Remembering the Horrors of Kristallnacht – Lest we as human beings ever forget

This week marks a cruel yet hopeful anniversary. On November 9-10, 1938, a two-day period now known as Kristallnacht, Nazis plundered Jewish homes, schools and businesses across Germany. My grandfather, only 14 at the time, recalled seeing Jewish stores looted, books burned, and signs saying “kill the Jews.” Two days later, he received a letter from his family saying that his father, my great-grandfather, had been taken to Dachau, which we now know was the equivalent of a death sentence.

It has never been easy to come to grips with my family history. My aunt recently completed a family tree going back centuries; many of its branches end abruptly in the late 1930s and early 1940s. These names, no more than entries on a piece of paper to me, represent my heritage, my family—much of it lost in the hollow corridors of concentration camps. I can only imagine how my life would have been different had my grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins never experienced the merciless brutality of the Holocaust.

My grandparents shared bits and pieces of their experiences with me as I grew up, careful to say only as much as they thought I could handle. One day, while riding around on my grandfather’s lap in his electric wheelchair, I asked him, “What is that number on your arm?” Transforming a physical characteristic designed to make him less human into a source of feigned pride, he told me it was a number that made him unique because he was the only person in the world who had it. Only later, as I approached my teenage years, did my grandfather tell me that a fellow prisoner tattooed the number—117022—on his left forearm when he arrived at Auschwitz.

Four years ago, on the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, I spoke publicly about my grandparents’ experience for the first time. Standing in the rotunda of the Minnesota Capitol, I read my grandfather’s account of being transported on a freight car to Auschwitz, stripped of civilian clothes upon arrival, and forced to run naked through a cold April rain.

My grandfather had the uncommon gift of being able to see the light of human generosity in the midst of near-total darkness. He recounted his experience at the camp hospital, sick and malnourished: German nurses reported to their superiors that they had discharged my grandfather when they in fact transferred him to another room until he was able to recover. Their kindness, he said—which they undertook at great risk to their own lives—saved him from the gas chamber.

My grandfather again saw the best and worst in humanity after he agreed to participate in an escape plot. The guards captured three co-conspirators, who were hanged in the middle of the camp as a prisoner orchestra played German songs to accompany the spectacle. The men took the secret of my grandfather’s involvement to their graves.

Only after years researching their stories and reflecting on their lives do I understand the message my grandparents had tried to impart—one of hope and gratitude, not bitterness or pity. As my grandfather said in a memorial service speech in 1979, we remember those who “lost their lives while fighting for their freedom, the freedom of us and the freedom of mankind.” He emphasized that “we, the survivors, have to let the world know that we will never again allow another Holocaust” and told the audience that “you, and you alone, have the responsibility to speak up for our fallen relatives and friends.”

My grandparents always said they were the lucky ones, and that they were left on earth to speak for those who had perished. Their guidepost was humanity, not indulgence in their own sorrow and suffering.

They spoke for their friends and family members who were not “lucky” enough to make it, and to ensure that the stories of those who perished did not become footnotes in a dusty history book in the library. Theirs was a message of optimism, intended to ensure that their children and grandchildren were able to lead a life free from the atrocities that they had witnessed. I get it now, grandma and grandpa, and I hope the world gets it now too.

Justice Stras serves on the Minnesota Supreme Court and is a nominee for the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

‘What is that number on your arm?’ I asked my grandfather one day, too young to have heard of Auschwitz.

In Beijing, Trump Meets a Man Who Just Quietly Achieves

By NSS staff

Imagine being lost somewhere and not even knowing what country you are in. Pretty scary, wouldn’t you say?

And yet that is precisely where most of us Westerners are in our world with regard to where we stand, to the unseen powers holding sway over us and to the powers in the East that oppose the Western elites. Most imagine that Washington (or Brussels) is the centre of the power that protects us and that the US dollar (or euro) pays for this protection and always will. As for the world of ideas, we imagine that there is this thing called “Western values” and it is the centre of our intellectual and moral universe, the collection of all those things we hold dear and are prepared to defend against their enemies – as long as no blood is shed.

We generally believe that there is this thing called freedom of speech, and yet if a Western pastor dared to say from the sanctuary of his pulpit that marriage is designed by God solely as a union between a man and a woman, he would soon be challenged, gingerly at first perhaps but shortly a group of defenders of Western values would likely descend on him and his family demanding that he cease and desist from preaching this obsolete truth and would make it clear in no uncertain terms that they are not kidding. There is no longer debate, just “settled truths.” But the people are not the ones doing the settling.

Thus, paradoxically, while “Western values” includes the concept of free speech, this only applies to speech confined to the narrowing realm of “Western values,” which, under a law that is unwritten but strictly enforced by radical members of the populace, some speech is in fact unavailable to ordinary people.

And this is because the entire West is locked into an ideology, which New Silk Strategies has, in a reference paper, posted in the following 3 parts:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

To recap, the West dances to the tune of the radical school of the Enlightenment, which in the real world of past centuries turned out to be anything but enlightened. It led in fact to the bloody French Revolution and indirectly to Bonaparte’s bloody romp across Europe and Russia. It is an ideology that could be aptly called Benighted Enlightenment or to coin a neologism, Benightenment.

