Justplainbill's Weblog

June 5, 2017

A Response to Butch re Fed Court Abuse 5 Jun 17

Butch got upset with a recent segment of Tucker Carlson that showed a blatantly legislating federal judge. My immediate response didn’t completely satisfy him. Below are Article III and part of Article II plus the reasoning behind them which are in

The Heartland Plan

, which may be found as a section in The Albany Plan Re-Visited available at http://www.bn.com/ebooks for $10.

Article III
The Judiciary

§3.01 The Judicial Power of these United States, shall be in a Federal System of trial and appellate courts with District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeals, and one Supreme Court of Appeals, with jurisdictions as follows:
§3.01.01 District Courts shall be trial courts
§3.01.01a District Courts shall be apportioned among the states regardless of state boundaries
§3.01.01b Their jurisdictional borders shall be identical to the geographic borders of the contiguous congressional districts assigned to them by The Congress
§3.01.01b(i) No District Court may have fewer than one congressional district nor more than seven (7) congressional districts within its purview
§3.01.01c In criminal cases, the jury shall consist of no fewer than eleven (11) voting members and no more than twenty-one (21) voting members
§3.01.01c(i) a guilty verdict may be brought in by eighty percent (80%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01c(ii) a death penalty verdict may be brought in by ninety percent (90%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01d In civil cases, the jury shall consist of no fewer than seven (7) voting members and no more than fifteen (15) voting members
§3.01.01d(i) a liability verdict may be brought in by sixty-five percent (65%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01d(ii) a punitive damages award may be brought in by eighty percent (80%) of the voting members rounded down
§3.01.01e There shall be no more than three times (3X) the number of voting members of alternates, and no less than two (2) alternates on every jury
§3.01.01f In the event of a deadlocked or tied jury, or the minimum number of jurors be passed, the judge shall seal the record and the Circuit Court of Appeals for his district shall immediately certify the record for appeal and decision
§3.01.01f(i) In addition to reviewing the record for legal errors, this Circuit Court of Appeal shall also render the verdict including all damages, real, compensatory, and punitive or in a criminal case, set the penalty including death
§3.01.02 There shall be several Circuit Courts of Appeals placed over the District Courts by The Congress
§3.01.02a Upon appropriate appeal made, the Circuit Court shall review the record for all errors of law and fact
§3.01.02b There shall be a separate Federal Court of Distinctive Appeal, which shall be responsible for all appeals from administrative and military courts
§3.01.02b(i) The Federal Court of Distinctive Appeal shall be located at the capitol but may create and order special magistrates to any locale for fact finding, but never decision making
§3.01.03 There shall be one Supreme Court of Appeal over all the Circuit Courts of Appeal
§3.01.03a Upon appropriate appeal made, the Supreme Court shall review the records and decisions of the lower courts for errors of law and fact
§3.01.03b The Supreme Court shall be responsible for resolving disputes between the circuits
§3.01.03b(i) It shall resolve disputes between the circuits as soon as they occur and certify the records no later than sixty (60) days from the rendering of the contrary decision
§3.01.03b(ii) All circuit disputes shall be resolved during the term in which they are certified, the court staying in session until its work is completed
§3.02 The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls and civil servants when performing within the scope of their employment; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; and to appellate controversies between two or more states, and between a state, or citizens thereto, and foreign states, citizens or subjects
§3.02.01 All Supreme Court decisions interpreting statutes or this Constitution of these United States, shall be, on the day rendered, forwarded to the Congress for complete acceptance, partial acceptance and remand, rejection and remand, or rejection and direction pursuant to §1.08.01a
§3.03 Eligibility requirements for the Federal Bar
§3.03.01 All Judges, Justices and U.S. Attorneys must meet the same eligibility requirements as those for president
§3.03.02 All private counselors and advisors, appearing in that capacity in Federal Court, must meet the same eligibility requirements as those for members of congress
§3.04 Representation of parties
§3.04.01 Only U.S. Attorneys shall be members of the Federal Bar
§3.04.02 All causes, criminal, civil, administrative, or other, will be assigned to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution, and to a second U.S. Attorney for defense
§3.04.03 Any and all parties to a Federal Action may, at his own non-reimbursable expense, hire a licensed member of any bar as a counselor to assist the U.S. Attorney assigned to represent him
§3.04.03a The Court, at its discretion or upon motion of a party, may, but is not required to, and it shall be reviewable on appeal, order more than one U.S. Attorney to represent a party in a Federal Action
§3.05 Everyone protected by this constitution has access to this court provided this court has subject matter jurisdiction
§3.05.01 Every petitioner shall submit his claim to the district court in which he lives
§3.05.01a the petition shall be reviewed by two U.S. Attorneys and one judge for appropriateness
§3.05.01a(i) Appropriateness shall include a decision on jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal
§3.05.01a(ii) Appropriateness shall include a decision on frivolity
§3.05.01a(iii) If the suit be found inappropriate, it will be returned with instructions on where and how to properly file it
§3.05.01a(iv) If the suit be found inappropriate for frivolity, the petitioner shall be charged the full expense of filing and assessment
§3.05.02 If the claim be appropriate, the court will prepare the petition for filing in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and assign it to the appropriate District Court wherever that shall be
§3.05.02a The appropriate District Court shall take charge of the suit, file it, assign a court, a plaintiff’s attorney and a defense attorney from its available pool of U.S. Attorneys, and perform all other necessary functions for the just and expeditious resolution of the claim
§3.06 Juries
§3.06.01 Every Bona Fide Corporeal Federal Citizen is subject to jury duty without recourse, except:
§3.06.01a Those actually in hospital
§3.06.01b Those adjudged mentally or physically incompetent by both a doctor of competent jurisdiction and a sitting Federal Court or under the age of eighteen (18) years
§3.06.01c Military or Civil Servants serving overseas or whose duties are of such paramount necessity to the public defense or health that to require their attendance endangers the public welfare
§3.06.01c(i) In such cases jury duty is postponed, not exempted
§3.06.01d Those scheduled to have life saving surgery during the time estimated for trial
§3.06.01d(i) In such cases jury duty is postponed, not exempted
§3.06.01e The President of the United States; The Speaker of The House; and, The Counter-Speaker of The House
§3.06.02 Jurors shall be compensated for their service by bringing the prior year’s 1040-IRA form and an hourly compensation will then be ascertained; compensation will then be at the hourly rate for the first forty (40) hours per week with the next twenty (20) hours at one hundred and fifty percent (150%) for the next twenty hours in that week and at two hundred and twenty five percent (225%) for each weekly hour past sixty (60)
§3.06.02a The court shall provide the second meal for any day where the juror’s time exceeds eight (8) hours
§3.06.02b Jurors shall supply the court with a statement of benefits from their employer or other provider of same and the court shall directly reimburse the provider the cost of such benefits for the duration of jury duty
§3.06.03 There shall be no peremptory challenges
§3.06.04 No potential juror shall be dismissed for any reason other than cause shown and cause shown is reviewable by the appellate court
§3.06.05 Avoidance of jury duty, or the filing of false information to avoid jury duty, is a felony
§3.07 Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort, or in supporting them financially or materially
§3.07.01 No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court
§3.07.02 The penalty for treason is death without stay or pardon
§3.07.03 No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted
§3.08 No Federal Court at any time nor in any manner may grant a criminal greater rights or privileges than has a bona fide corporeal citizen of these United States of America
§3.09 Federal Judges and Attorneys shall have, once appointed, tenure for life or voluntary retirement, excepting that:
§3.09.01 §1.03.05 applies
§3.09.02 The President or the House may remove any judge or attorney for medical or psychological reasons, proven in a court of competent jurisdiction, including but not limited to, a finding of drug or alcohol dependence or abuse
§3.09.03 A judge or attorney once dismissed, may never be reinstated

§3.01 & §3.02

What appear to be overwhelming changes from the 1787 Constitution are actually what was originally intended in the 1787 Constitution, by both the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians, were reiterated in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, and from time to time by various presidents and governmental watchdog groups, each having recommended one or all of these things. Each time that one or more of these have been suggested, the United States Supreme Court has made its next decision on whatever subject raised everyone’s ire, a slightly retrograde decision which never recovers a tenth of the ground lost but which placates all of the court watchers but has continually moved us into the realm of socialism and of judicial legislation. The quick proof is to look at almost any controversial opinion made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and where the U.S. Supreme Court has ultimately ended up. Another quick proof is to look at how easily the avowed socialist Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Sotomayer were confirmed and to how impossible it has been to get Moderate Republicans confirmed, never mind actually getting a Republican or a Conservative confirmed. The best quick proof has been the death penalty.
When the founders put in the clause regarding cruel and unusual punishment, they were specifically talking about stocks, branding, maiming, dunking, drawing & quartering, castration, forced bankruptcy then moving the debtor and his whole family into debtors prison where he and they became day-laborers-slaves and died still in debt, as it was structured to be impossible to work the debt off, the debt being then inherited by his heirs.
Jefferson knew about this personally as he was debt free until he married. When his father-in-law died and they inherited her proportional share of his estate, Jefferson found himself so in debt that he never recovered. He himself died selling family/slave members west and a bankrupt. The state of Virginia allowed a lottery for the purpose of relieving his debt around 1823 but still couldn’t raise enough money to satisfy his creditors. (Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, died on July 4th, 1826 coincidentally within hours of John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, who died debt free.)
So, here we have a structure that places justice back into the hands of the citizenry. Currently, you do not have the absolute right to a jury trial in a civil case. You now have to ask and the court may deny your request. Also, the structure of the courts is codified. The Federal Circuit Court is now the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It just so happened to evolve this way because when you sue the federal government, you must file in D.C., hence, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just so happened to get the bulk of the administrative cases. This hasn’t affected how the individual circuits have interpreted the Code of Federal Regulations, the C.F.R.’s which are the regulations formulated by the various government agencies for the implementation of their powers. One need only check on what the 9th Circuit has allowed or what the EPA and NLRB have gotten away with.
A quick proof is the judicial extension of the Social Security Act by the 9th Circuit back in the 1970’s.
The SSA was for people who put into the funds. If you didn’t contribute to the funds or be the widow or minor child of someone who had contributed into the SSA trust funds, you weren’t eligible to receive any Social Security checks of any kind. With the influx of Vietnamese refugees, some claiming post-traumatic stress from watching their villages, farms, relatives or jungles being bombed into the stone age by the United States Air Force, all on their own testimony without corroboration, and Administrative Law Judges (ALJ’s) denying these claims, when appealed through the District Courts to the Circuit Court, the 9th Circuit decided to extend to these poor people one hundred percent (100%) vesting in the Social Security Plan. You should research this yourself to make certain that this is the correct order of things. It just may be that Congress violated the constitution and the original SSA and the 9th Circuit was merely following the will of the people as placed into law by the elected representatives of the people. Regardless … .
Another quick proof is the death penalty issue. In every poll and at every election, the citizenry are in favor of the death penalty with an affirmative vote of at least 70%. Yet the courts, both state and federal, keep saying that killing a murderer is cruel because it inflicts a certain amount of pain on him. Let us consider the absurdity of this position.
First, it’s not up to the courts to decide this issue, it’s strictly legislative. Second, even if you’re an atheist, what’s the real difference between death by lethal injection and death from old age? Personally, death by lethal injection is much more humane than requiring someone live in Leavenworth Prison for thirty, forty, fifty or more years.
Technically, the bulk of this section shouldn’t even be in a constitution. Most of this is statutory in nature. Because the courts have become havens for the personal agendas of the judges, it’s necessary to spell it out for them and remove so much of their discretionary powers.
§3.03 through §3.05

These are huge changes from the way that we currently operate, but, again, they’re actually what was intended by the founders, and the last 220 years have shown that they are necessary for justice.
The first purpose here is to screen potential legislators from gaining the bench. The second is to screen self-servers. The third is to actually remove pecuniary interest from the litigation process. Overall, the purpose is to fulfill the social contract of government.
With the development of civilization came property. With ownership came thieves. With thieves came the realization that you couldn’t stay awake 24/7 to protect your property so the law, and police, and the courts, were invented. Brief and superficial, but sufficient for our needs herein with the exception that until very recently, we have retained the rights of self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property, by the use of deadly force, to ourselves.
In order to keep the peace, we allowed for the expansion of courts and police and, for most of us, the un-intentional relinquishing of our rights of self-defense. Our hired police would both prevent crime and capture criminals for trial in our wonderful jury system, which, if they were proven guilty, they would be removed from our society and punished. Again, this is an oversimplification, but it states the obvious and places the foundation for the changes in the judiciary. In the XXth Century, with all of its psycho-babble, liberalism interpreted as self above all, and dumbing down while insisting upon unearned self-esteem as the standard for maturity, the criminal has been exalted above the citizen and been given rights and privileges far beyond those of the citizen.
Several quick-proofs are readily apparent. The 1787 Constitution provides for a jury trial. Now, a citizen does not have the right to a jury trial, but must instead ask for one and the court believes, erroneously, that it can deny this request.
A criminal has the right to a speedy trial, usually meaning within nine (9) months of the indictment. Civil trials, especially with the federal government as defendant, can go on for years without resolution. Further, in the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, the federal government has several privileges not permitted to others. An extended time to answer a complaint and special rules regarding judgments are just two such examples.
Health care is a third area where the criminal benefits more than the citizen. Thanks to the legislating 9th Circuit, if a serial killer, in jail for nine hundred and ninety-nine years (999), needs an organ transplant, he goes to the top of the waiting list and WILL be the next to receive a liver, or lung, or heart, whereas the taxpaying citizen must first be assessed to determine how helpful a transplant will be and then he’ll go on a waiting list behind everyone else who is already on the list. Criminals, thanks to the courts, have better health care, nutrition, leisure activities, educational opportunities, libraries and social services than families of four with a gross annual income of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Facilities, services and punishments for criminals, solely the legislature’s responsibility, have been usurped and standards set, by people rarely if ever subjected to victimization by anyone.
Another area where the courts have imposed not only their own standards, but their arrogant ignorance, is the area of social justice. Here, quick-proofs abound to the point of absurdity, and the Obamacrats keep adding more.
First, some historical asides to set the stage. According to historians, slavery is an economic circumstance and one not particularly related to race. Prior to 1750, race wasn’t much considered as a factor of slavery in the United States, but one of circumstance. As late as 1860, substantiated by an analysis of the 1860 United States Census by the Kennedy Brothers, Ronald and Donald, 42% of slaves were Amerindian, Chinese and white; 32% of slave owners were black, among them were some who’d escaped their fates on the Amistad. According to the November 2006 issue of Reader’s Digest, slavery is common enough in New York City. As a matter of religion, twenty percent (20%) of this world’s population believe slavery is appropriate and it is not only their right, but their duty to enslave the infidel.
According to Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade [Simon & Schuster, © 1997, ISBN 0-684-81063-8] over eighty percent (80%) of the eleven million plus (11,000,000) Africans taken into slavery and shipped to the New World, were enslaved by fellow Africans who bartered them away to, in descending order, the Portuguese (Brazilians, who ended their slavery in the 1880’s while Yankee clippers from Boston still profited from the trade), the English (who in fact forced slavery onto Virginia – the early colonists allowed indenture but not slavery but since the king got a percentage of every slave’s sale, the Crown Colony was required to admit slaves), the Spaniards, the Dutch, and the North Americans.
Fewer than half of American slave owners owned more than five slaves, and those with fewer than five slaves generally, they all lived in the same house and attended the same church, all as one family. Less than sixty percent (60%) of the blacks living in the United States are descended from slaves and fewer than twenty-five percent (25%) of the non-black population are descended from people who were here in 1850. Of even more interest, less than five percent (5%) of today’s American population are descended from anybody who’s ever owned slaves and thirty-two percent (32%) of that five percent, are black The richest slave owner in Charleston SC in 1860 was a black man named Jackson who owned seven plantations and over 680 slaves. When Lincoln was elected, he sold all of his property for gold and moved north to Chicago. When Farragut and Butcher Butler took New Orleans in 1862, the second richest slave owner was a black widow who had all of her cotton stolen and sold to Butler’s British cotton factors for way below market.
Women, until the birth control pill, were subject to a lesser status than men for various reasons.
Species continuity requires that women conceive and bear healthy children. Until penicillin, in the 1940’s, infant and child mortality was high. Married women, who accounted for approximately two thirds of the female population, were frequently pregnant and forced to labor at home, not necessarily because her husband wanted it, but because of the circumstance of child rearing combined with child bearing. They simply were unable to be out in the work force overseeing or participating in manufacture. Property laws and tra-ditional behavioral standards kept them there.
Of the other third, most were spinsters living in somebody else’s house and surviving on, usually a relative’s, generosity. Read your Jane Austen for some insight.
Judicial legislation in the way of desegregation decisions based on “disparate impact,” or quotas for employment or school acceptance are based on both false historical “facts” and improper application of statistics.
When an area has 70% of its criminals being black, it might behoove the court to see what the community is made up of. If the community is 70% black, then the police force is not targeting the black community. If 70% of the criminals are Latino and 70% of the community is Latino, then the police force is not targeting Latinos. It’s an odd thing, disparate impact.
First, the disparate impact shall be looked at and then the others.
“Disparate Impact” means that if a plaintiff can show the judge that his group has a lesser standing or greater handicap than the white male, that is automatically discrimination. No other factors need be taken into account, nor how this disparity evolved. In Kansas City, we have recently gone through a twenty year forced desegregation program, costing the state of Missouri over two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) in tax revenue because a Federal Judge was shown that kids in the Kansas City Missouri School District performed much lower on the standardized tests than those “similarly situated.” No interest was shown in the children’s backgrounds, environment &c. The court was shown that over seventy percent (70%) of the student population was black and Hispanic, and, therefore, it was the segregated school district that had caused this failure rate. Therefore the school district must be desegregated, regardless of the cost. Never mind that the district was 70% black and Hispanic, and the results were, according to the sociologists, because of the broken homes and poverty &c in their environment, which means that spending more money on the schools will have zero impact on the root causes of these kids’ academic failures , the Federal Court ruled that the district must desegregate. It also ruled on how the state of Missouri must spend its tax dollars – something strictly forbidden it by the 1787 Constitution. One absurd result of this ruling was that a child in Odessa MO, over fifty miles away, was “bussed” in by private cab at a taxpayer cost of over $150/day. So the school that needed more whites could have more whites; and the real result as of today, March 23, 2012, is that the Kansas City School District has become dis-accredited and many of the schools closed, but administrative staff and costs about what they were or higher than, in 2000.
In New York City, for many years Hispanics failed the written driving test at a much higher rate than whites. The test was given in English, so those who were not fluent in English, failed at a higher rate, thus, “disparate impact” on a racial group. Automatically, this was decided to be discrimination, and the test then had to be given in whatever language the candidate was comfortable with. Never mind that driving is a privilege, and, therefore, not covered by the 1787 Constitution, and never mind that driving licenses are strictly a state’s right where the feds are forbidden to meddle, and, never mind the extra cost for these additional changes or the hiring of translators for languages not common enough to warrant printed exams, and never mind that the reason that some of these people couldn’t pass was because of the educational system from whence they came, but, more importantly, never mind that by requiring the candidate to learn some English, he was forced to become American! Forced to integrate himself into the American Culture, imagine that!
And, don’t let’s get started on Medicaid!
Colleges with higher standards than average for admittance have been forced to accept under-qualified minorities, but not white females, and provide them with remedial classes, at double taxpayer expense as these skills have already been paid for in high school. These minorities then had a higher than normal drop out rate, because they were unfit for the curricula of study, which feeds the Catch-22 of “disparate impact.” Now these schools are discriminating because there’s a higher percentage of minority dropouts than whites, so, some are passed through without actually earning a degree but getting one anyway or programs are dummy-downed.
Community Standards are another way in which the courts legislate their personal agendas. When it comes to zoning, community standards require all sorts of restrictions including building size, occupancy, and location based on use, &c. However, pornography, or where a halfway house, or drug rehabilitation/ testing office is located, is purely at the whim of the judge. Quick-proof is when a half-way house was going to be located in a judge’s neighborhood in Westchester County, NYS, it wasn’t allowed because it would overburden the utilities, but it wouldn’t overburden the utilities in The Bronx, which if you’ve ever driven on the Cross-Bronx-Expressway, you’ll know looks like Dresden Germany the day after the fire bombing in World War II. Judges apply different standards for themselves than they do the people who have no control over them.
§3.06

