Court, by Roe v. Wade, by Obergefell v. Hodges, and by a jurisprudence embraced by our elite law schools in the course of the last two generations. Those cases, and the law professors who approved of them, and the law students they educated, came to believe that our Constitution was outmoded, and that it was the job of enlightened jurists and jurisprudence to amend it without benefit of Article V.
On the theory that the Constitution’s framers supported slavery and the deprivation of the franchise to women, it is no surprise that some frank justices such as Thurgood Marshall could argue that deference was simply not due to the original understanding of that document. The abandonment of that deference, then, is what led to the court essentially rewriting the 14th Amendment to let it advance the policies it favored. These grievances with the original document, they argued, permitted them to make new constitutional law and to reallocate the constitutional responsibilities between the state and federal governments.
Once one abandons the original understanding as a means of advancing the rule of law, however, the way is opened for any Supreme Court justice, bureaucrat or legislator convinced that he has access to a higher truth than the Constitution’s Framers or the sovereign people who ratified their work, to ignore the strictures of our fundamental law and to promote arbitrarily whatever policies are ideologically or personally more pleasing. That arbitrary behavior, however, is what leads to corruption, an abandonment of the rule of law, the ending of popular sovereignty, and ultimately to tyranny. This country is threatened by a loss of its constitutional system, and of the morality that the Framers believed must undergird it. The threat does not come, however, from the occupant of the White House, but from those who would seek to expel him.