Justplainbill's Weblog

October 4, 2008

The Polar Ice-Cap is having its most volatile year on record.

Filed under: Climatology, Energy Talk, Media Check — Tags: — justplainbill @ 7:14 pm

The Polar Ice-Cap is having its most volatile year on record.



Yupper, a record that we’ve been keeping for almost one hundred and fifty years. Let’s see, now, the ice cap’s been around for a few million years, but the last 150 are the important ones.


Oddly enough, The New York Times and various environmentalists, most of whom live in high rise apartments far from either pole, have deemed this important enough to point to as further evidence of man’s malevolent impact upon the global habitat. Hmm, I do believe that, since 1900, The New York Times has cried Wolf more times that we’re headed for the next massive ice age than hot house, and that they’ve had more than one Jason Blair scandal, Blair being the “Time’s reporter” who with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, for over two years filed fantasy as fact, The New York Times is no longer a credible source for print news. This leaves, for serious daily print news, only The Wall Street Journal and her sister, Barron’s, (and, sorry for my faulty memory, and thanks for reminding me, The Christian Science Monitor); and the web, thanks to Google and Ask.com, and some of the other, manageable search engines, for daily print news, but I digress.


There are numerous reasons why the measuring of snow and ice for climatological purposes isn’t done at the North Pole; it is done in Antarctica, near the South Pole.


One of the many interesting aspects of this rotating ball of molten iron upon which we so precariously abide, is that the land masses form plates, called tectons, which make up the crust of the planet. These tectonic plates float along and bounce off of each other. At the interstices they either subsume each other or separate allowing the molten core to surface to form new crust. One aspect of this is that sea level is not the same around the world when measured by atmospheric pressure. In fact, the Pacific Ocean is about six inches higher than the Atlantic Ocean. This is because the plates consisting of Asia-Minor and South America are moving towards each other, and Africa is both closing the Mediterranean and opening the South Atlantic. The violent turbulence in the Straits of Magellan and the flow of the warm ocean current, starting in the Indian Ocean that ends up in the North Atlantic melting the polar ice cap as it passes Iceland, are proofs of this. Anther attribute of this tectonic movement is that, the water is always moving!


Another proof is that the last ice age was, with other factors, caused by the closing of the gap between the North American Plate and the South American Plate at Panama, thereby allowing the polar cap to dramatically expand and upset the then current balance, because the warm current instead of being able to move through what is now the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, had to take the much longer route around South America allowing for additional cooling as it flowed past Antarctica and up through the South Atlantic.


As the temperature of water varies, so does its ability to solute chemicals. As an example of this, as the temperature drops, it will retain more CO2, as it rises, it will hold more salt and less Carbon Dioxide, your quick proofs are in the soda cans in your hands. Soda warm, when opened, fizzes as the CO2, no longer in solution, escapes; when the soda is cold when opened, you barely hear a pop; notice how salty you can make your pasta water when boiling, as compared to when it’s cool and the salt crystals simply drop to the bottom to await the heating of the water so that they can then dissolve, and if you do your water in this fashion, please note how the corrosive properties of the salt pits and destroys your pot.


As any U.S. Navy Submariner will tell you, if you’re fortunate enough to have such a vet in your social circle, at about the depth of 1,000 feet in the open ocean, is a thermal layer, above which is comparatively warm water, and below which is actually very cold water. Part of the cause of this layer is the ability of the sun to heat water. This layer is about where the sun’s impact stops. The chemical solution content above and below this layer is significantly different, partially due to the temperature difference.

You may also wish to note that temperature change in water, whether higher or lower, always causes kinetic activity, meaning, that it moves. And, moving water is always abrasive.


Another problem with ice formation is kinetic energy. Ice forms readily at 32o F in still water, but in moving water, the temperature must drop significantly below that, as determined by the velocity of the water and its mineral content. Pure water freezes at that 32o F whereas soluted water requires lower temperatures to freeze. The quick proof is evident for anyone who lives near a river or creek in the higher latitudes. At the edge of the flow, where the water is immobile, ice forms, whereas in the center of the river, where the current is strongest, the ice does not form, yet the temperature of both the water and the ambient air is the same in both locations.


So, the polar ice cap, subject to all of the above variables, is not the place to measure snow and ice. In the alternative, the South Pole has none of these problems. Beneath the South Pole ice layer, lies frozen tundra, not subject to current flow, saline content, nor tectonic activity.


Dr. David Bromwich, head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Center and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the Department of Geography of Ohio State University, president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology, chair of the Polar DAAC Advisory Group, member of the Arctic Climate System Study Working Group on Reanalysis and past member of the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, Ph.D., says, “The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from the continental Antarctic.”  and, “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”


BTW, as of today, 16 October 2008, the reports from the Acrtic Circle show that the glacial masses are increasing. Increasing means that there’s more snow than melt on them. More snow than melt means that we are headed for a cooling period. Hmm, now does Gore’s $100,000,000 profit make sense to you?


The Polar Ice-Cap is having its most volatile year on record.

So what?


[OK, today is March 1, 2009 and there’s an important update to this post: it seems that the original report that the polar ice cap is having a volatile years was wildly, and purportedly innocently, innaccurate. It seems that the people who did the original reporting failed to report a significant number of sensors, thus, seriously understating the actual amount of ice in the cap. After some responsbile people went and rechecked, they found that, in fact, the Polar Ice Cap is EXPANDING. So much for global warming Your Thighness Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Ignorant State.]

Better yet, for those of you who want to know what’s happening first hand, Discovery Channel runs “The Deadliest Catch” which is about crab fishermen in the Bering Sea. Sig Hansen, Phil Harris, The Colburns & Hilstrands, have all said during this last season that the Ice is coming farther and farther south and they have the radar & sounding records to prove it. So, who’ya gonna listen to? Al “never been there” Gore, or the crab fishermen who’re in it months at a time every year?

Well, someone must be doing some research. Today, 12 Dec 13, the lowest temperature ever recorded, was recorded! Guess where. That’s right, in Antarctica, where all legitimate climate study is being done. Sigh, where’s the IPCC now?

And, now, January 2014, a group of Russian climatologists has been frozen in the Antarctic Ice. They were going to Antarctica to prove “Global Warming”. Ok, so I guess that I was correct with all of that stuff about the Polar Ice Cap not being the place to go for scientific data, eh? Do I really need to say more? BTW, today, the high in Kansas City has been 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Hey, Al, send some of that global warming here to Kansas & Missouri so the winter wheat will grow and we won’t starve in 2014!!!

And, during a recent broadcast of the FOX NEWS Business Block, broadcast on Saturday mornings, Eric Bolling, host of Cashin’ In, posted two NASA photos of the polar ice cap. The first from 2013, the second from exactly one year later, ie 2014. Contrast of the two NASA photos show that the polar ice cap is in fact, EXPANDING, by hundreds of thousands of acres. So much for the idiots pushing climate change. BTW, considering that, in addition to the above essay, the continents are on floating plates that move around, in a jerky style of movement as denoted by earth quakes, no matter what man does, as the continents move, weather will change!!!

Update 31 May 2014
The Weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal has an article “Climate Clues”, p C-3, which explains a lot. It seems that this German climatologist actually goes to places and looks for facts to explain things. ‘Tipping’, according to his facts, takes place over millions of years. The IPCC (Dear Prez Obama, the IPCC is the Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel, not International, and the ‘p’ IS pronounced here), and those others who use computer models (gosh, doesn’t anyone understand GIGO? Garbage In = Garbage Out???), might want to get out of their air conditioned academic sanctuaries, and search for actual FACTS upon which to base their theories!

Update 3 July 2014

1. For the 2nd time in the last 2 weeks, scientists have measured and recorded the largest amount of Antarctic ice in history. And “yes”, you read correctly, the record has been achieved/broken 2 times in the last 2 weeks!

2. Last year NOAA, one of the “scientific” groups that expounds the “man made climate change” and “CO2” myths, went on record as saying July 2012 was the hottest July on record (if you recall MO was in a drought). This replaced July 1936 as the hottest July on record (July 1936 being smack dab in the middle if the dust bowl). Well over the last 2 weeks NOAA has very “quietly adjusted” the findings and surprise, July 1936 is once again the hottest July on record. Apparently NOAA’s pronouncement in 2013 that July 2012 was the hottest July was based completely on computer modeling and not real data. I gathered from the story that I heard that really the only reason they went back and “re-modeled” the data and “adjusted” the findings is due to a couple of very serious and vigilant watch dog groups. These groups are dedicated to ensuring there is accuracy and transparency w/ respect to the data, findings and stated causation impacts when it comes to the “man made climate change” debate. So they called NOAA out in several articles w/ respect to how they reached their conclusion and NOAA “quietly” “adjusted” the findings.

Update 29 July 14, Famous Meteorologist on Climate Change:

Weather Channel Founder Debunks Global Warming Hoax


An award-winning meteorologist with 60 years of experience and founder of the Weather Channel has produced a video explaining the history of the man-made global warming hoax.

John Coleman was also a former broadcast meteorologist of the year of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). However, after being a member for several years, he quit the AMS after it became very clear to him that “the politics had gotten in the way of the science.” Coleman explains in the video that there is no man-made global warming, and why he’s sure about this.

The well-respected weatherman says that if there were evidence of man-made global warming, he would have dedicated his life to stopping it. “I love our wonderful planet Earth. If I thought it was threatened by global warming, I would devote my life to stopping the warming!”

Environmental activists now call it “climate change” instead of global warming because the warming has stopped, Coleman added, and $4.7 billion in taxpayer money is funding “bogus reports” and “bogus research.”

Coleman explains that any so-called “climate change” is extremely negligible from a long-term perspective and nothing unusual or alarming. He points out that Antarctic sea ice is close to an all-time high, and the polar bear population is as high as it’s been in recorded history.

In regard to rising sea levels, Coleman says:

“It’s rising at about the rate of about six inches per hundred years, as part of this inter-glacial period. When North America was covered in a 400 foot thick ice core at the end of the last ice age, the oceans were low, and then as that ice melted, of course the oceans have risen. That rise has been gentle and is not important.”

Coleman says in the video there are 9,000 PhDs and 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that the CO2 global warming theory is a hoax. These climate change “non-believers” aren’t heard by most Americans because they don’t receive government funding. And they aren’t covered by the mainstream media because it almost always promotes the climate change theory.

This damning indictment by an experienced and well-respected meteorologist proves that the “climate change” movement is primarily (if not all) politically based. Its ultimate goal is to make Americans the enemy of the planet (so they’ll agree to greater government control over their behavior) — and to reduce America’s use of oil, gas and coal-based energy sources.

If you hear someone talk about “climate change” and that America should do something, show them this video as proof that it’s nothing more than left-wing, “Chicken Little” politics.

7 October 14

Article below, with references, shows global cooling even though many are still talking “climate change is caused by man”, well, hell, OF COURSE THERE’S CLIMATE CHANGE, JUST LOOK AT THE SEASONS AND CONSIDER THAT DURING ROMAN TIMES THE MEDIAN TEMPERATURE IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE BEEN 82 F !!! 30 years of cooling means at least 10 years of potential crop failures in the middle, and famine and disease, so, let’s REALLY keep those borders open and let all of those “dreamers” in without medical checks and quarantines.
BTW, how can they be wondering why the ocean levels are rising? Don’t these people even know basic chemistry? As pointed out above, the polar ice cap is expanding/growing, meaning the sea water is being displaced, just like when water is being frozen, the ice rises up and displaces the water below? Let’s get out of the U.N. and stop financing stupidity like the IPCC.

NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea
Image: NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea (iStock)

Monday, 06 Oct 2014 12:36 PM

Get Short Link |
Email Article |
Comment |
Contact Us |
| A A
Copy Shortlink


The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency Monday.

Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said NASA.

Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.
Editor’s Note: Dark Winter: Book Exposes Fraud of Man Made Global Warming

But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 “found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably,” NASA said in a statement.

The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.

“The sea level is still rising,” said Willis.

“We’re just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details.”

A separate study in August in the journal Science said the apparent slowdown in the Earth’s surface warming in the last 15 years could be due to that heat being trapped in the deep Atlantic and Southern Ocean.

But the NASA researchers said their approach, described in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean.
Editor’s Note: NASA Expert: Sun Cycles To Cause 30 Year Cold Spell

“The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure,” said researcher William Llovel of NASA JPL.

“The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much.”

12 Dec 2014, another update, completely ripping Al ‘jabba the hut’ Gore’s hoax of a movie, http://nws.mx/1IGXEwd .

29 Dec 2014, another update:
Capital Hill

Political & Economic Analysis

Polar Ice Not Melting, But Global Warming Story Is


Posted 11:41 AM ET


Feeling low about the incessant screeching that the ice is catastrophically melting at the poles? A lot of us are, so it’s good to see a researcher buck the narrative.

Ted Maksym, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, has drawn a conclusion that will surely bring him grief from the global-warming believers and cold shoulder from most of the mainstream media, which is heavily invested in the idea that man is heating his planet by burning fossil fuels.

“The North and South Poles are ‘not melting,'” the British Express reported on Christmas.

“In fact,” the Express said in its coverage of Maksym’s finding, “the poles are ‘much more stable’ than climate scientists once predicted and could even be much thicker than previously thought.”

Remember those words “previously thought.” In the future we will be seeing them a lot more in reference to the continued unraveling of the global warming fable. In the meantime, kudos to the Express for publishing what the mainstream American media refuse to report.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/122914-732367-polar-ice-not-melting-oceanographer-says.htm#ixzz3NKQChTdo
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

15 Jan 15 See Chris Horner’s book, “Red Hot Lies”.

12 February 2015, Interesting update: Yesterday, in Oslo Norway, the Norwegian Central Bank and a group of Norwegian scientists, announced that the climate change hoax had nearly destroyed the Norwegian Economy.
It seems that over the last 5 years, IPCC, U.N., NOAO, and the “global climate science community”, have been fiddling with the numbers to get their computer models to agree with their predictions. However, Norway, a Socialist Country, has been planning its economy for the last five years on the climate change assumptions. This means that they have been spending their entire national economic resources on the false assumptions that the Polar Ice Cap is melting, that their shorelines will shrink, that they will have tons more fresh water, acres and acres of more farm and pastureland, milder winters, and longer summers.
Only, since the global scientific community has been fiddling with the figures, the reverse has happened, thus bringing the Norwegian National Economy to the brink of collapse.
So, it seems that the fishermen of “The Deadliest Catch”, NASA satellite photography, scientists like Lawrence Solomon, and simple pundits such as Eric Bolling, have been proven correct, once again.

25 Feb 15, ;TWSJ and The Economist 4th quarter reports on Real Estate were recently released. I decided to look at a couple of other RE stats, simply because HGTV has posted its 2015 Showplace House/ Giveaway. The 3+MILLION $$$ house is located on Cape Cod, MA. Hmmmmm. So I looked a little farther into this.

RE prices are up in Big Sur CA, Cape Cod MA, Miami FL, throughout the Caribbean, all along both coasts of North AND South America, HI, and along the Indian Ocean. Hmmm.

Don’t get it yet??? It means that all of the greenies screaming about climate change, have NOT sold any of their big estates along the coasts! It means that the people who sell mortgages, do NOT believe in Climate Change! It means that the Kennedys, who have estates in MA and FL as well as CA and NY, do NOT believe in Climate Change! None of the limousine liberals have sold any of their coastal properties!!!

Gee, how much more needs to be said about this fraud????

Update 7 Dec 15 (Pearl Harbor Remembrance, BTW) TWSJ p A 14, letter to the editor by Terry W. Donze, Geophysicist, ‘Warming’ Science Is Anything but Settled’. A must read for anyone interested in the climate change controversy. Mr. Donze cites several real scientists who refute every aspect of climate change catastrophe from sea levels rising, false according to sea level expert, Nils-Axel Moerner “the greatest lie ever told”, through Arctic ice is melting despite it 5% increase. Every aspect of the climate change claim is refuted by actual climatologists, and not politicians like Al Gore.

Update 8 Sep 16   Was looking at the newest Voyager photos and slipped over to the Polar Ice cap current photos. Al Gore stated categorically that the Polar Ice cap would be gone by 2014. According to today’s satellite passing shots, it is bigger than ever since we started taking photos, and this for the end of summer condition.

October 21, 2016

Inaccurate Polls, by Joseph John, Capt USN ret USNA

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 6:45 AM

The American Voters Are Being Misled by Inaccurate Polling

By Capt Joseph R. John, October 21, 2016

By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to read an accurate explanation for why the FOX News polls have not been very reliable over the last year, and why both the Rasmussen and the LA Times/UCLA polls have been much more reliable during the same period. The polling process being employed by FOX should be updated to improve the reliable and accuracy of its polling.

Why Fox News Polls are Biased in Favor of Hillary Clinton

The below listed E-mail provides statistics from accurate data compiled on Social Media, that supporters the more reliable process outlined in the above iPatriot article. The below listed E-mail provides substantial popular support for Mr Trump and will contribute significantly toward verifying the reliability of weekly polls being taken by Rasmussen and the LA Times/UCLA. The below listed information and the details in the above link, can defuse the left of center liberal media establishment drum beat that Hillary lead in the polls has been as much as 11% points ahead of Mr Trump standing. Reporting those figures as accurate has been dishonest spin promoted by NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other very liberal media outlets that are heavily in support for Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately that misleading information has been also reported by the FOX News Network, because their polling results have not been accurate or reliable.

The corrupt media has not been an objective source of news, nor has it exposed the incompetence and failed policies of the Obama administration for the last 8 years, It has not been reliably reporting cold hard facts on both the Republican and Democrat primary campaign over the last year. A very few examples of its failure to honestly report facts are: the failure to report that Robert Creamer who had 300 meetings at the White House (47 directly with Obama) fomented violence at Trump rallies, the dangers posed to the US by the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement, how the US Armed Forces have been hollowed out and degraded by Obama over the last 8 years, the lies & violations of Federal Law associated with the Illegal Benghazi Gun Running Operation that led to the death of 4 Americans, the lies Obama told to get Obama Care passed & its complete failure, Obama’s violations of US Federal Immigration Laws for 8 years, and so much more.