Juries. Part of the problem with the lack of justice is the ability of the court to disallow citizens to participate on a jury on a whim, and that potential jurors can escape jury duty for any reason or no reason and without good cause shown. Actually, this, as certain other sections, shouldn’t be in a constitution. This should be a statute. However, the phrase, “why would you want a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty,” is all too true.
Judges and attorneys do not want anyone educated to sit on a jury, nor do they want anyone who may view the facts dispassionately. They all want an easy resolution by either overwhelming the jury with so much crap that they take the easy way out or they appeal to their emotions to get huge jury awards. Quick proof: there is no substantial evidence as to what causes cerebral palsy. The Plaintiff’s bar has made themselves billions of dollars by appealing to the emotions of jurors. The widow of a man who used Vioxx for less than nine months and then died of heart failure, is certainly not entitled to $50,000,000 for the loss of his life’s earnings and consortium, much less a punitive award of $250,000,000 when the evidence so clearly shows that the patient must take Vioxx for over 24 months to have any serious side effects. A jury made up of people from the community, college graduates as well as high school drop-outs, men and women, probably would not have come to that decision.
When one looks to Europe, we see that in these kinds of cases, an economic assessment is made for the bereaved family and that’s what they receive, and, if the manufacturer is found to have been negligent, the corporate leaders are charged with manslaughter and do time if convicted. Here, we try to keep things on the economic plane, keeping in mind fair play, equity and justice, which the courts disallow.
By having juries defined and the community protected by these rules, and the pecuniary interests of the judges and attorneys completely removed from the litigation process, justice will become the norm and injustice an aberration.

§3.07 through 3.09

These are self explanatory. The section on not allowing criminals more rights that citizens is fairly well covered above. The penalties’ section simply removes the undesirables from staying on the bench.
More Reasoning
Another quick proof of the malignant intentional negligence of the court system, and one which is about to cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars, is the allowance into the court system of a suit for reparations by people alleging to be descended from slaves, here in the United States. This gross injustice is so rife with illegal and non-judicial forms that it must be commented on.
A quick historical background on slavery in the western hemisphere has been pointed out above. In addition, it’s necessary to point out that the people who profited from slavery include all those northern states who provided the ships and ports, and agents in Africa who bought the slaves originally and those that took Federal Dollars to improve roads and canals, those Federal Dollars being tax revenue from primarily southern states. However, just to point out the legalistic nonsense involved and allowed in this suit, read on:
First, in order to file the suit, you must be the one injured. No one in this country can claim to have had his labor stolen by the government. The United States Government has never owned slaves and, in fact, when Lincoln tried to avert the War of 1861 by asking congress to buy the slaves, he was told that the federal government wasn’t allowed to own slaves, even for the limited purpose of manumission. When Lincoln proposed to buy the slaves from the slave states that had stayed loyal, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, & Delaware, his purpose to prove that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves, which was an unconstitutional purpose, he was told that the necessary and proper clause wasn’t broad enough to allow congress to spend the money that way and that the spending clause also prohibited this purchase. His decision to free the slaves through The Emancipation Proclamation was allowed only because it didn’t apply to the United States but to a foreign nation with which the United States was at war and because it was not a government action, but an action by the military applying only to an enemy state! So, nowhere in the 220 year history of the United States has the United States owned slaves. Plaintiff’s lack standing for this reason alone.
Second, you must be the damaged one. Reparations suits have been allowed by the courts where the plaintiffs have been Japanese-Americans wrongfully incarcerated during WW II and for Jews and others against Germany and Swiss Banks for the theft of goods and labor. There is also a suit being considered against Japan by WW II veterans who were used as forced labor to build roads, bridges and work in factories, where, again, only those living have been allowed in as parties, none of their descendants. In this suit, no one originally a slave is a plaintiff.
Third is the all-necessary parties rule. In order to provide justice, you must make all those liable parties to the suit. Generally, this is considered a class action suit. Now, let’s look at those actually liable in the reparations issue: First, those who took the original peoples into slavery, according to the actual facts and records, were 80% African Tribesmen who took other tribesmen into slavery, a practice that still goes on today. Not one African tribe or country is included as a defendant. Secondly, there were those who transported the slaves, primarily Boston and Providence shippers, none who’ve been made defendants.
In such a suit, all the plaintiffs must be included or given the chance to be included. Everyone has seen the ads in Reader’s Digest and TV Guide, where you need to file as a plaintiff in one of the asbestos suits, or breast implants, or Vioxx. The same joining of parties is necessary in this suit. Since this is a suit for reparations for some ancestor having been a slave, then just about everyone should be a plaintiff because somewhere in your history, and mine someone was a slave to somebody. Being Polish, several generations of my ancestors were enslaved as serfs by the Russians; a serf being worse off than a slave because a slave has value and a serf is only part of the land, like a tree or a rock. If this reparations suit were reasonable, then we’d all be plaintiffs and every institution, business and government would be a defendant. Simply as a matter of law, it’s a necessity to include all necessary parties. Not done here.
Further, in order to be just, only those who originally owned slaves can be assessed damages. My grandparents came to this country to get away from the war. I’m second generation. To the best of my knowledge, no one in my family has ever owned slaves, but in fact, have been Russian Serfs. I should be a plaintiff. On the side of defendants, in order to be just, a study would have to be made as to who was here before 1866 when slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, as well as who is actually descended from an actual American slave owner. And, someone had better include those blacks descended from that 32% of slave owners who were black.
Next is the issue of Statute of Limitations. If these people who were not damaged by slavery are entitled to bring suit over one hundred and fifty years after the last occurrence, then everyone can bring suit against anyone and everyone for any reason at any time regardless of law or reason. The Statute of Limitation for a suit of stolen labor is less than ten years in Missouri. This means that any suit filed after 1876 should be dismissed for un-timeliness.
Next is the issue of Cause of Action. Is this really a suit for damages for discrimination or for forced labor? Forced labor is really a States’ issue and should not be in Federal Court for that reason alone. If this is a discrimination issue, then where are the Amer-Indians, Chinese and Caucasian descendants necessary for adjudication?
Damages must be for a sum certain or there must be some method of determining damages. In this suit there is no reasonable formula for computation of damages. In fact, there is no formulation for who should receive those damages if it becomes possible to ascertain them. Less than 60% of the blacks living in the United States today are descended from American slaves. How is the court supposed to determine who collects what.
Along with the issue of damages is mitigation of damages. How is the court going to count the monies spent by congress on welfare, affirmative action, EEO &c., or the monies given to charities or The National Negro College Fund, &c, by whites and others, against any spurious damages? Impossible.
Best yet, whom can they collect against? All the slave owners and their property are long gone. Under the 1787 Constitution, the court does not have the authority to order the Government to pay damages caused by private individuals, only congress can do that and only for a legitimate reason. Any order by the court to pay from tax revenue is unconstitutional on its face. The suit should have been dismissed as not in the jurisdiction of the court, but in fact a legislative issue. And Congress is forbidden to pass Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws. Meaning, you can’t post date a law back one minute, much less 160 years or more, just because you want to. And, the court has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Instead the people of the United States, over 95% who have no involvement in the issue, are staring at a lawsuit, or not because the mainstream media hasn’t reported this suit, are going to be out trillions of dollars.
One thing not mentioned above, is that the lawyers involved will make a fortune on this bogus suit. The court will award attorney’s fees to the lawyers. Article II removes the litigating federal attorneys from all temptation of financial gain through misapplication of law or procedure. Even in a case where the court feels that the suit needs more lawyers, in Kansas City alone, there are over 200 lawyers available for temporary work at $23.00 per hour, no benefits other than overtime, so additional lawyers, not U.S. Attorneys, are readily available at reasonable rates, as temps.
These changes are necessary for justice and to stop the millionaire jury lottery that our courts have become. Make a group of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty sympathetic, and regardless of law and fact, become an instant multi-millionaire with the lawyers getting up to 60% as their fee. (State of Missouri allows 60% to attorneys in contingent fee cases.)
Nope, these changes are not only necessary, they are righteous.

[From Article II, The Legislature:]

§1.08.01 The House shall have the following Standing Committees with the responsibilities as delineated therein, plus those others to be delegated and revocable to them by The People, and in The Senate revocable by The States:
§1.08.01a Judiciary
§1.08.01a(i) Within thirty (30) days of a decision by The Supreme Court on any Constitutional Issue, or Interpretation of a law passed by congress, this committee will recommend either the acceptance of the court’s interpretation in its entirety, acceptance of a part of the interpretation remanding the remainder for the court to reconsider, for which it will have no more than ten (10) days to submit a re-interpretation for this committee to reconsider, or reject the court’s interpretation in its entirety in which case the court will have ten (10) days to resubmit its decision; this committee shall have the privilege, not right, of suggesting to The Court a more appropriate decision
§1.08.01a(ii) When the committee has decided to accept the court’s interpretation in its entirety, it will then submit to The Congress the Court’s decision for its approval
§1.08.01a(iii) The Congress will then, as a committee of the whole, decide to accept or reject the Judiciary Committee’s Report. In the event of a rejection, The Congress shall have thirty (30) days to write and pass by a 60% majority of the Quorum of the entire Congress, a decision that will then be the final decision as to the interpretation of this Constitution or of the Federal law in question
§1.08.01a(iv) The Judiciary Committees shall recommend the appointment of all Federal Judges and Attorneys from the appropriate lists provided to them by The President to The Congress
§1.08.01a(iv)A Appointments must be made within thirty (30) days of a position becoming vacant
§1.08.01a(iv)B Appointments must be made from and only from the pre-existing list of candidates provided by The President, said lists further defined in Article II, The Executive
§1.08.01a(v) The Judiciary Committees will be responsible for recommending to The Congress for its approval all Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules of Evidence, keeping in mind the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and also that of The Executive as submitted by The Attorney General of the United States, but neither shall they be bound by such recommendations
§1.08.01a(vi) The Judiciary Committees shall be responsible for the recommendation of Impeachment of Federal Judges and U.S. Attorneys, when called for by a Writ of Impeachment from either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or by The Executive or by themselves, or by the Legislature of the State in which the Judge or Attorney is assigned
§1.08.01a(vi)A Said Writ shall clearly state the breach of this Constitution alleged, the evidence supporting the Writ, or, present the Conviction of Felony requiring said judge’s or attorney’s dismissal as required in Article III of this Constitution
§1.08.01a(vi)B If said Writ is presented by a state’s legislature, the Writ must have been voted approved by 75% of both houses of that legislature, 75% of the full legislature, not 75% of the quorum
§1.08.01a(vii) At the direction of The Congress shall provide all other oversight necessary to prevent the court from legislating

1.08 Required Committees and their responsibilities

Specific Committees designed to do certain things. The Founding Fathers, as noted in the preceding comment, had limitations on the franchise. They believed that certain issues, even those that were unpopular or messy, would be properly handled because congress would be made up of responsible people. Two Hundred and Twenty years have shown us otherwise. Just look at the number who routinely bounce checks. Look at the pork. Look at the current spitefulness & partisanship wrangling, over 9/11 and the Iraq Vote. Look to Obamacare and all of the waivers; and, if that’s not enough, go read Throw Them All Out, for the insider trading, legal for congress, illegal for you and me.
Look at the National Debt, or don’t. Whether you do or don’t, YOU owe over $100,000, as does each man, woman, and child who’s a citizen in this country. We’ve got this debt because members of the congress created by the 1787 constitution, are irresponsible and represent only special interest groups and most particularly not the middle-class taxpayer. (The current National Debt is over 16.75 Trillion Dollars – $16,750,000,000,000.00 now divide by 300,000,000 and that’s how much each individual owes, and really, who’s going to pay that money off? )
In recent history various congressional responsibilities have been ignored and the executive and judicial branches have stepped into the vacuum. Roe v Wade is only one public example of such. The Dred Scott Decision, for those who are actually familiar with it, is another. Almost every decision of John Marshall’s, starting with Marbury v Madison, has been a lurid and successful attempt at taking power away from the people. Reading from The Federalist it seems that the Founding Fathers would have approved. Reading from the works represented in The Anti-Federalist, The Massachusetts Plan, and those speeches in Congress from about 1820 through 1860, as well as the constitutional debates themselves (1787), it’s shown that the 1787 constitution became terminally ill with Marbury.
In both sets of essays and such works as Calhoun’s A Disquisition on Government and Geo Washington Letters to Bushrod Washington and the various letters of such note-worthies as Senator/President Jefferson Davis, Senator Stephen Douglas, President Abraham Lincoln, President John Adams, President Thomas Jefferson, et al, congress is MEANT to supersede the Supreme Court and the Executive. Instead, for fear of offending some special interest group back home, much power has left the people by the ineptitude and cowardice of the national legislators.
By having specific duties and responsibilities spelt out, The Congress cannot but do its duty and fulfill its obligations to the nation. The questions of constitutionality of abortion would’ve been answered within six months; Spiro Agnew would’ve gone to jail a lot sooner; the National Debt would be a lot less; a $500,000,000 bridge to nowhere in Alaska wouldn’t exist; Cindy Sheehan and now Sandra Fluke, wouldn’t be in the news ad nauseum.
An historical aside is that before the Marshalistas got control of the Supreme Court, constitutional issues were put to the jury, not to a judge or appellate court with its own agenda.

