A nationwide group of restaurants is now offering diners a chance to stick it to the man while simultaneously putting the fork to their tofu. Those of you who’ve wanted to join a great moral crusade, but never got around to cleaning up the basement and inviting a Syrian “refugee” to move in, can now eat locally and be served globally.
Restaurant Opportunities Centers United has launched a “Sanctuary Restaurant” movement for eatery owners who want to stay current with the latest moral–posturing on illegal immigration.
Now diners in New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston, Oakland, California and Ann Arbor, MN may encounter a sign in their local bistro that reads, “Sanctuary Restaurant: A place at the table for everyone.”
I suppose if the establishment adheres to a dining policy that’s anything like Obama’s immigration policy, the sign means when an illegal sits down at your table for lunch, you’ll be picking up the tab.
This is why I like eating at Red Robin. Management doesn’t spend time trying to demonstrate its empathy and there’s an E–Verify sign on the front door that means everyone working in the restaurant is legally in the US.
That certainly isn’t the case even in non–“sanctuary restaurants.” A diner at a Virginia Chipotle would have a better chance of sharing a meal with Hillary Clinton than being served by a citizen.
According to WNYW, “Roughly 80 restaurants are participating” in this low–level criminal conspiracy to harbor lawbreakers and obstruct justice. The idea is to publically position management as social justice warriors, while privately protecting their profit margin by keeping their illegals working for wages citizens won’t accept.
At least 1.3 million illegals are working in the restaurant industry and the wage exploiters hiring them tell Washington they need a “robust pool of workers,” which really means a cheap pool of workers. Just like Georgia plantation owners, whoops, make that commercial farmers warn that fruit will rot in the fields if they can’t pay Juarez wages to Juan, restaurant owners predict food will sit uncooked and unserved if diners expect to be attended by citizens.
Naturally, that’s not how participants describe the conspiracy. Oh–so–compassionate backers want Trump to “alleviate the fear of deportation and other harassment” for illegals. The goal is to “protect” the illegals, but from what? Heartburn? E.coli? Paying for Trump’s wall? Their authority to write policy ends with the menu.
Instead they come off sounding like the prayer in Luke 18:11 where the Pharisee loudly proclaims: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers or deportation supporters.”
I wonder if dining–while–smug patrons have thought their choice though. Patronizing a business harboring criminals has a potential downside. Management may draw the line at breaking immigration law, but there’s no evidence the staff won’t be tempted to branch out. Once they’ve violated the border, what’s a little identity theft or trafficking in stolen credit card numbers?
And if management opposes sending the help back to their home countries, what’s the policy on sending a bad meal back to the kitchen?
One thing is different in “sanctuary restaurants.” Instead of giving patrons a signaling device that glows and vibrates when their table is ready, the staff carries the black box and the premises clear out if an ICE agent enters
“Sanctuary restaurants” give the staff “know your rights training” and webinars on how to demand the feds produce some paperwork before a raid. The conspirators are also supposed to adopt “anti–discrimination policies” that I suppose mean if a Trump supporter mistakenly wanders in and orders in English he has a 50–50 chance of being served.
The fact that an organization supporting millions of illegal aliens, who continue to defy the law, can describe enforcing immigration law as “harassment” and publically recruit other businesses to join the conspiracy, without any fear of legal repercussion, is a stark indication of how official support for the rule of law has collapsed in favor of the rule of feelings.
Illegal immigration may be the hope for the future of the Democrat party and the secret shame of RINO Republicans, but I can guarantee you his promise to enforce the law is one of the main reasons Trump won.
Aside from waiting for food that’s never served, the other bugaboo of the anti–deportation crowd is higher prices. They claim if xenophobes insist on forcing restaurants to hire citizens, then prices are going up, because those sorts of people won’t work for Karjackistan wages.
For me, that’s no deterrent at all. If the choice is between paying a buck more for a hamburger or doing away with “press one for English,” well, here’s your dollar.
If you’re going to be a writer you must learn to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Did you ever wonder why all writers are crazy? Well, there you have it right there. Writers struggle with trying bind reality and illusion. I didn’t set out to be one, it was put upon me at an early age. I was always expected to play a guitar and write my own stuff. My parents always supported me, it was everyone else that gave me problems.
If I’d had my way I would have been a magician. Magic relaxes me, and I don’t try to figure out he illusions because that would steal the magic, and if life has no magic, no mystery, then it all becomes mundane, like Belton, Texas on a Saturday night. I’m no good at magic so I decided to create literary illusions. It’s the same thing actually. A magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, I pull a thought from someone’s mind. The results are almost the same, and like the rabbit, the thought was always there, someone just had to make it appear.
No one will ever accept you as a writer. That’s because everyone thinks they are a writer. They do not think there’s a skill to it. I’ve met people who wanted to write children’s books, not because they love children, but because they thought it was easy, and anyone could do it. Writing is not easy. Many are called, but few are chosen. Just think about it. How many people have you ever met who weren’t talking about writing something? Everyone has some book idea in their head, and it always has something to do with their extraordinary life. Yet very few can actually pull something together. That’s where he money thing comes in. “How much money have you made?” All writers have heard that. When you meet a plumber, does anyone ask, “How much money have you made?”
The writer gets paid in other ways, and it looks like a dodge, but it’s not. How much money have I made writing? More than I’ve made doing anything else! Does that make any difference? Not one bit. If you struggle in the arts you will always have that. It goes with the territory. If you are going to write, and survive, you must derive a reward from somewhere else. When you learn to pull the rabbit out of the hat every time then the satisfaction of being able to do that alone will be your reward. When you get an email from someone who read an article you wrote three years ago, and they SAW the rabbit, that’s about as good as it goes.
In all likelihood you will never achieve fame, and fortune will always be just around the corner if you can keep the lights on, but if you’re a writer, a real writer, this very adversity is what drives the words, and if you can put those words across then that, and that alone is your pay. The plumber fixes your toilet, and maybe you think about him once in the morning, but if you can pull that rabbit out of that hat your reader will see that rabbit again, and again, and in fifty years some little girl who was born long after you are gone will marvel at the eternal rabbit just waiting to amaze her, and that, my friend, is immortality!
How many weather people does it take to change a forecast? Evidently more than we currently possess.
The National Weather Service Employees Organization is issuing a severe hiring freeze warning. The union is afraid if Donald Trump’s freeze order is applied to the National Weather Service it will be a cold day in hell before it can add another employee.
The union hopes it can slip through a loophole under cover of a rhetorical fog bank. Trump’s order doesn’t apply to agencies involved in the military, public safety or public health. The Washington Post says the NWS is hoping to reclassify itself as an integral part of the nation’s public safety apparatus: First responders when the precipitation hits the fan.
If NWS brass has its way, soldiers fighting for our freedom, anti–terror agents protecting the homeland and doctors battling dread disease will be joined by the guy who eyeballs the rain gauge at the airport. Each doing their small part in the vital effort to keep taxpayers alive and paying taxes.
Normally you would call this sort of bureaucratic aggrandizement “mission creep” but in the case of the weather service we’ll call it moisture creep.
The real problem facing weather wizards is it’s difficult to make the case for 650 new hires before Hurricane Donald arrives, when the desks have been empty for years and no one, outside the cleaning crew that dusts the monitors, has noticed.
A union functionary claims the vacant slots are “Emergency Essential” and it’s a big deal, “meaning those employees are critical to the life-saving mission of the NWS, so they must report to work (in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, furloughs, etc.).”
That’s a confusing explanation. I’d have thought an employee who shows up at the office after being furloughed is a potential source of workplace violence, not a reason to consider NWS workers the equivalent of Marines with barometers. As for the rest of the examples, when the morgue is empty it’s easy enough to claim your agency was responsible, but where’s the evidence these vacant slots represent a “life–saving mission?”
When a city is short of cops or has a surplus of demonstrators crime goes up. With a shortage of doctors patients pile up. But it will take some convincing to persuade me a shortage of weather oracles encourages tornadoes.
Making the case the NWS is a public safety necessity is difficult when the weather service has trouble coping with normal weather. Last week, while a blizzard was slamming into Maine and California was wondering if leftist sanctuaries would protect citizens and illegals from flood waters, the NWS system went offline.
A case could be made the cat was out of the bag and Maine and California were already familiar with the weather, but knowing if the rain was expected to stop would have been helpful to the sandbag crew.
Instead two “core routers” failed and the system was offline for three hours. The WaPost’s weather blog reminds us NWS systems failed as Hurricane Matthew was bearing down on Florida last October and in July it experienced another network issue.
It’s almost as if Hillary is the IT consultant.
Even if NWS bureaucrats can convince Trump a weather watcher wielding a weathervane is the public safety equal of a doctor brandishing a thermometer, there is the vetting problem.
In a government that yawns over classified phone call transcripts being leaked to the opposition media there’s a surprising amount of paranoia regarding the five–day forecast. Higher level NWS employees are for some unknown reason required to have a security clearance.
It’s not like you can hide the weather, just go outside and you know as much as President Trump. The only forecasts that have any usefulness are next day predictions. Three and five–day forecasts, which you can get from any weather poodle on TV, are about as reliable as a Republican Congressman’s promise to repeal Obamacare.
I suppose if your life is wrapped up in humidity the staffing shortfall is a big problem, but to me it looks like a good way to save money. It would be cheaper to let NWS focus on gathering weather data and let the private sector handle the forecasts. Using the same data the NWS employs, the Weather Channel is already more accurate and if you don’t like those global warming fanatics there’s always your local TV weather babe.
Why fight it? The missing 650 employees are approximately 14 percent of total employment. Since Trump wants to cut the federal workforce by 20 percent, the NWS’ head start puts it well on the way to meeting that goal.
It’s new motto could be: All the Weather at 80 Percent of the Cost!
The post Future Is Cloudy With Occasional Trump Gusts at National Weather Service appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.