The ideas represented in this benighted enlightenment deny common sense, traditions – Christianity and traditional family in particular – traditional manufacturing-based economics, morality, decency and human kindness and sentiment, and promote a foreign policy that is devoid of any palpable diplomacy, being designed to punish countries that resist “Western values” and to avenge the West of any who dare defy its sacrosanct systems, particularly the banking system, or sully any of numerous economic, political or military interests of the US.
The problem for the “Belightened” Ones is that, while in their tiny make-believe world, all traditions must go, there still persist in their ambiance nuisance countries that nurture traditions, including the most offensive, ie, Christian faith and a traditional definition of marriage and family. Not because traditional methods fail to solve problems – because in fact, they work – but because they see these as hangovers of a Christian world that must be destroyed at all costs because Christianity was peopled by people and not saints, proving that God had failed them. It was a baby to be discarded with the bath water because the bath water is dirty, so the baby must be not clean but defective.

Unlike traditional governments, the US defends its economy not so much through economic development and growth but more by attempting to impoverish others in a zero-sum game based on the belief that wealth is finite, so that there can only be winners and losers and no such thing as a win-win situation. Thus for the US, competition from other countries is more of a declaration of war than a challenge to be met with improvements and growth in the US economy. There’s only room for one of us in this town.

The biggest offenders at this time are Russia and China, who reject this aggressive US ethnocentrism and treat competitors, even those like the US that seek conflict, with respect, calling them partners.

It was in this context that Donald Trump’s former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon told the Economist in an interview shortly after his dismissal (or resignation, depending on whose version you believe): “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.” (Bannon apparently did not know that the latest designation was Belt and Road Initiative, BRI). Briefly, the BRI is a massive Chinese infrastructure project designed in part to lift both China and Africa, for example, out of poverty.

Bannon’s statement can be understood and interpreted only in the context briefly described above. It was not just a reflection of his personal ideology but in fact is perfectly in line with the West’s irrational benighted “enlightenment” ideology.

This is the Western world where you are now, a world where hate holds sway over love and profound ignorance over knowledge and wisdom.

But there is a new sheriff and deputy in town.

In the context of Trump’s upcoming visit to China, CNN posted an article on Chinese President Xi Jinping which declared that almost nothing is known about the man. Of course they said that not only because they are ignorant of the East, but also because if they had told the truth about Xi it would present an embarrassing contrast between an Easterner, a truly enlightened man who is challenging the zero-sum US economics with a deeply held belief in a win-win for everyone, and a West that seems not to comprehend this. This simple idea is explained in Xi’s book “Up and Out of Poverty,” which no one in the West seems to have read and no one has meaningfully reviewed. Which is perhaps why CNN thought nothing was known about Xi. The book, written in 1992 and later translated into English and French, tells of Xi’s experience as a social worker in Ningde in Shaanxi Province where he was sent as a youth by the government in a program along the lines of a domestic Peace Corps.

Xi, the son of a Chinese functionary from a relatively well-off city, was shocked at the grinding poverty he found in this town but immediately set about to change this situation. In short, thanks to his efforts, that town, which once had an annual average income of 198 USD, wound up with an average income of 8000 USD last year – virtually unheard of for rural China. Xi thinks he has reason to believe this miracle can be duplicated elsewhere.

Xi has stated in public that the poor concern him more than anything else. But unlike Western politicians, he was not just flapping his jaws.

A Chinese site reported:

“A total of 55.64 million Chinese rural residents were lifted out of poverty from 2013 to 2016 and at least another 10 million will shake off poverty this year, which means the number of rural Chinese lifted out of poverty in five years will exceed 65 million – roughly the population of a major European country such as Britain, France or Italy.”

While CNN admits it knows nothing about this, Xi’s dream is a nightmare to the West, where a Steve Bannon can get away with saying they want to screw up Xi’s dream to raise Africa out of poverty through his Belt and Road Initiative. Bannon was in fact saying to hell with the African poor, probably without even realizing it (the Western narrative is that the BRI is just a way of allowing China to rule the world like a despot, the way the US does now). Even worse, Bannon admitted he wants to destroy Xi’s chances of helping them. These thoughtless statements stick around in the history books. Let them eat cake?

But if the West ignores, wittingly or not, that Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative is aimed at raising Africa and other nations out of poverty, Africa is keenly aware of this and anxiously awaits its culmination.

In June of 2017, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi gave a keynote address to a meeting at the opening ceremony of the High-Level Dialogue on Poverty Reduction and Development held at the African Union Conference Centre in Addis Ababa, and said that China’s goal is to simultaneously lift the poor in both China and Africa out of poverty. Wang also delivered an inspiring talk about Xi’s book on his experiences working with the poor in Ningde. So unlike US media, the Africans are aware that much is known about President Xi and that Xi is a veteran in battling poverty, with success. Can you name an American president who has successfully lifted anyone out of poverty in the last half-century? Lyndon Johnson birthed welfare, but the ghettos grew in proportion to the money paid out because no attempt was made to allow the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. Xi, however, says that is what he did in Ningde and what he intends to do in the future. He also uses the expression “win-win” often in his speeches, as if to rebuke the West for its zero-sum nonsense.