May 10, 2017

How to Blow an Election, by Victor Hanson, [c]

Filed under: Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , — justplainbill @ 2:43 pm

How to Blow an Election — in Five Easy Steps
May 9, 2017 12:27 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
By Victor Davis Hanson// National Review

Counting the ways, and Comey is not among them.

Hillary Clinton recently took “full responsibility” for her 2016 loss. Only she didn’t. Instead of explaining what the historian Thucydides once called the “truest causes” (aitiai), she went on to list at least three pretexts (prophases) for her defeat: sexism, FBI director James Comey, and the purported Russian hacking of her unsecured e-mail server and the John Podesta e-mail trove.

Clinton’s accusations also raise the larger question of why a presidential candidate wins or loses an election.

In general, there seem to be five hinges of fate: personality, positions on the issues, the general political atmosphere of the era, the quality of the campaign, and sudden and unforeseen outside events such as depression, scandal, or war. Even a biased media or lots of money pales in comparison.

The Pretexts
We can fairly dismiss Clinton’s pretexts.

Take sexism. Hillary Clinton found her sex an advantage in being elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. For a generation, among the most powerful and successful figures in U.S. politics were three progressive, multimillionaire, Bay Area women who, in a most non-diverse fashion, lived within 50 miles of one another: Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi.

From 1997 to 2013 women of both parties were in charge of U.S. foreign policy as secretary of state, for twelve out of 16 years. One could make the argument that “the first female president” was an advantageous campaigning point, not a drawback; it was certainly designed to bookend Barack Obama’s successful trumpeting of being the first African-American president.

Blaming a deer-in-the-headlights FBI director James Comey is equally problematic. His passive-aggressive pronouncements irrationally first exonerated her, then did not, then did again. Faulting the FBI for her own likely felonious behavior of sending and receiving classified communications on an unsecured server (or of Bill Clinton’s trying to leverage Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac) is sort of like blaming the defeat at Pearl Harbor on the Japanese — true, but hardly the whole story given America’s responsibility for its own unpreparedness.

In similar fashion, had Donald Trump lost, he might have faulted the Washington Post for airing the decade-old Access Hollywood tape that nearly destroyed his campaign, as if the clear ill will and partisanship of Jeff Bezos’s Post were not empowered by Trump’s own private, hot-mic — but nonetheless crude — statements. The Germans claimed that harsh snows and the last-minute campaign in the Balkans had delayed and thus doomed their 1941 Russian offensive, as if the Red Army did not have a say or as if Germans were a tropical people.

As far as the Russians, they are Russians — always seeking to throw wrenches into the gears of U.S. elections. The Republicans claimed that their firewalls kept the Russians out of RNC e-mail; John Podesta using “password” for his password invited them in. And, of course, no one forced Washington journalists to collude through e-mail with the Clinton campaign, and no one ordered Hillary to jerry-rig a home-brewed server. The Russian-collusion bogeyman was probably as effective a campaign prop for Clinton as the supposed Russian-inspired e-mail revelations were for Trump.

1. McMurphy Trumps Nurse Ratched
More likely, Clinton lost the key, Rust Belt states that swung the electoral vote to Trump for our five classic reasons.

Her personality, in far different ways, was as polarizing as Trump’s. But Trump was far better as a TV showman, given his long stint on reality TV. Hillary’s voice, facial expressions, and comportment were not winning. Even on the rare occasions that she told the truth, she seemed more insincere than Trump, even when he was spinning a yarn.

Trump’s image as a bad boy was less damaging than Hillary’s as a scold. Both are roughly the same age and, to the eye, not in the best of shape, but Trump displayed an almost animal energy while Clinton often appeared frail, worn, and on occasion ill on the stump. In Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the reader sympathizes with the pseudo-patient and con Randle McMurphy, who does everything haywire, rather than “Big Nurse” Mildred Ratched, who does everything by the book; the former was at least undeniably alive, the latter only ostensibly so.

2. Against Something Is Not For Something
Second, Hillary Clinton had no real sincere position on any issue other than a desire to stay in public office for nearly a quarter-century, and her willingness to extend the eight years of the Obama agenda — an agenda that had never achieved 2 percent economic growth and that saw record labor non-participation, a doubling of the national debt to $20 trillion, and a world in chaos abroad.

Once Obama got wise in January 2016 that he was the most popular when he was not seen or heard, he dropped out of sight and kept silent. Meanwhile, 17 Republicans along with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton hogged the national spotlight and tore one another apart. Through it all, Obama’s eight-year-long stream of dismal popularity ratings gradually improved. But his newfound transient popularity did not mean that most Americans liked Obama’s policies or judged them as successful.

The result was that Hillary played a losing 1968 Hubert Humphrey to Obama’s lame-duck Lyndon Johnson — she risked an occasionally meek nip on the administration’s ankles but was otherwise silent about her own positions to the extent they even existed. In a year when people wanted a change from the prior eight years, Clinton offered none. “I am a woman” and “Trump is a monster” were not serious campaign issues, but they sum up the totality of why Clinton wished Americans to vote for her. Most still did, but not in the key states where Obamism had wrought disaster.

3. Populists Bite Back
Third, voters had, once again, tired of Washington politics. The aura of 2016 was “drain the swamp” change. A septuagenarian socialist, who was not a Democrat, nonetheless almost won the Democratic primary on the theme that a Washington insider Bernie Sanders was at least not a Clintonian apparatchik mired in quid-pro quo beltway payola.

In a normal year, a sober and judicious Jeb Bush, or a proven competent governor such as Scott Walker, or a charismatic ascendant such as Marco Rubio would have won the Republican nomination.

But not in 2016, when voters wearied of sermons about their ethical shortcomings delivered by liberal and conservative grandees who were not subject to the consequences of their own ideologies — whether on trade, globalization, illegal immigration, health care, the budget, or foreign policy. Many voters saw Hillary, accurately, as the epitome of self-interested professional politics, leading always to personal enrichment. Trump’s supposed vulgarity and crudity only enhanced his image as a reckless (but nonetheless defiant) Samson determined to pull down the supporting pillars of the rotten Washington temple — even if the wreckage fell on himself, he’d ensure rubble on everyone else as well. Hillary was the EU; Trump was Brexit.

4. Super Bowl III: The Colts Upset the Jets
Fourth, arrogance, ignorance, and sloth are a fatal trifecta—sort of like the conditions that led the Baltimore Colts to be disastrously upset by the New York Jets in Super Bowl III. The Colts’ tried and true and careful Johnny Unitas proved no match for erratic and flamboyant Joe Namath.

Haughtiness, insularity, and laziness characterized the conduct of the Clinton campaign. Even a novice outsider could see that Obama’s successful electoral matrix — record minority turnout and bloc voting, coupled with the drop-off in turnout by a disengaged white working middle class (tired both of left-wing identity politics and Republican bluestocking elitism) — was not going to be transferrable to an off-putting 69-year-old, white multimillionaire.

Not only did Hillary Clinton lack Obama’s youthful vigor and mellifluousness; she also seemed at times geriatric, snarky, and screechy. The result was that she did not win the minority vote at the levels she needed. Further, she galvanized the supposedly ossified and irrelevant white working classes to finally come out and vote, in their own bloc fashion, against her. Obama had guaranteed her his downside but never delivered his upside.

Clinton’s only chance to make up for missing identity-politics voters by appealing to the working classes of the Midwest was to replay her 2008 Annie Oakley Democratic-primary role — by drinking boilermakers in Milwaukee, or bowling in Scranton, or reminiscing about shooting guns as young gal. But eight years ago, the Democratic party was still aw-shucks Bill Clinton’s. In 2016, it was captive to the identity-politics polarization so effectively deployed, in community-organizer style, by Barack Obama.

So instead Clinton doubled down on the tired theme that Rust Belt losers needed to shape up and get with the globalized progressive project and a demography-is-destiny new America. Obama had deprecated Pennsylvanians as has-beens clinging to their Bibles and guns; Hillary updated them, adding “half of Trump’s supporters” as irredeemables and deplorables. Miners were toxic losers who needed to learn how to build solar panels rather than mine coal. In contrast, Trump called them “our miners.”

She made her disdain concrete by never campaigning in Wisconsin and only sporadically visiting the Blue Wall states eastward to the Carolinas. And she was convinced that demography had doomed the white working classes and empowered Latinos and blacks in red states such as Arizona and Georgia. Clinton’s inept campaign aimed, then, not just at a win (which was attainable by nonstop populist barnstorming and message massaging in the Rust Belt) but, greedily, at a “mandate” that was impossible, given minority-vote falloff and Democratic estrangement from the working classes. Apparently, no one told the campaign that open borders were not a popular national issue, and that Democrats could not win Texas even with Latino bloc voting, and that they could do so in deep-blue California but without any electoral significance.

Clinton surrounded herself with Pajama Boy whizz kids who looked and sounded as if they were on vacation from DuPont Circle in D.C., or Manhattan’s Upper West Side (and who appeared as Stanley and Livingston explorers to the natives of southern Michigan or eastern Pennsylvania). Meanwhile, Trump advisers, such as Kelly Ann Conway and Steven Bannon, acted and talked like they had been around the proverbial American block.

Hillary had the money edge, all the establishment endorsements, a united Democratic party, and a captive toadyish media. Yet she still lost to an outspent Trump, who had never run for a single public office and whose own party and media elite damned him as much as they did his enemies. His victory will remain one of the most amazing campaign outcome in U.S. election history — especially in a postmodern electronic age in which “analytics” and “data” are supposed to make human capriciousness a relic of the past.

5. From Clinton Cash to Non-secure E-mail
In 2016, there was nothing comparable to the unpopular Iraq War or the frightening 2008 financial meltdown that had propelled Obama to the White House. But there was a succession of scandals — almost all Clinton’s — that confirmed the image that she was not just unethical, but predictably so.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash is underappreciated for its effect on the campaign. Through painstaking research, it tied together all the strands of Clinton nefariousness: the Clinton Foundation as an excuse to hire political flunkies and provide free jet travel; the quid pro quo State Department nods to those who hired Bill Clinton to speak; and corruption under Hillary Clinton, from cellphone concessions in Haiti to North American uranium sales to Russian interests.

Add to the Clinton sleaze Hillary’s unsecured server and communications of classified material, the creepy New York and Washington careerists who turned up in the Podesta archives, and the political rigging that warped the conduct of the Democratic National Committee.

The result was that Hillary could no longer play the role of the “good” Clinton who “put up” with her husband’s “good ole boy” sleaze. Her new image was that of an equal partner in crime — or perhaps even a godmother who used the capo Bill as muscle. In comparison, Trump steaks, Trump University, Trump taxes, and Trump ties were old-fashioned American hucksterism, but with one important difference: Trump’s excesses were a private person’s; Clinton’s were those of a public servant.

The correct exegesis for losing in 2016 should explain the Democratic strategy for winning in 2020: Run a vigorous, mellifluent, and sympathetic candidate; put forth new solutions to old problems; empathize with noncoastal America and camp out there, too; run a campaign as if it were in danger of losing rather than already past the finish line; and prune away Washington, D.C., hangers-on, with their acceptance of corruption as the new normal.

Or instead maybe Democrats can nominate another 69-year-old, multimillionaire female political insider who will run an identity-politics campaign on her gender, on the fact that she is not the monstrous Donald Trump — and on the premise that all the world, from the FBI to the Russians, are out to get her.

[One of many reasons that I like Dr. Hanson’s posts, is his adherence to practical history. One may take out all personal content, and then be able to use this, as so many of his columns, as a guide to “how to” do something. If we take his posts analyzing the 2016 election, remove the personality components, we have a book that explains both how to win an election and how to lose an election.

The same may be said of his columns on social issues. His analytical approach allows us to see how to run a government properly, or not, through is writings on the conditions in California.]

March 29, 2017

The Civic Cost of Illegal Immigration, by Victor D. Hanson [nc]

The Civic Cost Of Illegal Immigration
by Victor Davis Hanson
via Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution)
Tuesday, March 28, 2017

The arguments for ignoring illegal immigration are as well-known as the self-interested motives that drive it.

In the abstract, open-borders advocates argue that in a globalized culture, borders are becoming reactionary and artificial constructs. They should not interrupt more natural ebbs and flows of migrant populations.

More concretely, an array of vested interests sees advantage in dismantling the border: employers in hospitality, construction, food processing, and agriculture prefer hard-working low-wage immigrants, whose social needs are often subsidized by the government and who are reluctant to organize for higher wages.

The Democratic Party welcomes in impoverished immigrants from Latin America and Mexico. It hopes to provide generous social welfare assistance and thereby shepherd new arrivals and their offspring into the salad bowl of victimization and identity politics—and thereby change the electoral map of key states from red to blue.

La Raza activists see unchecked illegal immigration as useful in maintaining a large pool of unassimilated and poor foreign nationals who look to group leaders, thereby ensuring the continuance of what has become an industry of ethnic activism and careerism.

Mexico—which is now offering advice to illegal immigrants on how best to avoid U.S. federal immigration authorities—has the most to gain by porous borders. It envisions the United States as a relief valve destination to export its own poor and desperate rather than to have them agitate and demand costly social services from Mexico City.

Mexico enjoys some $25 billion in annual remittances, predicated on the unspoken assumption that its poor and hard-working expatriates can only afford to send such vast sums out of the United States through the magnanimity of the American social welfare system that helps subsidize families to free up hard-earned cash. Mexico has learned that its own expatriates are loyal proponents who romanticize Mexico—the farther away and longer they are absent from it.

Yet lost in this conundrum are the pernicious effects of illegal immigration on the idea of citizenship in a consensual society. In the Western constitutional tradition, citizenship was based upon shared assumptions that were often codified in foundational constitutional documents.

The first pillar of citizenship is the idea that the nation-state has the sole right to create and control its own borders. The duty of all Western constitutions, dating back to those of the Greek city-states, was to protect their own citizens within clearly defined and defensible borders. Without a finite space, no consensual society can make rules and laws for its own, enhance and preserve commonalities of language and culture, or raise a military to protect its own self-interest.

Borders are not normally artificial or post-colonial constructs, but natural boundaries that usually arise to reflect common bonds of language, culture, habit, and tradition. These ties are sometimes fragile and limited, and cannot operate on universal terms; indeed, they become attenuated when borders disappear and residents not only have little in common, but lack the mechanisms or even the desire to assimilate and integrate their migrant populations.