The left of center liberal media establishment that has been I n he tanks for Obama over the last 8 years, has now become an arm of the Clinton Presidential Campaign. The media has been minimizing and covering up Hillary’s criminal violation of the National Security of the United States, and that she should have been charged with, and has also been covering up that Hillary as Secretary of State approved the sale of 25% of the US’s uranium production to Vladimir Putin in negotiations by Bill Clinton.

The below information in the below listed E-mail, and the information revealed by clicking on the above listed link will provide positive detailed information that would support the accurate information that Mr Trump is in a very close and competitive race for the Presidency of the United States and that information would energize his supporters. This E-mail should be forwarded to as many voters as possible.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Regional Chairman, Southern California, Veterans 4 Trump (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Timothy Wilson
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:53 AM
Subject: The Truth Is Out There

A Google Search revealed several sources which verified this.

Let’s take a look at the facts that the liberal / corporate media completely ignores or covers up.

FACT #1:

Trump has nearly three times the amount of followers on Facebook.

Trump: 12,174,358 likes.

Clinton: 4,385,959 likes.

Look what Trump’s live stream videos do when compared to Hillary’s.

Trump Live Stream Post – 21 hours ago: 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views

Clinton Live Stream Post – 25 hours ago: 9,000 likes, 0 shares, 121,000 views

That does not look good at all for her!

Fact #2:

Trump has 18.6 million twitter followers.

Hillary Clinton has only 6.1 million.

The best part is that most of Hillary’s are actually fake. According to the Washington Examiner, 41 percent of Hillary’s “followers” are not even real people. In contrast, The Daily Caller says that Trump’s followers are 90% real with 90% of them having a previous voting record.

Fact #3:

Trump averages 160k viewers per live stream.

Clinton averages 400 viewers per live stream.

Wow. That is bad. Trump also gets 5,000 percent more eyeballs focused on the screen than Clinton. Yep. She really is that boring to the folks.

Fact #4:


Trump has 6.2 million followers.

Clinton has 800,000 followers.

Instagram is a platform with mostly all pictures and not much substance – exactly what Hillary supporters love. And still she does very poorly in this medium.

Fact #5:

On Reddit.

Trump: 297,696 subscribers

Clinton: 21,429 subscribers

But on Hillary for Prison: She gets 255,228 subscribers.

Trump has more subscribers than Clinton on every major social media outlet but what is even funnier is that there are nearly 3 times as many people subscribed to “Hillary for Prison” than there are subscribed to the Clinton page.

The best part is that the DNC’s leaked emails from WikiLeaks have proven that Clinton pays people to support her online. Trump supporters on the other hand willingly actually like and follow him on Social media.

Trump actually has the support of the people. He is going to win this election come November no matter what the mainstream media would like you to believe.

Right now, every single patriot needs to share this article with friends and relatives.

We need to fight these rigged polls that seem to come out every day.

Hillary Clinton has a big bag of tricks and is trying to hoodwink the American public into voting for her.

Let’s show America the truth and let her know we aren’t a “basket of deplorables.”

October 19, 2016

Communist Party USA endorses HRC

To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 6:13 AM

In the below listed article, the Communist Party USA endorsed Hillary Clinton and is pushing for a landslide victory over Donald Trump The Communist Party USA has joined with the previous support Hillary received from the Muslim Brotherhood, Black Lives Matter, and Progressives.

The Double Standard of Justice Imposed On The US Military:

On October 18th, General James Cartwright, USMC (Ret), former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accepted “full responsibility” for making false statements to the FBI in connection with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to two reporters, in violation of the National Security Laws of the US. He is facing a fine, and as many as six months in prison, for making classified information accessible without authorization.

While Hillary Clinton received a pass from the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General of the US for illegally transmitting over 2000 Secret, Top Secret, and Top Secret SCI Compartmented messages, on the unclassified server in her residence, in violation of the National Security Laws of the United States.

In addition Hillary got a pass for illegally destroying over 30,000 messages that were the property of the US State Department & the American people, in violation of the National Security Laws of the United States.

In addition Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy got a pass from the FBI for applying pressure on subordinates to downgrade the classification of E-mails transmitted on Hillary’s unclassified server, and also for a bribery attempt for trying to convince an FBI Agent to alter the classification code of an E-mail, in a “quid pro quo” offer, with the offer of a payoff of receiving additional FBI billets in Middle East Embassies and Missions.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Fromer FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108



Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Fr Richard Kim [mailto:frkim@kimgrams.org]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 4:32 AM
To: Fr Richard Kim


Communist Party USA pushes landslide for Hillary

Calls on ‘comrades on the ground’ to defeat Trump resoundingly

Published: 16 hours ago


WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is getting a boost in her bid for the presidency from an enthusiastic group she doesn’t mention in campaign speeches – the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Long gone are the days when the party ran its own candidates for president and vice president. In 2016, it’s all in for the Democrats and Clinton.

The party is not just pushing for a win, though, it’s looking for a landslide over Donald Trump that will permit the Democrats to take the House and Senate, too, according to the latest reports at the CPUSA website.

“The polls are frightening in light of the white supremacist forces in top leadership of the Trump campaign,” says one report on the site. “How to move voters? The biggest challenge is making voters aware of where the candidates stand on issues that affect their lives like jobs, wages, Social Security, pay equity, immigration reform, voting rights, student debt, indeed, all democratic rights at stake, and then turning out a massive vote. Now is the time to put everything we’ve got into this election struggle in a way that carries on after it’s over.”

The report added: “It will be important to hear from the comrades on the ground talking to voters. Clearly if Trump and the Republicans are to be defeated, it will take a continued massive education effort and a real explosion of voter turnout.”

The mask is off! Get October’s stunning pre-election Whistleblower issue, “HILLARY’S ULTIMATE WEAPON: America’s biased and abusive news media finally abandon all pretense of fairness”

According to the CPUSA, “Trump represents a new type of fascist danger.”

“A landslide unity vote is necessary to resoundingly repudiate Donald Trump and the alt right,” says the CPUSA report. “It is needed to repudiate sexism and elect the first woman president. It is a mistake to assume the outcome. Who knows what the October surprise and other dirty tricks can bring?”

The CPUSA doesn’t want any third-party voting, either, as WND has reported in the past. It is calling for unity around Clinton.

A landslide will heal the nation,” the party proclaims. “In a very close election, the votes for Johnson and Jill Stein could throw the election to Donald Trump. The argument for a landslide unity vote could convince some of those to do the right thing.”

The full-throated backing of Clinton began as soon as it became clear Bernie Sanders would not be the nominee of the Democratic Party, as WND reported after the convention. Since then, the CPUSA has found few if any issues on which it disagrees with the Democratic nominee.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/communist-party-usa-pushes-landslide-for-hillary/#CZX1yDUqwoKkJxYX.99

October 12, 2016

Are You Concerned About Voting for Donald Trump? by Capt J. R. John USN [nc]

Are You Concerned About Voting For Donald Trump?

By Capt Joseph R. John, October 9, 2016

If an American voter is not drawn to either presidential candidate at the “top-of-the-ticket”, that American voter should seriously review the party platforms of both political parties.

The Democratic and Republican party platforms are as different as night and day, the American voter should vote for the party platform that would best protect the Republic, and our children, if they can’t vote for the candidate.

The Democratic platform is a Socialist Manifesto, it supports open borders, sanctuary cities, the continued entry of Moslem refugees without vetting them to determine if they have terrorist ties, does not support the emergency expenditure to stop the hollowing out of the US Armed Forces, and is the most left leaning anti-American document ever drafted by a US political party in 240 years.

The GOP platform is supportive of rebuilding the strength the US Armed Forces, supports of The Free Enterprise System, strongly supports the precepts of the US Constitution, protects the rights of all Americans under the 2nd Amendment, calls for enforcing US Federal Immigration Laws that Obama has been violating for 8 years, calls for securing the wide open southern border thru which terrorists have been entering the US at will, and supports a medical system that doesn’t discriminate against hard working employed Americans & small business owners.

America is coming precariously close to being a second rate military power; Obama has degraded the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces for 8 years, and forced new & very dangerous Rules of Engagement on the US Armed Forces that have increased combat forces “Killed In Action” by 458% and increased combat forces “Wounded In Action” by 378%.

Hillary Clinton will continue Obama’s policies that have degraded the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces. Hillary was so inept, and over a 9 month period, she could not provide security for a 13 acre sized US Mission in Benghazi, that resulted in the death of 4 Americans, and the Democratic Party wants to turn the security of the nation over to her.

Donald Trump will reverse Obama’s policies that have degraded the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces, will strengthen the US Armed Forces, and reinstall tried and true Rules of Engagement that existed long before 2008 that save the lives of millions of members of the US Armed Forces for over 100 years.

In 2008 when Hillary Clinton made the reset with Russian, the US had 250 more Nuclear Weapons in its stockpile than Russia had.

Since the reset, Russia has increased the Nuclear Weapons in its stockpile to exceed the US Stockpile by more than 400 Nuclear Weapons; Hillary and Obama, intentionally made the US a weaker nuclear power.

Donald Trump will restore the strength and reliability of the US nuclear stockpile, will miniaturize and modernize US nuclear weapons, which have fallen behind the miniaturizing and modernizing of Russia’s and China’s nuclear weapons stockpile.

The United States under Obama, has become morally, economically, spiritually, and militarily weak.

There are very clear identifiable indicators—very easily measurable indicators—that America is no longer the world’s only Superpower, which was the premier position it held in 2008 before Obama was elected to office. The US Army now has less military personnel than it had before WWII (386,000), less ships that the US Navy had before WWI (270 ships from 590 ships), and less Aircraft in the US Air Force than it has ever had (12 wings, when a very minimum of 24 wings are required). There are no longer sufficient spare parts to repair equipment, operating equipment has to be cannibalized to make repairs to other equipment.

Donald Trump will reduce the highest US corporate taxes in the world, so business and individuals will be able to spend more to help stimulate the economy. Mr Trump will also rein in the massive out of control government spending, and reduce government “Fraud, Waste, and Abuse”.

Hillary will dramatically increase taxes, so government can spend more. Hillary will expand government spending, increasing the already unsustainable government debt of $20 Trillion, and will do absolutely nothing about government “Fraud, Waste, and Abuse”.

Donald Trump will expose misuse of capital that persists among the Washington Ruling Political Class and the K Street Washington lobbyists, who take advantage of taxpayers and abuse the expenditure of taxpayer funds.

Hillary Clinton thrives in the company of the Washington Ruling Political Class and works closely with the K Street Washington lobbyists.

Hillary Clinton has no plan to stimulate the economy or provide support the Free Enterprise System that has built the most effective economic engine in the history of mankind.

Donald Trump will use every means possible to stimulate the US economy, will support the Free Enterprise System, will cut the highest business taxes in the world that has been driving businesses out of the country, and will prevent 20 + million Illegal Aliens in the US from taking jobs from 95 million unemployed Americans.

Political Freedom, Economic Freedom, and Religious Freedom”, need to coexist together. If one is taken away, the other two will eventually disappear. Any one of those Freedoms cannot exist without the other two. For 240 years, the genius of America has been that all three Freedoms have survived, but all three Freedoms have been under attack by Obama for 8 years.

Donald Trump fully understands that Religious Freedom has been under attack in the US Military and in the Christian community by Obama, and has spoken about it on the stump. Mr Trump also understands that Economic Freedom has been degraded by Obama’s Socialism (Obama Care and Common Core), and the wide open borders that have created a massive drug economy that does not contribute the GNP. For 8 years Obama has intentionally eroded Political Freedom blocking the use of Voter IDs to verify citizenship, and is supporting massive voter fraud thru programs at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Hillary will continue Obama’s 8 years of attacks on Religious, Economic, and Political Freedom—she will also attack, the rule of law, law enforcement, and right of every American to own a firearm in accordance with the provisions of the Second Amendment.

American citizens understand that the pool of 11 superbly qualified Federal Judges that Mr Trump said he would use, to appoint a new Justice to the Supreme Court, will support Religious, Political, and Economic Freedoms, will rule in accordance with the provisions of the US Constitution, and will support the Second Amendment.

Hillary’s very liberal appointees would attack the provisions of the 2nd Amendment, and will degrade the vestiges of the three freedoms mentioned above.

If you are still concerned about voting for Donald Trump, please review the below listed article; Hillary Clinton is the most inept an dangerous candidate who has ever run for President of the United States.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Regional Chariman. Sothern California Veterans 4 Trump (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Mary Lou Terra, Past President, one of the Federation Republican Women Organizations
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 3:49 PM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Donald Trump

“Who is Donald Trump?” The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?”

The answer? He was created by the Political and Media Establishment and is the answer to average American’s hope and prayer.

Most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Democrat-Socialists and the “Republicans In Name Only (RINOs).” They believe there isn’t any difference between Hillary Rodham and the Washington Political Ruling Class, and only a few cents worth of difference between Hillary Rodham Clinton and some of the Republicans who oppose Donald Trump like the Governor Kasich, Governor Romney, Governor Whitman, Senator Sasse, Senator Graham, Senator Collins, Senator Warner, Glenn Beck, and unfortunately the Bush Family.

Dr. Ben Carson was not an “establishment” candidate, but the Clinton machine that operates in the gutter would have pulverized Dr Carson, and the rightly rebellious Senator Ted Cruz would have been tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Senator Marco Rubio). Trump supporters figured lightning can strike, Trump can get elected, and he can actually fix things. Nothing has been fixed over the last 8 years. The nation elected a candidate who supported the Moslem Brotherhood, Socialist, and the Radical Islamic Mullahs in Iran in 2008. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood and their front organizations are in hundreds of key National Security positions throughout the Obama administration, one of the hundreds of hard left Obama appointees, an outright Communist, Van Jones, was forced to resign from his position as Czar for Green Jobs.

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them too often not govern any differently from the dreadful Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So are those thousands of Republican voters supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Well they don’t? The outsider Donald Trump did not come out of nowhere, the Republican leaders in the US House and US Senate created Donald Trump. His candidacy was created by years of too many of the Republican leaders in the House and Senate working closely with Pelosi and Reid to pass everyone of Obama’s programs for 8 years—they have betrayed and frustrated millions of disgusted conservative voters, a record number of millions conservative voters.

No reasonable person believes that any of the establishment candidates could have slashed wasteful federal spending, reined in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome job-killing business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.) or rebuild the US Armed Forces that was hollowed out by Obama over the last 8 years, with absolutely no opposition by the Republican Political Ruling Class.

Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. Of course he had an unwilling, do-nothing, Democrat Congress. No thinking, reasonable person believes that the nation’s major problems will be solved by Hillary Rodham Clinton, as she is simply the third verse of Obama’s failed domestic and international policies, and his waning swan song to change the United States’ Free Enterprise System that created the most successful economic engine in the history of mankind, into a Socialist State, when Socialism (NAZI National Socialism, Mussolini’s Italian Socialism, Russian’s People Republic Socialism, Castro’s Cuban Socialism, the Eastern Bloc of Nations Socialism, and China’s Socialist State that has shifted to a western business oriented economy)——-Socialism has never been successful over the last 100 years.

Many Americans, and especially Mr Trump’s supporters, have had it with:

· Anyone named Clinton

. Anyone named Romney
· Are very disappointed with anyone named Bush
· Anyone who’s has held political office in Washington for the last 8 years
· Political Correctness
· Illegal Immigration with wide open borders

. The resettlement of over 900,000 Muslim Refugees in 187 US cities, without being vetted by the FBI

. Republican and Democrat members of Congress supporting “Open Border” allowing drugs and terrorist to enter the Republic

. Over 300 Sanctuary cities sheltering convicted foreign illegal alien felons and ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists
· Massive unemployment—-95 million unemployed American citizens

. The appointment of liberal judges on the Supreme Court by Obama who have violated provisions of the US Constitution

· Out of control federal spending by an inept and dishonest members of Congress, who are feathering their nests

· A National Debt of $20 Trillion that exceeds the GDP; that increased from $9 trillion in 2008
· Dishonest “official” unemployment percentages, that ignore over 94 million unemployed Americans
· Welfare waste, fraud, and abuse
· Billions of Dollars spent on Illegal Aliens and the resettlement UN Muslim Refugees–millions of Americans are abandoned

. The Social Experiment On Diversity destroying the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces

· People faking disabilities in order to go on the SSDI dole, when their unemployment benefits run out
· Veterans Administration waiting lists, while Obama provides better medical benefits to Illegal Aliens and Moslem Refugees
· TSA airport groping
· The failed ObamaCare Socialist medical program that is destroying small business
· The Federal Reserve’s money-printing schemes
· Wall Street crooks like Democrat Jon Corzine
· Michelle Obama’s vacations
· Michelle Obama’s food police
· Barack Obama’s golf
· Barack Obama’s arrogant and condescending lectures
· Barack Obama’s criticism of America and his program that removed the teaching US History in schools
· Valerie Jarrett close personal relations with the Radical Islamic Terrorist Mullahs in Iran

· FBI Director James B. Comey partisan politics, and betrayal of the hard won ethics of the FBI

· Attorney General Loretta Lynch support for Black Lives Matter, and Hillary Clintons violations of National Security Regulations

· “Holiday trees”
· Millionaire and Billionaire Hollywood Democrat hypocrites
· Cop killers
· Gun RIGHTS, including confiscation threats

. The reduction in the size of the US military to the manning where it stood prior to WWII

. the attack on the provisions of the 2nd Amendment

· Stagnant wages and loss of jobs
· Boys in girls’ bathrooms and showers
. Whiny, spoiled college students who can’t even place the Civil War in the correct century

… and that’s just a short list.

Trump supporters, including many Democrats, believe that “no” Democrat will ever address these issues, and that very few RINO Republicans will have the courage to address them as well. Trump is their “screw you, Hillary Rodham Clinton” and “do to little” Republicans” The more the talking head political pundits insult Trump’s patriotic supporters, the more supporters that Donald Trump gains. The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier. America does not need a tune-up at the same old failed Democrat garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts at fixing things like Donald Trump.

Maybe Trump is not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won’t hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a political favor to, like Hillary Clinton would; he will appoint or hire someone who lives and breathes cars and knows how to fix things.

The political “elite” bellow, “How dare they revolt!”. Well, the real American Citizens are revolting, and the Democrats and the Republican Political Ruling Class (RINOs) had better get used to it.