The US is the leader of the World Bank and the IMF, organizations that have been involved in Africa for decades, issuing loans but not making a dent in African poverty. The reason for their failure is perhaps best summed up in the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins, the CEO for a CIA front company working for the World Bank whose trainer at the beginning of his career bluntly told him the goal of his company was to bankrupt Third World nations, making them dependent on these banks for more and more loans. Thus the West’s policy was self-defeating because — as Xi knows — banks make more money off of rich customers than poor ones. And this is the secret behind China’s policy: I make you rich, you make me richer.

A brief explanation of how the IMF and World Bank keep Africans poor is found here. This is consistent with our report on Iraq: Part 1 and  Part 2.

By contrast, Xi’s China has lifted millions out of poverty from 2013 to 2016. The English-language Chinese site CGTN reports:

“A total of 55.64 million Chinese rural residents were lifted out of poverty from 2013 to 2016 and at least another 10 million will shake off poverty this year, which means the number of rural Chinese lifted out of poverty in five years will exceed 65 million – roughly the population of a major European country such as Britain, France or Italy.”

So when Trump goes to Beijing, a man who boasted about making America great again will meet a man who, without a word of boasting, simply made China a better place to live – and hopes to replicate that experience elsewhere.

Law Center Asks Supreme Court To Prevent Maine’s Persecution Of Pro-Life Pastor

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday (11/06/17) to review a U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s decision that allows government officials to use a noise provision to prevent peaceful sidewalk counseling in front of abortion facilities. The petition for review is the latest step in TMLC’s legal battle to prevent the State of Maine from silencing peaceful, pro-life sidewalk counselors.

Kate Oliveri, the TMLC attorney who drafted the petition, commented:

“The First Circuit’s dangerous opinion would allow all levels of government to restrict any speaker with whom they disagree by creative legislation that targets the reason the speaker engages in speech rather than the actual words spoken. This, however, is a distinction without difference that affords governments the right to silence all speech they find disagreeable.”

In 2015, TMLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pastor Andrew March against the Maine Attorney General and several police officers challenging the constitutionality of a noise provision in the Maine Civil Rights Act (“MCRA”). That provision prohibits noise outside healthcare buildings made with the intent to interfere with health services. Under Maine law, the term “health services” includes abortions.

Accordingly, this seemingly innocuous statute gives law enforcement officials the power to stop pro-life counselors from speaking on the public sidewalk in front of abortion facilities because they equate an intent to discourage a woman from having an abortion as an intent to interfere with a medical procedure.

The federal district court agreed with TMLC’s legal position and barred the State from using the noise provision because it was a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. However, the Maine Attorney General appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed the lower court and created the false dichotomy that the content of speech can somehow be separated from the purpose of the speaker.

Click here to read TMLC’s entire petition asking for Supreme Court review.

TMLC’s lawsuit on behalf of Pastor March is the third case in three years in which the Law Center has defended pro-life speakers on the public sidewalks of Portland, Maine.  The first federal case, which was filed in 2014 on behalf of several sidewalk counselors, successfully challenged the constitutionality of Portland’s ordinance that established a 39-foot buffer zone around abortion facilities.

However, only two weeks after conceding that the buffer zone was unconstitutional, the Maine Attorney General filed a state lawsuit against Pastor Brian Ingalls under the noise provision of MCRA. TMLC is still defending Pastor Ingalls in the ongoing litigation.

The third case occurred less than a month after charges were filed against Pastor Ingalls. Police, citing the same noise provision in MCRA, issued an official warning to Pastor March, who had taken up Pastor Ingalls’ mantle preaching outside the abortion facility. TMLC filed the federal lawsuit that the petition asks the Supreme Court to review.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

VIDEO: The Korean War on Faith

President Trump’s speech in South Korea was remarkable for several things, but it was his mention of religious persecution that got our attention. In a message of warning to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, the president took the opportunity on one of the world’s largest stages to chastise the horrible conditions for Christians in places like China and North Korea. While the world watched, the president tackled one of the greatest human rights abuses taking place in the Asian part of the globe.

“In the part of Korea that was a stronghold for Christianity before the war, Christians and other people of faith who are found praying or holding a religious book of any kind are now detained, tortured, and, in many cases, even executed.”

“North Korean women are forced to abort babies that are considered ethnically inferior. And if these babies are born, the newborns are murdered. One woman’s baby born to a Chinese father was taken away in a bucket. The guard said it did not deserve to live because it was impure. So why would China feel an obligation to help North Korea?”

For many North Koreans, just the act of worship is a life-threatening proposition. Hunted down and terrorized for their faith, the underground church has lost countless members to prison camps (or worse) simply for sharing the gospel — a freedom most of us take for granted every day. From the very beginning of his administration, Donald Trump has been intentional about his desire to pick up the torch for religious liberty, first trying to secure it for Americans here at home through executive order and other directives. But with his nomination of Sam Brownback to Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the administration has shown its sincerity on restoring the United States’ reputation as a voice for the voiceless.