By Michael Johns
On February 14, 2017, national Tea Party co-founder and leader Michael Johns spoke to the Cornell Political Union at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, on the promise of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His lecture, “Trumpism Can Make America Great Again,” follows:
Last time I was here was over a year ago when my son Michael was looking at Cornell. He loves this school and this organization—and anything he loves, I do too. So thanks to all of you for the work you do, the discussion you facilitate, and the important contribution you make to this great institution. Cornell is one of the world’s premier universities, and your intellectual curiosity and search for answers to our world’s and nation’s problems are a big contribution to that greatness.
On the drive up here tonight, I happened to see how this university describes itself on its Twitter feed. It’s a great description: “Teach tomorrow’s thought leaders to think otherwise and create knowledge with a public purpose.” Tonight I’m going to do exactly that: I’m going to try to get you to think a little differently—to see what over 60 million Americans saw when they voted for Trump, and we’ll do all of this with the spirit that we’ll use this knowledge to serve the higher public purpose of enhancing the greatness of our nation, which requires of each subsequent American generation that they defend and continually improve it for all Americans.
We have just undergone the closest thing to a revolution in American politics as one can have in our Constitutional Republic, and tonight I will attempt to explain it objectively. I will speak tonight not to the few of you here who may already support Trump, nor those of you who consider yourselves conservatives or Republicans, but to the vast majority here tonight that I’m sure do not. These are the facts and sentiments that led to an electoral outcome you no doubt did not want and did not predict—but I’m convinced need to understand.
I come tonight not to defend Trumpism, even though you will find no more passionate advocate for it. Literally since his announcement on June 16, 2015, I defended him consistently on television, radio and in many forums—and I sought to defend or at least explain him to those prone not to hear or process his important message.
So I come to Cornell tonight not to defend Trumpism but to explain it.
For eight years and maybe longer—the totality of your adult lives, in fact, this nation was headed in a decidedly left of center and globalist direction. Under this recent administration, we saw the problems of other countries as inherently ones we were obligated to solve. In many cases, we even wrongly blamed ourselves for these problems. We entered into trade agreements that worked well for other nations but failed the American worker. We opened our nation to legal and illegal immigrants—and bent over backward to accommodate their needs, desires and cultures but never considered the impact we were having on our citizens.
This created what Trump correctly labeled in his Republican Convention acceptance speech “the forgotten man and woman”—the working American whose economic plight worsened on the watch of Obama and whose country became less identifiable to him and her. And this past November 8, the “forgotten man and woman” had seen enough—and their voice was heard loudly.
What inspired all this passion in these forgotten men and women?
Let me deal tonight with facts:
Employment: All of you have probably heard and followed the employment trends announced each month and quarter by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. You heard, for instance, that unemployment under Obama seemed to be stagnant, or even reduced. And it was always reported in single digits. In the final month of Obama’s presidency—December 2016—it was reportedly 4.9 percent, which seems not unreasonable.
But these numbers excluded the biggest story of American unemployment—the long-term unemployed and those who’d simply given up looking for work. While the short-term unemployment came down, it was only because many of those short-term unemployed Americans moved into the long-term category and ceased being reported in the primary BLS monthly survey number, which is really just a poll subject to all the inaccuracies one might see in any poll.
The employment reality in the country is actually much worse than reported. In fact, there has really been essentially zero job creation for native American citizens since 2000. The total number of Americans holding a job increased 5.7 percent from 2000 to 2014. But if you back out jobs taken by legal and illegal immigrants, the number of Americans holding jobs actually decreased 17 million between 2000 and 2014. When the longer-term unemployed are included, the number of jobless Americans is not 4.9 percent. It’s at least almost twice that—9.5 percent, and some believe considerably higher than even that.
Seldom reported in these routine “official” employment statistics was the fact that, under Obama, the number of Americans not in the labor force kept creeping upward. In December 2016, this number of Americans not in the labor force reached an all-time high: 95,102,000. That’s nearly thirty percent of our entire nation. On Obama’s watch, it’s a fact that a bad employment situation got even worse and that the “forgotten man and woman” has been hurt and is hurting.
Economic growth: We first began formally recording the most important economic growth metric—gross domestic product growth—in the early 1930s. In the time since, every President until Obama had at least one year under their leadership where the country’s GDP grew by at least three percent. But in eight fiscal years under his management, Obama was the first president since GDP was first recorded to not have even one year of three percent growth or higher. On economic growth, as with jobs, Washington has been failing the “forgotten man and woman.”
Debt: On Obama’s watch, our national debt doubled from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. This incremental, additional $10 trillion in debt that Obama added literally exceeds the cumulative debt total of every U.S. President from Washington through George W. Bush. In his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama famously said that George W. Bush’s contribution to the public debt was literally “unpatriotic” in his words. But Obama then went on to double it—all without ever retracting his “unpatriotic” comment about Bush or questioning his own patriotism.
Taxes: Under Obama, our corporate tax rate was—and still is–the highest in the developed world, which has made the U.S. an increasingly uncompetitive location to do business—and it showed as company after company left during his and previous administrations. And despite Obama’s campaign promise that he would only raise taxes on the rich, he increased them substantially on working Americans too, including with taxes associated with Obamacare and the penalty for non-enrollment. In fact, despite his campaign pledge, Obama increased over 20 different taxes that specifically penalized and harmed the poor and working class American. On taxes too, the “forgotten man and woman” was both betrayed and forgotten.
Poverty: Obama ran for election in 2008 promising to lift up the nation’s poor, and that’s a goal we conservatives share too. It was a centerpiece of his campaign. Yet here too, he failed by every significant metric. The nation’s poverty rate was higher on Obama’s departure than it was upon his arrival, increasing roughly 3.5 percent on his watch. Real household income decreased 2.3 percent during his presidency. And under Obama, Americans’ dependence on food stamps rose considerably—to an all-time high of 47 million Americans, or 13 million more than before Obama took office. Great lip service was paid to addressing poverty, but here too the “forgotten man and woman” was left worse off.
Regulatory costs: Regulations too were no friend to the “forgotten man and woman.” Obama imposed over 20,000 new regulations on the American economy—many of them offering negligible value and all of them weighing heavily on working Americans, whose employers were forced to absorb over an astounding $700 billion in costs associated with these regulations, which harmed employment, harmed wages, made America less competitive, and ultimately harmed the “forgotten man and woman” considerably.
Home ownership: Home ownership admittedly might be exaggerated as an indicator of a nation’s economic healthiness but it’s certainly a metric that most want to see increasing. But like just about every other indicator under Obama, it moved in the wrong direction on Obama’s watch, falling 5.6 percent during his eight years in the White House.
Wages: One of the most important metrics to the “forgotten man and woman,” wages did not come even close to keeping pace with inflation under Obama, especially in such important sectors such as housing, food and tuition. In fact, for roughly 35 years, as we ignored the “forgotten man and woman,” wages in this nation have been outpaced by inflation, contributing to economic despair and anxieties for the “forgotten man and woman.”
Healthcare: When Obama ran for president in 2008, he told us over and over again about the 42 million Americans without health insurance—and also about how he would fix this problem. And don’t worry, he famously and repeatedly promised, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.”
But eight years later, there are still tens of millions of Americans without any health insurance—and for those who enrolled in the Obamacare plan, which had to be passed, Nancy Pelosi said, so we could know what was in it, it turned out to be a vast expansion of federal intrusion into Americans’ healthcare and a program that offered little real value to most since both its premiums and deductibles were cost prohibitive.
If Obamacare costs you roughly $5,000 a year in monthly premiums and the deductible is that or even more, can you really say you’re insured? For most Americans, Obamacare has proven a very costly catastrophic care plan that was nothing as advertised. And contrary to what Obama promised, millions lost their health insurance and lost their doctors as the new coverage mandates forced employers to drop plans, and physicians left insurance plans that were paying lower allowables or proving unduly bureaucratic and time-consuming from a claim filing perspective. Again, the “forgotten man and woman” was betrayed.
Legal and illegal immigration: This is a sensitive topic because we are all correctly taught that we should be inclusive to people, religions and cultures that are different from our own, and I agree that we should.
But it’s also true that the mass legal and illegal immigration of the past few decades has shaken the fabric of many communities. Where English was once spoken universally, it is now spoken less so. I saw one public high school recently where 22 languages were spoken. Accommodating these students who were not fluent in English had become the preoccupation of the school—and at the expense of basic learning.
And of course we have all read of the other changes that have shaken the foundation of traditional American society. The decorated Christmas tree that once stood every December in the public square and was a source of community pride is now deemed offensive to some immigrants who reject Christianity and want its symbolism removed from communities where it is has long stood. “Christmas break” must now be called “winter break.” And the “forgotten man and woman” is deemed “insensitive” if he or she is not welcoming to all aspects of foreign cultures, sometimes up to and including Sharia law that violates the very foundation of the American Constitution.
As millions of immigrants entered the U.S.—both legally and illegally–from seemingly every Third World nation of the world these past few decades, no one paused to ask the “forgotten man and woman” how they felt about it, or whether it was strengthening or dividing their communities and nation. The reality is that this mass immigration has driven up unemployment, driven down wages as the labor pool has expanded but jobs have not, burdened public resources that were already heavily burdened, and been at the core of several brutal terrorist incidents and many, many criminal incidents.
To the “forgotten man and woman,” it’s difficult to understand why we need more people in this nation when we have nearly 100 million Americans not in the labor force; our schools, highways, hospitals, welfare programs and other public resources are increasingly overcrowded or stretched thin, and when these many immigrants have arrived in the U.S. wholly unprepared and sometimes even unwilling to integrate into our nation. And there has been a substantial cost to taxpayers from this mass immigration. As of 2010, the cost per illegal immigrant to American taxpayers was nearly $25,000 per illegal immigrant, including child welfare, education, and public infrastructure costs.
Then there’s the issue of all of the associated crime committed by these illegal immigrants. I often hear that “not all illegal immigrants are criminals,” which of course is untrue. The first thing they did upon entering our nation was break our federal and state laws. But many have gone on to commit still more crimes, and many very serious felonies.