“Trump will hand the election to Clinton!” Now that is what the Karl Rove, George Will, and the Bill Kristol types want you to believe. Just as the leftist media elitists eagerly promoted McCain and Romney in 2008, and 2012, believing they would lose to Obama.

Clinton would not work to restore America ‘s greatness but merely hasten the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation cannot survive with open borders (THE US IS THE ONLY NATION IN THE WORLD WITH OPEN BORDERS—even Mexico does not have open Borders); a nation cannot survive a foolishly-generous and fraudulent welfare system.

No nation can survive the hollowing of the US Armed Forces – and Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn’t care about that. She and the Democrats only care about getting votes.

The United States simply cannot continue on the path it has been on for the last 8 years—that is exactly what Hillary intends to do. The system will collapse if it continues down the same rode it has been on for the last 8 years. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt and loss of its guaranteed freedoms.

Yes, Trump sometimes acts like a bull in a china shop, but the truth is that the borders “need” to be sealed; the American people cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe the 600,000 new Muslim Refugees that Hillary plans to bring into the United States from dangerous terrorist states in the world. ISIS has repeatedly stated that they intend to infiltrate their combat trained terrorists into the United States among the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Refugees being resettled in187 cities throughout the United States; the world is at war with Radical Islamists Terrorists, and Obama and Hillary won’t even identify the threat.

Is Trump the perfect candidate? No. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless America seals its borders, eliminate Sanctuary Cities, and prevents Illegal Aliens from entering the US as America did for decades from 1924 to 1965, all other issues will be irrelevant, and the America we once knew will be destroyed by the Leftists and Socialist running Hillary’s campaign. Over the last 8 years there has been 87 terrorist attacks in the United States, and the FBI has over 1000 open cases investigating terrorist threats by ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists in all 50 states.

One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city’s water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions of Americans. Faced with those dangerous threats, most Americans probably don’t care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that his CPA’s employed Federal Income Tax Regulations to minimize his tax bill, as hundreds of millions of Americans minimize their own tax bills each year, when they file their annual federal income taxes.

While Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s greatest fear seems to be an American disrespecting Muslim Refugees, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down or knifed to death in a shopping mall by a Radical Islamic Terrorist

The Washington Ruling Political Class, both Democrats and Republicans, are scared to death that Donald Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts, the mother’s milk of the Democrat party and the Republican financial support by lobbyists on K Street. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much money that US Treasury simply doesn’t have.

You can be certain that if Hillary wins in November 2016, her cabinet positions will be filled with the same failed politically connected Washington Ruling Political Class currently in power. The washed-up has-beens of the Bill Clinton will be back, or Barack Obama Moslem Brotherhood members and leftists administrations will remain in charge.

If Hillary is elected, the big-bank hacks from Goldman Sachs, Hillary’s benefactors, will continue to call the shots. And America will continue her disastrous economic decline and the loss of precious liberties given to all American Citizens by the Founding Fathers—————————– precious liberties no other democracies has ever had in history. This is the most important election in US History.

If the Washington Political Ruling Class wins—–America and you will lose.

October 7, 2016

Bill Whittle on Black Lives Matter [nc]

Bill Whittle’s Video On “Black Lives Matter”

By Capt Joseph R. John, October 6, 2016

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international movement that began in 2014, it has 30 local chapters in the US, and BLM campaigns to call attention to violence against black people. BLM regularly protests police brutality and police shootings of black people. Since 2014, BLM has organized 1000+ protest demonstrations, and it has now become a movement designed to instill fear, mainly in Police Officers.

FBI Director James Comey suggested that the BLM demonstrations are partly responsible for a national rise in crime, because Police Officers have held back from doing their duty, or have been afraid to leave their patrol cars to do thorough policing.

At the Minnesota State Fair BLM activists chanted “Pigs in a blanket! Fry E’m like bacon!” In New York after 2 Police Officers were assassinated demonstrators chanted “No justice, no peace!” In Phoenix BLM demonstrators chanted to Police “We should shoot you!” In Chicago BLM demonstrators chanted “No Racist police!” There are many more chants threatening Police Officers.

Every American voter should watch the below listed very short video by Bill Whittle, in order to learn why George Soros, and the Ford Foundation, with the strong support of Obama is raising $130 million for the Black Lives Movement Fund to promote and expand Black Lives Matter demonstrators.

Obama has been holding meetings in The White House with the leaders of Black Lives Matter.(there are photos of the leaders of Black Lives Matter meetings with Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch in The White House in the below listed video).

The real reason Obama is raising such a large amount of money in such a short period of time to fund the Black Lives Movement Fund with $130 million is to expand BLM activities and demonstrations throughout the nation, in order to motivate black youth to promote, and support the election of Hillary Clinton.

The Black Lives Matter program supported by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Soros, Loretta Lynch, and the Ford Foundation has been whipping up black youth to demonstrate against Police Officers, who they have been falsely blamed for intentionally targeting black youth for murder.

Since those demonstrations blaming Police Officers for intentionally killing black youth began, there have been 14 ambush-style police assassination throughout the nation, including the assassinations of 5 Police Officers in Dallas (after a BLM demonstration), 3 Police Officers in Baton Rouge (after a BLM demonstration), 2 Police Officers in Houston, 1 Police Officer in Milwaukee, 2 Police Officers in New York City, and 1 Police Officer in Kansas City.

Ever since Hillary Clinton graduated from college and went to work for the Black Panthers, she has never been supportive of law enforcement or the rule of law. Hillary met with BLM representatives in August 2015 and again in October 2015. Hillary Clinton has called for the retraining of Police Officers to get them to stop killing black youth.

Hillary does not oppose BLM demonstrations with their threatening chants, designed to instigate violence against Police Officers. Every time a black youth is killed in a confrontation with Police Officers, even when the black youth is armed with a gun and is threatening Police Officers, Hillary calls attention to another Police Officer shooting of a black, as if the Police were solely responsible for killing another black.

In 2016, Black Lives Matter demonstrations, throughout the nation, have contributed significantly to 20% of all Police Officers ambush-style shootings. Those ambush-style shootings are planned and executed to blind side and kill unsuspecting Police Officers, have not only resulted in 14 assassinations of Police Officers, but have also resulted in the wounding of many other Police Officers.

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108



Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From Greek Tragedy To American Therapy, by Victor Hanson

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:26 pm

From Greek tragedy to American therapy
October 6, 2016 2:49 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson // Town Hall
From Greek tragedy to American therapy

The Greeks gave us tragedy — the idea that life is never fair. Terrible stuff for no reason tragically falls on good people. Life’s choices are sometimes only between the bad and the far worse.

In the plays of the ancient dramatists Aeschylus and Sophocles, heroism and nobility only arise out of tragedies.

The tragic hero refuses to blame the gods for his terrible fate. Instead, a Prometheus, Ajax or Oedipus prefers to fight against the odds. He thereby establishes a code of honor, even as defeat looms.

In contrast, modern Americans gave the world therapy.

Life must always be fair. If not, something or someone must be blamed. All good people deserve only a good life — or else.

A nation of victims soon becomes collectively paralyzed in fear of offending someone. Pay down the $20 trillion debt? Reform the unsustainable Social Security system? Ask the 47 percent of the population that pays no income tax to at least pay some?

Nope. Victims would allege that such belt-tightening is unfair and impossible — and hurtful to boot. So we do nothing as the rendezvous with financial collapse gets ever closer.

Does anyone think a culture of whiners can really build high-speed rail in California? Even its supporters want the noisy tracks built somewhere away from their homes.

Even animals get in on the new victimhood. To build a reservoir in drought-stricken California means oppressing the valley elderberry longhorn beetle or ignoring the feelings of the foothill yellow-legged frog.

America’s impoverished ancestors at 15 years of age may have rounded Cape Horn on a schooner or ridden bareback over the Rockies.

Not today’s therapeutic college youth. They have been so victimized by racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and other -isms and -phobias that colleges often provide them “safe spaces,” outlaw “microaggressions” and demand “trigger warnings” to avoid the un-nice.

What would our grandfathers think?

As teenagers on D-Day, they found no safe spaces on Omaha Beach. A storm of steel from thousands of SS killers proved more than a “microaggression” at the Battle of the Bulge. Generals did not give their freezing GIs mere “trigger warnings” about a half-million Chinese Red Army soldiers crossing the Yalu River during the Korean War.

American victimhood is the luxury of an affluent, secure and leisured postmodern society that can afford such silly indulgences.

Second-string San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick apparently assumes that his wealthy team can afford to pay him nearly $20 million a year to sit on the bench, without much caring that he can’t be bothered to stand up for the National Anthem.

But victimhood is a good career move. Kaepernick went from being a washed-up quarterback to being a much-publicized social justice warrior — a veritable Noam Chomsky in cleats opining on over two centuries of American criminal justice. He was once fined for reportedly smearing a fellow NFL player with the N-word, but now as a victim himself, Kaepernick can no longer be a victimizer.

During the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton blamed Donald Trump for body-shaming 1996 Miss Universe Alicia Machado two decades ago. Machado had reportedly gained more than 40 pounds and apparently made it hard for Trump’s beauty pageant to showcase her figure in promotional events.

America may be broke and plagued by riots and terrorism. No matter: It apparently can afford to fret over Machado’s 20 years of post-traumatic stress.

Once victimhood is established, we lose our identities and, as part of an offended collective, claim blanket exemption for all our imperfections.

In Machado’s case, what does it matter if such a victim allegedly threatened a Venezuelan judge, or was reportedly involved with a drug cartel leader, or became a campaign shill for the Clinton campaign?

All of that is nothing compared with the trauma of being called fat for not being able to fit back into the bikini that won her the Miss Universe crown and fame.

Sometimes the art of victimhood gets confusing. If we are all victims of some sort, who are left to be the victimizers?

Can victims victimize? Can gays be Islamophobic, Muslims homophobic, blacks racist, women sexist or Latinos xenophobic? If so, who is to sort out their relative rock/paper/scissors zero-sum grievances?

Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Islamic State and the Chinese have no particular sympathy for any American who lays claim to victim status.

Nor do foreign buyers of U.S. Treasury bonds to finance the debt defer to America’s legions of victims. A nuclear bomb from North Korea or Iran will not sort us all out by race, class or gender, much less by victim and victimizer.

To appreciate American heroism, we might read Sophocles’ “Antigone” or E.B. Sledge’s “With the Old Breed” — and watch a lot less Sunday football.

October 3, 2016

After the Republic, Angelo M. Codevilla [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:01 pm

After the Republic
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to WordPressShare to EmailShare to More

By: Angelo M. Codevilla
September 27, 2016

ver the past half century, the Reagan years notwithstanding, our ruling class’s changing preferences and habits have transformed public and private life in America. As John Marini shows in his essay, “Donald Trump and the American Crisis,” this has resulted in citizens morphing into either this class’s “stakeholders” or its subjects. And, as Publius Decius Mus argues, “America and the West” now are so firmly “on a trajectory toward something very bad” that it is no longer reasonable to hope that “all human outcomes are still possible,” by which he means restoration of the public and private practices that made the American republic. In fact, the 2016 election is sealing the United States’s transition from that republic to some kind of empire.

Electing either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cannot change that trajectory. Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives.

Many Enemies, Few Friends

The overriding question of 2016 has been how eager the American people are to reject the bipartisan class that has ruled this country contrary to its majority’s convictions. Turned out, eager enough to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. The ruling class’s united front in response to the 2008 financial crisis had ignited the Tea Party’s call for adherence to the Constitution, and led to elections that gave control of both houses of Congress to the Republican Party. But as Republicans became full partners in the ruling class’s headlong rush in what most considered disastrous directions, Americans lost faith in the Constitution’s power to restrain the wrecking of their way of life.

From the primary season’s outset, the Democratic Party’s candidates promised even more radical “transformations.” When, rarely, they have been asked what gives them the right to do such things they have acted as if the only answer were Nancy Pelosi’s reply to whether the Constitution allows the government to force us into Obamacare: “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?”

On the Republican side, 17 hopefuls promised much, without dealing with the primordial fact that, in today’s America, those in power basically do what they please. Executive orders, phone calls, and the right judge mean a lot more than laws. They even trump state referenda. Over the past half-century, presidents have ruled not by enforcing laws but increasingly through agencies that write their own rules, interpret them, and punish unaccountably—the administrative state. As for the Supreme Court, the American people have seen it invent rights where there were none—e.g., abortion—while trammeling ones that had been the republic’s spine, such as the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. The Court taught Americans that the word “public” can mean “private” (Kelo v. City of New London), that “penalty” can mean “tax” (King v. Burwell), and that holding an opinion contrary to its own can only be due to an “irrational animus” (Obergefell v. Hodges).

What goes by the name “constitutional law” has been eclipsing the U.S. Constitution for a long time. But when the 1964 Civil Rights Act substituted a wholly open-ended mandate to oppose “discrimination” for any and all fundamental rights, it became the little law that ate the Constitution. Now, because the Act pretended that the commerce clause trumps the freedom of persons to associate or not with whomever they wish, and is being taken to mean that it trumps the free exercise of religion as well, bakers and photographers are forced to take part in homosexual weddings. A commission in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reported that even a church may be forced to operate its bathrooms according to gender self-identification because it “could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.” California came very close to mandating that Catholic schools admit homosexual and transgender students or close down. The Justice Department is studying how to prosecute on-line transactions such as vacation home rental site Airbnb, Inc., that fall afoul of its evolving anti-discrimination standards.

This arbitrary power, whose rabid guard-dog growls and barks: “Racist! Sexist! Homophobic!” has transformed our lives by removing restraints on government. The American Bar Association’s new professional guidelines expose lawyers to penalties for insufficient political correctness. Performing abortions or at least training to perform them may be imposed as a requirement for licensing doctors, nurses, and hospitals that offer services to the general public.

Addressing what it would take to reestablish the primacy of fundamental rights would have required Republican candidates to reset the Civil Rights movement on sound constitutional roots. Surprised they didn’t do it?

No one running for the GOP nomination discussed the greatest violation of popular government’s norms—never mind the Constitution—to have occurred in two hundred years, namely, the practice, agreed upon by mainstream Republicans and Democrats, of rolling all of the government’s expenditures into a single bill. This eliminates elected officials’ responsibility for any of the government’s actions, and reduces them either to approving all that the government does without reservation, or the allegedly revolutionary, disloyal act of “shutting down the government.”

Rather than talk about how to restrain or shrink government, Republican candidates talked about how to do more with government. The Wall Street Journal called that “having a positive agenda.” Hence, Republicans by and large joined the Democrats in relegating the U.S. Constitution to history’s dustbin.

Because Republicans largely agree with Democrats that they need not take seriously the founders’ Constitution, today’s American regime is now what Max Weber had called the Tsarist regime on the eve of the Revolution: “fake constitutionalism.” Because such fakery is self-discrediting and removes anyone’s obligation to restrain his passions, it is a harbinger of revolution and of imperial power.

The ruling class having chosen raw power over law and persuasion, the American people reasonably concluded that raw power is the only way to counter it, and looked for candidates who would do that. Hence, even constitutional scholar Ted Cruz stopped talking about the constitutional implications of President Obama’s actions after polls told him that the public was more interested in what he would do to reverse them, niceties notwithstanding. Had Cruz become the main alternative to the Democratic Party’s dominion, the American people might have been presented with the option of reverting to the rule of law. But that did not happen. Both of the choices before us presuppose force, not law.

A Change of Regimes

All ruling classes are what Shakespeare called the “makers of manners.” Plato, in The Republic, and Aristotle, in his Politics, teach that polities reflect the persons who rise to prominence within them, whose habits the people imitate, and who set the tone of life in them. Thus a polity can change as thoroughly as a chorus changes from comedy to tragedy depending on the lyrics and music. Obviously, the standards and tone of life that came from Abraham Lincoln’s Oval Office is quite opposite from what came from the same place when Bill Clinton used it. Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm was arguably the world’s most polite society. Under Hitler, it became the most murderous.

In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. Our imperial regime, already in force, works on a simple principle: the president and the cronies who populate these channels may do whatever they like so long as the bureaucracy obeys and one third plus one of the Senate protects him from impeachment. If you are on the right side of that network, you can make up the rules as you go along, ignore or violate any number of laws, obfuscate or commit perjury about what you are doing (in the unlikely case they put you under oath), and be certain of your peers’ support. These cronies’ shared social and intellectual identity stems from the uniform education they have received in the universities. Because disdain for ordinary Americans is this ruling class’s chief feature, its members can be equally certain that all will join in celebrating each, and in demonizing their respective opponents.

And, because the ruling class blurs the distinction between public and private business, connection to that class has become the principal way of getting rich in America. Not so long ago, the way to make it here was to start a business that satisfied customers’ needs better than before. Nowadays, more businesses die each year than are started. In this century, all net additions in employment have come from the country’s 1,500 largest corporations. Rent-seeking through influence on regulations is the path to wealth. In the professions, competitive exams were the key to entry and advancement not so long ago. Now, you have to make yourself acceptable to your superiors. More important, judicial decisions and administrative practice have divided Americans into “protected classes”—possessed of special privileges and immunities—and everybody else. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are memories. Co-option is the path to power. Ever wonder why the quality of our leaders has been declining with each successive generation?

Moreover, since the Kennedy reform of 1965, and with greater speed since 2009, the ruling class’s immigration policy has changed the regime by introducing some 60 million people—roughly a fifth of our population—from countries and traditions different from, if not hostile, to ours. Whereas earlier immigrants earned their way to prosperity, a disproportionate percentage of post-1965 arrivals have been encouraged to become dependents of the state. Equally important, the ruling class chose to reverse America’s historic practice of assimilating immigrants, emphasizing instead what divides them from other Americans. Whereas Lincoln spoke of binding immigrants by “the electric cord” of the founders’ principles, our ruling class treats these principles as hypocrisy. All this without votes or law; just power.

Foul is Fair and Fair is Foul

In short, precisely as the classics defined regime change, people and practices that had been at society’s margins have been brought to its center, while people and ideas that had been central have been marginalized.