As we know from our friends at Open Doors USA, North Korea is ranked as the most oppressive place in the world for Christians — #1 on the World Watch List. So it’s no small thing that President Trump included the persecuted church in his admonishment of Kim Jung Un. As Open Doors explains, the situation is so dire that Christians are forced to hide their faith even from their own spouses. “Simply owning a Bible is enough to be considered an enemy of the state, and many North Korean Christians are spending the rest of their lives malnourished, mistreated, and dying in prison.” As quickly as things have deteriorated for Americans of faith under Barack Obama, the culture here is nothing like the nightmare our brothers and sisters face overseas.

When so many other priorities hang in the balance, we’re extremely grateful that President Trump made a point of highlighting the plight of North Korean Christians. Now, it’s time for the U.S. Senate to act on Governor Brownback’s confirmation, so that Americans can start giving the world’s persecuted new hope – first, that they aren’t alone, and secondly, that help is on the way.

For more on North Korea, specifically the nuclear threat, don’t miss FRC’s Lt. General Jerry Boykin on Fox News’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto.”


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the November 8 Washington Update:

Silver Linings in Blue Victories

Delaware, Beware, of Kids Choosing Their own Race

President Trump: Your Sworn Duty Includes Investigating Hillary Clinton

Dear President Trump,

With all respect and humility, I would like to remind you that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice work under you in the executive branch. Of course, any investigation involving you deserves the utmost respect and distance on your part. Morality and decency demands that. It is unfortunate that this same morality and decency is all but an extinct trait within the entire federal judicial system, to include the DOJ and the Supreme Court.

Although your separation in any matter described above is absolutely necessary, separation in other matters of the DOJ would equate to a travesty of justice and a failing of responsibility and duty bestowed upon the executive branch by the States and the people. I speak specifically in regards to the criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

The DOJ has a constitutional and, I will say, a moral obligation to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton for her innumerable criminal acts. As the head of the executive branch, you must ensure this happens so justice is found for all Americans, and specifically the many victims of Hillary Clinton.

Sir, you met the Haitian people in Florida and across America. You have been informed of the crimes Hillary Clinton has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate upon the Haitian people. I can tell you it is likely the same offenses are being perpetrated on other peoples and their countries, i.e. the Congo. Her actions not only create national security problems, they present a perception of the American people to foreign countries that is completely unacceptable.

Hillary Clinton must finally be brought to justice for her role in the murder of Americans in Benghazi. She must be held accountable for her role in the murder of Americans as a result of the Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scheme to Mexican cartels. She must be investigated for her collusion in the theft of land belonging to the American people to be sold to foreign governments for her profit. Her well established cooperation and associations with the Muslim Brotherhood must be brought to light. And, sir, if you begin in these investigations, I am confident a floodgate of evidence of other criminality will open.

I also realize that these investigations will be difficult and you will meet with many obstacles.  First and foremost, the obstacles will come from many political accomplices that will be exposed in this light. You, sir, did promise to “drain the swamp.” These investigations will not only drain the swamp, but will dry it out completely. This will fulfill your promise to the American people.

Another difficulty you may encounter will be the overwhelming taxing of the federal witness protection program. You will have to go to great measures to ensure the safety and lives of any witnesses willing to testify. After all, there is some indication, through past experience, that those who speak against the Clintons come to mysterious ends.

I suspect there are many trying to tell you that any investigation of Hillary Clinton would be politically motivated and therefore inappropriate. Morality and decency say the opposite. To not investigate Hillary Clinton because of her political affiliations is absolutely inappropriate, as we can allow no one can be above investigation and still maintain a just society. Hillary Clinton can no longer be permitted to hide her guilt through her political aspirations. A just society demands your attention to these matters.

President Trump, you may be the only person who is willing to bring justice back to America.  The American people are losing faith in their government and they need to know that people like Hillary Clinton can be brought to justice.

Thank you for your time. I pray you will take this solemn obligation with great sincerity. Many are looking for you to prove that American government can, once again, be dedicated to Liberty, Justice, and Morality.

May God, in his divine providence, give you strength and boldness in these troubling times.

Sincerely,

KrisAnne Hall, JD
Founder of Liberty First University

ABOUT KRISANNE HALL, JD

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Two Steps to Drain the Swamp: Prosecute Aggressively, Slash Government

Manafort Indictment: Nothing New. Not A Big Deal. Yet.

Well, Identity Politics Has Ruined Halloween

Rights are Inherent for All, Benefits are Granted to Some

IN-DEPTH: Disproving the 7 Accusations that Trump is Racist

EDITORS NOTE: For further reading on Hillary Clinton’s actions, click here and here. This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

AI Can Never Be Made ‘Unbiased’

Translating identity politics doublethink into software is a programming impossibility.

Bill Frezza

by  Bill Frezza

This month’s issue of MIT Technology Review, my alma mater’s flagship magazine of technology fashion, is entirely devoted to Artificial Intelligence (AI), making the rounds for at least the third time in my career as both panacea and bogeyman. Sprinkled among the long form articles are colorful little one-page warnings with titles like “The Dangers of Tech-Bro AI” and “How to Root Out Hidden Biases in AI.” In addition to the timeless fear of losing our jobs to machines, these pieces argue that right-thinking people must be on the lookout for algorithms that generate unfairness, demanding instead that our AI behave ethically.