When borders are fluid and unenforced, it inevitably follows that assimilation and integration also become lax, as society loses a sense of who, or even where, their residents are. And the idea that the Bill of Rights should apply to those beyond U.S. borders may be a noble sentiment, but the practical effect of such utopianism is to open a Pandora’s box of impossible enforcement, affronts to foreign governments, endless litigation, and a diversion of resources away from protecting the rights of citizens at home.

Residency is also confused with citizenship, but they are no more the same than are guests at a dinner party and the party’s hosts, who own the home.

A country reverts to tribalism unless immigrants enter it legally—often based on the host’s determination of how easily and rapidly they can become citizens, and the degree to which they can benefit their adopted country—and embrace its customs, language, and habits.

The Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq remind us that states without common citizen ties, affinities, rights, and responsibilities become fragmented and violent, as their diverse populations share no investment in the welfare of the commonwealth. What plagues contemporary Iraq and Syria is the lack of clearly defined borders, and often shifting and migrating populations that have no stake in the country of their residence, resulting in competing tribes that vie for political control to aid their own and punish the Other.

A second pillar of citizenship is the sanctity of the law.

What also separates Western and Westernized nations from often impoverished and unsecure states is a notion that citizens entrust their elected representatives with the crafting of laws and then show their fealty by obeying the resulting legislation.

The sanctity of the entire legal system in a republic rests on two important corollaries: citizens cannot pick and choose which laws they obey—either on the grounds that some are deemed bothersome and not in their own self-interest, or on the pretext that they are minor and their violation does not impair society at large.

Citizenship instead demands that unpopular or unworkable laws be amended or repealed by the proper legislative and judicial branches of government, not by popular neglect or violation. Once immigration law goes unenforced, there are pernicious ramifications. First, citizens question why all laws are not equally subject to nullification. If the immigrant is excused from obeying immigration law, is the citizen likewise exempt from IRS statutes or simple traffic laws?

Second, the immigrant himself adopts a mindset that obeying the law is unimportant. Currently among illegal aliens, there is an epidemic of identity theft, forged government affidavits, and the use of fake social security numbers. Open-borders advocates do not disagree that these violations undermine a society, but instead argue that such desperate measures are needed for impoverished illegal aliens to survive in the shadows. Perhaps, but equally true is that once an illegal resident discovers that some of the laws of the host are not enforced, he then assumes others will not be either.

In truth, illegal aliens lose respect for their hosts, concluding that if Americans do not care to enforce their own laws, foreign nationals need not abide by them either. In reductionist terms, when an immigrant’s first act when entering the United States involves breaking the law, then all subsequent violations become only that much easier.

Besides secure borders and respect for the laws, a third tenet of citizenship is the idea of equal applicability of the law. Citizens in modern Western societies are assured that their laws are applied in the same manner to all citizens regardless of differences in class, gender, race, or religion.

Illegal immigration insidiously erodes such equality under the law. When millions of foreign nationals reside illegally in the United States, a myriad of laws must be enforced unequally to perpetuate the initial transgression. Illegal immigration does not just imply illegal entry, but also continued illegal residence and all that entails on a daily basis.

Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from federal immigration agencies in a way that is not true of American citizens who arrive at airports and must go through customs, with no exemption from federal agents examining their passports and personal histories. If crimes or infractions are found, there is no safe space at an airport exempt from federal enforcement.

In California, thousands of illegal aliens have operated automobiles without mandatory insurance, driver’s licenses, and registrations, and, in some municipalities, are not arrested for such violations—even as American citizens who cannot claim such apparent mitigating circumstances are.

In my own vicinity in rural California, there are hundreds of dwellings where multiple families in trailers, sheds, and garages reside, employing illegal water, power, and sewage hookups. Most are more or less left alone by county authorities. The apparent rationale is that such violations are too chronic and widespread to be addressed, or that it simply does not pay for cash-strapped agencies to enforce the law in the case of those who are unable or unwilling to pay substantial fines.

Either way, the nearby citizen who is hounded by county or federal authorities on matters concerning the proper height of his mailbox, or the exact distance between a new leach line and his existing well, feels that the laws are unequally applied and loses confidence in the value of his own citizenship. He often sees it either as no real advantage over mere residency, or perhaps even a disadvantage.

In sum, there are several reasons to put a stop to illegal immigration. But among the most important and forgotten is the insidious destruction of what it means to be a citizen.

March 16, 2017

Strategika Issue #39, You Say You Want A Revolution? Thomas Donnelly [nc]

Hoover Institution

Research
Publications
Fellows
Library & Archives

You are here

Home › Publications › Strategika

Strategika
Issue 39
You Say You Want A Revolution?
by Thomas Donnelly
Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Image credit:
Image credit: Poster Collection, CU 032, Hoover Institution Archives.

To paraphrase the Beatles: Well, you know, you’d better free your mind instead; you may want a revolution but ought to settle for some evolution.

It is an article of revealed religion among defense elites that “we live in a relentlessly changing and fiercely competitive world.” Those words were from former Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, once a physicist and someone deeply imbued with the idea that technological change and competition were the elements propelling change, and that those who failed to “innovate” were doomed to defeat: “Today’s era of military competition is characterized by the additional variables of speed and agility, such that leading the race now frequently depends on who can out-innovate faster than everyone else, and even change the game.”

Such attitudes took root in the late Cold War, back when the Pentagon had a “director for defense research and engineering”—a powerful post separate from the actual weapons-buying bureaucracy—and invested substantial sums in the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency. These agencies were dominated by engineers, practical people whose goal was not science per say but to find ways to put new technologies into the hands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. But the combination of the Cold War’s end and the endless small wars of the post-9/11 years has inverted this traditional approach; the leaders of the Defense Department have been driven by the immediate need to respond to today’s enemies—all of them unpredicted—and have luxuriated in an extreme form of futurism—dreams that must inevitably go unfulfilled.

The failure to build and field in important numbers the weapons designs of the 1990s has all but deprived U.S. forces of the conventional-force superiority that is a premise of their strategy. The past failures to innovate incrementally have added up, even though the Russians and Chinese—and, increasingly, their Iranian partners in what Walter Russell Mead has dubbed the “Axis of Weevils”—have done little more than attained the level of lethality and sophistication reached by U.S. forces during Desert Storm. And since the Weevils are, for the moment, entirely engaged in moving into the vacuum created by American withdrawals rather than testing their strength directly, it is hard to know what level of tactical competence they have really derived from their belated modernization, but the balance of military power has undoubtedly shifted. National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster put the matter succinctly: “When we minimize our Army, we maximize the risk to our soldiers, the risk that in a crisis they will be forced to enter a fight too few in number and without the training and equipment they need to win.”

In such circumstances, broad programs of military “transformation”—Donald Rumsfeld’s dream or a “third offset,” and Ash Carter’s homage to former Defense Secretary William Perry and the creation of “stealth” aircraft—are not relevant. Photon torpedoes, warp drives, and cloaking devices remain in the realm of the starship Enterprise. Better the urgency of President John Kennedy, who vowed to put an American on the moon “in this decade,” than the spirit of Captain James Kirk. And in fact, there are fairly mature military technologies that meet the test of restoring the tactical advantages that U.S. troops once enjoyed.

Perhaps the most tantalizing near-term technologies are related to the substitution of intense amounts of electrical energy for the explosive power of gunpowder. This comprises a kind of catch-all category that subsumes several developments and could have—at least to leaders with an engineering mindset—multiple applications. Fielding electrical-energy-based weapons depends upon the ability to generate and to store immense amounts of power, and then release it either as a destructive force on its own or to propel a projectile at extremely high speeds. Stored electricity might prove to be the gunpowder of the future.

The Defense Department and the military services have been experimenting with these technologies for a decade and more. The Army and Navy have tested a number of “railgun” designs. Railguns are electromagnetic launchers with a parallel set of conductors—the “rails”—that accelerate a sliding armature by passing a very strong current down one rail, along the armature to the other rail. In essence, it’s a 21st-century slingshot that hurls a very dense, but inert, projectile about twice as fast as a traditional cannon; the kinetic energy of these projectiles is enormous.

It does appear that the science of railguns has reached some level of maturity. The main technological challenges are generating and storing enough electrical power—that is to say, a big engine and a good set of batteries—to allow for repeated pulses of direct current that would yield militarily relevant rates of fire of something like six rounds per minute. Other challenges are to build durable and practical rails, since the launch process generates extreme heat that stresses the rail materials. Further, designing guidance mechanisms that can withstand the heat generated by the speed of the projectile may be difficult. On the plus side, the design of munitions ought to be simplified, as should storage, handling, and logistics, since there is no “warhead” atop a railgun round and explosives are not required. Moreover, the range of railguns would far exceed that of any cannon.

But again, the railgun literature strongly indicates that these are challenges for engineering, not basic science. The Navy is interested in railgun technology as a potential solution to the rising challenges of surface fleet air defense and, especially, cruise and ballistic missile defense. Ironically, the otherwise-disastrous Zumwalt-class destroyer—which is now a $4 billion-per-copy pocket battleship—would make a practical platform for a railgun-based system. The ship is huge for a “destroyer”; at almost 15,000 tons it’s almost twice the size of the current Arleigh Burke-class ships. And it has an electric engine that can not only drive the ship at 30 knots, but also generate huge amounts of additional electricity. The Navy originally planned to buy 32 Zumwalts, but the program has long since run aground—because of its technological and cost problems, but also, most importantly, because the ship was misconceived—and halted at just three. To redesign and revive the project would involve great further expense and be an engineering risk, surely. But it could also result in fielding a game-changing technology that would go far toward solving the “anti-access” problem posed by the growing arsenals of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian anti-ship missiles within the next decade rather than several decades. There is no reason to believe that designing a new class of ships would be any less expensive; indeed it is irrational to think that starting over would save money.

On a smaller scale, electromagnetic guns might become the main armaments on tanks and howitzers. While all the same challenges would recur and be compounded by the need to reduce both the source of the electricity and the storage device to the size of a ground combat vehicle, the fundamental engineering challenges are the same as for ships. And the Army already is experimenting with modifying existing howitzers to shoot the same projectile as an electromagnetic weapon. “It turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster,” says Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who has been held over from the Obama Administration to ensure continuity in defense planning. “We are [saying to the next administration]: ‘Look, we believe this is the place where you want to put your money, but we’re going to have enough money in there for both the electromagnetic rail gun and the powder gun.’”

A related development, also resulting from the ability to generate and store immense amounts of power, that is on the cusp of science fiction and reality is the prospect of using directed energy itself as a weapon. Indeed, some low-level forms of directed energy have been employed by the military for some time: microwave systems that heat the water in skin cells, causing irritation, have been used as a crowd-control measure; microwaves also have been fielded to fry enemy electronic systems. Even the radars on combat aircraft may have limited applications in disrupting the sensors of attacking missiles. And, as far back as 2002, the U.S. Air Force began flying an “Airborne Laser”—basically, a giant high-energy chemical laser stuffed inside a 747 commercial aircraft body—as a missile defense test system. In January 2010 the system successfully passed an intercept test and a month later destroyed two targets in a single engagement. But shortly thereafter, amid one of the many rounds of defense budget reductions during the Obama Administration, the effort was scrapped. In many ways, fielding the system as designed was a bad idea—the laser itself needed to be more powerful and would have required a large and vulnerable aircraft to fly within range of enemy air defenses—but the underlying concept was sound and indicative that such systems were technologically feasible, if tactically immature. Also, it was clear that using electricity rather than chemistry as a power source was a better solution.

Electromagnetic guns, hypersonic projectiles or even directed energy death rays would by themselves not necessarily constitute a revolution in warfare. But these technologies could yield a substantial increase in the capabilities of a wide variety of legacy platforms—and, importantly, again provide U.S. forces with a significant battlefield edge. Most of all, such investments could get the American military back in the habit of continuous modernization and the operational innovation that comes from actually fielding new capabilities. The enthusiasts for “transformation” of the past generation have been looking through the wrong end of the telescope; their model of innovation was that, starved of funds, the U.S. armed services would have to think of new ways to fight. But, through history, the process of change in war has been one that more frequently rewards practical tinkering—matching organizations and doctrine to technologies—more than bold conceptualization. Imagining the tank or the fighter aircraft was the basis for a revolution, but to realize it demanded their integration into combined-arms formation and figuring out how to keep that organization supplied with fossil fuel.

Finally, the experience of recent decades ought to debunk the transformationists’ idea that the United States could afford a geopolitical “strategic pause” to pursue a strategy of innovation. Nor can a global power afford an “offset” approach. To paraphrase the Beatles one last time: Evolution is the real solution. And you can see the plan.

March 11, 2017

Imprimis Feb 17 Vol 46 #2

Support Imprimis

How Intelligence Works (When it Does)
February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer
Herbert E. Meyer
Founder and President, Storm King Press
________________________________________
Herbert E. Meyer, founder and president of Storm King Press, served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council. A recipient of the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, his articles and essays on intelligence have been published in several major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of several books, including Real-World Intelligence and Hard Thinking; two eBooks, How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty; and a recent booklet, Why is the World So Dangerous.
________________________________________

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.

The performance of our country’s intelligence service is the latest example of an issue exploding into the headlines and becoming a shouting match, while failing to clarify anything about the issue itself. This explosion was ignited last fall by allegations that the Russians hacked into Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the election. The blast radius expanded after the election, when rumors surfaced that the Russians had deployed their nasty tactic of kompromat to undermine President Trump’s credibility by spreading rumors about his private behavior while in Moscow years ago. All this, on top of failures that had already wreaked havoc at the CIA and our other intelligence agencies—the 9/11 attacks themselves, the mess over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the weird 2007 National Intelligence Estimate whose key judgment was that Iran had abandoned its nuclear bomb program, Edward Snowden’s NSA espionage activities—has kept the issue of our intelligence service in the headlines.

But before addressing the question of why these failures have occurred, we need to define clearly the role and purpose of our country’s intelligence service, with a focus on how intelligence really works when it’s working properly.

Just utter the word “intelligence” and most people conjure up images of spies, secret satellites peering down on foreign cities and terrorist camps, and rooms full of young technocrats reading private emails and listening to private conversations. These images are accurate, but they reflect the tools and techniques of our intelligence service, rather than its purpose. To understand its purpose, think of a jumbo jet flying at night through turbulent skies—thunder clouds, lightning, other airplanes streaking in all directions and at all altitudes. To navigate through this, the pilot and his crew rely on their radar—the instrument that paints a picture of their environment, enabling them to see what’s going on around them and what lies ahead so they can chart a safe course. Radar doesn’t tell the captain and his crew what to do, but it gives them the accurate information they’ll need to make good decisions.

Our intelligence service is our nation’s radar. Its purpose is to provide the president and his national security team with an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and what’s likely to happen in the days, months, and years ahead. The assumption is that if the president and his team have this information, they can chart a safe course for our country. And if they can see the distant future soon enough and clearly enough—and if they don’t like what they see—they can take steps to change the future before it happens.

Good intelligence is a combination of information and insight. Information is the raw material, while insight is the finished product. Sometimes this insight takes the form of a top secret report that alerts the president and his team to something that’s about to happen, such as a terrorist attack or the military invasion of one country by another. At other times it is a National Intelligence Estimate, whose purpose is to provide an overall assessment of a major issue—such as North Korea’s nuclear bomb program or the rapid growth of Africa’s middle class—along with a prediction of its future course.

The key to producing good intelligence lies in getting this combination of information and insight right. Intelligence work is like science. You don’t collect information randomly and then stare at it in hopes that something important will pop up. You start with a thesis—in other words, you decide what you want to know. Then you send your collectors out to get it. This is why the key to producing good intelligence lies in asking the right question, rather than in just poring over what’s been randomly collected in hopes that somewhere in the pile of reports and intercepts on your desk you’ll spot something important.