A few years ago, I was one of the first to write of the case of Josh Wilkerson, an 18-year-old Texan who was beaten to death, strangled and set on fire by an illegal immigrant who had many times before been deported. When Josh’s mother Laura buried her son, the mass immigration and open borders advocates were nowhere to be found. She received no letter or condolences from Obama. She was, in so many ways, the quintessential “forgotten American.”
Nor are these one-off cases. In 2014, illegal immigrants were an estimated 3.5 percent of the total U.S. population but comprised 36.7 percent of all federal criminal sentences. That’s an astonishing and alarming statistic—and once again the victim is almost entirely the “forgotten man and woman.” The “forgotten man and woman” was victimized by the crime in most cases. And the “forgotten man and woman” is left with the burden of paying to incarcerate an illegal immigrant who never should have been here in the first place.
And then there is the issue of drugs. The porous southern border has become a primary entry point for some of the country’s most harmful drugs, including heroin, Fentanyl and a wide range of opioids. As the children of the “forgotten man and woman” fell victim to addiction and overdoses, not one singular national political leader took action on the obvious first step in solving the crisis: Closing the open southern border through which most of these illegal drugs were entering our nation. In fact, for thirty years at least, both parties in Washington have talked about securing our southern border, but they never did. It took Trump to answer this call from the “forgotten man and woman” to take the hugely reasonable step of securing it. The chant “build that wall” heard at seemingly every Trump campaign rally in the 2016 presidential campaign was the chant of the “forgotten man and woman” who had witnessed first hand the costs to our nation of inaction on securing our southern border.
Trade: In the early 1990s, as a foreign policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., I championed the North American Free Agreement, or NAFTA, as a trade agreement that would prove positive for both Mexico and the United States. We got it at least half right. It clearly benefited Mexico, as our trade deficit with Mexico expanded and whole companies picked up and moved there. But the benefit to Americans was not a net positive. And this has been the case with American trade with just about every one of our largest trading partners the past few decades. We have shipped jobs and cash to nations of the world, and they have shipped us goods somewhat cheaper than we may have produced them ourselves. It’s also true that trade does also create American jobs. But on the whole, because our trading partners manipulate their currencies, fail to meet the regulatory standards and costs incurred in the U.S., and pay their workers substantially less, these trade agreements have largely been rigged from the beginning against the “forgotten man and woman.”
Consider the staggering statistics of trade deficits with our largest trading partners:
China: $579 billion trade deficit.
Japan: $69 billion trade deficit.
Mexico: $63 billion trade deficit.
As companies and manufacturers have left communities across this nation—and this is especially true in rust belt states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and others—they left emptiness, hopelessness and desperation in their wake. Laid off by the departure of these companies, the “forgotten man and woman” and their entire communities have never since been quite the same. Drive through these states, and this fact is self-evident—and the “forgotten man and woman” will be more than happy to tell you all about it if you ask.
American strength in world: Most Americans have grown up in a nation where we have been seen globally as the world’s leader. Most saw us win the 45-year-long Cold War without firing a shot. They heard Reagan say “tear down this wall” in 1987 and then watched it fall just a few years later. Most Americans know well of how our engagement in World War II essentially saved the world. It is the view of most Americans that America should not be illogically engaged around the world. Nor can or should we seek to solve every world problem. But American strength to protect itself and address the world’s most serious crises until these past few years has never been much in question.
Over the last eight years, however, the “forgotten man and woman” watched as our military was decimated and dismantled. They saw Obama label ISIS a “JV team,” only to see ISIS go on to expand its reach throughout Iraq, Syria and—through terrorist attacks—into the EU and U.S. itself. They saw Obama declare a “red line” in Syria designed to halt the humanitarian suffering in that region only to do nothing after it was violated. They saw several thousand great Americans come home from Iraq in body bags—sometimes only because their military equipment and manpower deficient for the battlefield. They saw four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, die brutally and needlessly in Benghazi only because saving them would have proven politically inconvenient to Obama’s 2012 reelection. And they saw our enemies—Iran, North Korea, and to some extent Russia—move aggressively and uncontested to expand their own military might and global reach.
In fact, on Obama’s watch, the American military fell to its weakest state of readiness at any time in history since World War II. Our fighter aircraft are the oldest and our fleet the smallest in a long period of time. For the first time since World War II, there was a period under Obama when we literally had not one naval carrier at sea anywhere in the world. Our ship strength also fell on his watch. And our ability to confront a major threat to American security from a formidable enemy—much less our ability (should the need arise) to fight two conflicts at once—fell to its weakest point since World War II. These were not oversights by Obama; they were part of a calculated policy of weakening America and thus leaving it more vulnerable than ever to aggression, terrorism and other security threats. Instead of building a military force that was best suited to fight and win wars if necessary to defend American security and interests, the “forgotten man and woman” watched on as the singular focus seemed to be turning the American military into a politically correct social experiment.
Energy: At a time when we could and should have been substantially decreasing our dependence on foreign oil we purchase—much of it from nations that don’t particularly like us—Obama refused to develop the Keystone Pipeline, to expand drilling in the U.S. and its waters, and to substantially increase our development of petroleum, natural gas, clean coal and other energy sources in our nation. In the meantime, Obama crippled the American energy sector with extensive and prohibitive regulations that only deepened our reliance on energy resources from countries not so burdened. The “forgotten man and woman” looked on as American energy workers needlessly lost their jobs from these policies and as the inability to utilize our domestic energy resources contributed to ever higher energy prices.
Infrastructure: And finally, on the issue of our national infrastructure—our airports, train systems, interstate highways—Obama talked a big game about “shovel-ready jobs” and allocated a lot toward these ends. But he has left office with our air, train, highway and other transportation systems in a state of unprecedented disrepair and certainly not competitive with other developed nations of the world. Meanwhile, many American conservatives and Republicans—skeptical of government’s ability to do much of anything well—offered no real solution to the problem. Trump, of course, arose with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan and promised to make our infrastructure cutting edge again and do so in a timely and cost-efficient fashion. It was a promise the “forgotten man and woman” was waiting to hear.
All of this was the background and environment in which the 2016 presidential election took place. One candidate, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as a third term extension of these negative trends. She refused to acknowledge almost any of these as major problems. In fact, she wanted more of it—more refugees, more illegal immigrants, more regulations in our economy, more government intrusion into health care, even higher taxes, more government, and a continuation of a failed national security and foreign policy agenda that emboldened enemies, alienated allies and timidly refused to even utter the name of “radical Islamic terror.”
Additionally, at a moment when Americans were seeking a more harmonious identity, Clinton instead continued the Obama agenda of identity politics. In seemingly every speech, she spoke of the women’s vote. She spoke of the Hispanic vote. She spoke of the African-American vote. And she spoke of the gay vote. But at almost no time did she recognize what the “forgotten man and woman” believe—that the aspirations of Americans really do not vary by gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. We want economic growth, job creation, peace and security, good schools, safe communities. At a moment when the American people wanted a unifying message, Clinton could not bring herself to break with the identity politics on which her Democratic Party increasingly rests.
Trump was much more astute. He saw that the typical American voter had seen enough of business as usual in Washington, D.C. He called out politicians and the dysfunctions they created and offered solutions to the trade, immigration and fiscal policies that were harming the “forgotten man and woman.” He promised a rebuilding of American defenses, support for American law enforcement, tax and regulatory cuts to stimulate our economy, the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, renegotiation of trade agreements in terms that would be fairer to American workers, an end to illegal immigration, and a commitment to protecting an American identity that ultimately defines all of us as Americans.
Some final comments on the significance of all of this: I believe Trump’s election is precisely the sort of historic shift that the Republican Party needed if it were to survive as a national political force. If you look at 2008 and 2012, it was clear that neither McCain nor Romney, nor the messages they communicated, spoke to what the “forgotten man and woman” wanted to hear. Their candidacies were doomed to fail.
But with Trumpism, the Republican Party can once again say that it is in fact the party of working Americans.
And this, I believe, ultimately points to the legacy of Obama—not just that he left the nation worse than he found it, but that on his watch the Democratic Party was reduced to a minor, far-left political party with narrow appeal geographically and demographically.
The ultimate metric of Obama’s legacy is not just all of the statistics I have cited tonight. It’s this number: 1,030. That’s the number of state government, gubernatorial and Congressional seats the Democrats lost on Obama’s watch as he ignored and argued with the “forgotten man and woman.”
It’s true that Trumpism is shunned and misunderstood by mainstream media and at prestigious universities like the one at which we gather tonight. Ultimately these institutions too need to decide whether they wish to participate in the mainstream of American political discourse, or, as was just the case with the Democratic Party, be reduced to a minor sideshow.
What’s not misunderstood, however, is that the “forgotten man and woman” has been heard loud and clear. And should Trump execute on the promises and commitments he’s made, as I believe he will, the Republican Party and indeed this nation are going to be vastly better for it–and America will be great again.
Michael Johns, a former White House speechwriter and Heritage Foundation policy analyst, is a co-founder of the national Tea Party movement and president of Tea Party Community.[contact-form]
The most confusing dependent clause in the history of the nation, at least as far as personal liberty goes, is the one that begins the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To understand what the Founders meant it helps to understand how much the former colonists disliked a standing army. As far as the Continental Congress was concerned the Revolution could be fought and won using an army composed entirely of citizen volunteers organized into local militia companies.
George Washington, the man actually in charge of the fighting, thought this was madness. He and the Congress had a running battle throughout the war over recruiting, equipping and paying a regular army. Washington believed only a professional, disciplined body of troops armed with military weapons could defeat the British.
Militia units simply wouldn’t stand up to line infantry. Civilians in the colonies usually owned rifles, not muskets. This meant a civilian could fire accurately at longer distances than a smooth–bore musket, but his rate of fire was not as rapid as the easier–loading musket.