Grab the popcorn, this should be fun to watch.

Ethics Are Not, and Never Have Been, Absolute

History shows that people can be made to believe that all sorts of things are ethical, recoiling in horror over things that other people consider ethical. Our tribal nature renders us vulnerable to the will of the leader, or the mob, doing things in groups that we would never consider doing individually. We also have a proven track record of embracing logical contradictions, using post hoc rationalization to justify decisions as it suits us.Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary identity politics movement. Here concepts like privilege and intersectionality collide with murky definitions of race and gender to create a moral morass so thick that only the brave or foolhardy dare wade in. Not that there is anything new about this. Philosophers, clerics, ethicists, legislators, jurors, and everyday people have spent eons arguing about right and wrong. A rich body of literature documents society’s ever-changing ethical consensus, or lack thereof.

So next time you hear an expert demand that we develop ethical AI, ask who will be the arbiter of what constitutes correct and incorrect ethics? And once they solve the ancient problem of who watches the watchmen (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?), exactly how do they plan to translate their demands for “fairness” into code? Sure, software is capable of dealing with uncertainty, incomplete knowledge, and complex conditional circumstances. It can even use fuzzy logic to solve certain classes of problems. But be careful what you ask for when you feed murky definitions into a computer while expecting it to embrace blatant contradictions.

Ambiguity Abounds

Let me give an example of a murky definition. Define race, ethnicity, and, these days, gender in a manner that a computer can use as the basis for making ethical decisions. How many races are there? How do we classify mixed-race people? What are the unambiguous determinants of ethnicity? Which are the privileged ones and which are the underprivileged ones? And while I used to believe there were only two genders and that these were biologically determined, I am now assured that I am wrong.

Most people skate by with Justice Potter Stewart “I know it when I see it” answers to vexing questions like these. And that may be fine for humans with wetware brains, imprecise use of language, and a practiced ability to duck hard problems. But that’s not so fine for software running on digital machines that literally can only do what they are told. In this particular example, solving the murky definition problem by declaring that computers accept whatever boxes people check on forms is not only a total cop out but surely invites unethical people to game the system seeking unfair advantage, as some infamous cases revealed.Then there is the problem of embracing contradictions; that is, simultaneously believing that something can be A and not-A at the same time, and in all respects. Admit it: we do it all the time. It makes us human. Even doctrinaire Aristotelians like Ayn Rand fall into this trap. The dynamic tension generated by the contradictions swirling in our heads provides rich fodder for religion, humor, art, drama, and macroeconomics.

Imagining an “ethical” AI trying to please its human masters operating under these conditions brings up images of Captain Kirk outsmarting evil computers by forcing them to perseverate on some glaring contradiction at the root of their programming. The computers ended up smoking until they blew themselves up. Unlike the guy who tried to outsmart his fellow citizens by rubbing their noses in their contradictions. They made him drink hemlock.

Do I have an answer to how we can make AI unbiased? Of course not. And neither do the self-appointed experts demanding that we do. Long-haul truck drivers may well be at risk of losing their jobs to AI, but tendentious pundits and class-action lawyers will never be short of work.

Bill Frezza

Bill Frezza

Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Learn How to Find Illegal Votes

Co-Authors Jackie and Bruce Nutting have been eliminating illegal votes for the past 15 years. (PRNewsfoto/Jackie and Bruce Nutting)

UPLAND, Calif. /PRNewswire/ — “How to Find and Eliminate Illegal Votes” is a newly published election handbook aimed at teaching others how to find illegal voter registrations.  It was authored by Jackie and Bruce Nutting and released in October 2016.

In the book they present examples of actual audits and teach the reader how to examine their own voter registration lists and which laws to site when addressing any problems with election officials. There are clear directions as to how to request public records as well as court administrative records. Templates for presenting findings to county registrars, district attorneys and superior court judges are also highlighted.

This book is available at Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.

One chapter addresses the flaws in the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act as regards a lack of critical information that should be given to non-citizens in order to protect their eligibility to be a US citizen.  Under the Immigrant Responsibility Act, a person who votes prior to becoming a citizen is no longer eligible to apply. This includes D.A.C.A. recipients and those seeking asylum.

Jackie and her husband Bruce Nutting have audited hundreds of voter registration lists through the non-profit organization they helped found, the Institute for Fair Elections.  They work with county registrars and district attorneys in California and other states to find and eliminate illegal registrations and subsequent illegal votes. In 2016 they eliminated over 1 million illegal registrations in Californiaalone.

Mrs. Nutting welcomes the opportunity to speak with members of the press and organizations who are interested in learning more about eliminating illegal registrations.

This is a handbook for those who wish to truly affect the election process. It has been reviewed by experts in the field of election law and found to be a breakthrough in grass roots effectiveness. The methods outlined are easy to follow and the laws … Co-Authors Jackie and Bruce Nutting have been eliminating illegal votes for the past 15 years.