Let me give you an example of how this worked during the Reagan administration. From the end of World War II until 1981, every president’s objective had been not to lose the Cold War. If things were no worse when a president left office than when he took office, he’d done a good job. But President Reagan didn’t want to tread water—he wanted to win the Cold War. In other words, he switched from defense to offense. So Reagan’s great director of Central Intelligence, William Casey, asked the CIA’s Soviet Division two obvious questions: Where is the Soviet Union weak? and Where is it most vulnerable? The answer he received was: We don’t know. No one’s ever asked this before. Our spies had been so focused on Soviet strengths—infantry divisions, nuclear missiles, tanks, submarines, and so forth—that we had no intelligence on Soviet weaknesses, such as its imploding economy. Under Casey’s leadership, we refocused our collection efforts and, not surprisingly, found all sorts of Soviet vulnerabilities that hadn’t been grasped because no one had bothered looking for them. President Reagan used these weaknesses and vulnerabilities to put more and more pressure on the Kremlin. Eight years later the Berlin Wall came down, and two years after that the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

In the intelligence business, just as in scientific research, a thesis sometimes turns out to be wrong. The collectors can’t find what you want, because it isn’t there. When this happens—and it happens to even the best scientists and intelligence officials—you must abandon your flawed thesis and re-think the issue. If you refuse to do this, you’re like a scientist who continues to insist that the Earth is flat—or a president who continues to insist that ISIS is like a “junior varsity” team.

February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer

When the collectors have done their work—when they’ve told the analysts what they want to know—the intelligence process shifts from gathering information to creating insight. It’s the difference between shopping for food in the supermarket and actually cooking dinner.

Insight is the product of knowledge, experience, and, above all, good judgment. You cannot say something insightful, or even something intelligent, on a subject or issue about which you don’t know anything. So the most senior intelligence analysts must be among the world’s most knowledgeable individuals in their fields of expertise—the Mideast, Russia, China, nuclear weapons, economic development, etc. And they must have that one elusive and unquantifiable skill that so often brings success in every venture: the ability to spot a pattern with the fewest possible facts—the ability to look at what’s known and combine this with their own knowledge, experience, and good judgment, to come up with a new idea or insight. This is the skill we see in great scientists like Albert Einstein, in great entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, and in great intelligence chiefs like Bill Casey.

Back in January, when U.S. intelligence chiefs released an unclassified version of the briefing they gave to President-Elect Trump about Russian efforts to influence the November election, Americans learned a phrase that’s unique to the world of intelligence: key judgment. It was a key judgment that Russia had hacked into John Podesta’s email server, and a key judgment that Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. Since these key judgments understandably erupted into a nasty political brawl, let’s take a moment to understand what a key judgment really is. Simply put, it’s the conclusion reached by our most senior intelligence officials, based not only on the evidence they were able to collect, but also on the insights it enabled them to reach based on their knowledge and experience.

A key judgment isn’t the same as a jury verdict. A jury verdict is based solely on the evidence presented to it. In a murder trial, unless the prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you must vote for acquittal. But in a National Intelligence Estimate, you reach a key judgment by starting with the evidence, then combining it with your own knowledge and experience to reach a conclusion.

Precisely because key judgments go beyond evidence, an intelligence service must be trusted by policymakers to be effective. Policymakers may not always like what they’re told—as when the obvious implication of a National Intelligence Estimate is that a favorite policy is heading for catastrophe—but if they trust the intelligence service, they will know that what they’ve been told is likely true. And this trust needs to be earned.

This is how it was during the Reagan administration, because ev¬eryone from the President on down knew perfectly well that the intelligence official who not only had read the final version of an Estimate and signed off on it—but also played a major role in writing it—was the CIA director himself. Like every other member of the cabinet, Bill Casey was a busy man. But to Casey, being in charge of our intelligence service meant more than merely being its top administrator and dealing with budgets and bureaucracies. It meant that he himself was our country’s top intelligence analyst. When the final draft of an Estimate landed on his desk—more precisely, when I walked into his office and handed it to him—Casey would take that draft, pick up a pen and a yellow legal pad, and go through it word by word.

Sometimes he made a change that clarified a sentence. Other times he asked a question that forced us to go back and re-think what we’d written. When that happened, we either changed the draft or asked to meet with Casey to try and persuade him that the original version was better. He would listen and then make his decision. All of us who worked closely with Bill Casey—he insisted that everyone, including the CIA’s most junior analysts, call him Bill—were astounded by the amount of time he devoted to getting the final draft of an Estimate, or the final version of the President’s Daily Brief, just right. He did this by sitting quietly in his office, reading, writing, and—something that so few officials in Washington, D.C. set aside the time to do—thinking.

February 2017 • Volume 46, Number 2 • Herbert E. Meyer

So why has our intelligence service suffered so many failures during the last decade or so, losing the trust of so many? Because it’s been run by career bureaucrats and administrators who rose to the top by managing intelligence rather than actually doing it. That’s like putting an airline executive with an MBA and a law degree into the cockpit of a jumbo jet. And like bureaucrats and administrators everywhere, our recent intelligence chiefs focused on structure rather than on people. Of course all organizations, including intelligence services, need the proper structure. But especially in an intelligence service, good structure is worthless without the right people—in this case world-class analysts who are deeply knowledgeable about the Mideast, China, Russia, terrorism, and all the rest. Make a list of our country’s leading experts on these subjects. How many of them have held top-level jobs in our intelligence service during the last dozen or so years? How often have the leaders of our intelligence service reached out to these people to seek their advice? The correct answers are: none and rarely.

We are still in the early days of the Trump administration, but to borrow an overused Washington cliché, we should be cautiously optimistic about the future of our intelligence service. Neither Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats nor Director of Central Intelligence Mike Pompeo are professional bureaucrats. They’ve built their careers on substance rather than on management. Each of them has proven he can talk about the key issues that confront us with an impressive level of personal knowledge and insight. Each is capable of actually doing intelligence rather than merely overseeing it.

This will require restoring the correct balance between collection and analysis. Obviously, collecting information is crucially important work. Collecting information through technology—satellites, intercepts, and so forth—is intense to the point of exhaustion. Collecting information through espionage is dangerous and sometimes fatal. All of us owe these collectors a huge debt of gratitude. What they need now is guidance from the top—a clear sense of what to look for, rather than just being told to sweep in whatever information they can in hopes it will prove useful.

Turning this raw material into first-rate intelligence will require the active participation of our country’s best geo-strategic experts in think tanks, universities, corporations, and increasingly the blogosphere. Directors Coats and Pompeo should recruit the ones they can, and be in close touch with the others. This doesn’t mean agreeing with everything these experts say and write. It means listening to them and blending their information and insights with what’s been gathered covertly, in order to reach the clearest, most accurate conclusions about what’s happening now and what’s likely to happen in the future.

Finally, Coats and Pompeo will need to do the one thing their recent predecessors didn’t do, either because they didn’t recognize the need to do it or didn’t have the ability. They will need to set aside time—quite a bit of time—to sit quietly in their offices and think. Their objective must be to paint an accurate picture of what’s going on in the world and of what’s likely to happen in the future. If they can do this, President Trump and his national security team will have what they need to see America safely through today’s global turbulence: radar.

March 10, 2017

Hanson angry reader reply, 10 Mar 17 [nc]

03/10/17
From an Angry Reader:

Mr. Hansen –

In this commentary, you appear to be engaging in sophistry. In other words, you appear to be decisively imparting falsehoods. First you fabricate a definition of the “American elite” comprised exclusively of progressives. Then you fabricate a reality where the mainstream press disseminates lies, where college campuses lack diversity and muzzle free speech and where progressives have fallen down in addressing the problems of the inner cities. Finally you fabricate an argument that the so-called elite have “titles, brands and buzz” but no “demonstrable knowledge or proven character”. This is a perfect example of deflection and psychological projection. You have, wittingly or not, described your populist hero Donald Trump, a man with “brands and buzz”, who disseminates lies, impugns minorities, muzzles the press, cares little about the inner cities and clearly lacks knowledge or character.

– Allan Cooper

Victor Davis Hanson’s Reply:

Dear Angry Reader Allan Cooper

One of the themes of the Angry Reader column is the predictable use by Leftists such as yourself of personal invective (“sophistry”, “falsehoods”, “fabricate”, etc.) along with intellectual laziness.

Take your allegation that I wrote that elites are “comprised exclusively of progressives”.

How does that assertion square with my allusion in the column on elites to “many in the Republican Party as well” or to the “Bush or Clinton families”. Are the Bushes and the Republican Party progressives?

So it is hard to take you seriously when the first allegation you make is demonstrably false.

And it sadly it is all downhill from there:

1) Are you arguing for intellectual diversity on campus? I think the recent Middlebury and Berkeley violence highlights my suggestion that there is little intellectual tolerance on campus.

2) Are you suggesting that the media is not progressive? JournoList, Wikileaks, and the epidemic of fake news from Rathergate and Brian Williams to the MLK bust allegation or Trump’s supposed romps in a Moscow hotel room substantiate the unreliability of the press, which by all polls and its own admission is overwhelming liberal.

3) You doubt the nature of life in the inner city or its governance? The inner cities are in crisis; most have had Democratic mayors and councils for the last thirty years and more; again are you contending that fact?

Donald Trump is not “my populist hero”; can you find any indication that I wrote that?

More to the point: what Trump says and what he actually does are two different things. I will find him guilty of “muzzling the press” when his Justice Department hounds journalists of the Associated Press or taps the communications of a reporter in the fashion of Obama’s treatment of James Rosen, or expands the reach of the NSA and the dissemination of its intelligence or depends on fawning press coverage to advance his agenda in the fashion of the “god”, “smartest president ever” and leg-tingling Barack Obama.

There are various ways of defining knowledge and character.

Trump is, of course, a flawed individual like many of us; but his failings are transparent, quite unlike those of Barack Obama, to take one example (Hillary Clinton is another).

With Trump, what you see is what you get. With Obama and his subordinates we were given constant utopian platitudes about hope and change, but experienced quite different dangerous deeds: expansions of NSA electronic surveillance, lying under oath by Eric Holder and James Clapper, the warping of the IRS, scandals in the VA, GSA, Secret Service, EPA, etc., nullifications of federal law by executive order non-enforcement, the jailing of a video maker on the false narrative of culpability for Benghazi (about which lies were promulgated by Susan Rice), the “echo chamber” manipulation of the “know nothing” press, assassinations abroad of US citizens, bombing Libya without congressional consent, the likely illegal monitoring and leaking of communications of the Trump campaign (as reported by the NY Times, Washington Post, and BBC), constant mellifluous untruth (you can keep your doctor and health plan, the president will not by fiat grant amnesties, the mythologies of the Cairo Speech), and often bizarre references to foreign leaders (from the open mic promise to be more flexible with Putin but only after the election to the gratuitous insults of Netanyahu [“coward”, “chickenshit”]). I learned in farming early on that the loud and uncouth are easier to deal with than the glib and shifty-eyed; the former may assault you senses, but the latter your person and livelihood.

So I think you need to redefine the boundaries of wisdom; they are not just calibrated by “57 states”- and “corps-men”-like Columbia and Harvard degrees.

Surviving the Manhattan real estate cauldron may take more savvy and cunning than the sorts of identity-politics navigation in colleges and liberal circles as outlined in Dreams From My Father. I have spent most of my adult life in two pursuits: academia, often in the circle of those with impressive graduate degrees, and farming with those sometimes without high school diplomas.

I saw little difference among the two groups in terms of ethics, saw the less articulate often more direct and transparent, and could never quite tell which group was the smarter, although what I heard in the faculty lounge and academic senate was a few rings down on the intelligence scale from what I heard and saw when talking to well drillers, pump installers, and tractor mechanics.

Sincerely,

Victor Davis HansOn (Swedish not Danish)

March 7, 2017

“Russian Collusion”, Joseph R. John, Capt USN [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 7:41 AM

The Duplicity of the “Russian Collusion” is the Collusion Between Obama, Democrat Senators, and the Russians

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 7, 2017: Op Ed # 340

Since the 1920s Russian Communists have tried to destabilize US elections, as they are currently trying to destabilize elections in France. Russian Communists have been very successful in supporting candidates for Congress in the US who want to bring down the US Constitutional form of government. Over the last 100 years, Russia promoted the philosophies of candidates in the US that resulted in the election of 70 Democratic members of Congress who are Socialists, Leftists, Communists, Progressives, and Muslims (you can easily obtain their names by making a request of Google for the “Socialists, Communists, and Progressives in Congress”).

The goal for all elections in the US should be to prevent the Russians, China, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and any other foreign power from influencing US Congressional and Presidential elections. Following the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and the left of center liberal media establishment have been promoting Russian conspiracy theories as the reason why Hillary lost the election. The assertion is that the Russia worked with the Trump Presidential Campaign to hack the Democratic National Committee, to interfere with, and deny Hillary what she felt was her right to be elected to the presidency.

The Russian narrative of collusion is fake news propped up by the left of center liberal media establishment, in order to delegitimize President Trump. After 4 months of investigation, there is absolutely no evidence of collusion, or one source that the press can identify who can prove collusion. The Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, James R. Clapper, stated that there has been no evidence that Russia colluded with anyone in the Trump Presidential Campaign Organization, that there is no proof that Russia affected the votes in any state, or that Russia’s actions actually caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election.

Many leftist and progressive organizations have been working closely with Obama’s Organization For America (OFA), with Soros, Bill Ayers, and Valerie Jarret (who moved into Obama’s rented house in Washington) to initiate a silent coup d’état, to oust President Trump from office. Sources told the Daily Mail that Obama hates Trump and plans to bring down the Trump administration. Obama is employing 32,000 Alinsky trained radicals, operating out of 250 offices across the nation, who are being paid by Soros to sabotage the Trump administration.

Obama puts on a charming face for the press, but his hate for President Trump is evil. OFA is leading a full-fledged effort to deny President Trump control of the US Government, with the help of thousands of Obama’s political appointees, still in positions of leadership in the Intelligence Agencies and other departments of US Government. For the last 4 months, Obama has showed his true colors, in his concerted effort to employ OFA and the left of center liberal media establishment to allege that Russia colluded with the Trump Campaign to defeat Hillary and to support violent demonstrations in the streets.

The slow approval of members of President Trumps Cabinet by Democrats in the Senate, and the reluctance to approve over 500 sub-cabinet appointees requiring Senate approval. The slowdown has been orchestrated to allow the Obama political appointees to remain in their appointed positions throughout the government. The goal is to undermine the Trump administration and provide leak of damaging information to the press. All Obama appointees should be required to submit their resignation, as is custom following a presidential election, when a new administration gains power.

In June 2016, it was reported that Obama administration surrogates approached the FISA Court to surveille Donald Trump; the application was rejected by a Federal Judge. In October 2016, the Obama administration Justice Department submitted a second request to a FISA Court to surveil two Russian Banks that was approved. They were apparently successful with that wiretap, because in November the New York Times reported that it was learned “thru a wiretap” that General Flynn had spoken to Russian representatives in the course of communicating with 45 other governments (incidentally that was his job; Obama’s representatives were negotiating with Iran in meetings in the country of Oman long before Obama was inaugurated). Someone in Justice or in one the intelligence agencies leaked to the New York Times, that a wiretap had revealed that General Flynn had communicated with a representative of the Russian government.

On inauguration day, the New York Times reported in a front page story, that The White House received information from a wiretap, that there was no conclusive evidence of any wrong doing by the Trump Campaign with Russia. That was the second violation of federal law by leakers to the New York Times: those leakers should be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act.

Yet the New York Times keeps reporting that President Donald Trump has given no proof of a wiretap of the Trump campaign; they refused to inform their readers that revealing details of a FISA wiretap is against federal law and details can’t be revealed to the general public. Certain provision s of the Espionage Act and Federal Law EO 1333, Section 23c allows the President of the United States to wiretap phones without a FISA Warrant (that is called collecting incidental intelligence); that may have been the way that Obama’s Justice Department wire tapped Donald Trump’s phones. The wiretap was not an FBI wiretap.

Only 17 days before Obama left office, he changed President Eisenhower’s, tried and true, method of handling very sensitive highly classified signal intelligence. Obama changed the manner in which highly classified and sensitive signal intelligence could be shared by the NSA; he didn’t make that damaging changed the previous 8 years. By authorized the NSA to share very sensitive information with 17 US Intelligence Agencies, Obama allowed too many people access to intelligence that had no need to know. That last minute change by Obama, made it very difficult to track who is currently releasing the classified intelligence information today. Ever since Hillary lost the election, intelligence leaks by intelligence agencies have been ongoing and damaging seriously National Security.