Fifty years ago, prayer in the schools was near universal, but no one was punished for not praying. Nowadays, countless people are arrested or fired for praying on school property. West Point’s commanding general reprimanded the football coach for his team’s thanksgiving prayer. Fifty years ago, bringing sexually explicit stuff into schools was treated as a crime, as was “procuring abortion.” Nowadays, schools contract with Planned Parenthood to teach sex, and will not tell parents when they take girls to PP facilities for abortions. Back then, many schools worked with the National Rifle Association to teach gun handling and marksmanship. Now students are arrested and expelled merely for pointing their finger and saying “bang.” In those benighted times, boys who ventured into the girls’ bathroom were expelled as perverts. Now, girls are suspended for objecting to boys coming into the girls’ room under pretense of transgenderism. The mainstreaming of pornography, the invention of abortion as the most inalienable of human rights and, most recently, the designation of opposition to homosexual marriage as a culpable psychosis—none of which is dictated by law enacted by elected officials—is enforced as if it had been. No surprise that America has experienced a drastic drop in the formation of families, with the rise of rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites equal to the rates among blacks that was recognized as disastrous a half-century ago, the near-disappearance of two-parent families among blacks, and the social dislocations attendant to all that.

Ever since the middle of the 20th century our ruling class, pursuing hazy concepts of world order without declarations of war, has sacrificed American lives first in Korea, then in Vietnam, and now throughout the Muslim world. By denigrating Americans who call for peace, or for wars unto victory over America’s enemies; by excusing or glorifying those who take our enemies’ side or who disrespect the American flag; our rulers have drawn down the American regime’s credit and eroded the people’s patriotism.

As the ruling class destroyed its own authority, it wrecked the republic’s as well. This is no longer the “land where our fathers died,” nor even the country that won World War II. It would be surprising if any society, its identity altered and its most fundamental institutions diminished, had continued to function as before. Ours sure does not, and it is difficult to imagine how it can do so ever again. We can be sure only that the revolution underway among us, like all others, will run its unpredictable course.

All we know is the choice that faces us at this stage: either America continues in the same direction, but faster and without restraint, or there’s the hazy possibility of something else.

Imperial Alternatives

The consequences of empowering today’s Democratic Party are crystal clear. The Democratic Party—regardless of its standard bearer—would use its victory to drive the transformations that it has already wrought on America to quantitative and qualitative levels that not even its members can imagine. We can be sure of that because what it has done and is doing is rooted in a logic that has animated the ruling class for a century, and because that logic has shaped the minds and hearts of millions of this class’s members, supporters, and wannabes.

That logic’s essence, expressed variously by Herbert Croly and Woodrow Wilson, FDR’s brains trust, intellectuals of both the old and the new Left, choked back and blurted out by progressive politicians, is this: America’s constitutional republic had given the American people too much latitude to be who they are, that is: religiously and socially reactionary, ignorant, even pathological, barriers to Progress. Thankfully, an enlightened minority exists with the expertise and the duty to disperse the religious obscurantism, the hypocritical talk of piety, freedom, and equality, which excuses Americans’ racism, sexism, greed, and rape of the environment. As we progressives take up our proper responsibilities, Americans will no longer live politically according to their prejudices; they will be ruled administratively according to scientific knowledge.

Progressivism’s programs have changed over time. But its disdain for how other Americans live and think has remained fundamental. More than any commitment to principles, programs, or way of life, this is its paramount feature. The media reacted to Hillary Clinton’s remark that “half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a ‘basket of deplorables’” as if these sentiments were novel and peculiar to her. In fact, these are unremarkable restatements of our ruling class’s perennial creed.

The pseudo-intellectual argument for why these “deplorables” have no right to their opinions is that giving equal consideration to people and positions that stand in the way of Progress is “false equivalence,” as President Obama has put it. But the same idea has been expressed most recently and fully by New York Times CEO Mark Thompson, as well as Times columnists Jim Rutenberg, Timothy Egan, and William Davies. In short, devotion to truth means not reporting on Donald Trump and people like him as if they or anything they say might be of value.

If trying to persuade irredeemable socio-political inferiors is no more appropriate than arguing with animals, why not just write them off by sticking dismissive names on them? Doing so is less challenging, and makes you feel superior. Why wrestle with the statistical questions implicit in Darwin when you can just dismiss Christians as Bible-thumpers? Why bother arguing for Progressivism’s superiority when you can construct “scientific” studies like Theodor Adorno’s, proving that your opponents suffer from degrees of “fascism” and other pathologies? This is a well-trod path. Why, to take an older example, should General Omar Bradley have bothered trying to refute Douglas MacArthur’s statement that in war there is no substitute for victory when calling MacArthur and his supporters “primitives” did the trick? Why wrestle with our climate’s complexities when you can make up your own “models,” being sure that your class will treat them as truth?

What priorities will the ruling class’s notion of scientific truth dictate to the next Democratic administration? Because rejecting that true and false, right and wrong are objectively ascertainable is part of this class’s DNA, no corpus of fact or canon of reason restrains it or defines its end-point. Its definition of “science” is neither more nor less than what “scientists say” at any given time. In practice, that means “Science R-Us,” now and always, exclusively. Thus has come to pass what President Dwight Eisenhower warned against in his 1960 Farewell address: “A steadily increasing share [of science] is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.… [T]he free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution…a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” Hence, said Ike, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.” The result has been that academics rise through government grants while the government exercises power by claiming to act on science’s behalf. If you don’t bow to the authority of the power that says what is and is not so, you are an obscurantist or worse.

Under our ruling class, “truth” has morphed from the reflection of objective reality to whatever has “normative pull”—i.e., to what furthers the ruling class’s agenda, whatever that might be at any given time. That is the meaning of the term “political correctness,” as opposed to factual correctness.

It’s the Contempt, Stupid!

Who, a generation ago, could have guessed that careers and social standing could be ruined by stating the fact that the paramount influence on the earth’s climate is the sun, that its output of energy varies and with it the climate? Who, a decade ago, could have predicted that stating that marriage is the union of a man and a woman would be treated as a culpable sociopathy, or just yesterday that refusing to let certifiably biological men into women’s bathrooms would disqualify you from mainstream society? Or that saying that the lives of white people “matter” as much as those of blacks is evidence of racism? These strictures came about quite simply because some sectors of the ruling class felt like inflicting them on the rest of America. Insulting presumed inferiors proved to be even more important to the ruling class than the inflictions’ substance.

How far will our rulers go? Because their network is mutually supporting, they will go as far as they want. Already, there is pressure from ruling class constituencies, as well as academic arguments, for morphing the concept of “hate crime” into the criminalization of “hate speech”—which means whatever these loving folks hate. Of course this is contrary to the First Amendment, and a wholesale negation of freedom. But it is no more so than the negation of freedom of association that is already eclipsing religious freedom in the name anti-discrimination. It is difficult to imagine a Democratic president, Congress, and Supreme Court standing in the way.

Above all, these inflictions, as well as the ruling class’s acceptance of its own members’ misbehavior, came about because millions of its supporters were happy, or happy enough, to support them in the interest of maintaining their own status in a ruling coalition while discomfiting their socio-political opponents. Consider, for example, how republic-killing an event was the ruling class’s support of President Bill Clinton in the wake of his nationally televised perjury. Subsequently, as constituencies of supporters have effectively condoned officials’ abusive, self-serving, and even outright illegal behavior, they have encouraged more and more of it while inuring themselves to it. That is how republics turn into empires from the roots up.

But it is also true, as Mao Tse-Tung used to say, “a fish begins to rot at the head.” If you want to understand why any and all future Democratic Party administrations can only be empires dedicated to injuring and insulting their subjects, look first at their intellectual leaders’ rejection of the American republic’s most fundamental principles.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” among which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These rights—codified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights—are not civil rights that governments may define. The free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and assembly, keeping and bearing arms, freedom from warrantless searches, protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, trial by jury of one’s peers, etc., are natural rights that pertain to human beings as such. Securing them for Americans is what the United States is all about. But today’s U.S. Civil Rights Commission advocates truncating the foremost of these rights because, as it stated in a recent report, “Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon those civil rights.” The report explains why the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights should not be permissible: “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy, or any form of intolerance.”

Hillary Clinton’s attack on Trump supporters merely matched the ruling class’s current common sense. Why should government workers and all who wield the administrative state’s unaccountable powers not follow their leaders’ judgment, backed by the prestige press, about who are to be treated as citizens and who is to be handled as deplorable refuse? Hillary Clinton underlined once again how the ruling class regards us, and about what it has in store for us.

Electing Donald Trump would result in an administration far less predictable than any Democratic one. In fact, what Trump would or would not do, could or could not do, pales into insignificance next to the certainty of what any Democrat would do. That is what might elect Trump.

The character of an eventual Trump Administration is unpredictable because speculating about Trump’s mind is futile. It is equally futile to guess how he might react to the mixture of flattery and threats sure to be leveled against him. The entire ruling class—Democrats and Republicans, the bulk of the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and the press—would do everything possible to thwart him; and the constituencies that chose him as their candidate, and that might elect him, are surely not united and are by no means clear about the demands they would press. Moreover, it is anyone’s guess whom he would appoint and how he would balance his constituencies’ pressures against those of the ruling class.

Never before has such a large percentage of Americans expressed alienation from their leaders, resentment, even fear. Some two-thirds of Americans believe that elected and appointed officials—plus the courts, the justice system, business leaders, educators—are leading the country in the wrong direction: that they are corrupt, do more harm than good, make us poorer, get us into wars and lose them. Because this majority sees no one in the political mainstream who shares their concerns, because it lacks confidence that the system can be fixed, it is eager to empower whoever might flush the system and its denizens with something like an ungentle enema.

Yet the persons who express such revolutionary sentiments are not a majority ready to support a coherent imperial program to reverse the course of America’s past half-century. Temperamentally conservative, these constituencies had been most attached to the Constitution and been counted as the bedrock of stability. They are not yet wholly convinced that there is little left to conserve. What they want, beyond an end to the ruling class’s outrages, has never been clear. This is not surprising, given that the candidates who appeal to their concerns do so with mere sound bites. Hence they chose as the presidential candidate of the nominal opposition party the man who combined the most provocative anti-establishment sounds with reassurance that it won’t take much to bring back good old America: Donald Trump. But bringing back good old America would take an awful lot. What could he do to satisfy them?

Trump’s propensity for treating pronouncements on policy as flags to be run up and down the flagpole as he measures the volume of the applause does not deprive them of all significance—especially the ones that confirm his anti-establishment bona fides. These few policy items happen to be the ones by which he gained his anti-establishment reputation in the first place: 1) opposition to illegal immigration, especially the importation of Muslims whom Americans reasonably perceive as hostile to us; 2) law and order: stop excusing rioters and coddling criminals; 3) build a wall, throw out the illegals, let in only people who are vetted and certified as supporters of our way of life (that’s the way it was when I got my immigrant visa in 1955), and keep out anybody we can’t be sure isn’t a terrorist. Trump’s tentative, partial retreat from a bit of the latter nearly caused his political standing to implode, prompting the observation that doing something similar regarding abortion would end his political career. That is noteworthy because, although Trump’s support of the pro-life cause is lukewarm at best, it is the defining commitment for much of his constituency. The point here is that, regardless of his own sentiments, Trump cannot wholly discount his constituencies’ demands for a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction.

Trump’s slogan—“make America great again”—is the broadest, most unspecific, common denominator of non-ruling-class Americans’ diverse dissatisfaction with what has happened to the country. He talks about reasserting America’s identity, at least by controlling the borders; governing in America’s own interest rather than in pursuit of objectives of which the American people have not approved; stopping the export of jobs and removing barriers to business; and banishing political correctness’s insults and injuries. But all that together does not amount to making America great again. Nor does Trump begin to explain what it was that had made this country great to millions who have known only an America much diminished.

In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.

Because it is difficult to imagine a Trump presidency even thinking about something so monumental as replacing an entire ruling elite, much less leading his constituency to accomplishing it, electing Trump is unlikely to result in a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction. Continuing pretty much on the current trajectory under the same class will further fuel revolutionary sentiments in the land all by itself. Inevitable disappointment with Trump is sure to add to them.

We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.

[Secession, secession, secession – for a proposed template of a workable Republic, buy, read, and promote, The Albany Plan Re-Visited.]

A Modern Parable, from Big John [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 6:07 pm

A Modern Parable

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both teams practised long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile .

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people paddling and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people paddling.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were paddling.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the paddling team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people paddling the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the ‘Rowing Team Quality First Program,’ with meetings, dinners and free pens for the paddlers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices, and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to ‘equal the competition’ and some of the resultant savings were channelled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off one paddler, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated paddler was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles), so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year’s racing team was out-sourced to India.

Sadly, the End

Here’s something else to think about: GM has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can’t make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter’s results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while GM rack s up 9 billion in losses.

GM folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses…


The Next President Unbound, by Victor Hanson [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 6:02 pm

The Next President Unbound
October 2, 2016 11:25 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

There is reason to worry about both candidates abusing power as president, because Obama and the press normalized executive overreach.
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Donald Trump’s supporters see a potential Hillary Clinton victory in November as the end of any conservative chance to restore small government, constitutional protections, fiscal sanity, and personal liberty.

Clinton’s progressives swear that a Trump victory would spell the implosion of America as they know it, alleging Trump parallels with every dictator from Josef Stalin to Adolf Hitler.

Part of the frenzy over 2016 as a make-or-break election is because a closely divided Senate’s future may hinge on the coattails of the presidential winner. An aging Supreme Court may also translate into perhaps three to four court picks for the next president.

Yet such considerations only partly explain the current election frenzy.

The model of the imperial Obama presidency is the greater fear. Over the last eight years, Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades.

Congress talks grandly of “comprehensive immigration reform,” but Obama, as he promised with his pen and phone, bypassed the House and Senate to virtually open the border with Mexico. He largely ceased deportations of undocumented immigrants. He issued executive-order amnesties. And he allowed entire cities to be exempt from federal immigration law.

The press said nothing about this extraordinary overreach of presidential power, mainly because these largely illegal means were used to achieve the progressive ends favored by many journalists.

The Senate used to ratify treaties. In the past, a president could not unilaterally approve the Treaty of Versailles, enroll the United States in the League of Nations, fight in Vietnam or Iraq without congressional authorization, change existing laws by non-enforcement, or rewrite bankruptcy laws.

Not now. Obama set a precedent that he did not need Senate ratification to make a landmark treaty with Iran on nuclear enrichment.

He picked and chose which elements of the Affordable Care Act would be enforced — predicated on his 2012 reelection efforts.

Rebuffed by Congress, Obama is now slowly shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center by insidiously having inmates sent to other countries.

Respective opponents of both Trump and Clinton should be worried.

Either winner could follow the precedent of allowing any sanctuary city or state in the United States to be immune from any federal law found displeasing — from the liberal Endangered Species Act and federal gun-registration laws to conservative abortion restrictions.

Could anyone complain if Trump’s secretary of state were investigated by Trump’s attorney general for lying about a private e-mail server — in the manner of Clinton being investigated by Loretta Lynch?

Would anyone object should a President Trump agree to a treaty with Russian president Vladimir Putin in the same way Obama overrode Congress with the Iran deal?

If a President Clinton decides to strike North Korea, would she really need congressional authorization, considering Obama’s unauthorized Libyan bombing mission?

What would Americans say if President Trump’s IRS — mirror-imaging Lois Lerner — hounded the progressive nonprofit organizations of George Soros?

Partisans are shocked that the press does not go after Trump’s various inconsistencies and fibs about his supposed initial opposition to the Iraq War, or press him on the details of Trump University.

Conservatives counter that Clinton has never had to come clean about the likely illegal pay-for-play influence peddling of the Clinton Foundation or her serial lies about her private e-mail server.

But why, if elected, should either worry much about media scrutiny?

Obama established the precedent that a president should be given a pass on lying to the American people. Did Americans, as Obama repeatedly promised, really get to keep their doctors and health plans while enjoying lower premiums and deductibles, as the country saved billions through his Affordable Care Act?

More recently, did Obama mean to tell a lie when he swore that he sent cash to the Iranians only because he could not wire them the money — when in truth the administration had wired money to Iran in the past? Was cash to Iran really not a ransom for American hostages, as the president asserted? Did Obama really, as he insisted, never e-mail Clinton at her private unsecured server?

Can the next president, like Obama, double the national debt and claim to be a deficit hawk?

Congress has proven woefully inept at asserting its constitutional right to check and balance Obama’s executive overreach. The courts have often abdicated their own oversight.

But the press is the most blameworthy. White House press conferences now resemble those in the Kremlin, with journalists tossing Putin softball questions about his latest fishing or hunting trip.

One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be.

In 2017, a President Trump or a President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight — thanks to the precedent of Obama’s overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.