Good vs. Evil: The Moral Compass Lost

All people are evil. You are, as am I. It’s in our human DNA. Every one of us has had an evil thought. While not gender specific, men, I believe, have a far greater propensity for this because of testosterone. Now here’s the good news and the bad news.

First the good news.

While we are all evil by nature, we all have a moral compass. This moral compass prevents us from acting on urges or thoughts of violence. So, how do we come by this moral compass. Well, think, “It Takes A Village.” Your compass and mine are calibrated by the environment and stimuli of the world in which we live. This is all inclusive and includes parents, friends, teachers, clergy, relatives, television, video games, and just about anything and everything that we come into contact with during the course of our existence.

My grandmother had a saying when I was growing up, “Water seeks its own level.” The message that she was delivering to me was that our moral compass can be just as easily be compromised, which allows us to unleash and act on the evil thoughts and ideas that lurk deep within us. Turning off the moral compass is accomplished the same way as turning it on…..It Takes A Village!

Our Village has become corrupt and immoral.

The Village now celebrates homosexuality, Transgenderism, gender neutral and even Pedophilia in some corners as “diversity,” and scorns and shames those who disagree with them. To even suggest that you are a person of white skin immediately makes you a racist. The mention of the name, “Jesus” on television today will likely result in the word being “beeped” out so as not to offend anyone. This Village is full of rage. The NFL falls to its collective knees at the playing of our National Anthem in a clear show of defiance and disrespect.

There is no longer News either on television or print. What we have today is a competition for your mind to set your beliefs, your way of thinking to the right, or to the left. Everything is spin. Everything is either a half truth or an outright lie. You cannot trust anything that you hear or read. It’s a part of the war.

There is a war on boys!

Today, boys are being emasculated. it is no longer appropriate for a boy to act like a boy, it is offensive. Every day we read about a little boy on the school grounds at recess who kissed a little girl on the cheek and then is suspended for “inappropriate” behavior. A little boy draws a picture of a gun and is immediately sent to the school counselor for evaluation. Department stores are doing away with “boys departments” in favor of “unisex” departments. Five and six year old boys are being pushed by parents to be girls because they wear their mothers high heels around the house and the parent is certain that this is a cry for help from the child that they want to be a girl. Contact sports are being eliminated from schools because they are “hurtful.”

In 1971 I referred to a female gym teacher as a “bitch.” I was smacked and literally dragged to the Principal’s Office where I was suspended for three days. When I got home I was asked to recount the events that lead up to my suspension whereupon I was smacked again and given another three days at home doing chores. Today there would be a lawsuit against the school. In fact, students today act and say what they please in the classroom and teachers are helpless to do anything about it. They cannot force a student who is being unruly to leave their classroom. They must call for a Police Officer to remove the student.

Subliminal advertising is a brief flash on a television screen with a message.

It is so quick and so brief, you will not consciously see or recognize it, but subconsciously you certainly will. For instance, during the course of your favorite program, if the word, “Coca Cola” was allowed to subliminally appear 50 times, it is very likely that you would suddenly have an urge to “Have a Coke and a Smile.” It is interesting to note that in the world of television advertising, subliminal advertising is not legal.

It is a form of mind control and still, we are being subject to millions of these types of messages every single day. What’s more, I am not the demographic being targeted. Our young people are. The most impressionable among us are. Before their moral compass can be set. Today there is a war raging for the hearts and minds of our youth and those who wish to set the moral compass have been losing this war, badly.

It’s time we stood up to the facts.

The most recent and awful tragic shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland, Texas was the result of the loss of a moral compass. You can call it mental illness if you wish, but where did it start, and how was it propagated. Do not look to Washington, D.C. and politicians to fix this problem. When they start beating their collective chests about gun control, tell yourself this irrevocable truth; it’s only because they refuse to talk about the loss of a moral compass in our country, and so we will only continue down this path, unleashing the demons that have been strengthened and encouraged by an ever growing society that there are no vices or virtues, or borders, or rules. Only hate.

President Trump Targets Voter Fraud––Dems Go Insane!

“…The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin, 1923

On Tuesday, American voters will once again go to the polls hoping that the candidate(s) they vote for will fulfill what should be their one and only mission, i.e., to serve the needs of We the People.

Republican, ahem, leaders are appropriately nervous that the phony so-called conservatives they’ve been foisting on us for decades will be replaced by authentic conservatives who will help President Trump fulfill his mission to Make America Great Again!

And––oxymoron here––Democrat leaders are even more agitated because looming over the entire election will be the initiative President Trump announced last May to investigate voter fraud, an issue they are all-too-seedily familiar with.

They are also in high anxiety about the inconvenient truth that, according to journalist Susan Jones, “There have been five special congressional elections so far this year, and in the four races where Republicans ran against Democrats, Republicans have won all four. (In CA, two Democrats vied for a House seat, so a Dem win was the only possible outcome).

VP Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach are leading the commission’s efforts to reassure voters about the integrity of federal elections. The president also appointed Hans von Spakovsky, a GW Bush appointee, to head the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

The far-left Washington Post called his appointment “divisive,” which to most Americans meant that the president picked the perfect guy. In 2005, von Spakovsky led the Justice Department’s approval of a Georgia law requiring voters to produce photo ID, which was rejected!