The Democrats tried to hide the fact that the Russian Ambassador had meetings in the Obama White House and Valerie Jarret 22 times to advance the extremely dangerous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement and support Valerie Jarret’s allies in Iran. In addition, 30 Democratic Senators met with Communist diplomats from Russia and China on Capitol Hill to tamp down opposition to, and advance Obama’s dangerous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement.

It is not far-fetched to report, and there should be no surprise for the American people to learn that the Obama administration instigated the surveillance of the Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign, by simply reviewing how Obama tried to restrict the rights of American citizens, listed below, and learn how Obama violated the US Constitutional rights of Americans over the last 8 years:

(1) The Obama Justice Department wiretapped the telephone of James Rosen, a TV Press Reporter in violation of Freedom of the Press.

(2) The Obama Justice Department wiretapped and compromised the personal information of 28 AP Reporters.

(3) Obama’s IRS targeted Conservative Groups in the “Tea Party Scandal” and prevented them from registering as tax free organization to participate in national election; a violation of Freedom of the Right to participate in elections.

(4) Obama’s ATF “Operation Fast and Furious Scandal” perpetrated by then Attorney General Eric Holder transferred 2000 weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels was aimed at somehow compromising the right of Americans to purchase weapons from gun dealers in the US, in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of a US President to be held in contempt of Congress for his actions.

(5) When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had transmitted Top Secret SCI messages via a private unclassified server located in the basement of her home for 4 years, and that some of the compartmented messages with even higher classifications may have compromised the safety of intelligent assets in foreign countries, and possibly resulted in their deaths, Obama said that he had no problem with her unclassified server. Hillary and Obama were responsible for compromising very sensitive national security information. Hillary’s transmissions may have led to the attack in Benghazi, because Hillary’s intercepted messages insisted on the removal of security for the Libyan Ambassador, leaving the US Mission virtually unprotected.

A review of the duplicity by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Jarret, Democratic Senators, and Democratic Congressmen in their meetings with Russians, that was ignored by the left of center liberal media establishment for 8 years. The Democrats can make the below listed egregious agreements with the Russians, yet the press didn’t accuse them of colluding with Russia. President Trump’s staff is being accused daily of wild Russian conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. When the American people compare the below listed information with the few phone calls made by General Flynn in the function of his duties, there should be no doubt about who has been colluding with Russia to the detriment of the United States:

(1) In 2012, shortly just prior to the presidential election, Obama was meeting with Putin’s number two, (then Russian President) Dmitry Medvedev). There was an open microphone and Obama was overheard — and it was reported — “You tell Vladimir that I’ll have a lot more flexibility after the election.”

(2) Then Russia invaded Crimea, and conquered the first country, since WWII, and Obama did absolutely nothing.

(3) Then Russia had their military personnel in unmarked uniforms attacked Ukraine; Ukraine literally begged the US for defensive weapons, and Obama did nothing.

(4) Despite the warning of Israel and many other US allies, Obama did nothing when Putin provided surface to air missiles to protect Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities, protecting them from military strikes by Israel.

(5) When Putin joined Iran and Assad in killing US trained Sunni freedom fighters throughout Syria, Obama did nothing.

(6) Obama allowed Hillary, his Secretary of State, to authorize the transfer of 20% of the United States Uranium to Russia.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/10/obama-approved-giving-iran-116-metric-tons-of-uranium-as-a-thank-you-gift/

(7) Hillary’s Clinton Foundation in Canada received support from a Putin Front Company and John Podesta received stock and was placed on the Board of Directors of that company following the transfer of the 20 % of the US’s uranium to Russia

The true “Russian Collusion” is the collusion between Barack Obama, the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, and the Russians. Obama approved giving Russia, 20% of the United States uranium production, as a thank you gift for supporting the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement on the international stage, and gave Iran 116 metric tons of US uranium. Obama’s team used the pretext of Russian interference in the election to justify wiretapping the Trump Campaign, and to authorize illegal leaks to the press. Obama continues to oppose the legitimacy of President Trump’s election, opposes the retention of Attorney General Session, and was successful in opposing the retention of General Flynn as the National Security Advisor.

Obama is the first former occupant of the Oval Office in 240 years to try to bring down his successor by sabotaging his programs on a daily basis. The below listed article outlines the 64 ways Obama is sabotaging the Trump administration!!!

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

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

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

WND Exclusive

64 ways Obama is sabotaging Trump

Ex-president plots to force resignation or impeachment

Garth Kant

818

WASHINGTON – It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate.

“Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment,” the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.

The source also told the paper that Obama loathes President Trump and considers his presidency illegitimate.

“Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy – Obamacare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,” the source told the

The following is a list of what has been publicly reported, by WND and others, about what Obama is trying to do to oppose — many say destroy — the Trump presidency and how he is doing it:

1) Obama is using his new mansion, just two miles from the White House, as his headquarters in his insurgency against Trump.

2) Obama’s shadow White House has a taxpayer-funded office, a chief of staff and press secretary.

3) He is working behind the scenes to set up a shadow government to protect his legacy and sabotage the incoming administration.

4) A family source said Obama was reluctant to lead the opposition to Trump because he was “weary and burned out.” But top adviser Valerie Jarrett convinced him it was the only way to salvage his legacy.

5) The source said, “Obama doesn’t make a decision without her,” and he has now embraced his new role leading the campaign to sabotage the administration because he loathes Trump, whose presidency he considers illegitimate.

6) To guide and counsel Obama, Jarrett has moved into his 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million mansion.

7) According to the source, Michelle Obama and Jarrett will strategize to topple Trump.

8) The former first lady and the Obama Foundation will both have offices in the mansion. Presumably, Jarrett will, too.

9) Obama will implement his plans through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action, or OFA, the organization that grew out of his campaign group, Organizing for America.

10) That will give Obama a virtual army of agitators and organizers at is disposal. Federal tax records show OFA has 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Another 25,000 are actively under training.

11) OFA has more than 250 offices across the country.

12) OFA is equipped with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, which it will use to rally resistance to Trump and get out the vote for Democratic Party candidates.

13) OFA is registered as a “social welfare” non-profit 501(c)(4), that doesn’t have to disclose its donors. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since 2013.

14) OFA volunteers are professionally trained organizers who go through a six-week training program that includes Alinsky agitation tactics. OFA is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers.

15) OFA plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump’s effort to repeal Obamacare.

16) Obama appeared to be behind anti-Trump protests. He praised demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban. And, after the election he personally rallied OFA troops to protect his legacy in a conference call. “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope” over the election results.”

17) After Trump’s victory, Obama also promised OFA activists he would soon join them in the battle. “Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” he said. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

18) He also said, “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them.”

19) Since the election, OFA has added staff and accelerated its recruitment of liberal activists.

20) OFA promises to fight Trump on illegal immigration, Obamacare, race relations and climate change.

21) Some of the anti-Trump marches organized by OFA across the country turned into riots.

22) OFA is distributing a training manual to anti-Trump activists.

23) The manual is published with OFA newly formed partner “Indivisible,” and advises protesters to go town halls held by GOP lawmakers, blend in, then protest.

24) OFA is working with Indivisible to conduct online training for protesters.

25) Indivisible leaders are associated with groups financed by radical leftist billionaire George Soros.

26) An OFA post on Facebook called on activists to mobilize against Republicans until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

27) The protesters disrupted town halls including one held in Utah by House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who was confronted by hundreds of angry protesters claiming to be his constituents.

28) The manual advised protesters to spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposed the Republican host’s positions. It said, “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urged them to ask “hostile” questions – while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” – and loudly boo the GOP politician.

29) An audio recording obtained by a Louisiana radio station documented that progressive activists plotted to take over a town hall meeting held by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. Activists were instructed to dress like conservatives and leave at home “any signifier that you’re a liberal in order to blend in.”

30) The station identified one of the voices on the recording as James Proctor, a leader of Indivisible Acadiana, a local branch of the national Indivisible organization, which has organized hostile Republican town halls all around the country.

31) Protesters were advised to send video footage to local and national media. “Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating” for Republican lawmakers, the manual said, when “shared through social media and picked up by local and national media.”

32) Protesters gave networks footage of their confrontations with Chaffetz, forcing him to issue statements defending himself.

33) A study by the Media Research Center found that 88 percent of the broadcast news coverage of the Trump administration was “hostile” during the first 30 days of office. The study analyzed both tone and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS.

34) A script in the training manual advised callers to complain: “I’m honestly scared that a known racist and anti-Semite will be working just feet from the Oval Office … It is everyone’s business if a man who promoted white supremacy is serving as an adviser to the president.” But the document provided no evidence to support the accusations.

35) The manual also advised protesters to flood lawmakers’ offices with phone calls and emails demanding the resignation of top White House adviser Steve Bannon.

36) Protesters also stormed Republicans’ district offices. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., blamed a mob of anti-Trump activists for knocking unconscious a 71-year-old female staffer at his Southern California office.

37) Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said he was certain the former president and elements of the Democratic Party were behind the protests because they have been too organized and too professional to be random eruptions of grass-roots discontent. “Obama. George Soros money, I’m certain, is involved,” he said. “They also discuss how to play up to the media, and they illustrate that the media’s not very hard to convince. The media is on their side. The media is only too eager to cooperate, as we know.”

38) Trump agreed Obama was probably behind the protests. “Well, you never know what’s exactly happening behind the scenes,” Trump said. “You know, you’re probably right, or possibly right, but you never know. No, I think that President Obama is behind it because his people are certainly behind it. And the some of the leaks possibly come from that group, you know, some of the leaks which are really very serious leaks because they’re very bad in terms of national security. But I also understand that’s politics. And in terms of him being behind things, that’s politics, and it will probably continue.”

39) Limbaugh said, “Hedge funds and Hollywood are assisting him (Obama), so there is money and propaganda on his side. ABC is among the worst in the mainstream media, which is a total disgrace for Disney.”

40) Limbaugh also noted that impeachment talk is being used by Democrats to derail Trump: “Now, they don’t have the numbers in Congress to pull it off, but can you imagine if Democrat House managers even start breathing the word seriously? The media is gonna be all over it! The media’s gonna eat it up! The media’s gonna be asking Republicans, ‘Why aren’t you joining the Democrats? Don’t you understand? This is a serious movement to impeach the president. He’s doing great damage to the country.’ I can see it all now.”

41) “Obama has circumvented the Democrats with [Organizing for America] and has established a clandestine unaccountable political party taking money from questionable people,” said Martin Armstrong, whose Armstrong Economics provides commentary on a wide range of issues extending beyond economics, including history, global warming, real estate and world events.

42) Armstrong added: “Obama is behind the effort to derail and block the Trump administration on everything. However, Obama may be sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Democratic Party altogether. Those who think Obama is not behind this coup are blinded by their bias.”

43) Armstrong explained that Obama “is deliberately trying to create an uprising and is side-stepping the Democratic Party himself because they will not agree with his agenda.”

44) At the same time, Obama is said to be angling for control over the party by installing his former civil rights chief, Tom Perez, as the newly elected head of the Democratic National Committee. Perez vowed, “It’s time to organize and fight … We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

45) OFA is working with the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, or NDRC, launched recently by Obama former attorney general Eric Holder, to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts and to try to redraw the districts in a way more favorable to Democrats to increase their members in Congress.

46) Holder said he had discussed Obama fundraising for the NDRC and interacting with state lawmakers on the group’s behalf.

47) Spokesman Jared Leopold described the tax-exempt NDRC as a “super group” that brings together the efforts of the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC.

48) On Tuesday, Holder promised Democrats that Obama is getting ready for a public return to politics. “It’s coming. He’s coming,” Holder said while discussing NDRC, which Obama asked him to chair last year. “And he’s ready to roll,” and “will be a more visible part of the effort,” Holder added.

49) Obama signaled his intention before leaving the White House last fall, saying that his post-presidency focus would be on general assembly races and redistricting after the 2020 Census, trying to recapture some of the enormous number of seats Democrats lost at the state level during his presidency.

50) Obama said in September, “Once out of office, I’m gonna stop being polite and start getting real.”

51) Obama hinted that he planned to start speaking out more like an activist than a president. There are “things,” he said in an interview, “that in some ways I suspect I’m able to do better out of this office.” He elaborated that because of the “institutional constraints” of the presidency, “there are things I cannot say.”

52) Obama went on to essentially say he would be an activist after leaving office. “There are institutional obligations I have to carry out that are important for a president of the United States to carry out, but may not always align with what I think would move the ball down the field on the issues that I care most deeply about,” he said.

53) Then, in his final news conference as president, Obama vowed to take action if President Trump dared to “round up” children of illegal immigrants, “roll back voting rights” or engage in “systemic discrimination.”

54) Obama also indicated he would take a more activist role to defend “core values that may be at stake” under a Trump administration. “The reason that we are the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote, it traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery,” he said.

55) Obama warned Trump not to roll back his executive actions. During his campaign for president, Trump promised to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Obama also lectured Trump about the use of executive orders, telling the incoming president to avoid taking unilateral action.

56) The Obama administration apparently spied on Trump’s presidential campaign and transition team. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he was concerned by the extent of surveillance but not completely surprised, because he “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.” Anonymous sources have been feeding information to the New York Times suggesting the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials, including intelligence agents.

57) In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election – and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians – across the government.

58) Those sources from the Obama administration claimed Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed – or its sources exposed – once power changed hands. So they reportedly pushed to preserve the alleged intelligence.

59) Obama White House officials took steps to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see the intelligence.

Sensational new report documents start of “CIVIL WAR II” in America. Enraged at losing the election, the left has launched an all-out effort to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency.

60) The sources claimed to suspect the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks, but the Times also reported that American officials acknowledged there is not confirmation of that.

61) The Times reported some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators – including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

62) Intelligence agencies kept the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government – and, in some cases, among European allies.

63) There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress.

64) In the weeks before the assessment was released in January, the intelligence community combed through databases for an array of communications and other information and began producing reports that showed there were contacts during the campaign between Trump associates and Russian officials. However, the Times acknowledged, the nature of the contacts remains unknown, and several of Trump’s associates have done business in Russia, and it was unclear if any of the contacts were related to business dealings.

December 13, 2016

Portland Oregon taxes CEO pay of CEO’s not in Oregon [c]

NEWS RELEASE: Portland City Council Combats High CEO Pay
NEWS RELEASE: Portland City Council Combats High CEO Pay
(December 7, 2016)—Today, Portland, Oregon, became the first jurisdiction in the United States to use the tax code to address the phenomenon of outrageous CEO pay. The City Council passed an ordinance, sponsored by City Commissioner Steve Novick, that requires publicly traded corporations to pay a surtax if they pay their CEO more than 100 times their median worker.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule in 2015 requiring public companies to disclose the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer to the median compensation of its employees. Companies will begin reporting the data for tax years beginning in January 2017. The new disclosure will help shareholders better evaluate chief executive officer compensation based on performance, and it offers local, state, and federal governments a tool for establishing policies that address increasing ratios of chief executive officer to median worker pay.
“When I first read about the idea of applying a higher tax rate to companies with extreme ratios of CEO pay to typical worker pay, I thought it was a fascinating idea—the closest thing I’d seen to a tax on inequality itself,” Commissioner Novick said.
World renowned economist Thomas Piketty stated in his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that “60 to 70%…of the top 0.1% of the income hierarchy in 2000-2010 consisted of top managers’ in large firms.” Piketty goes on to say that “the increase [in inequality in the United States] was largely the result of an unprecedented increase in wage inequality, and in particular the emergence of extremely high remunerations at the summit of the wage hierarchy, particularly among top managers of large firms.”
Novick believes that Piketty’s comments affirm the idea that extreme CEO pay is not just an eye-catching example of, but a major cause of, extreme economic inequality. “Extreme economic inequality is—next to global warming—the biggest problem we have in our society,” said Novick. “The top 1%, and especially the top one-tenth of one percent, have a far larger share of wealth and income than they did forty years ago.”
In an interview with the Guardian, Branko Milanović, a former lead economist at the World Bank and a professor at New York University who specializes in income inequality, reflected on Portland’s surtax: “What I find quite interesting is that it seems [to be] the first tax that targets inequality as such.”
For Milanović, the idea was novel because “it treats inequality as having a negative externality like taxing carbon emissions.”
The surtax will also benefit the city by generating an estimated $2.5 million to $3.5 million per year. Portland’s Revenue Bureau has identified more than 500 publicly-traded firms that do business in the city and therefore will be subject to the tax if their CEO-worker pay ratios are above 100 to 1. The list includes major corporations known for sky-high CEO pay, including Wells Fargo, Walmart and General Electric.
Portland City Council passed the surtax thanks to the support of Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Amanda Fritz. Novick credits Steve Silberstein, a member of the Patriotic Millionaires, and U.S. Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, who first proposed the idea as a California State Senator, for developing the idea for the surtax. Novick also thanks Sarah Anderson from the Institute for Policy Studies for her expert advocacy and support for this proposal.
Without the partnership and innovation of these leaders, adoption of this surtax in Portland wouldn’t have been possible.
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/novick/article/620318

[Taxation without representation. This is socialism at its worst. Accordingly, not only can they, and will they, limit top pay, but they already raise minimum pay, next will be YOUR pay. It violates the sanctity of Contracts!]