[Secession, secession, secession]

September 25, 2016

Imprimis 9/16 Vol 45 #9 Must read

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 5:59 pm

September 2016 • Volume 45, Number 9
In the Communist
Manifesto, Marx a
nd Engels wrote that “the history of all
hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” Today the story of American
politics is the story of class struggles. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. We didn’t think
we were divided into different classes. Neither did Marx.
America was an exception to Marx’s theory of social progress. By that theory,
societies were supposed to move from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But the
America of the 1850s, the most capitalist society around, was not turning communist.
Marx had an explanation for that. “True enough, the classes already exist,” he wrote
of the United States, but they “are in constant f lux and ref lux, constantly changing
their elements and yielding them up to one another.” In other words, when you have
economic and social mobility, you don’t go communist.
That is the country in which some imagine we still live, Horatio Alger’s America—a
country defined by the promise that whoever you are, you have the same chance as
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on July 11, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.,
as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
is a Foundation Professor at Scalia Law School at George Mason
University, where he has taught since 1989. Previously he was a visiting
Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and he has also
taught at McGill Law School, the Sorbonne, and Sciences Po in Paris.
He received his B.A. from McGill University and his LL.M. from
Harvard University. He is a senior editor of
The American Spectator
and the author of several books, including
The Once and Future King:
The Rise of Crown Government in America
The Way Back:
Restoring the Promise of America
Restoring America’s Economic
Frank Buckley
A ut ho r,
The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America
anyone else to rise, with pluck, industry,
and talent. But they imagine wrong.
The U.S. today lags behind many of its
First World rivals in terms of mobility. A
class society has inserted itself within the
folds of what was once a classless country,
and a dominant New Class—as social
critic Christopher Lasch called it—has
pulled up the ladder of social advance
ment behind it.
One can measure these things
empirically by comparing the correlation
between the earnings of fathers and sons.
Pew’s Economic Mobility Project ranks
Britain at 0.5, which means that if a father
earns £100,000 more than the median,
his son will earn £50,000 more than the
average member of his cohort. That’s
pretty aristocratic. On the other end of
the scale, the most economically mobile
society is Denmark, with a correlation of
0.15. The U.S. is at 0.47, almost as immo
bile as Britain.
A complacent Republican establish
ment denies this change has occurred. If
they don’t get it, how
ever, American voters
do. For the first time,
Americans don’t
believe their children
will be as well off
as they have been.
They see an economy
that’s stalled, one
in which jobs are
moving offshore.
In the first decade
of this century, U.S.
multinationals shed
2.9 million U.S. jobs
while increasing
employment over
seas by 2.4 million.
General Electric
provides a strik
ing example. Jeffrey
Immelt became the
company’s CEO in
2001, with a mission
to advance stock
price. He did this
in part by reducing
GE’s U.S. workforce
by 34,000 jobs. During the same period,
the company added 25,000 jobs overseas.
Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt
to head his Jobs Council.
According to establishment Repub­
licans, none of this can be helped. We
are losing middle
­class jobs because of
the move to a high
­tech world that cre
ates jobs for a cognitive elite and destroys
them for everyone else. But that doesn’t
describe what’s happening. We are losing
­class jobs, but lower
­class jobs are
expanding. Automation is changing the
way we make cars, but the rich still need
their maids and gardeners. Middle
jobs are also lost as a result of regulatory
and environmental barriers, especially in
the energy sector. And the skills
technological change argument is entirely
implausible: countries that beat us hands
down on mobility are just as technologi
cally advanced. Folks in Denmark aren’t
exactly living in the Stone Age.
This is why voters across the spectrum
began to demand radical change. What
did the Republican
elite offer in response?
At a time of maximal
crisis they have been
content with mini
mal goals, like Mitt
Romney’s 59­
plan in 2012. How
many Americans
remember even one
of those points? What
we remember instead
is Romney’s remark
about 47 percent of
Americans being tak
ers. That was Romney’s
way of recognizing
the class divide—and
in the election,
Americans took notice
and paid him back
with interest.
Since 2012, estab
lishment Republicans
have continued to be
less than concerned for
the plight of ordinary
Americans. Sure, they
− ́
[Latin]: in the f irst place
Douglas A. Jeffrey
Matthew D. Bell
Timothy W. Caspar
Monica VanDerWeide
Arthur Donley
William Gray
Lucinda Grimm
Wanda Oxenger
Robin Curtis
Kim Ellsworth
Kathy Smith
Mary Jo Von Ewegen
Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College
The opinions expressed in
are not
necessarily the views of Hillsdale College.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
hereby granted, provided the following credit
line is used: “Reprinted by permission from
, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
ISSN 0277-8432
trademark registered in U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office #1563325.
want economic growth, but it doesn’t
seem to matter into whose pockets the
money f lows. There are even the “con
servative” pundits who offer the pious
hope that drug
­addicted Trump sup
porters will hurry up and die. That’s
one way to ameliorate the class struggle,
but it doesn’t exactly endear anyone to
the establishment.
The southern writer Flannery
O’Connor once attended a dinner party
in New York given for her and liberal
intellectual Mary McCarthy. At one
point the issue of Catholicism came
up, and McCarthy offered the opinion
that the Eucharist is “just a symbol,”
albeit “a pretty one.” O’Connor, a pious
Catholic, bristled: “Well, if it’s just
a symbol, to Hell with it.” Likewise,
the principles held up as sacrosanct
by establishment Republicans might
be logically unassailable, derived like
theorems from a set of axioms based
on a pure theory of natural rights. But
if I don’t see them making people bet
ter off, I say to Hell with them. And
so do the voters this year. What the
establishment Republicans should ask
themselves is Anton Chigurh’s ques
tion in
No Country for Old Men
: If you
followed your principles, and your prin­
ciples brought you to this, what good are
your principles?
Had Marx been asked what would
happen to America if it ever became
economically immobile, we know what
his answer would be: Bernie Sanders
and Hillary Clinton. And also Donald
Trump. The anger expressed by the vot
ers in 2016—their support for candidates
from far outside the traditional political
class—has little parallel in American
history. We are accustomed to protest
movements on the Left, but the whole
sale repudiation of the establishment
on the Right is something new. All that
was solid has melted into air, and what
has taken its place is a kind of right
wing Marxism, scornful of Washington
power brokers and sneering pundits
and repelled by America’s immobile,
­ridden society.
Establishment Republicans came
up with the “right
­wing Marxist” label
when House Speaker John Boehner
was deposed, and labels stick when
they have the ring of truth. So it is with
the right
­wing Marxist. He is right
wing because he seeks to return to an
America of economic mobility. He has
seen how broken education and immi
gration systems, the decline of the rule
of law, and the rise of a supercharged
regulatory state serve as barriers to
economic improvement. And he is a
Marxist to the extent that he sees our
current politics as the politics of class
struggle, with an insurgent middle class
that seeks to surmount the barriers
to mobility erected by an aristocratic
New Class. In his passion, he is also
a revolutionary. He has little time for
a Republican elite that smirks at his
heroes—heroes who communicate
through their brashness and rudeness
the fact that our country is in a crisis.
To his more polite critics, the right
Marxist says: We are not so nice as you!
The right
­wing Marxist notes that
establishment Republicans who decry
crony capitalism are often surrounded
by lobbyists and funded by the Chamber
of Commerce. He is unpersuaded when
they argue that government subsidies
are needed for their friends. He does
not believe that the federal bailouts
of the 2008
­2012 TARP program and
the Federal Reserve’s zero
­interest and
quantitative easing policies were justi
fied. He sees that they doubled the size
of public debt over an eight
­year period,
and that our experiment in consumer
protection for billionaires took the oxy
gen out of the economy and produced a
jobless Wall Street recovery.
The right
­wing Marxist’s vision of
the good society is not so very differ
ent from that of the JFK
­era liberal; it is
a vision of a society where all have the
opportunity to rise, where people are
judged by the content of their charac
ter, and where class distinctions are a
thing of the past. But for the right
Marxist, the best way to reach the goal
of a good society is through free mar
kets, open competition, and the removal
of wasteful government barriers.
Readers of Umberto Eco’s
The Name
of the Rose
will have encountered the
word palimpsest, used to describe a
manuscript in which one text has been
written over another, and in which
traces of the original remain. So it is
with Canada, a country that beats the
U.S. hands down
on economic
mobility. Canada
has the reputation
of being more lib
eral than the U.S.,
but in reality it is
more conservative
because its liberal
policies are written
over a page of deep
Whereas the
U.S. comes in at
a highly immo
bile 0.47 on the
Pew mobility
scale, Canada is at 0.19, very close to
Denmark’s 0.15. What is further remark
able about Canada is that the difference
is mostly at the top and bottom of the
distribution. Between the tenth and
90th deciles there isn’t much difference
between the two countries. The differ
ence is in the bottom and top ten per
cent, where the poorest parents raise the
poorest kids and the richest parents raise
the richest kids.
For parents in the top U.S. decile,
46 percent of their kids will end up in
the top two deciles and only 2 percent
in the bottom decile. The members of
the top decile comprise a New Class
of lawyers, academics, trust
babies, and media types—a group that
wields undue inf luence in both politi
cal parties and dominates our culture.
These are the people who said yes,
there is an immigration crisis—but it’s
caused by our failure to give illegals a
pathway to citizenship!
There’s a top ten percent in Canada,
of course, but its children are far more
likely to descend into the middle or
lower classes. There’s also a bottom ten
percent, but its children are far more
likely to rise to the top. The country of
opportunity, the country we’ve imag
ined ourselves to be, isn’t dead—it
moved to Canada, a country that ranks
higher than the U.S. on measures of
economic freedom. Yes, Canada has its
­vaunted Medicare system, but
­border dif
ferences in health
care don’t explain
the mobility levels.
And when you add
it all up, America
has a more gener
ous welfare system
than Canada or just
about anywhere
else. To explain
Canada’s higher
mobility levels,
one has to turn
to differences in
education systems,
immigration laws,
regulatory burdens, the rule of law, and
corruption—on all of which counts,
Canada is a more conservative country.
America’s K
­12 public schools per
form poorly, relative to the rest of the
First World. Its universities are great fun
for the kids, but many students emerge
on graduation no better educated than
when they arrived. What should be an
elevator to the upper class is stalled on
the ground f loor. One study has con
cluded that if American public school stu
dents were magically raised to Canadian
levels, the economic gain would amount
to a 20 percent annual pay increase for
the average American worker.
The U.S. has a two
­tiered educational
system: a superb set of schools and col
leges for the upper classes and a medio
cre set for everyone else. The best of
our colleges are the best anywhere, but
the average Canadian school is better
Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts
Economic Mobility Rankings
United States
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
than the average American one. At both
the K
­12 and college levels, Canadian
schools have adhered more closely to a
traditional, conservative set of offerings.
For K
­12, a principal reason for the dif
ference is the greater competition offered
in Canada, with its publicly
­affiliated schools. With barriers
like America’s Blaine Amendments—state
laws preventing public funding of reli
gious schools—lower
­class students in the
U.S. must enjoy the dubious blessing of a
public school education.
What about immigration? Canada
doesn’t have a problem with illegal
aliens—it deports them. As for the legal
intake, Canadian policies have a strong
bias towards admitting immigrants who
will confer a benefit on Canadian citi
zens. Even in absolute numbers, Canada
admits more immigrants under eco
nomic categories than the U.S., where
most legal immigrants qualify instead
under family preference categories. As
a result, on average, immigrants to the
U.S. are less educated than U.S. natives,
and unlike in Canada, second
­ and
­generation U.S. immigrants earn
less than their native
­born counterparts.
In short, the U.S. immigration system
imports inequality and immobility. If
immigration isn’t an issue in Canada,
that’s because it’s a system Trump
voters would love.
For those at the bottom of the social
and economic ladder who seek to rise,
nothing is more important than the rule
of law, property rights, and the sanctity
of contract provided by a mature and
efficient legal system. The alternative—in
place today in America—is a network of
elites whose personal bonds supply the
trust that is needed before deals can be
done and promises relied on. With its
more traditional
legal system, Canada
better respects the
sanctity of contract
and is less likely
to weaken prop
erty rights with
an American
civil justice system
which at times resembles a slot machine
of judicially
­sanctioned theft. Americans
are great at talking about the rule of law,
but in reality we don’t have much stand
ing to do so.
Then there’s corruption. As ranked by
Transparency International’s Corruption
Perceptions Index, America is consider
ably more corrupt than most of the rest of
the First World. With our K Street lobby
ists and our donor class, we’ve spawned
the greatest concentration of money and
inf luence ever. And corruption costs. In
a regression model, the average family’s
earnings would increase from $55,000 to
$60,000 were we to ascend to Canada’s
level of non
­corruption, and to $68,000 if
we moved to Denmark’s level.
In a corrupt country, trust is a rare
commodity. That’s America today. Only
19 percent of Americans say they trust the
government most of the time, down from
73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew
Research Center. Sadly, that is a rational
response to the way things are. America
is a different country today, and a much
nastier one. For politically engaged
Republicans, the figure is six percent.
That in a nutshell explains the Trump
phenomenon and the disintegration of
the Republican establishment. If the peo
ple don’t trust the government, tinkering
with entitlement reform is like rearrang
ing deck chairs on the Titanic.
American legal institutions are consis
tently more liberal than those in Canada,
and they are biased towards a privileged
class of insiders who are better educated
and wealthier than the average American.
That’s why America has become an aris
tocracy. By contrast, Canadian legal insti
tutions aren’t slanted to an aristocracy.
The paradox is that Canadians employ
conservative, free market means to
achieve the liberal
end of economic
mobility. And that
points to America’s
way back: acknowl
edge that the prom­
ise of America has
diminished, then
emulate Canada.

Hillsdale will launch two new free online
courses this fall: one on the Supreme Court and
one on Shakespeare. For details, and to view
archived courses, go to online.hillsdale.edu.

September 23, 2016

Open Letter to the NFL, Col. Geoffrey A. Powers, USMC (ret), thanks to Cmdr Tom USN USNA


Commissioner, I’ve been a season pass holder at Yankee Stadium, Yale Bowl and Giants Stadium. I missed the ’90-’91 season because I was with a battalion of Marines in Desert Storm. 14 of my wonderful Marines returned home with the American Flag draped across their lifeless bodies. My last conversation with one of them, Sgt Garrett Mongrella, was about how our Giants were going to the Super Bowl. He never got to see it.

Many friends, Marines, and Special Forces Soldiers who worked with or for me through the years returned home with the American Flag draped over their coffins.

Now I watch multi-millionaire athletes who never did anything in their lives but play a game, disrespect what brave Americans fought and died for. They are essentially spitting in the faces and on the graves of real men, men who have actually done something for this country beside playing with a ball and believing they’re something special! They’re not! My Marines and Soldiers were!

You are complicit in this!

You’ll fine players for large and small infractions but you lack the moral courage and respect for our nation and the fallen to put an immediate stop to this.

Yes, I know, it’s their 1st Amendment right to behave in such a despicable manner. What would happen if they came out and disrespected you or the refs publicly?

I observed a player getting a personal foul for twerking in the end zone after scoring. I guess that’s much worse than disrespecting the flag and our National Anthem. Hmmmmm, isn’t it his 1st Amendment right to express himself like an idiot in the end zone?

Why is taunting not allowed yet taunting America is OK? You fine players for wearing 9-11 commemorative shoes yet you allow scum on the sidelines to sit, kneel or pump their pathetic fist in the air. They are so deprived with their multi-million dollar contracts for playing a freaking game! You condone it all by your refusal to act. You’re just as bad and disgusting as they are. I hope Americans boycott any sponsor who supports that rabble you call the NFL. I hope they turn off the TV when any team that allowed this disrespect to occur, without consequence, on the sidelines. I applaud those who have not.

Legends and heroes do NOT wear shoulder pads. They wear body armor and carry rifles. They make minimum wage and spend months and years away from their families. They don’t do it for an hour on Sunday. They do it 24/7 often with lead, not footballs, coming in their direction. They watch their brothers carted off in pieces not on a gurney to get their knee iced. They don’t even have ice! Many don’t have legs or arms. Some wear blue and risk their lives daily on the streets of America. They wear fire helmets and go upstairs into the fire rather than down to safety. On 9-11, hundreds vanished. They are the heroes.

I hope that your high paid protesting pretty boys and you look in that mirror when you shave tomorrow and see what you really are, legends in your own minds. You need to hit the road and take those worms with you!

Time to change the channel.

Col Jeffrey A Powers USMC-(ret)

All Hands: Notice of Deleting Old Posts

Filed under: Political Commentary — Tags: — justplainbill @ 1:53 pm

Got too many out of date posts. I will be deleting old posts of no current interest over the next quarter (Q4 2016). If you think that you may want to keep something, now is the time to copy and paste what you want.

Polar Ice Cap will not be deleted, but most of the Hanson, John, News You’re Not Getting, &c., will be.

September 15, 2016

William Jefferson Clinton on Immigration [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrjassoc@earthlink.net
Today at 4:39 AM

Only 1 ½ minutes long, but an Excellent speech by Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton


Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Regional Chairman, Veterans 4 Trump, Southern California (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)

San Diego, CA 92108

September 2, 2016

Trump’s Immigration Policy, Capt John, USN USNA [nc]


Number One: We will build a wall along the Southern Border.

Number Two: End Catch-And-Release

Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.

Number Four: Block Funding For Sanctuary Cities

Number Five: Cancel Unconstitutional Executive Orders & Enforce All Immigration Laws

Number Six: We Are Going To Suspend The Issuance Of Visas To Any Place Where Adequate Screening Cannot Occur

Number Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported

Number Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.

Number Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.

Number Ten: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers

The above listed 10 immigration policies are in support of US Federal Immigration Laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a US President.

Donald Trump is the first Republican Presidential candidate, since Governor Ronald Reagan ran for President, whose policies are aimed at putting 360 million American citizens first, especially the 94 million unemployed American; Mr Trump is not proposing immigration policies that are in the best interest of 20 million Illegal Aliens, and detrimental to 360 million American citizens.

Mr Trump is not in agreement with the Republican leadership in Congress, and the American Chamber of Commerce, who have been working very closely with the Democrat leadership in Congress for 8 years, betraying the best interest of American citizens by intentionally keeping the southern border wide open.

Congressional leaders, by their refusal to seal the wide open southern border, are responsible for permitting the entry of terrorists, drugs, white slavery traffickers, weapons smugglers, hundreds of thousands of Central American children with infectious diseases (TB, whooping cough. measles, mumps, scarlet fever, Zinke virus, etc.), millions of Illegal Aliens from Mexico, and hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East who are simply walking into the US.

For 8 years, Obama has tied the hands of the US Border Patrol and ICE Agents, preventing them from enforcing the US Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold. Yet for 8 years, the Republican leaders in Congress have not charged Obama’s appointees at DHS with violating US Federal Immigration Laws, or tried to put pressure on them to cease, by employing the power of the purse to put pressure on them.

Mr Trump’s full speech is attached.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Regional Chairman, Veterans 4 Trump Southern California (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

September 1, 2016

Diversity: History’s Pathway to Chaos, victor hanson [nc]

Diversity: History’s Pathway to Chaos
September 1, 2016 12:02 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

America’s successful melting pot should not be replaced with discredited salad-bowl separatism.
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.

The Roman Empire worked as long as Iberians, Greeks, Jews, Gauls, and myriad other African, Asian, and European communities spoke Latin, cherished habeas corpus, and saw being Roman as preferable to identifying with their own particular tribe. By the fifth century, diversity had won out but would soon prove a fatal liability.

Rome disintegrated when it became unable to assimilate new influxes of northern European tribes. Newcomers had no intention of giving up their Gothic, Hunnish, or Vandal identities.

The propaganda of history’s multicultural empires — the Ottoman, the Russian, the Austro-Hungarian, the British, and the Soviet — was never the strength of their diversity. To avoid chaos, their governments bragged about the religious, ideological, or royal advantages of unity, not diversity.

Nor did more modern quagmires like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Rwanda, or Yugoslavia boast that they were “diverse.” Instead, their strongman leaders naturally claimed that they shared an all-encompassing commonality.