Think about that rejection. You need a photo identification card to get a driver’s license, donate your blood, buy alcohol or cigarettes, open a bank account, apply for welfare benefits or food stamps or Medicaid or Social Security or unemployment or a mortgage or a hunting and fishing license, get on an airplane, rent a car, get a prescription, buy a cell phone, visit a casino and get married––and that is the short list!

But the initiative was rejected because Democrats object to any requirement that would prevent illegals and dead people and cartoon characters from voting and potentially swinging an election in their favor.

What do you think Sanctuary cities are all about? They are certainly not about the deep love and empathy leftists have for humanity, or the preference people who work 12 or 16 or 20 hours a day have for giving total strangers free housing, education, healthcare, and ongoing stipends into perpetuity. No no no….sanctuary citizens are all about Democrat votes!

Sure enough, the reliably cringe-producing Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called on the president to reject the embrace of “white supremacy” and the desire to “disenfranchise” voters that motivated such a commission.

And predictably, as reported by freedom-fighter Pamela Geller––author of the sensational new autobiographical book, Fatwa: Hunted in America––the president’s Voter Fraud Commission faced an avalanche of lawsuits. “But peel back the layers…[and] a common denominator emerges––they’re heavily funded by groups tied to George Soros. In fact, the more groups that pile on the suit, the more the dark hand of Soros emerges.”

It is also no surprise that the most corrupt regime in modern American politics––that of the poseur “president” Barack Obama––elevated voter fraud to an art form. As Thomas Lifson of AmericanThinker.com has reported, “One of the most outrageous abuses of the Obama presidency was a scheme by which fines for corporate misbehavior by the biggest Wall Street banks were channeled into the hands of radical leftist groups that are now vehemently opposing the policies of President Trump. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars that ought to have gone to the federal treasury, but instead became a slush fund for the left.”

Or as journalist and best-selling author Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post: “An estimated $640 million has been diverted into what critics say is an improper, if not unconstitutional, ‘slush fund’ fed from government settlements with JPMorgan Chase and Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp., according to congressional sources.”

No need to discuss the way that Ms. Hillary rigged the Democratic primary in New York against Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) until we learn if, indeed, Leavenworth lies in her future.

Clearly, the Democrats/progressives/liberals/leftists/socialists/communists/jihadists among us have zero trust or faith in the free-and-fair votes cast by citizens across our country, hence the desperate need to rig elections.

FANTASY v REALITY

Daniel Greenfield explains why the delusional Democrats were so cock-sure they’d win last November. “The New York Times rated Hillary’s chances at 93%. The Huffington Post raised that to 98%. That was still too modest for Obama campaign manager David Plouffe who predicted a 100% likelihood of Hillary winning. It wasn’t strategy or statistics that made the Dems think that victory was certain. It was ideology.

“Obama had spent two terms telling them that they were on the ‘right side of history.’ The more the Dems swung left, the closer to the right side of history they were…delusions of superiority had convinced them that Republicans couldn’t win an honest election.”

But “they had confused ideology with electability [and] human beings don’t react well to having their egomaniacal fantasies come apart around them.”

And there is one more thing. Democrats felt confident that they had perfected the voter-fraud scheme so exquisitely that their girl Hillary would cakewalk her way into the Oval Office in a landslide. But the one thing they didn’t count on––and haven’t counted on for four elections in which they’ve sustained thunderous losses in state legislatures, governorships, congressional and senatorial seats and, in 2016, the White House––is the preference of most Americans for sane policies that don’t include:

  • Anguish over going to a public bathroom
  • Dictates that insist nuns tout birth control
  • Burgeoning food-stamp and welfare rolls
  • Sissified Rules of Engagement for our distinctly non-sissified military
  • A dumbed-down, anti-American, Islamophilic federalized education system
  • A socialized medical system

You get the picture.

THE EPIDEMIC

I’ve heard of some cases of Republican gerrymandering. According to Wikipedia, this is “a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. Not really sure how this works, but it pales by light years from the countless examples of Democrat voter fraud. For one thing, gerrymandering is legal, although it can be contested.

Shortly after President Trump’s commission was formed, stories of Democrat voter fraud from all over the country started to emerge. Of course, most of the fake-news liberal media refused to cover these stories, just as they––including the far-left New York Times––kept buried the story of Miramax founder Harvey Weinstein’s predatory sexual harassment and alleged rape for nearly 15 years, the better to protect a huge financial donor to Democrat candidates.