Rate of fire, however, was secondary to the main problem with civilian arms: The inability to attach a bayonet to the rifle. Regular infantry charged with fixed bayonets and the men with spears always overwhelmed the men with clubs.
Militia members weren’t forbidden to buy muskets with bayonet lugs on the barrel. It was simply a matter of choice. Civilians would rather shoot a deer at 100 yds. and walk up to claim dinner, as opposed to chasing Bambi down and stabbing him with a bayonet.
As the war progressed militia units were used as skirmishers to pepper British troops with long range fire and then retire behind the regulars as the lines closed. So in the end both Washington and Congress were partially correct.
Once the war concluded under the Articles of Confederation the regular army languished, except for a remnant that manned frontier forts. State militias, again composed of volunteers bringing privately own weapons, provided defense against Indian raids and other disorder.
Before the outbreak of the Civil War there was private militia cavalry and even artillery companies operating without government control.
The role of civilian militia volunteers was codified in the Bill of Rights by the 2nd Amendment and the lasting rancor against a large regular army was found in the 3rd Amendment, which prohibited quartering troops in private homes.
The word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment means the “arms” citizens have a “right” to bear are by definition weapons of war. The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts.
The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons.
That fact escapes all leftist judges. They think government grants the right, when the Constitution obviously holds the right exists independently of government, which shall not infringe upon it.
The case that cannot be made by anyone reading the plain language of the amendment and knowing anything of history is that the 2nd Amendment does not cover weapons that are either military in nature or resemble military weapons.
Yet that is exactly what the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did when it voted 10–to–4 to uphold an unconstitutional Maryland law that bans ownership of “assault weapons and large–capacity magazines.”
Ignoring “militia,” “arms” and “shall not infringe” the court sounded more like Chief Justice Oprah Winfrey when it concluded, “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war.”
Only the justices don’t have to extend anything, the 2nd Amendment already protects “weapons of war.” Their job was to stop an obvious infringement upon that right.
Evidently the justices equate a militia to a sort of colonial bowling league. Just as you wouldn’t want bowlers rolling a cannonball down the lane, you wouldn’t want civilians owning a “military style” rifle. The problem with that reasoning is the militia was designed and expected to function in place of a regular military and to fulfill that role civilians must, by necessity, have weapons of a “military nature.”
Enlightened judges may not like the language of the Constitution. They may think the language is outmoded and superseded by modern life. But it is a violation of their oath of office to re–write the document to their liking or ignore provisions with which they disagree.
The Founders wisely provided a mechanism to amend the Constitution. It involves Congress, the states and voting. It does not include 10 politicians in black robes.
The Coin Of Citizenship
By Bill The Butcher And Brother Theo
America greatly resembles Ancient Rome in many ways. Both great nations can reasonably be called republics. Both great nations have fought their wars with citizen soldiers. Both great nations’ currencies have been the coin used by the rest of the world as trade currency, and both great nations can be said to have had discrete borders within which citizens had sovereign power. Not for nothing was the saying “when in Rome, do as the Romans”. This is because when inside the boundaries of Rome, one did not wish to call attention to their lack of official sanction.
For some time ordinary Americans have fought for their right to establish recognition of the official rights and declared value of our citizenship status. These efforts have been continually hindered by courts who see fit to tinker with our constitution ,the ultra rich who do not care to pay progressive taxes (actually none of us want to pay progressive taxes, but it is the only way to provide an equal value of citizenship to all legitimate citizens), and employers seeking cheaper and yet cheaper labor. This has been compounded for the last 35 years or so by outright corruption by nearly all of our government offi cials, a c ompletely broken fourth estate, and a television/ motion picture industry utterly bent on making us feel guilty for being the world leader in a every category that matters.
So how does illegal immigration affect these issues? What’s the big deal about illegal immigration? Well, I’m glad you asked! It’s not so much a matter of borders; our borders are well marked. Since the great tide of immigrants from the 1850’s to the 1950’s it’s not been a matter of country of origin. Just about every person in America has their genetic roots in another country. It’s also not a matter of color; in fact, nearly every African American can trace their family’s appearance in America back further than most whites. Without question the closest thing to an ideal profile of being American is the idea that American citizens, great and small built a great nation which has risen above all other nations to lead, rather than rule the rest of the world, and in so doing created entitlements for future generations of Americans. This in turn creates an obligation for citizens to increase the legacy for future American citizens. In fact, only by increasing the pool of commonly shared benefits of citizenship by more than one has taken from it may anyone hope to find true greatness.
Simply shopping in a French clothing store does not make one French. Merely staying in an Irish hotel does not make one an Irish citizen, no matter how much Irish blood one has flowing in their veins. Just as working in a chicken processing center in East Texas, or picking fruit in California simply does not make a Honduran, Guatemalan, or Mexican an American citizen, regardless of how many family members they have in America, or how long they have been doing it. So, any equity built in America was built by American citizenry, and may unquestionably be viewed as a legacy by surviving Americans and their American born offspring, as well as persons awarded citizenship according to the naturalization laws of our country. There can be no argument with this truth.
No other country in the world would allow an American to cross their borders illegally, and take up residence, acquiring access to all of the benefits that legal citizens of that country have built for generations, much less remove currency from that country’s economy by sending it back to America where it would acquire yet more value on American soil, thereby weakening the value of that currency in the country of its issue.Truly, in a very real way, nations are like country clubs; if one wishes to join, they must first apply for membership. Upon acceptance one then pays dues and agrees to abide by the rules and bylaws developed by previous membership, including conducting oneself in a polite and agreeable manner, and speak to one another in a language common to club members. Also, one simply does not wear clothing to affairs in their new country club that advertises the superiority of their former country club.
Think of it this way, if folks who are not members simply carry their clubs onto your country club’s golf course, say climbing the fence around it, whenever they want to play a round, bringing the family, of course, to picnic on the greens whenever they like, you might get a tee time in the next decade.
The big deal about illegal immigration is that it waters down the coin value of the citizenship of those persons whose citizenship is rightful by the laws of that nation, and by God, I’m fed up with it. I disagree completely with fathead historians who snigger at the comparisons made between Rome and America, and will debate the issue with anyone who likes, as long as t hey agree not to cry when I destroy their pretentious arguments. One of the pillars of Rome was a prosperous citizenry, and one of the corrosive effects on that prosperity was that the city, and the entire peninsula, for that matter, was awash with slaves and cheap labor in the form of freed slaves (so freed because they became old, disabled, or too expensive to keep). By the 1st century B.C.the watering down of the citizen profile in Rome which led to a similar dilution in both citizen identity, and the value of the coin of citizenship. For more, keep reading the articles we write in this series. It ain’t over by a long shot, and as long as it ain’t, well, we ain’t done talking about it!
Secretary Kelly ordered the director of ICE to immediately begin the process of hiring 10,000 to effectively enforce the immigration laws in the interior regions of the U.S., according to a DHS memo obtained by Breitbart Texas. In addition, Kelly authorized the agency to hire additional operational and mission support staff, along with legal staff.
Kelly said the memo implements the Executive Order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” issued by President Trump on January 25.
ICE agents and enforcement officers were used earlier this month to conduct a targeted roundup of criminal aliens in metropolitan areas across the country. Agents and officers arrested more than 600 criminal aliens in 11 states, Breitbart Texas reported. The operation spawned a rash of “fake news” reports, tweets, and other social media comments that sparked unnecessary fear among immigrants, not in the sights of the targeted operation.
“I believe ICE is out in public arresting people in order to retaliate against our community for standing up for our values against people like Abbott and Trump,” Austin City Councilman Casar posted on Facebook. “Trump and his allies will do everything they can to divide Americans, invoke fear in vulnerable neighborhoods, and demonize an entire community of people.”
“Of those [680 aliens] arrested, approximately 75 percent were criminal aliens, convicted of crimes including, but not limited to, homicide, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual assault of a minor, lewd and lascivious acts with a child, indecent liberties with a minor, drug trafficking, battery, assault, DUI and weapons charges,” Secretary Kelly wrote in a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas.
ICE enforcement officers routinely execute targeted enforcement operations to remove violent criminal aliens from the country. The additional 10,000 agents and officers will allow the DHS to more efficiently carry out its mission of enforcing immigration laws in the interior of the country.
Some of the operations conducted in the past include (according to DHS statistics):
The memorandum from Secretary Kelly is effective immediately.
There’s been a great deal of controversy regarding who is going to pay for Trump’s border wall. The option that’s most popular is sending Mexico a bill. This would require the man Mark Steyn calls “President Piñata” to bring a big check to the groundbreaking ceremony or possibly pay on the installment plan — like rent–to–own furniture in an illegal’s crash pad.
Should the Mexican check not materialize or if it bounces like a jumping bean there are alternatives. Oklahoma has a remittance tax that puts a one percent fee on all wire transfers sent out–of–state. According to the Center for Immigration Studies a similar US tax would mainly fall on illegals and could bring in between one a two billion dollars a year.
More than enough to pay for the wall with some left over for environmental stalling studies.
Or there’s always the even more controversial tariff on imported Mexican goods.
Frankly, I don’t care who pays as long as the wall is built, but my wife did have an innovative idea to provide seed funding while details on the larger payments are worked out. It has the dual advantage of not requiring tax dollars and proving to the opposition media there is broad–based support for Trump’s wall.
She wants Trump to sell individual bricks or cinder blocks to Americans who want a part of the wall for themselves. The American public made it possible to tear down the Berlin Wall that kept Germans in; why not let them make it possible to build the border wall to keep illegals out?
This is an ideal solution for a capitalist entrepreneur like the president. Each commemorative block could contain a message from the donor. It could be something as simple as “Thank you President Trump” or pointed as “Why Isn’t Ted Kennedy Buried Under this Wall?”
Her original idea was more specific regarding sales. She thought victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens would be happy to buy a brick. I like this, too, although I would have a sliding price scale for each brick depending upon the crime involved. I think the two bricks I buy for friends killed by drunken illegals should get a discount, while the man who wants to immortalize “I was frightened by illegals in the 7/11 parking lot” should pay full freight.