When such coerced harmony failed, these nations suffered the even worse consequences of diversity, as tribes and sects turned murderously upon each other.

For some reason, contemporary America believes that it can reject its uniquely successful melting pot to embrace a historically dangerous and discredited salad-bowl separatism.

Is there any evidence from the past that institutionalizing sects and ethnic grievances would ensure a nation’s security, prosperity, and freedom?

America’s melting pot is history’s sole exception of e pluribus unum inclusivity: a successful multiracial society bound by a common culture, language, and values. But this is a historic aberration with a future that is now in doubt.

Some students attending California’s Claremont College openly demand roommates of the same race. Racially segregated “safe spaces” are fixtures on college campuses.

We speak casually of bloc voting on the basis of skin color — as if a lockstep Asian, Latino, black, or white vote is a good thing.

We are reverting to the nihilism of the old Confederacy. The South’s “one-drop rule” has often been copied to assure employers or universities that one qualifies as a minority.

Some public figures have sought to play up or invent diversity advantages. Sometimes, as in the cases of Elizabeth Warren, Rachel Dolezal, and Ward Churchill, the result is farce.

Given our racial fixations, we may soon have to undergo computer scans of our skin colors to rank competing claims of grievance.

How does one mete out the relative reparations for various atrocities of the past, such as slavery, the Holocaust, the American Indian wars, the Asian or Catholic exclusion laws, indentured servitude, or the mid-18th-century belief that the Irish were not quite human?

Sanctuary cities, in the manner of 1850s Richmond or Charleston invoking nullification, now openly declare themselves immune from federal law. Does that defiance ensure every city the right to ignore whatever federal laws it finds inconvenient, from the filing of 1040s to voting laws?

The diversity industry hinges on U.S. citizens still envisioning a shrinking white population as the “majority.” Yet “white” is now not always easily definable, given intermarriage and constructed identities.

In California, those who check “white” on Orwellian racial boxes are now a minority. Will white Californians soon nightmarishly declare themselves aggrieved minorities and thus demand affirmative action, encourage Viking-like names such as Ragnar or Odin, insert umlauts and diereses into their names to hype their European bona fides, seek segregated European-American dorms, and set up “Caucasian Studies” programs at universities?

Women now graduate from college at a higher rate than men. Will there be a male effort to ensure affirmative action for college admissions and graduation rates?

If the white vote reaches 70 percent for a particular candidate, is that really such a good thing, as it was considered to be when President Obama was praised for capturing 95 percent of the black vote?

It is time to step back from the apartheid brink.

Even onetime diversity advocate Oprah Winfrey has had second thoughts about the lack of commonality in America. She recently vowed to quit using the word “diversity” and now prefers “inclusion.”

A Latino-American undergraduate who is a student of Shakespeare is not “culturally appropriating” anyone’s white-European legacy, but instead seeking transcendence of ideas and a common humanity.

Asian-Americans are not “overrepresented” at premier campuses. Their high-profile presence should be praised as a model, not punished as aberrant by number-crunching bureaucrats.

African-Americans who excel in physics and engineering are not “acting white” but finding the proper pathways for their natural talents.

Being one-half Southeast Asian or three-quarters white is not the touchstone to one’s essence and is irrelevant to one’s character and conduct.

No one is impinging on anyone’s culture when blacks dye their hair blond, or when blondes prefer to wear cornrow braids.

Campuses desperately need unity czars, not diversity czars.

Otherwise, we will end up as 50 separate and rival nations — just like other failed states in history whose diverse tribes and races destroyed themselves in a Hobbesian dog-eat-dog war with one another.

Why Hillary Is Never Held Accountable for Her Lies, Victor Hanson [nc]

Why Hillary Is Never Held Accountable for Her Lies
September 1, 2016 12:12 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

The media excuse her mendacity because it serves the progressive cause.
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Everyone rightly catalogues Donald Trump’s fibs, distortions, and exaggerations: his assertions about his net worth, his charitable contributions, his initial supposed opposition to the Iraq War, or his “flexible” positions on illegal immigration. After all, he is flamboyant, right-wing in his present incarnation, and supposedly bends the truth either out of crass narcissism or for petty profiteering. So the watchdog media and popular culture have no problem with ridiculing Trump as a fabricator.

But not so with Hillary Clinton, whose untruths far overshadow Trump’s in both import and frequency, but are so often contextualized, excused, and forgotten because of who she is and the purpose her outright lying supposedly serves.

Lying in America has become not lying when “good” liars advance alternative narratives for noble purposes — part of our long slide into situational ethics and moral relativism.

Every new bad idea in America today can ultimately be traced to the university. And it seems to take only about 30 years for academia’s nihilism to filter through the elite institutions and make its way into popular culture. So it is with our present idea of truth as a mere construct.

In the 1980s and 1990s professors in the liberal arts became enamored of the French-speaking postmodern nihilists — among them notably Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan. They refashioned an old philosophical strain of relativism found as far back as the Greek sophists and Plato’s discussion of the noble lie. They were influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s attacks on absolute morality, and their youth was lived during the age of Joseph Goebbels and Pravda. The utter collapse of France in six weeks in May and June 1940 and the later shame that most of the nation either was passive or actively collaborated with the Nazi occupiers rather than proving brave resistance fighters made the idea of empiricism and truth an especially hard pill to swallow for the postwar French postmodernists.

While this group comprised quite different thinkers, they mostly agreed that reality was socially constructed and arbitrarily defined by the language of those in power.

In fact, “truth” for a postmodernist is supposedly what those who control us say it is, largely in efforts to perpetuate their own race, class, and gender privilege. You can see how thoroughly popular culture has picked up this mostly banal relativist observation and transformed it into “the Truth”—and why today we assume that lying is simply a narrative, not a window into one’s character.

Relativist slogans abound (e.g., “One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”). “Hands up, don’t shoot” was never uttered by Michael Brown, who was not an innocent “gentle giant” but a strong-armed robber who sought to take a policeman’s gun and then charged at the cop. But since his fictitious last utterances should be true, therefore they are and, presto! became the slogan of Black Lives Matter.

In the opposite fashion, there is to be no such thing as Black Lives Matter protestors calling for frying police or killing cops, since negation of the truth serves a far more noble purpose than would confirmation.

Orwell was onto the game far earlier than the French postmodernists. He rightly saw it as a postwar pathway of the Left to assuming and keeping power: What was written on the barn wall on Monday as an absolute commandment was crossed out and replaced on Tuesday, in the fashion that the Soviet Union used to airbrush out sudden enemies of the people from all past pictorial records. Who knew what the party line would be by Wednesday? What frightened Orwell was not so much lying British industrialists or celebrities, but officers of the state who sought to dismiss the idea of the truth itself and justify the dismissal on ideological grounds.

“People’s Republic” after 1946 usually meant that the Communist country in question was never a republic or ratified by a vote of the people. “Sanctuary cities” today have neither the legal right nor the moral weight to offer exemption from federal immigration law. They do not serve any purpose other than self-interested “nullification” of the law in the fashion of 1850s Confederate states that arbitrarily declared federal statutes null and void in their jurisdictions. We know how that construct ended up.

Gender is now defined not by biology, but by culture or suspect patriarchically constructed norms. “Undocumented migrant” replaces “illegal alien” even as those who crossed illegally into the U.S. never had any documents to begin with, were foreign nationals, and were migrants going into the U.S., not mere directionless travelers.

Both Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill are Native Americans because they say they are. To question them on the basis that neither has any proven Indian ancestry is simply to offer a competing narrative, and one driven by racism, not their sort of altruism.

If Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King reconstruct themselves as black Americans, then their “stories” are as legitimate as any others, given their progressive agendas and their antitheses to the white male power structure.

When Hillary falls into her phony black patois to talk down to African-American audiences, in an accidental caricature of a snooty suburbanite trying to seem cool or authentic, she is no more false than she was earlier in her Annie Oakley incarnation of 2008, when she quaffed boilermakers and bowled to appeal to Obama’s despised clingers. All these are mere narrative moments, but disturbing evidence that she cheaply peddles identities for votes.

We claim there is no such thing as “truth,” as assertions gain credulity only by the degree of wealth and influence behind them (white, male, Christian heterosexuals usually are the bogeymen who establish self-interested “standards” of accuracy and fidelity). So fables in service to a progressive cause are not lying, as they would be if in league with reactionary forces.

Barack Obama can make up narratives about under-appreciated Islamic catalysts for the Western Renaissance or Enlightenment in his Cairo Speech because such mythmaking serves a noble cause of stopping “Islamophobia” and thus deserves the artificial currency of “truth.” Obama himself can invent large chunks of his “autobiography” and it is neither a lie nor a fable, given that his principled intent was to enlighten us about the burdens of growing up as the Other.

Lying for a Brian Williams or plagiarism for a Doris Kearns Goodwin or Fareed Zakaria can be passed off as the shoddy work of subordinates, or “misremembering,” or symptomatic of too full a schedule (not egoism, laziness, or efforts at career enhancement), given that all serve the progressive gods.

In 2012 the progressive future of the country hinged on the reelection of Barack Obama, so naturally ensuring that the imploding Middle East was quiet and that al-Qaeda was somnolent demanded a “truth” that an obscure videomaker and Islamophobic bigot had enraged otherwise peace-loving Muslims and incited them to burn down our consulate in Benghazi — an isolated act that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

If that narrative meant that National Security Adviser Susan Rice had to lie five times on Sunday talk shows, or Hillary Clinton had to deceive the families of the Benghazi dead, or Barack Obama’s Justice Department had to jail Nakoula Basseley Nakoula on a trumped-up old probation charge, then the ends of an Obama reelection more than outweighed the unethical means of achieving it. In each case, “conflicting narratives” or the “fog of war” made the idea of one absolute truth absurd. Who is to say whether $400 million in nocturnal cash transfers to the Iranians for hostages is, or is not, “ransom”?

Almost everything Hillary Clinton has said about her current scandals is a lie: No other secretary of state used a personal server; Colin Powell was certainly not her model for lawbreaking; she really did send and receive classified materials that she at the time knew were classified; she did not have lawyers examine all of her personal e-mails that she destroyed; they were not mostly about Chelsea and yoga; she did not accurately inform authorities of the actual number of her personal e-mails; there was no firewall between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation; rich individuals did meet with the secretary of state in a fashion that they would otherwise not have been able to, had they not donated vast amounts of money. And on and on. Again, all lies, but lies that in postmodern culture are merely competing progressive narratives that translate into the vulgar media as “Who is to say what pay-to-play actually is?”

Did anyone care that progressive Hillary long ago lied about her rigged $1,000 cattle-future investment beating 34 trillion to 1 odds to earn her $100,000, or her supposed foray into a combat zone in Serbia? Clinton’s lies, past and present, are fobbed off as either fantasies of right-wing conspiracists, who hope to derail her progressive agenda, or as psychodramas of a struggling progressive couple trying to do good. Either that, or they are minor problems of communication, or were courageous stances taken to advance the cause of the poor, the dispossessed, and the children.

The problem with the Clintons and all postmodern liars goes back to Epimenides’ ancient paradox of the Cretan liar: “All Cretans are liars.” Are we then to believe that the Cretan Epimenides was lying when he insisted that all Cretans (like himself) lie? Were Cretans, then, liars or not? Was Hillary lying when she set up the private server, when she explained away her criminal behavior, or when she insisted she had not lied about her prior lying about lying?

Postmodernist Hillary, however, does believe in absolute truth when it is a matter of checks to the Clinton Foundation not bouncing and aviation fuel being purchased for private jets. Postmodernists do not believe that truth exists for others in the abstract; but for themselves it most certainly does and advantageously so in the concrete.

The danger to democracy is never from the bad liars who patently fabricate for self, but from the sophisticated and progressive good liars who lie that their untruth is truth because it was all made up for us.

Imagine There’s No Border, Victor Hanson [nc]

Imagine There’s No Border
September 1, 2016 12:08 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
A world without boundaries is a fantasy.
By Victor Davis Hanson // City Journal

Borders are in the news as never before. After millions of young, Muslim, and mostly male refugees flooded into the European Union last year from the war-torn Middle East, a popular revolt arose against the so-called Schengen Area agreements, which give free rights of movement within Europe. The concurrent suspension of most E.U. external controls on immigration and asylum rendered the open-borders pact suddenly unworkable. The European masses are not racists, but they now apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the degree that these newcomers arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook—protocols that the E.U. essentially discarded decades ago as intolerant. Europeans are relearning that the continent’s external borders mark off very different approaches to culture and society from what prevails in North Africa or the Middle East.

A similar crisis plays out in the United States, where President Barack Obama has renounced his former opposition to open borders and executive-order amnesties. Since 2012, the U.S. has basically ceased policing its southern border. The populist pushback against the opening of the border with Mexico gave rise to the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump—predicated on the candidate’s promise to build an impenetrable border wall—much as the flood of migrants into Germany fueled opposition to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term “illegal alien” has given way to the nebulous “unlawful immigrant.” This, in turn, has given way to “undocumented immigrant,” “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant”—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.

Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants.

Dreams of a borderless world are not new, however. The biographer and moralist Plutarch claimed in his essay “On Exile” that Socrates had once asserted that he was not just an Athenian but instead “a citizen of the cosmos.” In later European thought, Communist ideas of universal labor solidarity drew heavily on the idea of a world without borders. “Workers of the world, unite!” exhorted Marx and Engels. Wars broke out, in this thinking, only because of needless quarreling over obsolete state boundaries. The solution to this state of endless war, some argued, was to eliminate borders in favor of transnational governance. H. G. Wells’s prewar science-fiction novel The Shape of Things to Come envisioned borders eventually disappearing as elite transnational polymaths enforced enlightened world governance. Such fictions prompt fads in the contemporary real world, though attempts to render borders unimportant—as, in Wells’s time, the League of Nations sought to do—have always failed. Undaunted, the Left continues to cherish the vision of a borderless world as morally superior, a triumph over artificially imposed difference.

Yet the truth is that borders do not create difference—they reflect it. Elites’ continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive.
H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel “The Shape of Things to Come”; envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel “The Shape of Things to Come” envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

Borders—and the fights to keep or change them—are as old as agricultural civilization. In ancient Greece, most wars broke out over border scrubland. The contested upland eschatia offered little profit for farming but possessed enormous symbolic value for a city-state to define where its own culture began and ended. The self-acclaimed “citizen of the cosmos” Socrates nonetheless fought his greatest battle as a parochial Athenian hoplite in the ranks of the phalanx at the Battle of Delium—waged over the contested borderlands between Athens and Thebes. Fifth-century Athenians such as Socrates envisioned Attica as a distinct cultural, political, and linguistic entity, within which its tenets of radical democracy and maritime-based imperialism could function quite differently from the neighboring oligarchical agrarianism at Thebes. Attica in the fourth century BC built a system of border forts to protect its northern boundary.

Throughout history, the trigger points of war have traditionally been such borderlands—the methoria between Argos and Sparta, the Rhine and Danube as the frontiers of Rome, or the Alsace-Lorraine powder keg between France and Germany. These disputes did not always arise, at least at first, as efforts to invade and conquer a neighbor. They were instead mutual expressions of distinct societies that valued clear-cut borders—not just as matters of economic necessity or military security but also as a means of ensuring that one society could go about its unique business without the interference and hectoring of its neighbors.

Advocates for open borders often question the historical legitimacy of such territorial boundaries. For instance, some say that when “Alta” California declared its autonomy from Mexico in 1846, the new border stranded an indigenous Latino population in what would shortly become the 31st of the United States. “We didn’t cross the border,” these revisionists say. “The border crossed us.” In fact, there were probably fewer than 10,000 Spanish-speakers residing in California at the time. Thus, almost no contemporary Californians of Latino descent can trace their state residency back to the mid-nineteenth century. They were not “crossed” by borders. And north–south demarcation, for good or evil, didn’t arbitrarily separate people.

What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs.

The history of borders has been one of constant recalibration, whether dividing up land or unifying it. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 was idealistic not for eliminating borders but for drawing new ones. The old borders, established by imperial powers, supposedly caused World War I; the new ones would better reflect, it was hoped, ethnic and linguistic realities, and thus bring perpetual peace. But the world created at Versailles was blown apart by the Third Reich. German chancellor Adolf Hitler didn’t object to the idea of borders per se; rather, he sought to remake them to encompass all German-speakers—and later so-called Aryans—within one political entity, under his absolute control. Many nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century German intellectuals and artists—among them the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, historian Oswald Spengler, and composer Richard Wagner—agreed that the Roman Empire’s borders marked the boundaries of civilization. Perversely, however, they celebrated their status as the unique “other” that had been kept out of a multiracial Western civilization. Instead, Germany mythologized itself as racially exceptional, precisely because, unlike other Western European nations, it was definable not only by geography or language but also by its supposed racial purity. The fairy-tale origins of the German Volk were traced back before the fifth century AD and predicated on the idea that Germanic tribes for centuries were kept on the northern and eastern sides of the Danube and Rhine Rivers. Thus, in National Socialist ideology, early German, white-skinned, Aryan noble savages paradoxically avoided a mongrelizing and enervating assimilation into the civilized Roman Empire—an outcome dear to the heart of Nazi crackpot racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) and the autodidact Adolf Hitler. World War II was fought to restore the old Eastern European borders that Hitler and Mussolini had erased—but it ended with the creation of entirely new ones, reflecting the power and presence of Soviet continental Communism, enforced by the huge Russian Red Army.

Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a “citizen of the world.” Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside and that the higher the fence goes (“higher and stronger,” the Secret Service promises), the more of a deterrent it will be to would-be trespassers. If Obama’s previous wall was six feet high, the proposed 11 feet should be even better.

In 2011, open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to build a wall around the official mayoral residence. His un-walled neighbors objected, first, that there was no need for such a barricade and, second, that it violated a city ordinance prohibiting residential walls higher than four feet. But Villaraigosa apparently wished to emphasize the difference between his home and others (or between his home and the street itself), or was worried about security, or saw a new wall as iconic of his exalted office.

“You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world,” Secretary of State John Kerry recently enthused to the graduating class at Northeastern University. He didn’t sound envious, though, perhaps because Kerry himself doesn’t live in such a world. If he did, he never would have moved his 76-foot luxury yacht from Boston Harbor across the state border to Rhode Island in order to avoid $500,000 in sales taxes and assorted state and local taxes.