December 2, 2016

The Time has Come, the Walrus Said …

The Time has Come, the Walrus Said,
To Speak of Other Things:
Of Sealing Wax, of Cabbages and Kings

United States Constitution Article V
AMENDMENTS: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendment to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress … (omitted, the, Prohibition on the Slave Trade, and, Equal Suffrage in the Senate).

Read Article V again.

Now is the time to push for amending the Constitution. The GOP controls both houses and over two thirds of the States’ Legislatures.

Now is the time for a Term Limits Amendment.

Now is the time for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Now is the time for Congress Shall Pass No Law that does NOT apply to itself first Amendment.

Now is the time for a Constitutional Convention to re-write the entire thing. Mark Levin, Kevin Gutzman, and myself, have published works that may be used as starting templates.

If we start pushing now, the mid-term elections may bring the various Legislatures up to the numbers necessary to defeat the socialist oppressions of the two coasts.

The Time has Come, the Walrus Said, … .

December 1, 2016

All Hands FYI Armed Islamic Groups training in the U.S.A.

FYI:

I’ve looked, it is true and verified by Stuart Varney of Varn&y Co., the most watched business news show on cable.

http://www.fuqrafiles.com

Be advised of the Islamaburg NYS compound and remember what happened with Bill Clinton’s AG, Janet Reno, and Ruby Ridge in Waco TX.

October 24, 2016

A Question on American History

Hillary Clinton keeps talking that all U.S. transfers of government have been peaceful.

Am I the only person who has ever heard of The American Civil War or aka The War of 1861 or did all of those teachers lie to me and Lincoln not assassinated????

I’m just sayin’.

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!]

ISSUE BRIEF
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
Iceberg
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
liabilities?
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
unions.
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
http://report.heritage.org/ib4600
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.
2
ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 4600
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
service.9
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,
http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=9F7D8774-13DE-4869-B684-7786212FB111
(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).
3
ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 4600
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
CHART 1
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.
$1,278
$24,246 $24,246
$12,780
UMWA BAILOUT OTHER SIMILAR PENSION PLAN
4
ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 4600
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
self-financed.
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
pensions.12
—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-
and-insolvent-pension-insurance-the-case-of-multiemployer-pensions-and-the-pbgcs-multiemployer-program.
$52 billion:
Deficit
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).
NET FINANCIAL POSITION OF PBGC’S
MULTIEMPLOYER PROGRAM
The PBGC’s multiemployer
program
provides insurance to
private union pension
plans, but it faces
massive deficits and
will be unable to pay
insured benefits
without significant
reforms.
PBGC’s Multiemployer Program:
Massive and Growing Deficits
CHART 2
 ­ billion
€­ billion
‚­ billion
ƒ­ billion
­

August 11, 2016

Dick Morris’ bio of Hillary Clinton [nc]

Dick Morris is a nationally recognized political campaign adviser, analyst and author. He was the senior political adviser to Bill Clinton before and after his occupation of the White House. He was campaign manager of Clinton’s 1996 re-election, and the architect of his successful “triangulation” rhetorical ruse. Clinton’s communications director George Stephanopoulos said of Morris, “No single person had more power over [Bill Clinton].”

This week, in a message entitled “What Bill Left Out, Morris corrected the record regarding Clinton’s glowing remarks about Hillary Clinton, her personal attributes and professional achievements. Morris’s insights into the Clintons are priceless.

What follows is a transcript of Morris’s comments:

“Bill Clinton talked at length about Hillary’s idealistic work in college and law school, but he omits that she was defending the Black Panthers who killed security guards; they were on trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial while she was in law school to find evidence that could be grounds for reversal in the event they were convicted.

“That summer she went to work for the True-Haft (SP) law firm in CA, headed by True Haft who is the head of the CA Communist Party and that’s when she got involved with Saul Alinsky, who became something of a mentor for the rest of her life.

“Then Bill says that she went off to Massachusetts and he went to Arkansas, and eventually Hillary followed her heart to join him in Arkansas. He omits that she went to work for the Watergate Committee and was fired from that job for taking home evidence and hiding documents that they needed in the impeachment inquiry. Then she took the DC Bar exam and flunked it. She went to Arkansas because that is the only bar exam she could pass.

“He talked about how in the 1970’s she took all kinds of pro-bono cases to defend women and children. In her memoirs, she cites one which was a custody case and that’s it. In fact, in 1975 she represented a guy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and got him off by claiming the girl had had fantasies of sex with an older man. In 1980 she gave an interview about it and she joked that she knew the guy was guilty but got him off anyway.

“Then Bill discusses Hillary’s legal career at the Rose Law firm. He doesn’t mention that she made partner when he was elected governor and was only hired when he got elected as attorney general.

“He makes as if it was a public service job — it wasn’t. Her main job was to get state business, and she got tens-of-millions of dollars of state business, then hid her participation and the fees by taking an extra share of non-state business to compensate for the fees on state business that she brought in. Her other job was to call the state banking commissioner any time one of her banks got into trouble to get them off.

“Bill speaks at length how Hillary was a mother, juggling career and family, taking Chelsea to soccer games and stuff — that’s nonsense. Hillary was a mother but Chelsea in the Arkansas governor’s mansion had a staff of nannies and agents to drive her around and people to be with her, and Hillary didn’t have to bother with any of that. All of that was paid for by the state.

“He says she became the warrior in chief over the family finances and that was true, and the result is she learned how to steal.

“She accepted a $100,000 bribe from the poultry industry in return for Bill going easy on regulating them, despite new standards. Jim Blair, the poultry lobbyist, gave her $1,000 to invest in the Futures Market and lined up seven to eight other investors and their winnings were all deposited into Hillary’s account. She made $100,000 in a year and she was out. That essentially was a bribe.

”[She did] a phony real-estate deal for Jim McDougal and the Madison Bank to deceive the federal regulators by pretending someone else was buying the property. She was called before a grand jury in 1995 about that but, conveniently, the billing records were lost, couldn’t be found and there wasn’t proof that she worked on it.

“Bill talks about her work on the health care task force but doesn’t say the reason it didn’t pass was the task force was discredited because the meetings were all held in secret. A federal judge forced them open and fined the task force several hundred thousand dollars because of their secrecy.

“He says that after the health care bill failed in 1994, Hillary went to work on adopting each piece of it piecemeal — mainly health insurance for children.

“That is completely the opposite of the truth. The fact is when that bill failed, I called Hillary and I suggested that she support a proposal by Republican Bob Dole that we cover children, and she said, ‘We can’t just cover one part of this. You have to change everything or change nothing.’ Then in 1997 when I repeated that advice to Bill Clinton, we worked together to pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I found a lot of the money for that in the tobacco settlement that my friend Dick Scruggs was negotiating.

“Then Bill extols her record in the U.S. Senate. In fact, she did practically nothing. There were seven or eight bills that she introduced that passed; almost all of which were symbolic — renaming a courthouse, congratulating a high school team on winning the championship. There was only one vaguely substantive bill, and that had a lot of co-sponsors of whom Hillary was just one.

“Then he goes to her record in the State Department and manages to tell that story without mentioning the word Benghazi, without mentioning her secret emails, without mentioning he was getting tens of millions — $220 million in speaking fees in return for favorable actions by the State Department.

“Also totally lacking in the speech was anything about the war on terror — terror is a word you don’t hear at the Democratic Convention.

“Bill says that Hillary passed tough sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. The opposite is true.

“Every time a tough sanction bill was introduced by Senators Menendez or Kirk, Hillary would send Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman to Capital Hill to testify against it and urge it not to pass, and it was over Hillary’s objections that those sanctions were put into place.

”[Liberal columnist] Maureen Dowd called the speech by Bill Clinton “air brushed.”

“It was a hell of a lot more than that — it was fiction.

(Also see Morris’s comments after Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech. “Its strategy and message will be interdicted by reality at every turn. … She basically has no message. … Her entire campaign is, ‘I’m a woman and I am running against Donald Trump. … She began her speech by saying let’s compromise and work together. Is there any woman in the world less likely to compromise?”)

August 4, 2016

Muslim Refugee Resettlement in the U.S.A. – reference links at end

WHERE MUSLIM REFUGEES RESETTLED IN YOUR TOWN IN 2015 and they are all on Welfare!

STATE AND CITY REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT 2015
AK Anchorage 125
AL Mobile 125
AR Springdale 10
AZ Glendale 895
AZ Phoenix 1,459
AZ Tucson 935
CA Anaheim 175
CA Fullerton 10
CA Garden Grove 150
CA Glendale 1,420
CA Los Angeles 490
CA Los Gatos 144
CA Modesto 250
CA Oakland 615
CA Sacramento 1,276
CA San Bernardino 65
CA San Diego 3,103
CA San Francisco 5
CA San Jose 142
CA Turlock 120
CA Walnut Creek 90
CO Colorado Springs 138
CO Denver 1,690
CO Greeley 150
CT Bridgeport 100
CT Hartford 285
CT New Haven 205
DC Washington 15
DE Wilmington 5
FL Clearwater 200
FL Delray Beach 95
FL Doral 160
FL Jacksonville 895
FL Miami 1,056
FL Miami Springs 133
FL Naples 115
FL North Port 30
FL Orlando 360
FL Palm Springs 150
FL Pensacola 20
FL Plantation 75
FL Riviera Beach 50
FL Tallahassee 50
FL Tampa 660
GA Atlanta 2,100
GA Savannah 100
GA Stone Mountain 685
HI Honolulu 15
IA Cedar Rapids 55
IA Des Moines 585
ID Boise 720
ID Twin Falls 300
IL Aurora 190
IL Chicago 1,595
IL Moline 200
IL Rockford 300
IL Wheaton 2,660
IN Fort Wayne 200
IN Indianapolis 1,285
KS Garden City 80
KS Kansas City 200
KS Wichita 510
KY Bowling Green 310
KY Lexington 410
KY Louisville 990
KY Owensboro 135
LA Baton Rouge 125
LA Lafayette 30
LA Metairie 185
MA Boston 300
MA Framingham 8
MA Jamaica Plain 100
MA Lowell 275
MA South Boston 260
MA Springfield 230
MA Waltham 10
MA West Springfield 340
MA Worcester 443
MD Baltimore 775
MD GlenBurnie 150
MD Rockville 39
MD Silver Spring 845
ME Portland 350
MI Ann Arbor 80
MI Battle Creek 140
MI Clinton Township 650
MI Dearborn 640
MI Grand Rapids 740
MI Lansing 617
MI Troy 1,215
MN Minneapolis 730
MN Richfield 340
MN Rochester 130
MN Saint Paul 695
MN St. Cloud 215
MO Columbia 140
MO Kansas City 540
MO Saint Louis 725
MO Springfield 75
MS Biloxi 5
MS Jackson 20
NC Charlotte 655
NC Durham 380
NC Greensboro 385
NC High Point 405
NC New Bern 165
NC Raleigh 475
NC Wilmington 80
ND Bismarck 45
ND Fargo 270
ND Grand Forks 90
NE Lincoln 335
NE Omaha 990
NH Concord 245
NH Manchester 445
NJ Camden 100
NJ East Orange 6
NJ Elizabeth 300
NJ Jersey City 506
NM Albuquerque 220
NV Las Vegas 640
NY Albany 360
NY Amityville 20
NY Binghamton 40
NY Brooklyn 55
NY Buffalo 1,442
NY New York 240
NY Rochester 643
NY Syracuse 1,030
NY Utica 410
OH Akron 575
OH Cincinnati 140
OH Cleveland 510
OH Cleveland Heights 190
OH Columbus 1,300
OH Dayton 210
OH Toledo 40
OK Oklahoma City 170
OK Tulsa 395
OR Portland 995
PA Allentown 95
PA Erie 625
PA Harrisburg 200
PA Lancaster 480
PA Philadelphia 750
PA Pittsburgh 470
PA Roslyn 20
PA Scranton 150
PR San Juan 5
RI Providence 210
SC Columbia 160
SC Spartanburg 220
SD Huron 90
SD Sioux Falls 490
TN Chattanooga 85
TN Knoxville 190
TN Memphis 200
TN Nashville 1,225
TX Abilene 200
TX Amarillo 442
TX Austin 930
TX Corpus Christi 5
TX Dallas 1,765
TX El Paso 35
TX Fort Worth 1,503
TX Houston 2,605
TX San Antonio 750
UT Salt Lake City 1,126
VA Arlington 500
VA Charlottesville 250
VA Falls Church 450
VA Fredericksburg 120
VA Harrisonburg 140
VA Newport News 300
VA Richmond 243
VA Roanoke 177
VT Colchester 325
WA Kent 985
WA Richland 230
WA Seattle 714
WA Spokane 510
WA Tacoma 276
WA Vancouver 127
WI Green Bay 20
WI Madison 90
WI Milwaukee 890
WI Oshkosh 135
WI Sheboygan 35
WV Charleston 50
TOTALS 76,972

References:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/20/8-facts-about-the-us-program-to-resettle-syrian-refugees
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/u-s-cities-secretly-selected-for-muslim-immigration/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/01/syrian-refugees-resettled-36-states-catx-mi/
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

July 19, 2016

The White Side of the Story of Blacks, Pat Buchanan [nc]

The White Side of the Story of Blacks
This is the reason CNN has dropped Buchanan.
It’s like Newt G. said, “You’re not supposed to bring up uncomfortable facts.” (verified on Buchanan’s website)
Finally, It is Said Publicly.
I have never seen the white side explained better!

Pat Buchanan had the guts to say it, and it is about time!

BUCHANAN TO OBAMA:
By Patrick J. Buchanan

You say we need to have a conversation about race in America .

Fair enough.

But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation.

White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard.
And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks.

It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christianity, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

What more opportunity is it that the White people need to give to help the Blacks?

If the poor white got this much opportunity there would be no poor white or lower class of white trash people!!

The main problem why black people are not progressing is the, “They owe me factor!!”
Get it in your head!

NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING!

Obama talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks. Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids?

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ?

Is it really white America ‘s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence.

Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Obama aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, and that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

I am not racist, I am not violent, I am just not silent anymore.

In GOD we trust!

June 17, 2016

Open Response to Secession Conditions query

[The initial question posed was, how soon do I think that the conditions for revolution/secession be met? I responded with mid-to-late 2018 that the conditions listed by Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence 1776” will be met. The problem of actual secession and the saving of America, depends on the following:]

I think that the conditions that Jefferson listed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence will be met that soon. Whether or not the Red States will do anything at that time, I doubt. Too many disengaged sheeple. Over 1/3 of the population is drinking koolaid and supporting the Obamaites and Clintonites. The rich, who started and supported the 1776 secession, have protected and insulated themselves from the federal government.