The brick commemorating my daughter’s car that was totaled by an illegal would fit somewhere between the two extremes.
Trump could save on construction expenses by requiring all illegals in federal detention be put to work building the wall inspired by their law breaking. The symmetry certainly has its appeal. Currently there is no real penalty to being repeatedly caught violating our border, other than processing delays before Obama holdovers send you north.
A few months operating a shovel for free might serve as a real deterrent.
If the brick idea doesn’t appeal to the White House, how about taking the money Trump doesn’t send to Sanctuary Cities and spend that on the wall? The solution is a twofer: Financing and poetic justice.
Until recently I’ve been stumped trying to understand the motivation behind declaring one’s city a safe haven for lawbreakers. Why should the Mexican who steals privileges that don’t belong to him get a free pass and the citizen who steals a cellphone be arrested?
What possible benefit is it to law–abiding residents for elected officials to encourage the in–migration of a criminal underclass? Unless the underclass is all in the backyard, celebrating Cinco de Mayo with the rest of the family.
California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon introduced a bill to make the entire state of California a Sanctuary, because “half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [Trump’s] executive order.”
De Leon is more than willing to risk forfeiting millions of dollars in federal money if it means he won’t have to travel to Matamoros to enjoy grandma’s tamales.
It’s also De Leon’s belief that if Americans can donate half their insurance premiums to pay for Obamacare coverage for someone else, they should have no problem splitting their identity with a “hard working” illegal. After all De Leon contends identity theft is “…what you need to survive, to work in this country.”
Personally I wouldn’t want to dine in a restaurant that wouldn’t let you send back a bad entre and I wouldn’t want to live in a state that won’t send back a bad hombre.
De Leon and the rest of the illegal enablers participating in a conspiracy to obstruct federal law are not only importing members of their tribe at the expense of citizens, they also appear to be importing the corrupt Mexican politics the “refugees” are supposedly fleeing.
My book research for “Atlas Shouts” led me to investigate interrogation science as I researched how to spot a liar. Remember the TV Detective, Columbo? Columbo formed a key personality quirk around asking an interrogator-style leading question with as much “Gosh I’m stupid, but…” drama he could muster. The inquiry is textbook cross exam practice, aimed at exposing conflicts in the story. The acting was brilliant.
There are 11 tactics, listed in “Atlas Shouts”, of someone attempting to hide a conflict exposed by a question. In this case they are “prevaricating” – the generic term for lying.
If someone is accused of lying, the honest person will ONLY attempt to clear up the misconception of a lie. If the person is actually “hiding a lie”, well then they have a different concern on their mind: How do I defend my lie as virtuously as possible?The Press Just Asked A Liar’s Question
The press just asked a question only a liar would ask: “Should we take him seriously?”
Only a liar would ask that question.
An honest person would respond with: “I have not lied, tell me where you think I lied, so I can clear this misconception away.”The Liar’s Question
“There’s been a debate about when to take the president seriously,” CBS’ John Dickerson said in a “Face the Nation” interview with Priebus Saturday. “He recently tweeted that the press was the enemy of the American people. Should we take that seriously from him?”
“Well, I think you should take it seriously,” Priebus replied. “I think that the problem we’ve got is that we’re talking about bogus stories like the one in the New York Times, that we’ve had constant contact with Russian officials. The next day, the Wall Street Journal had a story that the intel community was not giving the president a full intelligence briefing. Both stories grossly inaccurate, overstated, overblown, and it’s total garbage. So we spend 48 hours on bogus stories. And the American people suffer. So I do think it’s a problem. And I think that the media needs to, in some cases — not every case, John — but in some cases really needs to get its act together.”
The next thing Trump MUST do is file charges and sue them for defamation or libel, as Dr. Steve Piecsenik suggests in his powerful video:
John D. Lofgren @ Junto Club: www.atlasShouts.com
Author of “Atlas Shouts” the #2 rated money book on Amazon:
Atlas Shouts, The Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrPgka9SBJ4
When your rebuttal is, “You can go f**k yourself,” you know you’re in way over your head.
The post Larry Wilmore to Milo “You Can Go F**k Yourself” [VIDEO] appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.
Today, Friday, February 17th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss the resignation of General Flynn, continuing to define the Democrat party, and major events of the week.
Hope you can tune in at: http://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/
Donald Trump reportedly started work in the Oval Office on Thursday morning and told his staff he wanted to hold a press conference that day.
And so he did. Boy, did he.
The event, ostensibly an announcement of the president’s new pick for labor secretary, was anything but routine. New nominee Alexander Acosta wasn’t even in attendance – and it probably wasn’t a bad thing that he missed out since he quickly became an afterthought to the 76-minute free-form scrum that ensued.
So much for White House message discipline. Instead, it was Trump being Trump. The off-the-cuff style got him elected president, of course, so perhaps it’s how he will reboot his four-week-old (!) presidency. Donald Trump was off the leash – just the way he seems to like it.
Here are some of the highlights.getty
“The leaks are absolutely real; the news is fake.”
Thursday’s press conference was Trump v the Media, round eleventy-billion.
Mr Trump said mainstream journalists were the voice of a “broken system” of special interests that he is challenging – which can only be catnip for his base and a way of insulating himself against the recent barrage of negative stories.
When pressed on the simmering scandal over former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russia and how the White House handled them, the president parried and then went after “dishonest” reporters who should be “ashamed” about inaccurate reporting based on illegal leaks (the president did not acknowledge the apparent contradiction in such a statement).
He blamed reporters for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal for not directly contacting him before running unflattering stories, as though they had his personal mobile number.
He even engaged in a bit of presidential concern-trolling, telling a CNN reporter his network would “do much better by being different”.
“I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press,” Mr Trump continued. “The public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.”
Mr Trump seemed to be at his happiest in this back-and-forth with hostile reporters over whether or not the media are honest – and with good reason. While journalists care deeply about the reputation of their profession, the general public probably views it as so much navel-gazing.
Every minute debating the impartiality and truthfulness of the press is a battle fought on terrain friendly to the president.
Mr Trump has a habit of making statements that have, shall we say, a sometimes distant relationship with reality. He often couches the remarks in phrases like “I’ve heard”, “people are saying”, or “I guess”.
Such was the case when he turned once again – in the scripted portion of his press conference, no less – to the size of his Electoral College victory last November.
In a bit of a twist, however, a reporter from NBC, Peter Alexander, called him on it minutes later.
He said that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton posted bigger margins of victory. Mr Trump replied that he was referring to Republican presidents.
Alexander countered that George HW Bush had a bigger win, too.
“Why should Americans trust you when you accuse the information they’ve received as being fake, when you provide information that’s not accurate?” he asked.
Trump replied that it was information he “was given” and had “seen around”, before saying that it was still a “very substantial victory” – a claim much more difficult to disprove.
President Trump, like Candidate Trump, has seemed invulnerable to fact-checkers, perhaps in part because he’s moved on to a hundred different topics before the media watchdogs can catch up.
Thursday, for at least a brief moment, was different.Getty “I don’t think there’s ever been a president elected who in this short period of time has done what we’ve done.”
The event on Thursday was billed as a press conference, but for the first half-hour it seemed more like an unpolished mid-day State of Union address. It was a chance for the president to talk over the gathered heads of the journalists in remarks broadcast on three of the four major US commercial networks and all the cable news outlets.
He spoke about the jobs he’s brought back to the US – anecdotal and small-bore though they may be. He spoke of “productive talks” he’s had with world leaders and the request he’s made for his military to come up with a plan to defeat the so-called Islamic state.
He cited executive actions withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and cutting back on government regulations. He boasted of task forces created, councils formed and agency co-ordination instructed.
And he touted his immigration efforts – a key piece of which is currently suspended pending court review.
“This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country,” Mr Trump asserted again. “And we have not even started the big work yet.”
That last part is definitely true. While the Trump administration has seemed to be in a flurry of activity, legislatively there has been relatively little accomplished. Within the first four weeks of his presidency, Mr Obama had signed into law a measure increasing protection for women’s wages in the workplace and a massive economic stimulus bill that included more than $800bn in new federal spending.
After four weeks, Mr Trump still has 98% of his presidency ahead of him. The start has been rocky, and less accomplished than he says, but the jury is still out.
“…the liberal left that speaks and desires for all of us to be tolerant does not want to be tolerant of anyone that disagrees with where they are coming from.” – South Carolina Senator Tim Scott
Finally, Senator Jeff Sessions has been confirmed as Attorney General in a vote of 52 to 47 and thanks of sorts must go to former Democratic Senator Harry Reid and his foolishly pushed for and gotten ‘nuclear option’…an option that rightfully backfired on the Democrats big time.
And while the delay in confirming this appointment shows the Democrats as the true obstructionists that they are no matter that they preach tolerance, unity, and peace…as long as it is on their terms that are….a special calling to the task must go out to black senators who chastised black Republican Senator Tim Scott for casting his vote in favor of Jeff Sessions. And to Senator Scott, I say “thank you” …thank you for putting your country first and not the color of your skin, which is exactly what the other black senators voting did.
Calling Senator Scott “a disgrace to your black race,” “a white man in black clothing,” a ‘house negro’,” “a big ‘Uncle Tom’ piece of fertilizer,” and even invoking the N-word against one of their own…those senators ‘supposedly’ elected to do the business of ‘We the People’ put on a shameful display that proves what many of us have known for some time now…that being that the majority of blacks in our halls of government are the epitome of racists… racists who do indeed cast their Congressional votes based solely upon the color of their skin…the first thing they think of in the morning and the last thing they think of before going to bed.
See Senator Tim Scott reading tweets aimed at him over his support of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/08/…
And this is what certain ‘others’ do as well…dangerous others…not in regards to their skin color but in regards to the rule of law that is the Constitution…the document they swore to protect and defend…the document they are now making a mockery of by their bending and twisting the law to push forward the liberal agenda…an agenda not so dissimilar to the agenda of black Congressional Democratic members.