While elites can build walls or switch zip codes to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups—Peggy Noonan described them as the “protected” and the “unprotected”—was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico “an act of love,” his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital and influence to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family—in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg offers another case study. The multibillionaire advocates for a fluid southern border and lax immigration enforcement, but he has also stealthily spent $30 million to buy up four homes surrounding his Palo Alto estate. They form a sort of no-man’s-land defense outside his own Maginot Line fence, presumably designed against hoi polloi who might not share Zuckerberg’s taste or sense of privacy. Zuckerberg’s other estate in San Francisco is prompting neighbors’ complaints because his security team takes up all the best parking spaces. Walls and border security seem dear to the heart of the open-borders multibillionaire—when it’s his wall, his border security.

This self-serving dynamic operates beyond the individual level as well. “Sanctuary cities,” for instance, proclaim amnesty for illegal aliens within their municipal boundaries. But proud as they are of their cities’ disdain for federal immigration law, residents of these liberal jurisdictions wouldn’t approve of other cities nullifying other federal laws. What would San Franciscans say if Salt Lake City declared the Endangered Species Act null and void within its city limits, or if Carson City unilaterally suspended federal background checks and waiting periods for handgun purchases? Moreover, San Francisco and Los Angeles do believe in clearly delineated borders when it comes to their right to maintain a distinct culture, with distinct rules and customs. Their self-righteousness aside, sanctuary cities neither object to the idea of borders nor to their enforcement—only to the notion that protecting the southern U.S. border is predicated on the very same principles.

More broadly, ironies and contradictions abound in the arguments and practices of open-borders advocates. In academia, even modern historians of the ancient world, sensing the mood and direction of larger elite culture, increasingly rewrite the fall of fifth-century AD Rome, not as a disaster of barbarians pouring across the traditional fortified northern borders of the Rhine and Danube—the final limites that for centuries kept out perceived barbarism from classical civilization—but rather as “late antiquity,” an intriguing osmosis of melting borders and cross-fertilization, leading to a more diverse and dynamic intersection of cultures and ideas. Why, then, don’t they cite Vandal treatises on medicine, Visigothic aqueducts, or Hunnish advances in dome construction that contributed to this rich new culture of the sixth or seventh century AD? Because these things never existed.

Academics may now caricature borders, but key to their posturing is either an ignorance of, or an unwillingness to address, why tens of millions of people choose to cross borders in the first place, leaving their homelands, language fluency, or capital—and at great personal risk. The answer is obvious, and it has little to do with natural resources or climate: migration, as it was in Rome during the fifth century AD, or as it was in the 1960s between mainland China and Hong Kong—and is now in the case of North and South Korea—has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations. People walk, climb, swim, and fly across borders, secure in the knowledge that boundaries mark different approaches to human experience, with one side usually perceived as more successful or inviting than the other.

Western rules that promote a greater likelihood of consensual government, personal freedom, religious tolerance, transparency, rationalism, an independent judiciary, free-market capitalism, and the protection of private property combine to offer the individual a level of prosperity, freedom, and personal security rarely enjoyed at home. As a result, most migrants make the necessary travel adjustments to go westward—especially given that Western civilization, uniquely so, has usually defined itself by culture, not race, and thus alone is willing to accept and integrate those of different races who wish to share its protocols.

Many unassimilated Muslims in the West often are confused about borders and assume that they can ignore Western jurisprudence and yet rely on it in extremis. Today’s migrant from Morocco might resent the bare arms of women in France, or the Pakistani new arrival in London might wish to follow sharia law as he knew it in Punjab. But implicit are two unmentionable constants: the migrant most certainly does not wish to return to face sharia law in Morocco or Pakistan. Second, if he had his way, institutionalizing his native culture into that of his newly adopted land, he would eventually flee the results—and once again likely go somewhere else, for the same reasons that he left home in the first place. London Muslims may say that they demand sharia law on matters of religion and sex, but such a posture assumes the unspoken condition that the English legal system remains supreme, and thus, as Muslim minorities, they will not be thrown out of Britain as religious infidels—as Christians are now expelled from the Middle East.

Even the most adamant ethnic chauvinists who want to erase the southern border assume that some sort of border is central to their own racial essence. The National Council of La Raza (“the race”; Latin, radix) is the largest lobbying body for open borders with Mexico. Yet Mexico itself supports the idea of boundaries. Mexico City may harp about alleged racism in the United States directed at its immigrants, but nothing in U.S. immigration law compares with Mexico’s 1974 revision of its “General Law of Population” and its emphasis on migrants not upsetting the racial makeup of Mexico—euphemistically expressed as preserving “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” In sum, Mexican nationals implicitly argue that borders, which unfairly keep them out of the United States, are nonetheless essential to maintaining their own pure raza.

Migration has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations.

Mexico, in general, furiously opposes enforcing the U.S.–Mexican border and, in particular, the proposed Trump wall that would bar unauthorized entry into the U.S.—not on any theory of borders discourse but rather because Mexico enjoys fiscal advantages in exporting its citizens northward, whether in ensuring nearly $30 billion in remittances, creating a powerful lobby of expatriates in the U.S., or finding a safety valve for internal dissent. Note that this view does not hold when it comes to accepting northward migrations of poorer Central Americans. In early 2016, Mexico ramped up its border enforcement with Guatemala, adding more security forces, and rumors even circulated of a plan to erect occasional fences to augment the natural barriers of jungle and rivers. Apparently, Mexican officials view poorer Central Americans as quite distinct from Mexicans—and thus want to ensure that Mexico remains separate from a poorer Guatemala.

When I wrote an article titled “Do We Want Mexifornia?” for City Journal ’s Spring 2002 issue, I neither invented the word “Mexifornia” nor intended it as a pejorative. Instead, I expropriated the celebratory term from Latino activists, both in the academy and in ethnic gangs in California prisons. In Chicano studies departments, the fusion of Mexico and California was envisioned as a desirable and exciting third-way culture. Mexifornia was said to be arising within 200 to 300 miles on either side of an ossified Rio Grande border. Less clearly articulated were Mexifornia’s premises: millions of Latinos and mestizos would create a new ethnic zone, which, for some mysterious reason, would also enjoy universities, sophisticated medical services, nondiscrimination laws, equality between the sexes, modern housing, policing, jobs, commerce, and a judiciary—all of which would make Mexifornia strikingly different from what is currently found in Mexico and Central America.

When Latino youths disrupt a Donald Trump rally, they often wave Mexican flags or flash placards bearing slogans such as “Make America Mexico Again.” But note the emotional paradox: in anger at possible deportation, undocumented aliens nonsensically wave the flag of the country that they most certainly do not wish to return to, while ignoring the flag of the nation in which they adamantly wish to remain. Apparently, demonstrators wish to brand themselves with an ethnic cachet but without sacrificing the advantages that being an American resident has over being a Mexican citizen inside Mexico. If no borders existed between California and Mexico, then migrants in a few decades might head to Oregon, even as they demonstrated in Portland to “Make Oregon into California.”

Removing borders in theory, then, never seems to match expectations in fact, except in those rare occasions when nearly like societies exist side by side. No one objects to a generally open Canadian border because passage across it, numbers-wise, is roughly identical in either direction—and Canadians and Americans share a language and similar traditions and standard of living, along with a roughly identical approach to democracy, jurisprudence, law enforcement, popular culture, and economic practice. By contrast, weakening demarcated borders between diverse peoples has never appealed to the citizens of distinct nations. Take even the most vociferous opponents of a distinguishable and enforceable border, and one will observe a disconnect between what they say and do—given the universal human need to circumscribe, demarcate, and protect one’s perceived private space.

Again, the dissipation of national borders is possible only between quite similar countries, such as Canada and the U.S. or France and Belgium, or on those few occasions when a supranational state or empire can incorporate different peoples by integrating, assimilating, and intermarrying tribes of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities into a common culture—and then, of course, protect them with distinct and defensible external borders. But aside from Rome before the fourth century AD and America of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, few societies have been able to achieve E pluribus unum. Napoleon’s transnational empire didn’t last 20 years. Britain never tried to create a holistic overseas body politic in the way that, after centuries of strife, it had forged the English-speaking United Kingdom. The Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires all fell apart after World War I, in a manner mimicked by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s. Rwanda and Iraq don’t reflect the meaninglessness of borders but the desire of distinct peoples to redraw colonial lines to create more logical borders to reflect current religious, ethnic, and linguistic realities. When Ronald Reagan thundered at the Brandenburg Gate, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” he assumed that by 1987, German-speakers on both sides of the Berlin Wall were more alike than not and in no need of a Soviet-imposed boundary inside Germany. Both sides preferred shared consensual government to Communist authoritarianism. Note that Reagan did not demand that Western nations dismantle their own borders with the Communist bloc.

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” Robert Frost famously wrote, “That wants it down.” True, but the poet concedes in his “Mending Wall” that in the end, he accepts the logic of his crustier neighbor: “He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’ ” From my own experience in farming, two issues—water and boundaries—cause almost all feuds with neighbors. As I write, I’m involved in a border dispute with a new neighbor. He insists that the last row of his almond orchard should be nearer to the property line than is mine. That way, he can use more of my land as common space to turn his equipment than I will use of his land. I wish that I could afford to erect a wall between us.

The end of borders, and the accompanying uncontrolled immigration, will never become a natural condition—any more than sanctuary cities, unless forced by the federal government, will voluntarily allow out-of-state agencies to enter their city limits to deport illegal aliens, or Mexico will institutionalize free entry into its country from similarly Spanish-speaking Central American countries.

Borders are to distinct countries what fences are to neighbors: means of demarcating that something on one side is different from what lies on the other side, a reflection of the singularity of one entity in comparison with another. Borders amplify the innate human desire to own and protect property and physical space, which is impossible to do unless it is seen—and can be so understood—as distinct and separate. Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.

August 30, 2016

Response to Phyllis’ ‘Wow’ pro-Hillary email

[I got the following email chain of two, one from John responding to Phyllis. I sent John what follows Phyllis’ email to him. Please, think before you vote in November. Keep in mind that not voting is a vote for the other guy.]

John: Lots of famous, incredible/good people experience financial failures as well as other types of failures. I remain unaffiliated as I don’t wholly support any party platform. Indeed, this has been an interesting campaign cycle. Both are bright and either will face new challenges heretofore nuvo. The media have been so provocative. I could covet them with plenty of other pejoratives as well.

All would do well to forget about scrutinizing personal medical, income tax, family and concentrate on defining issues and solutions to problems. This isn’t just a battle for public office. It’s a chance to explore/expose and hopefully create workable solutions to our many problems that we face now and towards perpetuity. Please God, May we the people choose wisely.

From: Phyllis Subject: Wow!

Hi–I was surprised to read that Meg Whitmann is now campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Ms. Whitmann called Trump a loutish demagogue. Warrenn Buffett, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Cuban have also endorsed Hillary. John, the man is just too volatile, ignorant of knowledge about the world and dangerous to be President. A man who has declared bankruptcy 6 times? That means that he cheated a lot of people. Frankly, I’ve heard him a few times and found him frightening because he sounds like Hitler.


IS your friend, Phyllis, serious???

Hillary is a criminal. She & Bill sold the presidency. She personally ordered the murder of Vincent Foster in the Blue Room at the White House using a corrupt Secret Service Agent (the book is posted on the book list, “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster”).

Bill and Madelaine Albright gave all sorts of secrets and patents and protected business secrets to the Chinese for, as Madelaine Albright was caught on tape when exiting the U.N. saying, that we cannot have a single super-power, so she and Bill were building up China to ‘balance’ the world. Just look at all of those Sino-American scientists charged by the FBI for espionage during the ‘90’s who ‘magically’ had the charges dropped and then never heard from again. All working at Los Alamos, too.

Hillary committed a felony when she destroyed evidence after receiving a subpoena to produce documents. If you know anything about MS Word, what they did to locate those 37,000 emails, was to enter keywords, such as ‘secret,’ ‘top secret,’ &c into the search box, then deleted them all and then over-wrote them, which means that ALL of the missing emails were classified!

She was a complete failure as Secretary of State, ran ‘Fast and Furious’ in cahoots with the racist anti-Semite Eric Holder, had the failed Russian Reboot, no one still knows where she really was during the Benghazi disaster although some sources state that it was supposed to be a kidnapping so that her buddies could exchange an ambassador for Jihadists held at Gitmo.

She has been in contempt of congress more than once.

She has been in continued violation of the Lawyers’ Professional Code of Conduct since being fired from her job as an intern during the Watergate Hearings. She’s been suspended from practice, disbarred and reinstated, failed bar exams finally passing the Arkansas exam.

The list just goes on, and on, and on.

AS to Buffet, he owns the railroads carrying the oil from the Canadian oil fields. That is why he is against the XL Pipeline. The RR has refused to upgrade the tracks, because Buffet knows that the pipeline is a certainty, which is why every 17th train derails and spills tons of oil into the environment, but neither Obama’s OSHA nor his EPA will do anything about it. Buffet makes billions of $ under Obama, and will continue to do so under Clinton as will Cuban and Soros.

Bloomberg is the idiot who has allowed crime back into NYC after Rudy kicked it out; he is also the idiot behind the can’t have 32oz drinks, no sugar, no salt, &c in restaurants.

Mark Cuban is an idiot, and Meg Whitman has probably been promised SCOTUS, after Hillary fills Scalia’s seat with Obama.

As for business bankruptcies, they happen.

According to Hillary, even with the $20,000,000 advance the publishers gave Bill and her for their memoirs, she claimed to be broke coming out of the White House. Anybody who is so stupid as to claim insolvency with $20,000,000 in cash, a guaranteed pension for life of over $1,000,000/yr, guaranteed healthcare, not medicare so $0 premiums, for life, a $14,000,000 estate in Westchester County NY, &c, should not be allowed near the federal budget.

Phyllis should look to the issues, see what Trump is proposing compared to Hillary’s lies and frauds and plans that are guaranteed to not work, like Hillary-Care, Amnesty, The Arab Spring, tax raise for all those making over $125,000 (filing jointly, no less), and how Charity Navigator can’t rate the Clinton Foundation because it is really a money laundering scheme, (give money to the Canadian Clinton Foundation, and they will forward it to the Arkansas Clinton Foundation – a clear violation of the OCC regs [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] as Canada does not require reporting of all transfers of $5,000 or more, which the OCC does).

Trump has been putting forth some good plans and the people that he’s already suggested for his cabinet and SCOTUS show that he’d be a zillion times better as prez than Hillary.

BTW, Phyllis does understand that Hillary supported the Iran-nuke deal, which means that within ten years Tel Aviv will be nuked by a terrorist truck nuke device, driven in from Egypt, doesn’t she? She does understand that about 9% of all Muslims are openly declared Jihadis, which means that under Hillary, there is a good chance that within ten years either she or one of her family will be attacked because they are Jewish and not Muslims, doesn’t she?

Of the just let in 10,000 Syrians, 99,954 are Muslim.

In the last 7 1/2 years, Obama has already let in over over 2,000,000 Muslims from around the world, including 1,000,000 Palestinians. Meaning that there are over 180,000 declared Jihadis in the country just waiting for an opportunity to kill a Jew or Christian, or LGBTQQ, or a woman who shows too much skin or otherwise violates Sha’Ria Law. And, she is aware that NYC Mayor Deblasio has appointed a Sha’Ria judge to the Brooklyn Borough Municipal Court, isn’t she?

I’ve been a Truman Democrat all of my life, accepted the Coward Kennedy as a compromise, and was ashamed of the Cowardly Criminal Carter. I did not vote for Clinton or Obummer. The current GOP is, if one looks at their philosophy and actions, really a reincarnation of the Kennedy administration.

If one wishes to make similies with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, look at Hillary, Bill, and Obama.

August 28, 2016

Charity Navigator article The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation [nc]


• Methodology
Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
Why isn’t this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
Archived Watchlist
EIN 31-1580204
Name in IRS Master File
City, State, Zip LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-1732
NTEE Classification
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion
Health – General and Rehabilitative
Charitable Organization
501(c)(3) (View the list of codes)

Activities (994) Described in section 170(b)1)(a)(vi) of the Code
(61) Library
Foundation Status
Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
Contributions are deductible
Independent – the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
Group Name
[Not Applicable]
Ruling Date
January, 1998
Asset Amount $354,190,170
Income Amount $184,422,359
Form 990 Revenue Amount $177,804,612
Latest Form 990 Return
December, 2014
Filing Requirement
990 (all other) or 990EZ return
Fiscal Year End December
IRS Forms 990
(provided courtesy of Foundation Center)
(Log In or Register Now to View Forms 990!)
• December, 2014
• December, 2013
• December, 2012
• December, 2011
• December, 2010
The data displayed in this profile is provided by the IRS for free in the form of Publication 78 and the Business Master File (BMF).
Learn more about unrated organizations.
We invite you to share your opinions, thoughts, experiences, and stories about this charity here to help inform the decisions of other donors.
Need more help getting started? Check out our FAQs.

This tool is not for questions about Charity Navigator, such as how we derived this charity’s rating. We will happily answer those questions if you contact us directly. Likewise, if you have questions for this charity, then we encourage you to contact the charity directly (we include the charity’s contact information in the upper left-hand corner of this page) since few charities regularly monitor this commenting tool.

Linking To Us
• How to Link to Us
• Search Widget
• Syndicated Content

Copyright ©2016 Charity Navigator. All rights reserved.

August 24, 2016

California and your right to self-defense

Wherever you stand on the issue of gun control, it is important to be well informed. While it is difficult to say how many registered gun owners there are in Sonoma County we do know that recent sales of firearms to have gone up as more restrictive laws are set to go into effect. It is important to stay informed as to prevent law abiding gun owners from unknowingly breaking new laws. Here are some of the changes in the law.

It is important to mention that these laws are not set in stone 100% as VetoGunmageddon.org is working to obtain enough signatures to veto Gov. Browns new bills and put them on the ballot this November.
SB 880 and AB 1135

Together, these new laws reclassify the definition of “assault weapon” and “fixed magazine” as:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

Practical Impact:

Not much has changed other than the definition of the “Fixed Magazine”. New law defines fixed magazine as requiring the disassembly of the firearm action prior to removal of the magazine. This means that firearms with the features listed above combined with a ‘Bullet Button” is no longer legal for possession or transfer/sale. California has also allowed firearms that have been made illegal per the new bills to be registered as assault weapons and allows you to keep them if owned prior to January 1, 2017. However, once registered, you may not sell it or transfer it within California.