The NRA has less than 5 million members. That membership is less than the number of people who subscribe to Playboy magazine, who is about to stop having pictures of nude women in it as the photos are limiting its appeal. Counting the illegals, there are over 330,000,000 people in the U.S. Nobody knows how well armed the illegal’s gangs are, but every major city 6 pm news has a crime report that includes them – look how many deaths in black ‘hoods that go unsolved, in K.C. I think that it is over 87%.

For all the sale of firearms, I see no interest in secession, just self-defense and the beginnings of a reform movement, the Tea Party having been suppressed. Federal government, by virtue of technology, is able to locate and destroy the seeds of serious dissent, note Ruby Ridge in Waco TX and how astoundingly excessive the FBI reacted, and this during the Clinton Administration and good economic times.

Veterans with combat skills, ie The American Legion and the VFW, are in groups run by NCO’s, officers having no interest in us or our organizations where they aren’t worshipped by us, have been co-opted by the feds and congressmen promising, but certainly not delivering, VA benefits, healthcare, financial support &c. Notice how even the VA Home Loan program created the FHA, HARP, &c. Note the VA scandals and how they’ve grown since the first limitation of healthcare to Viet Nam Vets in the 1970’s by Carter and Carter’s blanket amnesty to draft dodgers, of whom one was Bill Clinton thereby erasing his felony and allowing him access to the Oval Office.

So, conditions listed by Jefferson should be met, regardless of who wins the 2016 election, in mid to late 2018. Secession will actually depend upon the collapse of the economy into a complete global depression, coupled to Jihadist terrorism. Secession will, in my opinion, be the least violent and bloody of the alternatives if it happens before the riots.

New Orleans, Baltimore & Ferguson (and look at the futbol hooliganism riots in the E.U. as to their respect for law and order and how poor their controls are – and they are exacerbated by the Muslim “immigrants”) are the indicators on how bloody the Black Sub-Culture will make things, the actions at Mizzou by the sexist & racist students and the Black Lives Matter reaction to the Orlando terrorist murders of LGBT, the unconstitutional importation of millions of Muslims, and the rich being completely insulated from it all by virtue of their private militias and gated communities – just look at how the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia &c. have fallen into militia/gated anarchy – have created anarchy and economic chaos. Yellen continuing the no rate hike and jobs being continuing to be sent to China. Also, look at the riots around Trump Events, the attacks on Free Speech, and the attacks on Due Process especially as Due Process applies to the Second Amendment and firearms access.

Areas mentioned had/have survived because the U.S., the E.U., and the U.N., have sent trillions in aid to them. If the U.S. fails, and the E.U. will fail with the British Exit which is probable with next week’s vote, the global economy fails, and the entire current global support net fails. Look at some of the “News You’re Not Getting Elsewhere” posts to see how chaotic things are getting. What reason does Indonesia have to purchase Leopard MBT’s (Main Battle Tanks)? Whom are they going to use them against?

It will be bloody without secession. Secession, as written and posted on the blog, avoids the bloody revolution. Secession keeps all of our Christian-Protestant American values intact. It will force the Blue States to reform before the violence trigger is pulled, which in turn will force Europe to reform before it collapses completely, thus, Christian values will survive long enough to withstand the Muslim onslaught.

Otherwise, 5/6’s of the World’s population will be destroyed and/or enslaved. Mankind will fall into a Dark Ages from which it will not return. The probability of incurable diseases blossoming and destroying the remaining 1/6 is over 50% as shown by the presenting at Emergency Rooms in Europe of Muslims with TB, Syphillis, Gonorhea, polio, HIV/aids, &c. I posted a report by Britain’s National Health Service on Muslim presentiment and burden on the NHS.

If you’ve some idea of what to do other than scream at our elected elite to secede, I’m probably on board, so let me know.

I assume that YOU have a copy of the Declaration of Independence 1776, and can quickly read the conditions that Jefferson lists. And, can you really see the likes of Joe and Dennis actually coming out and facing the Federales? It’s you and me, the American Legion and the VFW, and maybe the NRA.

BTW I think that I included a copy of the 1860 Declaration of Independence in Albany Plan, if not, you should have gotten copies of Freehling’s “Secession” and “Nullification”. “Secession” not only has a copy of the 1860 but a collection of newspaper editorials similar to The Federalist Papers. Also, there may be a copy in “The South was Right” which I know that you have.

Also, get and read Thomas Sowell’s 1995 “The Vision of the Anointed”. He’s a brother Marine, Korea War Vet, and his viewpoint is similar to ours and worth reading for the info and for his conclusions and solutions. With the death of James Q. Wilson a few years ago, he’s the premier conservative philosopher alive.

May 19, 2016

Nine Quotes from Ludwig von Mises [nc]

04/15/2016Tho Bishop

In honor of tax day, a look at the best quotes from Ludwig von Mises on taxation:

1. “Some experts have declared that it is necessary to tax the people until it hurts. I disagree with these sadists.”
Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation

2. “If the present tax rates had been in effect from the beginning of our century, many who are millionaires today would live under more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man.”
Source: Planning for Freedom

3. “Taxing profits is tantamount to taxing success.
Source: Planning for Freedom

4. “Estate taxes of the height they have already attained for the upper brackets are no longer to be qualified as taxes. They are measures of expropriation.”
Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation ​

5. “Progressive taxation of income and profits means that precisely those parts of the income which people would have saved and invested are taxed away.”
Source: Economic Policy

6. “The metamorphosis of taxes into weapons of destruction is the mark of present-day public finance.”
Source: Human Action

7. “Taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend.”
Source: Human Action

8. “[T]he system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation of the successful capitalists and entrepreneurs.”
Source: Human Action

9. “Nothing is more calculated to make a demagogue popular than a constantly reiterated demand for heavy taxes on the rich. Capital levies and high income taxes on the larger incomes are extraordinarily popular with the masses, who do not have to pay them.”
Source: Human Action

March 17, 2016

ALL HANDS: Imprimis Feb 2016 V 45 #2

ALL HANDS: IMPRIMIS Feb 2016 Vol 45 #2

Hillsdale College, 33 E College St., Hillsdale MI 49292

Islam – Facts or Dreams, Andrew C. McCarthy J.D.

1. Imprimis is paid for by donations to the Imprimis program so it is free to you. We donate at http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis , you can too;
2. For decades I have written on this particular subject. In the February issue, a federal prosecutor writes his legal findings.

Y’all should get a free subscription.

Y’all should read this particular issue, then poke through the blog for supporting articles.

If you are a woman, or related to a woman, this is a MUST READ for you and her and them.

February 22, 2016

New York City rejects US, NY constitutions and goes Sharia, posted on snopes [c]

Oath Creepers
Carolyn Walker-Diallo, a Muslim, used a Quran for her swearing-in as a New York City Civil Court Judge in December 2015.
Kim LaCapria
Kim LaCapria
Dec 14, 2015

Share
13.5K

Claim: New York State Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo is Muslim and was sworn into office using a Quran.
True

Origin:On 13 December 2015, the web site Allen West Republic published an article about the swearing in of Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, titled “Obama’s America: Muslim Woman Sworn in As Judge, Look at the FIRST Thing She Does!”:

New York Judge Carolyn Walker-Diallo, a Black Muslim woman took oath as a civil court judge in New York on Thursday, while swearing to abide by the U.S. Constitution placing her hand on the Holy Quran.

The article’s primary assertion was that the “first thing” Walker-Diallo did upon becoming a judge was to was place her hand upon the Quran, although technically she didn’t become a judge until the swearing-in was complete. (Judges are sworn in using a Bible, religious text of their choice, or a copy of the U.S. Constitution.)
muslim judge

A similar controversy erupted regarding Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison’s use of a Quran in 2006. At that time, UCLA law professor and legal analyst Eugene Volokh responded to a CNN panel question about whether the use of religious texts other than the Bible was addressed in extant law, explaining (in a response that has nothing to do with President Obama):

Well [the Constitution] actually does say a couple of things. First, it doesn’t even require congressman to use any religious text or any religious component. It specifically provides that they may affirm, rather than swearing. That was for the benefit of people who have a religious objection to invoking God in an oath.

Quakers were a traditional example. And for example, President Herbert Hoover was sworn in without putting his hand on any book.

It also says no religious text shall be used for government office. And when you’re required to swear on the book of a religion that is different from you, not traditionally you’ve done it, that would be an impermissible religious test.

As for the claim’s veracity, New York State Senator Martin Malave Dilan published the following status update to Facebook on 11 December 2015:

Multiple news sources reported that Walker-Diallo used a Quran as her religious text of choice for her swearing-in (noting the controversy it engendered), and the event was captured on video:

A New York City judge is facing a backlash after taking her oath using the holy book of Islam in recognition of her Muslim faith. Carolyn Walker-Diallo was elected in Brooklyn’s 7th Municipal District and took her oath of office last week using the Quran.

After attenders posted a video of the swearing-in session to social media, conservatives unleashed a storm on insults toward the public servant. “Sickening,” one Facebook user posted in response to the video. “Is this America or the Middle East.” “Another piece of s— Muslim,” another user wrote, “trying to take over this country.”

[Conservatives unleashed? Based on what? Muslims are, by explicit chapters in the Qu’Ran, see posted verses elsewhere on this blog, to place Islam and Sharia law above all others, meaning above the US Constitution and the NYS Constitution. This is Hajiri at its finest!

And, y’all keep wondering why I push secession!]

February 2, 2016

DHS & Illegals, by Joseph John, Capt USN [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 8:52 AM

Cong Ron DeSantis Question DHS On Its Failure to Pursue And Evict Nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays in 2015

By Capt Joseph R. John, on February 2, 2016
By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to view an endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, Cong Ron DeSantis, Lcdr-USNR (JAGC) (R-FL-6), who is currently running for the US Senate seat vacated by Senator Marco Rubio, who is questioning Ms Burriesci, DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Coordination, Office of Policy, who testified on Visa Overstays at a House Hearing, she appeared in lieu of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who refused to appear, and had her respond to questions about DHS’s failure to pursue nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays in 2015. By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to view the video taken during the hearing, that Congress was holding, in order to seek information about the massive number Visa Overstays who illegally remain in the United States each year.

During the week of January 18, 2016, a long-awaited report was sent to Congress by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), confirming that Visa Overstays are a significant source of Illegal Immigration. The report was published just in time to provide clarity on the issue for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on January 20, 2016. DHS’ Center for Immigration Studies analysis concluded that additional resources must be directed toward deterring and removing overstays. Only 3% of ICE Enforcement resources are dedicated to address and enforce the departure of Visa Overstays.

Today hundreds of “Sanctuary Cities” and several “Sanctuary States” boast that they refuse to cooperate with the US Immigration Service, in the enforcement of US Federal Immigration Laws. Those cities and states are engaged in harboring and shielding Illegal Aliens and Visa Overstays, illegally present in the US, and they are protecting those Visa Overstays from ICE Agents who are trying to locate and enforce their departure. Sanctuary Cities induce, encourage, aid, and abet Illegal Aliens and Visa Overstays to remain in the United States, without authority, in violation of US Federal Immigration Laws. Those actions constitute a felony under provisions of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens and Visa Overstay). Sanctuary Cities continue to violate US Federal Immigration Laws by harboring Visa Overstay and preventing ICE Agents with enforcing US Federal Immigration Laws, making it virtually impossible for ICE to track and enforce the departure of Visa Overstays.

“If we do not track and enforce departures, then we have open borders. It’s as simple as that,” said Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who questioned Department of Homeland Security officials at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Hearing on January 20th. “There is no border at all if you don’t enforce our visa rules” said Senator Sessions.

Jessica Vaughan, of the Center’s Director of Policy Studies, stated, “Lawmakers and the public should be tremendously concerned that DHS identified 482,781 foreign visitors who did not depart in 2015 as required by Federal Immigration Laws, and those Visa Overstays apparently joined the huge population of Illegal Aliens in the United States. More than 12,000 of the Visa Overstays came from countries associated with terrorism. Clearly, our immigration controls are not sufficient to protect Americans. Those violations of Federal Immigration Laws are encouraged by the Obama administration’s appalling neglect of interior enforcement and overly generous visa policies.”

According to a new report from the US Border Patrol, 482,781 individuals who entered the US on tourist or business visas and were still believed to be illegally present in the United States at the end of FY 2015. A review of the report revealed that B-Visa Overstays were from the following predominately Muslim countries: 219 from Afghanistan, 681 from Iraq, 564 from Iran, 1,397 from Jordan, 913 from Kuwait, 56 from Libya, 1,435 from Pakistan, 440 from Syria, 965 from Saudi Arabia, 2,227 from Turkey, 219 from Yemen, and 6,781 overstays from Nigeria, half of whom are Muslims. DHS does not know how many of the roughly 157,000 foreign students from predominantly Muslim countries have overstayed their visas. In 2014, ABC News discovered that 58,000 foreign nationals had overstayed their student visas, of which 6,000 represented a “heightened concern.” Again, those numbers only include foreign students.

The report identified just over 527,000 foreign visitors who apparently did not depart as required when their authorized stays expired in 2015. Approximately 482,781 were presumed to still be in the United States at the end of 2015, and 416,500 had not departed as of January 4, 2016.

The Center’s analysis of the DHS complete report can be viewed by clicking on the link: http://www.cis.org/vaughan/dhs-reports-huge-number-visitors-overstayed-2015

Of the total number of visitors Visa Overstaying, 43 percent had entered on a business or tourist visa, 29 percent had entered under the controversial Visa Waiver Program (VWP), and 28 percent had entered by air or sea from Canada or Mexico.

DHS did not examine the records of visitors who entered by land, which is more than three-quarters of all admissions to the United States. Nor did it track the records of visitors granted visas for purposes other than business or pleasure, such as students, guest workers, or exchange visitors. These categories represent a smaller share of all annual arrivals, but still account for several million admissions per year. Some of those visitor categories have been found to have significant Visa Overstay and status violation rates in the past, and have been exploited by terrorists.

Despite a total estimated population of 4 to 5.5 million Visa Overstays in the United States, only about 8,000 are removed annually by the Obama appointees at DHS; for the most part they look the other way.

Over the last 7 years, Obama’s appointees at DHS have long sought to suppress the above listed Visa Overstay information; instead of controlling and preventing the entry of Illegal Aliens. Obama’s DHS has turned into an agency that supports and turns a blind eye toward Illegal Immigration and Visa Overstays. The report was only released in January 2016, because the massive $1.2 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill passed by the Republican Leadership in Congress in December 2015, included a provision that would have withheld $13 million from the DHS Secretary’s Office, if the report was not released to Congress by January 19. Without that threat the Congress would never have received the information on Visa Overstays listed above.

The State Department learned that 9,500 Middle East Muslim entrants who they issued entry visas to the United States, had terrorist ties, then after issuing the visas, they revoked those visas because they realized they had terrorist ties, but when they realized those entrants had terrorist ties, the State Department had no idea where those entrants with terrorist ties were, and couldn’t evict them——–they therefore covered it up!! Those 9,500 entrants with terrorist ties are now Visa Overstays. The FBI is specifically concerned with those 9,500 Visa Overstays, and about the new Americans citizens admitted thru Obama’s Fast-Track citizenship program for Middle Eastern and African UN Muslim Refugees who flew to Iraq and Africa to train & fight with the ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists to kill Christians. They are now freely returning to the US, and not being arrested, charged with terrorism, having their passports withheld, and tried as terrorists by the Obama administration.

Local, County, State, and Federal Law Enforcement agencies, have informed Congress that their ability to properly protect the Homeland from the threats of Radical Islamic Terrorists has been seriously compromised. The hundreds of thousands UN Muslim Refugees being resettled in the US by the Obama administration, that cannot be vetted to determine if they have terrorist ties, the 250 returning former refugees who were previously Fast-Tracked by Obama to becomes American citizens then joined ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists to kill Christians in Iraq, and the 9500 Middle East Visa Overstays referred to above, that the State Department stated have terrorist ties are all serious threats to the Republic. Over the last 7 years, the National Security of the Republic has been seriously compromised by the continued flagrant violations of US Immigration Laws by the Obama administration.

Copyright 2016, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be 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 permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

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

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.