And it’s three activist judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of whom I speak…Judge Richard R. Clifton, Judge William Canby, and Judge Michelle T. Friedland… activist judges who succeeded in sidetracking President Trump’s executive order that placed a temporary ban on those from seven Muslim terrorist supporting countries from entering our country. Activist judges stopping an order rightfully placed against those from the very countries that Obama himself named less than a year ago that they had no problem with then but do now simply because Donald Trump is president and not Hillary Clinton. Activist judges having a problem with an executive order they know well does NOT violate the Constitution’s Establishment Clause or any clause for that matter even as many on the left were using the Establishment Clause as their excuse for the now negated order and doing so even though precedent had already been set on all accounts for such an order being legal.
See my article Precedent Had Already Been Set for information on just that.
And whether the Establishment Clause has been deliberately and with malice misinterpreted is yet to be seen as the judges instead ruled that the ban negatively impacted those students from Muslim countries attending U.S. universities not their religion per se as their reason for doing what they unanimously did. But let’s take a look at the Establishment Clause…and do so to see just how wrong the activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were in even moving their judgment forward for what they did was circumnavigate the clause by focusing instead on the age and reason for certain people being here at any given time.
Remember too, that no matter how loud the activist judges or the Democrats yell, scream, and whine that Trump wanted to ban all Muslim immigration into our country, in no way is that so for Trump’s order never mentioned the words ‘muslims’ or Islam.’ But that important fact has been ignored and so has the fact that even if the order did contain those words it would still be legal as once again precedent has already been set…meaning Trump’s order should have stood and the liberal activist judges are damned.
Article VI…the Establishment Clause…states that, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Also remember, as per Constitutional scholars and Constitutional attorneys, our Founders, and Framers added the “no religious test” words to clarify the mandate of a solemn oath pledged before taking office and did not in any way imply that those elected must adherence to any particular religion or adhere to any religion at all. This is also the intention in the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of a state religion.
And that means that no matter what the Democrats say…no matter the ‘no-go’ ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals…no matter that these judges legislated from the bench…the Constitution guarantees there be “no religious test for immigration.” But if truth be told truth itself dictates the telling that religion is indeed what this ruling is about…the condoning of the ‘so-called’ religion of those who demand we either subjugate ourselves into submission or we will be killed.
And that’s why these liberal activist judges ruled based upon a lame excuse and their own self-perceived but unproven case of hardship that might be caused to Muslim students attending U.S. universities… hardships supposedly in regards to their leaving and then freely re-entering the United States. Now ignoring the reality that in today’s world the followers of the political cult that is islam…muslims…are indeed a danger to our country and to our people if for no other reason than the simple fact is that almost all acts of terrorism to date both in our country and abroad have been committed not only by Muslims in the name of allah…but that most of those acts are perpetrated by Muslims of the very age group these judges ruled in favor of.
And these activist judges knew this but just did not care for at their core they are nothing but Democrats pushing forward the Democratic agenda initiated by America’s first (supposedly) black president that in today’s world simply does not work…an agenda called ‘inclusion’…inclusion including of the very folks out to kill us all.
And while a few on the left are starting to see just that, their voices were ignored by those on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals…voices including that of uber liberal lawyer and Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz who issued a statement before the ruling came down that said that while President Trump will lose the appeal on the nationwide ban, he will ultimately prevail before the Supreme Court because, and I quote, “I do not believe that this order constitutes a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution…the fact that they picked seven Muslim states, those are the states that have high levels of terrorism…we’re talking about Islamic terrorism…when you focus on real victims or real perpetrators — and the impact is heavily on one particular religion, that doesn’t create a constitutional problem.”
No…Trump’s ban does not create a Constitutional crisis but the activist judges ruling does create a crisis of another sort…a crisis called invasion…an invasion the Obama administration started when during his first five years in office alone saw being issued over 680,000 green cards to those from Muslim countries…and it’s no wonder that what was once Dearborn is now known as Dearbornastan, and that Detroit and other once red, white, and blue American cities are what they are today…muslim enclaves helping to breed homegrown terrorists in the making…and now an influx of college-age Muslim students… mostly male college age students…will see to it just like they have seen to it in Europe.
And this ruling lies not only at the feet of the three liberal activist judges but also at the feet of the Democrats and their nonsense called ‘inclusion’ for there is a huge difference between inclusion and assimilation for once assimilation occurs amongst a group of people new to this country those people realize they do not need to live by the government’s teat…and there goes the Democrats voting block. And sadly this means to liberals that true assimilation must not happen but that the inclusion of ways not compatible with the fabric of our American society can. And it’s all courtesy of those still unable to accept the fact that their side not only lost but that ‘We the People’ are no longer buying what they’re selling… no longer buying it even as Democrats and liberal activists judges try to cram it down our collective throat.
And in this case it’s three liberal activist judges who acted solely upon theirs disagreeing with a decision made and an order given by a president they refuse to see as legitimate, coupled with their action now taken that poses a serious danger not only to our country but to the rule of law that is the Constitution.
How so…liberal activist judges whether they sit on the local bench, the state bench, the circuit bench, or even the Supreme Court, must not be or even appear to be partial and/or bias whether for or against any person or groups of people, nor must they sympathize with any cause. They must be impartial in their judgments based solely upon the letter of the law…based solely upon the Constitution…not on how they personally would like to interpret, mold, or socially engineer a ruling to their liking…as is the case with how they are interpreting and now upheld the block on President Trump’s temporarily banning order.
They cannot and must not adjudicate their version of what they believe is for the social good as that not only goes against the true rule of law but also negatively effects how our system of checks and balances works as laid out in the Constitution. But that is exactly what these three miscreant judges did.
“See you in court. The Security of our nation is at stake.” – President Trump on learning of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.
So the bottom line is this…the uber liberal activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Trump’s temporary immigration ban, but the battle will go on for President Trump will rightfully not let this lie as he knows well the dangers Muslims pose to our nation’s security. And hopefully, in the end, the true rule of law will prevail because precedent is on Trump’s side plus soon the High Court will once again lean right. And the fact that is the most grievous of all…a fact that cannot and must not be ignored is that now thanks to the three activist judges we Americans are indeed less safe than we were just one day ago.
So thank you Judge Richard R. Clifton, Judge William Canby and Judge Michelle T. Friedland for showing us that not only have you with malice adjudicated a ruling that not only endangers the lives of ‘We the People,’ but that you have shown yourselves to be traitors to the very rule of law that you swore to serve and protect…the U.S. Constitution…and that is something that will not soon be forgotten.
The post Tim Scott, Activist Judges, and an Unconstitutional and Traitorous Ruling appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
And so the battle rages on between President Trump and the rule of law vs. liberal judges and justices who flagrantly violate the law that is our Constitution. And what a sad situation it truly is for even after having survived eight long traitorous years of a presidency where America’s allies became our enemies and America’s enemies became that president’s friends, and with us now finally having a president who truly wants to keep the homeland and ‘We the People’ safe, he is being forced to fight tooth-and-nail to do so.
And doing so President Trump is, but he is fighting an uphill battle against the very people that are supposed to follow the rule of law not interpret it in such a way as to push forward their own personal political agendas. And sadder still is that that scenario reaches all the way up to the Supreme Court…our nation’s highest court…yet a court also rife with some who not only let their personal beliefs guide their decisions but who fail to understand the law as written in the very document they swore to serve and protect
And know that the Constitution clearly defines the duties that belong to the states and those that belong on the federal level, yet today’s liberal courts willingly and knowingly choose to either ignore the very words their rulings should be based upon or to blur the distinction between state and federal duties in order to reach a decision that fits their political agenda and the Constitution be damned.
A huge difference indeed and critical to understanding just how wrong the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got it when they upheld the lower court’s ruling to stop President Trump’s temporary travel ban from going into effect…a ban that affected citizens from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Syria from entering the U.S. for 90 days, halted the refugee program for 120 days and indefinitely barred the acceptance of Syrian refugees.
So what does the Constitution say regarding immigration into our country and how does it affect what President Trump wanted to impose in regards to his travel ban is the question. First, it must be understood that the right to freely travel is indeed an inherent natural right afforded American citizens falling under the banner of the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but that right was not fully recognized as such until a 1969 Supreme Court ruling came down in the case of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). This was the case filed on behalf of a 19-year-old unwed mother of one who was pregnant with her second, who was (I believe rightfully) denied welfare benefits…the ‘gimme-gimmes’ were at it even back then…based upon the grounds that she had not lived “in-State” for a year before her welfare application was filed, a requirement under then Connecticut law.
So when the then left-leaning Supreme Court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor their decision established within U.S. law as fundamental the “right to travel” as a privilege of citizenship that was now to be understood as protected by Article IV…the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. But, and this is critical, nowhere in the ruling did it say that the “right to travel” would be given to foreign nationals to freely travel into our country.
And herein lies the crux of the issue we now face for while the courts should protect ‘natural rights’ given to American citizens it cannot and should not interfere with said rights and give those same rights to non-citizens based upon misinterpretations…whether deliberate or not…of the law as written. In other words, they must be faithful to the original meaning of the Constitution, being that while Congress does indeed have the Constitutional authority to establish laws of naturalization and/or immigration they do not have the right nor Constitutional authority to create blanket legislation that allows non-citizens the rights of born or naturalized Americans.
And as such, thrown out should be any talk of blanket amnesty for illegals that Democrats so desperately want, and as for President Trump’s temporary travel ban where the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put the ‘so-called’ rights of Muslim college students above that of American citizens, that too should be thrown out.
So in regards to the right to freely travel as it relates to President Trump’s temporary travel ban as per what the law intended…foreign nationals whether immigrants, refugees, and most especially those out to kill us all, have no right to “freely travel” to come here nor do we as a country have a legal right to take them in for they are not citizens. Remember, the Constitution was written to be the laws for and to be the protection of American citizens alone and for liberal judges to adjudicate decisions in such a way as to blanket cover all the world’s people is just plain wrong for the law is as it is, and the law should not and must not be manipulated via reckless intent and interpretation by those wishing to bend it to fit their own personal or political ideologies or agendas.