If you currently own one of these firearms or own them before January 1, 2017 than your options are as follows:

A. Register it as an assault weapon with the California Department of Justice. (Method of registration is still to be determined.)
B. Remove the firearm from the State of California.
C. Modify the firearm in a way that restricts removal of the magazine unless the firearm action is open.
D. Modify the firearm so that it does not have the features listed above.
E. Surrendered the firearm law enforcement for destruction.


Can I buy the firearm out of state and bring it into California? No, unless the firearm cannot be classified as an assault weapon per the new laws.

Can I later sell my registered assault weapon? No, unless you modify the firearm in a way that it no longer meets the definition of an assault weapon per the new laws and notify the California Department of Justice that the firearm is no longer and assault weapon.

Can I bequest my registered assault weapon to my children when I die? No, once you die, the firearm must be turned in to law enforcement for destruction.

Can I sell my registered assault weapon out of state? Yes, however the legal methods of getting the firearm out of state varies and can potentially be a felony if done incorrectly.

Can I put the registered assault weapon into a trust and pass it down that way? No, California does not recognize Trusts as gun owners.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017

Latest Date to register as an assault weapon: January 1, 2018
AB 1511

New regulations around loaning firearms.

Practical Impact:

Bans loans of longer than 3 days and loans for other than lawful purposes.


Can I still handle that gun at the gun shop? Yes

Can I still rent a gun at the range? Yes

Can I loan a gun while I’m personally still present? Yes

Exemptions: May loan to Parents, children, spouses, siblings, grandparents, or grand children so long as no longer than 30 days, and done so infrequently.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017
AB 1695

Created a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm.

Practical Impact:

Makes it a crime to falsely report lost or stolen firearms.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017
SB 1235

Places restrictions on the purchase / importation of ammunition in California and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases and background checks to be conducted prior to purchasing ammunition. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a local licensed vendor.

Practical Impact:

You would not be able to purchase ammunition online and have it shipped directly to you. Instead, you would purchase the ammunition online, have it shipped to a licensed dealer in California whom can conduct a background check on you prior to releasing the ammunition to you. It has still not been determined what the process or fees will be nor how long it will take.


Am I exempt if I have a C&R License with a COE? – Yes!

Can I buy ammo out of state and bring it in? – No, you are allowed a few small exemptions for hunting and shooting at matches, but can return with no more than 50 rounds .

Does it include reloading components? – Yes, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

Can I sell ammo to my friend? – No, private sales of ammo must go through a licensed dealer.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2018
SB 1446

Banned the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.

Practical Impact:

Prior magazine bans did not ban the possession and now it does. This means all magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds, even magazines that were grandfathered in and owned before January 1, 2001, are now illegal.


What are my options if I already legally own magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges? Your options include: 1) Turning in to Law Enforcement / exempt dealer, 2) Sell out of state or to an exempt person / dealer, 3) remove the magazines from California, or 4) modify the magazine permanently so that it may not accept more than 10 cartridges.

What if I am caught with a magazine that has the ability to hold more than 10 cartridges? The penalty is an infraction which will usually carry a fine. The law also authorizes confiscation of the magazine. You should also contact an attorney as there are usually other firearm based charges that may follow.

Is Law Enforcement exempt? Yes, active and retired law enforcement officers are exempt, even for their personal property.

Can I just take apart my magazines of greater than 10 rounds? The law is not clear on when parts become a magazine. However, you should contact an attorney before attempting to disassemble your magazines.

Are there any other exemptions? Yes, If you have a firearm for which you owned a magazine and no 10 round magazine is available, you may keep that high-capacity magazine. However you should contact an attorney to assist in compliance.

Are magazines that look like 30 round magazines but only hold 10 rounds also known as “10/30’s” banned? No, 10/30’s are not affected so long as they are permanently modified to only hold no more than 10 rounds.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017
AB 857

Requires unique identification for all firearms and uncompleted receiver blanks that are readily able to be converted to a functional firearm.

Practical Impact:

All firearms legally manufactured from 80% blanks as well as all other firearms legally manufactured by unlicensed individuals must have unique identification engraved into the firearm. This means that if you have ever built a firearm from an 80% receiver, it must be engraved with unique identifying information. If this information is not engraved into the firearm by January 1, 2018 than you must request a unique serial number from the California Department of Justice. In order to manufacture a new firearm after January 1, 2018 you must First request a serial number from the California Department of Justice prior to beginning manufacture. This applies to all firearms manufactured after 1968 and is not a handgun. “Firearm” now includes the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver more commonly known as an 80% receiver. Yu may no longer purchase an 80% receiver in California unless done through a Licensed firearms dealer who voluntarily manufactures it by engraving their manufacture information.


Can I sell a firearm I manufactured after I have engraved the serial number and other information on it? No.

Do I have to put my name as the manufacturer? Yes, this is a federal requirement when serializing.

What Model is my firearm? You can choose this to be whatever you like!

What serial number can I choose if I serialize before January 1, 2018? You can choose any serial number you like, but it must be in English and must contain numbers.

So what are my options again?

If no serial number is engraved on the firearm prior to January 1, 2018, you must apply to the California Department of Justice for a unique serial number to be engraved. If manufacturing after January 1, 2018 you must request the unique serial number prior to manufacturing the firearm.

If you plan on serializing your own unique information prior to January 1, 2018 you must inconspicuously engrave your first and last name, the city and state in which you manufactured the firearm, the model designation of the firearm, the caliber, as well as a unique serial number.

These new laws are all highly technical and you may suffer severe consequences such as felony charges as well as losing firearm ownership rights for life if convicted. It is highly recommended that you consult an attorney prior to taking any firearm related action.

Categories: Criminal Defense, Murder and you can count on the little toes of your left foot how many criminals follow the law!

August 18, 2016

Mine Worker Pension Fund to be Bailed Out by YOU, [c]

[The following may be found in .pdf at: http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4600.pdf . In its original form, the charts are readable and the format is reader friendly. Now, as to why it is here:

As already explained in its proper place in the document, if the UMWA pension fund is bailed out, then more money that that spent on the entire defense budget will be spent bailing out underfunded union pension plans. This will lead to the bailing out of public sector pension plans, like the teachers in all of the states, especially California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. Also the various police, fire, administrative staff, clerks, janitors, and any and all public employees. It means that those states who have voluntarily bankrupted themselves, will be bailed out.

Consider the following:

1. the deals made to fund these pensions was made by the properly elected union leaders, and the managers of the various industries;
2. As in the UMWA situation, consider how the interference of the various government entities, especially the EPA and FDA, have ruined so many businesses that those businesses cannot fund their pensions. Notice how the various regulations ruined the automotive industry and contributed to the failed UAW pension fund and how that contributed to the Clinton/sub-prime HUD meltdown in 2008;
3. consider how this violates constitution article IV ( might be VI, I don’t have a copy to hand ) prohibiting federal government messing with contracts; and,
4. did YOU have anything to do with these various contractual commitments? I did not. Under what legal or moral proposition should we be held to a contract that we were not party to? What is the difference between this and someone who buys a car and gets a lemon? Isn’t that person’s remedy to sue the dealer with whom he had that contract for sale? What legal or moral concept drags me into that problem?

Y’all need to contact your federal legislators and demand that they commit to NOT bailing these people, or any others similarly situated, out!]

Why a Coal Miner Pension Bailout Could Open the Door to a
$600 Billion Pension Bailout for All Private Unions
Rachel Greszler
No. 4600 | August 15, 2016
Congress is looking to pass legislation that would
use taxpayer dollars to bail out the overpromised,
underfunded pension plan of the United Mine
Workers of America (UMWA). Such an unprecedented
move would send the message that Congress
will stand behind sending trillions of dollars in overpromised,
underfunded public and private pension
obligations across the country. The federal government
already provides a backstop for failed union
and other private pension plans by insuring them
through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC). Congress should avoid bailing out select
pension plans at all costs and should instead reform
the PBGC so that it can meet its obligations without
a taxpayer bailout.
Coal Miner Bailout Just Tip of the
The UMWA pension plan is massively underfunded.
It has promised $5.6 billion more in pension
benefits than it will be able to pay.1 Although
the UMWA pension plan is among the worst-funded
pension plans, it represents only one of more than
1,300 multiemployer (union) pension plans across
the U.S. Almost all of these plans have made promises
they cannot keep.
According to the PBGC, a whopping 96 percent of
all multiemployer plans have funding ratios of less
than 60 percent—meaning they have less than 60
percent of the funds necessary to pay promised benefits.
2 In total, multiemployer plans have promised
over $600 billion more than they are estimated to be
able to pay.3
If Congress passes legislation to bail out the
UMWA pension plan with nearly a half a billion dollars
a year, what will stop it from passing legislation
to bail out the other 1,200 plans that have more than
$600 billion in unfunded promises? If Congress
forces taxpayers to bail out private union plans, why
not also private non-union plans that have $760 billion4
in unfunded liabilities, and public plans that
have as much as $4 trillion to $5 trillion5 in unfunded
UMWA Is Not Unique
Some policymakers argue that the UMWA is
unique—that the federal government was somehow
involved in the promises made to UMWA workers
and that the bailout would come from a coal-related
fund. The only thing unique about a UMWA bailout,
however, is that it would mark the first time in history
that Congress would force federal taxpayers to
bail out the unfunded pension promises of private
The notion that the government was somehow
involved in promises made to mine workers comes
from President Harry Truman’s intervention in
a 1946 coal-mining strike, including the government’s
involvement in an agreement that established
the UMWA health and welfare programs.
While the federal government helped to facilitate
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-4400 | heritage.org
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views
of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage
of any bill before Congress.
August 15, 2016 
the establishment of the UMWA’s health and pension
plans, it was the union and its plan trustees—
not the federal government—that vigorously fought
to pay out benefits to retirees who did not earn
those benefits. And, it was the union and its plan
trustees—not the federal government—that consistently
promised pensions and health care benefits
as part of employees’ total compensation packages
and then failed to collect the funds necessary to pay
those benefits.
The Money Will Come from Taxpayers,
Not Just a Coal Fund
Neither policymakers nor the public should be
fooled by the claim that the $490 million per year
UMWA bailout would be paid by the existing Abandoned
Mine Land (AML) reclamation fund (AML).
The AML fund was established in 1977 exclusively
to cover the clean-up costs of damage caused by coal
mines prior to the federal government’s increased regulation.
6 The proposed UMWA pension bailout would
allow the UMWA to use interest from the AML fund
not only for its unfunded retiree health care costs (as
already allowed), but also for its unfunded pensions.
As Senator Mike Enzi (R–WY) pointed out in a recent
floor speech, this would be akin to allowing the massively
underfunded pension plan of the Central States
trucking union to access the highway trust fund.7
Regardless, it is unlikely that much, if any, of
the $490 million per year in pension bailout costs
would come from the AML fund. In recent years, the
entirety of interest earned on the AML fund, plus
hundreds of millions more in taxpayer dollars, has
gone to the UMWA for its unfunded, yet gold-plated,
retiree health care costs, leaving nothing for a
potential pension bailout. Moreover, the Administration’s
most recent budget included a request for
$363 million in taxpayer funds to “strengthen the
health care and pension funds” of UMWA retirees.8
Clearly, taxpayers—not a coal fund—would be on the
hook for the nearly half-billion dollars a year UMWA
pension bailout.
A Pension Backstop Already Exists
When a multiemployer pension plan runs out of
funds, it turns to the PBGC, which provides financial
assistance to the plan to cover insured benefits
as well as the plan’s expenses. Virtually all private
pension plans are required to purchase PBGC
insurance. The PBGC covers up to $12,870 per year
in pension benefits for a worker with 30 years of
In 2015, the PBGC paid $103 million to about
54,000 retirees of failed multiemployer pension
plans.10 This pales in comparison, however, to what
the PBGC’s liabilities will be over the coming decade
1. According to the UMWA’s form 5500 filing for the year ended December 2014, the plan has $5.6 billion in “current value” unfunded liabilities,
with assets of $4.165 billion and liabilities of $9.735 billion.
2. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, “Data Book Listing,” Table M-13, Plans, Participants and Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by
Funding Ratio (2013) Multiemployer Program, http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-data-tables-final.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_
medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery (accessed July 19, 2016).
3. Ibid., Table M-9, Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980–2013) Multiemployer Program.
4. Ibid., Table S-44, Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-2013) Single-Employer Program.
5. Joe Luppino-Esposito, “Promises Made, Promises Broken 2014: Unfunded Liabilities Hit $4.7 trillion,” American Legislative Exchange Council,
November 12, 2014, https://www.alec.org/article/promises-made-promises-broken-2014-unfunded-liabilities-hit-4-7-trillion/
(accessed July 21, 2016).
6. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands: Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act,” May 21, 2015, http://www.osmre.gov/programs/AML.shtm (accessed July 25, 2016).
7. Mike Enzi, “Supporting Pensions with Taxpayer Dollars Is a Slippery Slope,” speech on the Senate floor, July 12, 2016,
(accessed July 21, 2016).
8. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “The United States Department of the Interior Budget Justification and Performance
Information Fiscal Year 2016,” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/budget/appropriations/2016/upload/FY2016_OSMRE_
Greenbook.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016).
9. The PBGC’s multiemployer program provides benefits based on a formula including earned benefits and years of service. This translates into
maximum benefits of: $4,290 per year for workers with 10 years of service; $8,580 for workers with 20 years of service; $12,870 for workers
with 30 years of service; and $17,160 for workers with 40 years of service. The levels are not indexed for inflation.
10. PBGC, 2015 Annual Report, http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-annual-report.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016).
August 15, 2016 
and beyond as an increasing number of multiemployer
pension plans—including some very large
ones—become insolvent.
Under ordinary circumstances, when the UMWA
plan becomes insolvent sometime within the next
decade, the PBGC would begin making payments to
the plan to cover its insured benefits and expenses.11
If Congress intervenes by bailing out the UMWA
pension plan, its beneficiaries would receive 100 percent
of promised benefits, instead of the lower PBGC
guarantee. And, the UMWA would get off scot-free—
with taxpayers and other coal-mining companies
footing the bill for their unfunded promises.
Meanwhile, other multiemployer plans that
become insolvent and do not receive special-interest
bailouts would first receive cuts down to the PBGC’s
11. The UMWA estimates it will be insolvent in 2025, but more reasonable assumptions project an earlier insolvency.
IB 4600 heritage.org
SOURCES: Author’s calculations based on the UMWA’s pension benefits for a 62-year-old worker who retires in 2016 with 30 years of work
history. Data on UMWA’s pension eligibility are from UMWA Health and Retirement Funds, Pension Eligibility Requirements,
http://www.umwafunds.org/Pension-Survivor-Health/Pages/Eligibility-Requirements.aspx (accessed March 9, 2016). Data on pension benefit
cuts are based on PBGC’s guaranteed level and U.S. Government Accountability O•ce, “Private Pensions: Multiemployer Plans and PBGC Face
Urgent Challenges,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, March 5, 2013, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652687.pdf (accessed March 10, 2016).
Mine Worker Bailout Would Unfairly Preserve UMWA Pensions
While Other Pensions Face Massive Cuts
By bailing out the
insolvent UMWA
pension plan, the
full benefit would
remain intact at
$24,246 per year.
However, if another pension
plan that oers similar benefits
becomes insolvent, the PBGC
would take over payments and
benefits would be cut to a
maximum of $12,780 per year.
And if the PBGC itself becomes
insolvent, as is projected to occur
by 2025, pensions paid by the
PBGC would be cut by an
additional 90 percent or more,
leaving only $1,278 per year.
$24,246 $24,246
August 15, 2016 
guaranteed level, and then, when the PBGC becomes
insolvent at its estimated date of 2025, benefits
would be cut even further, down to mere pennies on
the dollar in promised benefits.
Congress’s Priority: Reforming the PBGC
Congress has no role in fulfilling the unfunded
promises of private pension plans. It does have a role,
however, in providing private pension insurance
through the PBGC. While the PBGC is a government
entity, it is not taxpayer-financed. It operates with
the premiums that it collects from participating
employers and unions. To prevent taxpayers from
bailing out private pension promises, it must remain
The PBGC is supposed to protect pensioners
from a total loss of promised benefits if their company
or pension plan becomes bankrupt, but its current
financial situation offers little insurance. For
a whole host of reasons, the PBGC’s multiemployer
program is massively underfunded and is projected
to run dry in 2025. Without significant reforms, or
a taxpayer bailout, of the PBGC, its multiemployer
beneficiaries would quickly see their benefits cut by
90 percent or more, leaving those retirees with less
than $100 per month in pension benefits.
Instead of protecting the promises of private
union pension plans, Congress should focus on protecting
the promises it has made through its own
entity, the PBGC. This can be done by ending the
preferential treatment (including funding rules
and assumptions) of multiemployer pension plans;
granting greater authority as well as liability to
plan trustees to encourage proper funding; structuring
the PBGC like a private insurance company,
allowing it to set its own premiums and to charge
variable-rate premiums; allowing the PBGC to take
over failed multiemployer plans as it does failed single-
employer plans; and subjecting multiemployer
pension plans to the same rules as single-employer
—Rachel Greszler is Senior Policy Analyst in
Economics and Entitlements in the Center for Data
Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and
Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.
12. Rachel Greszler, “Bankrupt Pensions and Insolvent Pension Insurance: The Case of Multiemployer Pensions and the PBGC’s Multiemployer
Program,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3029, July 30, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/bankruptpensions-
$52 billion:
in 2015
2000 2005 2010 2015
IB 4600 heritage.org
SOURCE: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Table M–1,
“Net Financial Positions of PBGC’s (1980–2015)
Multiemployer Program,” http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/
2014-data-tables-final.pdf (accessed August 3, 2016).
The PBGC’s multiemployer
provides insurance to
private union pension
plans, but it faces
massive deficits and
will be unable to pay
insured benefits
without significant
PBGC’s Multiemployer Program:
Massive and Growing Deficits
 ­ billion
€­ billion
‚­ billion
ƒ­ billion

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.