And the Fourteenth Amendment is clear on this as it defines who are citizens and who are not as in “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States…” meaning the rights we citizens are afforded as per the Constitution does not allow for foreigners to be put above the rights of American citizens nor does it say we must welcome into our country that has intent on doing us harm.
Also, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, empowers Congress, “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and this combined with Congress’s shared power with the president to govern the foreign policy of the nation, does indeed give Congress and the president discretion on who enters this country, how long they can stay, under what specific conditions they can enter or stay, and by what process some of them can become citizens.
And all this translates into President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning travel to the U.S. of those from seven Muslim countries deemed a danger to America in that they harbor, train, operate from, or afford protection to those wishing to do us harm, was most assuredly Constitutionally sound and that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in their decision handed down did indeed not only go against the set perimeters of Constitutional law in regards to the separation of powers, but also adjudicated their vision of how to conduct foreign affairs instead of letting the president do what he needed to do as Commander-in-Chief in regards to protecting these United States.
And in their ruling in favor of what the liberals love to call ‘social justice, much needed’ these justices went against the Constitutional law for the Constitution does not…I repeat does not…delegate to the federal government the power to make decisions regarding immigration, it only gives the federal government the power over naturalization, as in giving Congress the power to restrict “migrants” eligibility for citizenship. This means that with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals being a federal court…thus being part of the federal government…they did indeed overstep their bounds when refusing to lift the restraining order as per a lower court’s ruling that stopped Trump’s temporary travel ban from being implemented much-needed precedent for its implementation had already been set.
To see those cases of precedent please refer to my article ‘Precedent Had Already Been Set.’
In addition is the fact that the Constitution itself gives the president the right to issue such an order. And while executive orders do not require Congressional approval, they do, according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, have the same legal weight as if they were passed by Congress even though they are not actual legislation.
So where do we go from here now that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken it upon themselves to interpret the law as per their whims and not as laid down in the Constitution? Where do we go as said court claimed Trump’s executive order as written violated the Establishment Clause because it was discriminatory towards a certain group of people (Muslims) and singled out a certain religion (Islam)…which it did not as can be seen in my article ‘Tim Scott, Activist Judges, and an Unconstitutional and Traitorous Ruling’….an order that I personally believe was not tough enough and for the obvious reason that Muslims put sharia law above our rule of law which is the Constitution, something these judges either failed to take into account or simply chose not to take into account.
Where do we go…we go to President Trump himself to turn this wrong right and who issued the following statement upon hearing the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling, “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country…you’ll be seeing that sometime next week,” letting everyone know that he will not be giving into a ruling that truly does put our nation’s security in jeopardy.
And while Trump could have an 11-judge Circuit Court panel review the decision to see if his order as it stands should be heard by the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know two things…first, even if he does this it does NOT mean this is the final outcome only that it could be reviewed and second, know Trump does have tricks up his sleeve including that he could use The Refugee Act of 1980 to ‘manipulate’ refugee numbers down…as in set the ceiling lower on the annual numbers let in and from which countries specifically…as is his right to do. But being the smart man that he is, President Trump knows he cannot risk taking this to the Supreme Court as the court is now evenly split along ideological lines and if their vote also splits along those lines the 9th Circuit’s ruling would stand…meaning the delusional left wins and ‘We the People’ lose yet again.
So President Trump’s most likely options include either a reworking of the order’s language in such a way that is more likely to pass legal scrutiny…such as clarifying that the order does not apply to legal permanent residents and other certain visa holders…both key points of contention in his order as it now stands. Or he could actually shelve that order and write a brand new executive order that will actually toughen the ban by zeroing in on more specifics thus tightening our security even more, and if written correctly there will be nothing the courts, the Democrats, or his naysayers on the left can do for like they found out with the ‘nuclear option’ they will find that sometimes things should have been left as was and not as they want or wish it to be.
And with a man as calculatingly clever as Donald Trump is maybe this was his plan all along…root them out…find out both their weakness and their wants…and then go in for the figurative political ‘kill’ so to speak.
Something to think about now isn’t it…just saying.
Please watch this video. https://youtu.be/8zt4anqnJoc. It is the “official” version of what happened the night Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman were killed. It ties together very nicely, and it’s easy to place OJ Simpson there at the event. We all know the story of the famous glove. Premier racist, Mark Fuhrman takes the glove to OJ’s house and strategically places it where it can be found, and the rest is history. Let’s talk about that. Now, one glove is left at the murder scene, and one allegedly transported to OJ’s place. So we are led to believe that the detective picked up one glove in order to effect the frame up. In order to make this work you must assume the killer removed both gloves, leaving both on the ground. The detective takes one, and leaves one. The only alternative is that the killer really DID leave one glove and stupidly discarded the other when he got home.
When OJ flew back from Chicago he had a cut on his hand. The prosecution contended that this cut happened during the murders, while OJ said it happened in Chicago. Now let’s look at this. OJ answers the phone with a cocktail in his hand. He is informed that his ex-wife has been killed. He slams the glass down in the sink, where blood WAS found by the way, and cuts his finger. He says that he really can’t remember how he cut the finger. He’d be lucky if he could remember the rest of the night after a call like that. Lucky he was coherent enough to make flight arrangements. When he arrived in LA the cut was still fresh. Still, there were the glove(s).
We all remember the famous glove fashion show for the jury. For whatEVER reason The Juice couldn’t put them all the way on. Well, I have an idea about that. I had a similar pair of gloves that came with my Mercedes. They ended up in the trunk of the car for a season and when I found them I simply could not get them on. I used saddle soap and limbered them up. These were not garden gloves folks, they were skin tight fashion gloves! So there is OJ displaying the ill fit for the court. Back to the scene of the crime.
Allegedly OJ hits Goldman, pops Nichole long side her head about the same time, then guts Goldman, turns and cuts Nichole’s throat and suddenly discovers he’s lost the hat. So, everybody’s dead, dog’s a barking, he removes one glove and goes feeling around in the dark, losing the glove, and never retrieving the hat. Now make a note. The people are dead, knife work’s done. Anyway, he goes home, loses the other glove in the yard, yeah this professional football player doesn’t seem to have the coordination to keep a sport glove on his hand, drops it in the yard and sprints off for a shower.
There is one damning clue in the display of the gloves by OJ to the jury. Forget the fit, just understand that he was stretching those gloves in a display of great effort, either real or contrived. Now, if we remember that according to the prosecutions own experts, OJ had both glove ON during the actual stabbing. Where’s the cut? If he cut his own finger during the fight, where is the corresponding cut on the glove? It is not possible to cut your finger without cutting through the glove. “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit?” No, if there ain’t no rip your case is flipped!
Today, Tuesday, February 14th from 7to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss the Constitution’s upholding of Trump’s travel ban, defining the Democrat party, and numbers maybe even Democrats can understand. Hope you can tune in at: http://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/
And his claim is backed by FBI evidence presented at a terrorism funding trial in which the group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, was named by the Justice Department an unindicted co-conspirator.Josh Mandel
Further, an undercover investigation that obtained original documents and recorded conversations of CAIR leaders provided solid evidence the Washington, D.C.-based group is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, Hamas.
The congressional candidate, Josh Mandel, who is Ohio treasurer, sent a Twitter message Wednesday declaring CAIR “is Hamas” and posted an article about the Palestinian faction that controls the Gaza Strip, reported the website Terror-Alert.com, which describes itself as an informational project of New York-based WorldAlert LLC.
The caption read: “If Council on American Islamic Relations is for it, it is probably bad for America. What a horrible organization.”
A day later, he said on Twitter that CAIR also had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Terror-alert.com stated that while “many have accused CAIR of being a front for such disparate groups as Hezbollah and Hamas – armed groups in the Middle East with vastly different ideologies – no firm proof has ever been produced to support these claims.”
But CAIR has been unable to refute evidence in court.
For example, when CAIR filed a lawsuit in 2009 against an undercover investigative team that published evidence of CAIR’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Islamic jihad, the group alleged its reputation was harmed, and it sought damages in court.
But a federal court in Washington determined CAIR failed to present a single fact showing it had been harmed, and the organization gave up that specific claim against former federal investigator Dave Gaubatz and his son, Chris Gaubatz, whose findings were published in a WND Books expose, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which will be released in a paperback edition in a little more than a week.
The Muslim Arab Gulf state United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization along with groups such as ISIS and al-Qaida.
In 2008, the FBI cut off official contact with CAIR, citing evidence from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas that documented the connections between CAIR and Hamas.Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR (VOA Photo/M. Elshinnawi)
CAIR’s parent organization, according to FBI wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation case, was founded at an October 1993 meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in Philadelphia that included CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. The organization, according to the evidence, was born out of a need to give a “media twinkle” to the Muslim leaders’ agenda of supporting violent jihad abroad while slowly institutionalizing Islamic law in the U.S.
Yet, the executive director of CAIR’s Ohio office, Julia Shearson, told Al Jazeera her organization has spent years dispelling “rumors” about its ties to foreign groups.
She said the Senate candidate, Mandel, “wants to have a higher office than he has now, and he’s going to use the ladder of Muslim hate to get there.”
“Unfortunately, it is a popular tool these days.”CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad speaks at a press conference in Washington, D.C., Jan. 25, 2017. From the left are CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper and Rabbi Joseph Berman. From the right are Steven Martin, communications director for the National Council of Churches and Rabiah Ahmed of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
While CAIR has complained of the unindicted co-conspirator designation, as WND reported in 2010 a federal judge later determined that the Justice Department provided “ample evidence,” affirming the Muslim group has been involved in “a conspiracy to support Hamas.”
In the case against the WND Books authors, the U.S. District Court in Washington observed in May 2014 that CAIR had been “frustratingly unclear as to the injuries at issue for each of the claims.” The court found CAIR speaks “in broad generalizations, asserting injuries and damages and proximate cause across multiple counts and multiple Plaintiffs.”
In addition, CAIR leaders have made statements affirming the aim of establishing Islamic rule in the United States.
The Islamic organization long had accused WND and others of “smearing” the Muslim group by citing a newspaper account of CAIR founder Omar Ahmad telling Muslims in Northern California in 1998 that they were in America not to assimilate but to help assert Islam’s rule over the country.
But WND caught CAIR falsely claiming that it had contacted the paper and had “sought a retraction,” insisting Ahmad never made the statement.
In a telephone conversation with WND in 2003, CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, insisted someone from CAIR’s California affiliate made the contact with the paper.
When confronted with the fact that the newspaper’s editors had told WND that CAIR had not contacted them and that the reporter stood by the story, Hooper abruptly ended the call, saying: “If you are going to use distortions, I can’t stop you; it’s a free country. Have a nice day.”CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper
Minutes later, however, Hooper called back and said he wanted to change his statement to say, “We will seek a retraction, and we have spoken to the reporter about it in the past.”
But three years later, the issue arose again, and WND found CAIR still had not contacted the paper.
Hooper, himself, also has expressed a desire to overturn the U.S. system of government in favor of an Islamic state.
“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future,” Hooper said in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”
Who is burning, who is burning…Effigy!
“Then you better start swimming or you’ll sink like a stone because times they are a changing.” There are no truer words in the English language. The landscape of communication changes with each generation, indeed, these days, within each decade, or sooner. The old adage that today’s news is tomorrow’s fish paper has been put on steroids. Today’s iPad is tomorrow’s recycled plastic, and everything in it. One thing never changes, the future belongs to the swift.
FM radio was the rage of the age. MADE pop stars overnight. MTV blew FM out of the water. Then YouTube sent MTV packing. Is there a video anywhere on MTV anymore? Is there EVEN an MTV anymore? Now the advent of the live feed is taking the market by storm. While the dead or dying main stream media grinds out its fake news, Alex Jones, Dennis Michael Lynch, and many others generate the real news from their iPhones. The approaches are all different, but the results are the same. People will tune into THEM before they’ll watch the cackle babble heads in the ultra slick plastic boxes of MSNBC, or Fox News. Jones, with his “Walter Cronkite” studio approach, or Lynch, who’s feeds are reminiscent of YouTube legend Renetto, walking along a garden path with his camera in his hand.
The live feeds as yet, haven’t been corrupted by advertising, or profit sharing. There are rising stars, and a few flops. The style is being developed. What works, and what fails is just beginning to be understood. As the art form takes position the owners of the networks are scrambling to understand what they simply cannot. They are like dinosaurs standing by a BetaMax while the world has already moved on to DVDs and beyond.
Some standard rules remain. On one end you have short, direct shows that drill down like Emily Longworth, who comes at us with a short message salted with a little sailor talk, all the way to Scott Binsack who rambles for hours like a deranged Oral Roberts, promising salvation if you’ll only by a T-Shirt. Only problem is that this is the fifteen minute generation that absorbs terabytes of information over a burger, and has a BS barometer set to zero! Elimly ten, Binsack zero! Ring the bell, school’s in!
This is the reality of mass media. This is the business we’ve chosen. No one asked anyone to pull off the freeway in Nashville and join the music business, and no one asked anyone to jump into the firestorm of mass media. Simple fact is the kids will flock to Longworth, they’ll make short work of old school hacks like Binsack, as he burns in effigy, and he’ll get all upset just like Bill Haley did when he discovered that a guy from Memphis was the real king or rock and roll. Evolution always moves on. Unless I miss my guess, somewhere in New Mexico there are a couple of kids, living on beer and hot dogs, sitting in a garage, quietly carving the epitaph of Facebook’s tombstone while the baby in the playpen beside them is waiting to carve THEIRS!
Once again the vote was split along party lines with 52 Republican voting to confirm and 47 Democrats voting against confirmation. The entire week has been a long hard slog for the Senate as the Democrat minority continues to oppose every single cabinet nominee with seemingly unfettered fury.
“The Senate stayed in session for 57 straight hours from Monday to Wednesday as Democrats spoke through the night in opposition to the confirmations of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While Democrats also oppose Price, they adjourned Wednesday night because of fatigue of lawmakers, staff and the non-political employees who staff the Senate floor.”
Price will have the unenviable task of dismantling Obamacare even as the Democrat Party plans to fight, tooth and nail, to save the disastrous Healthcare law.
— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) February 10, 2017
Price is a 3rd-generation doctor who has made healthcare and healthcare policy his life’s work, he is eminently qualified for this position and his experience is second to none. Along with that experience, he knows that Obamacare is a disaster and that it has hurt our nation’s quality of healthcare, he has offered solution after solution to the problem but Democrats have always refused to listen. Now, he’ll be in a position to make them listen. HHS (and our nation) is in good hands with Dr. Tom Price.
The post Tom Price Confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.
I first saw the Alamo in 1968. I was part of the Killeen High School Jr/Sr choir scheduled to sing at the HemisFair 68 in San Antonio. They put us up in these little tee-pee huts about fifteen miles out from the center or town, but the bus driver circled through downtown San Antonio to give us a close look at the Tower of the America’s, and, of course, winding our way back to Interstate 35 meant we had to go past the Alamo. It was night. The old chapel, the only original part left, save part of the Long Barracks, was lit up with a reddish-orange light, giving the building a surreal image to all of us high school kids in the bus. Being a choir, the girls began to sing a hymn. This was back in the day before God was expelled from school. Then they sang “Five Hundred Miles Away From Home.”
The Alamo was my first “famous” building. The next day was filled with activities at the fair, and, of course, we had to sing, but when all that was done I found my way down Commerce Street, and up the back of the Alamo. In those days you could walk right in. The caretakers were a bunch of little old ladies, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. Once inside you could just look around at anything you wanted. I don’t think there was air conditioning there back then. The inside smelled like Tabasco. I remember the stone being solid, but worn. I wasn’t Catholic so I didn’t know the significance of the various rooms, or the layout of the main area. From there I went to the little museum just across the courtyard. The old ladies had filled it with personal items from Mexican bayonets to wedding gowns from the nineteenth century. It was quite boring to me at that age.
In front of the main building there was this huge monument that was like a cross between a grave stone and the Washington Monument. There were the lists of the names of all the defenders of the mission who could be identified, and an image of them kneeling in a fire so we all assumed that’s where Santa Anna burned the bodies. I learned much later that it was nearer to the La Quinta Hotel behind the chapel, beside what is now the River Walk.
In Texas back then it was required that you take Texas History. Until that all I knew about the battle that occurred in 1836 came from the John Wayne movie. I remember when I took the class in school I was rather let down when I saw the real Davy Crockett, who looked a little like my civics teacher. Even though I took the class, I really didn’t understand what really happened during the battle. Actually, it’s taken the better part of one hundred and eighty years to untangle what really DID happen during those thirteen days.
There are two viewpoints of the battle. There is what I call the “John Wayne” view i.e. big, brave white men with one old black guy huddled up in an old church while the Mexicans spilled over the walls like monkeys, and there are now diaries and letters from the Mexican side that demonstrates a well organized assault, planned out over about two weeks, designed to wear down the defenders and reduce the position. There are legends coming out of the battle, and Texans hold fast to them, but the truth can be far more interesting.
It is now commonly agreed upon that Travis, the commander of the fort, never drew a line in the sand. From his own communications he demonstrated a resolve to hold the position in the vain hope that Texans would rally to the cause and bring reinforcements to stay the Mexican army. This was folly. If there had been five times their number inside, Santa Anna would have just had to starve and bombard them that longer before the final assault. The assault was completely different from the John Wayne movie. Lining up your troops, in broad daylight, announcing a charge, and running into a brick wall would be the actions of a blithering idiot! The actual attack began about four thirty in the morning, ending just before sunrise. Santa Anna ceased the cannon fire early that night, allowing the defenders of the Alamo to rest for the first time in almost two weeks. After they were all tucked in, his troops just walked up to the mission. One Mexican soldier got caught up in the moment, and shouted, “Viva Santa Anna” as they reached the wall, which, of course, aroused the defenders and the fight began.
In our history class we were told that Travis fought bravely, and upon being shot, broke his sword, throwing it at the approaching troops, and killed a Mexican as he fell. It is more likely he peered over the wall and was shot it the face in the early part of the battle. Bowie really did die in his sick bed, and depending upon the condition of his health you can speculate at how much damage he did in those final moments. Then there’s Daaaaaavy Crockett. King of the wild frontier. The Fess Parker Davy died on the wall clubbing Mexicans with his musket. Of course, John Wayne stumbled, with a lance sticking in his chest, into the chapel, setting off the powder magazine, blowing the side out of the building. In classic John Wayne fashion after he got stuck, he broke the pole off, leaving only the end still in his chest, made a half hearted swing at a Mexican soldier who promptly fell dead at his feet, and entered the church. Mexicans were incredibly easy to kill in those days. In reality we have the Peña diary that claims Crockett, and several others were captured, and executed after the battle. Mrs Dickerson said she saw his body near the front of the chapel as she left, which would put him near the wooden barrier he was defending, but we do not know if he fell in battle, or if that was his point of execution.
The victory of the battle was the fact that what occurred there so completely irritated the Texans, that they eventually pulled themselves together and figured a way to make Santa Anna hold HIS position later at San Jacinto. As cries of, “Remember the Alamo” raced toward them, the Mexican soldiers pleaded in the only English they knew, “Me no Alamo!” It didn’t do them any good. In eighteen minutes that portion of Santa Anna’s army was routed, and the Republic of Texas was born beneath an oak tree. The mystique of the Alamo remains. In spite of all the history, and new information, every time I go there, I always go the the courtyard where Travis drew that legendary line in the sand. Hey! The line in the sand was cool.