Here is a small sampling of the kind of voter fraud that is perfectly routine in Democrat circles:

  • October 2017: Corruption in Voting! Los Angeles has 144% of Those Eligible to Vote on Voting Rolls.
  • As reported by the National Review’s Deroy Murdock“some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens…” Murdock counted Judicial Watch’s state-by-state tally and found that 462 U.S. counties had a registration rate exceeding 100% of all eligible voters. That’s 552 million people, who Murdock calls “ghost voters.” 
  • California, for instance, has 11 counties with more registered voters than actual voters and 10 of those counties voted heavily for Hillary Clinton.
  • September 2017: Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia: non-S. citizens registered to vote in Philly and nearly half of them voted in past elections.
  • September 2017: 248 counties have more voters than eligible citizens. Lowndes County, Alabama, has been accused of having 131 percent of its total eligible population on its list of registered voters. Another 247 counties have the same problem.
  • From the same article by Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily.com: Kentucky has 41 counties with more voters than residents, Michigan 32, Iowa 31, Illinois 22, Mississippi 19, Colorado 17, Texas 12, Alabama 12, South Dakota 12, Nebraska 9, Georgia 6, New York 6, West Virginia 6, New Mexico 5, North Carolina 5, California 2, Louisiana 2, Montana 2, Virginia 2, Arizona 1 and Florida 1.
  • September 2017: The NY Post reported about “the endless rigging of NY politics.”
  • September 2017: An election supervisor in Broward County, Florida, testified in court that both noncitizens and felons have voted illegally in her county––just as then-candidate Trump asserted, to the howling denials of leftists and their media whores.
  • In the second meeting of the Commission on Election Integrity, held on Sept. 12, 2017, computer expert Ken Block found approximately 8,500 voters who voted in two different states in the November 2016 election, including 200 couples who voted illegally together. He estimated that “there would be 40,000 duplicate votes if data from every state were available.”
  • A Commission on Election Integrity reports that “voter history data from only 21 states…found that 8,471 votes in 2016 were ‘highly likely’ duplicates. Extrapolating this to all 50 states would likely produce, with ‘high-confidence,’ around 45,000 duplicate votes.
  • Hillary won New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000 votes out of over 700,000 cast. (NH was one of the states that refused to turn over its data for this study, and it is one of only 15 states that allow same-day voter registration). If 74.8 percent of the 5,513 fraudulent votes were cast for Clinton, then the presidential election in New Hampshire was tipped as well.
  • According to a riveting article by Kris Kobach, statistics released by the Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives on the date of the general election in November 2016, there were 6,540 same-day registrants who voted in New Hampshire using an out-of-state driver’s license to prove their identity. But further research proved that over 5,000 were not legitimate, more than enough to swing an election!
  • August 2017: Judicial Watch reportedthat Mass. state employees sold drivers’ licenses and state identification cards to illegal immigrants…according to the Depart. of Justice (DOJ). Also that there is “an epidemic of voter fraud in the U.S.” and the case in Boston “occurred in multiple cases,” a matter being investigated by JW’s five-year-old Election Integrity Project.
  • On August 18, 2017 Tyler Durden wrote a column on Zero Hedge titled “S. Has 3.5 Million More Registered Voters Than Live Adults – A Red Flag For Electoral Fraud.
  • Virginia’s Governor Terry McAuliffe has said he has no intention of honoring the new commission’s request for information because “there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia.” This is the same guy who enabled over 60,000 felons to vote in the presidential election last November, the same slick operator who gave over $700,000 dollars to acting FBI director Andrew McCabe’s wife who was running in a local race. Yes, that McCabe, who just coincidentally was running the FBI investigation into Hillary’s use of a home-made e-mail server.
  • Last June, California’s Election Integrity Project (EIP), in a routine audit of CA’s new VoteCal voter registration database, found that five counties alone accounted for nearly one-million more registered voters than citizens of voting age!
  • Officials in College Park, Maryland, don’t like President Trump’s voter fraud commission and are considering giving noncitizens voting rights, a longstanding practice elsewhere in the state. In Maryland, Judicial Watch sued Montgomery County last month after finding more registered voters than citizens of voting age.
  • According to California political commentator Stephan Frank, “Thanks to [Obama’s] “leadership,” five-million (not a typo) of those granted United States citizenship CANNOT speak or read English.”
  • ‘Substantial Evidence’ Over a Million Illegal Aliens Voted in 2016

All of the above cases, from just the past few months, involve Democrat voter fraud and this is the teeniest tiniest tip of the iceberg!

RIGGING 101

Founded in 1970, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), received multimillions in federal funds, ostensibly to work on social issues like affordable housing and healthcare in poor neighborhoods, as well as voter registration.  It soon became known as a massive voter-fraud scheme that registered dead people, children, illegal aliens, felons, fraudulent absentee voters, even cartoon characters.

The group was finally outed in 2009 by conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe who used hidden cameras to expose ACORN’s nefarious agenda. The U.S. Congress cut ACORN’s funding and the group eventually disbanded. But it continues to operate to this day under new names.

According to journalist and author Matthew Vadum, “Project Vote––the voter mobilization division of now-defunct ACORN––leaves behind a legacy of lies, criminal conspiracies, and voter fraud, including millions upon millions of fraudulent voter registrations.” As he documented in his book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, “at least 54 ACORN employees and individuals associated with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud, a blanket term coined by lawyers referring to fraudulent voting, identify fraud, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, and other crimes related to the electoral process.”

In a stunning, must-read, three-part series–– here, Part 1 by Katy Grimes, here, Part 2 by Megan Barth and here, Part 3 by Katy Grimes, Grimes begins with a chilling quotation from Joseph Stalin: “…The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Grimes and Barth report the massive election fraud that took place during the California primary in June (2016).

  • Thousands upon thousands of California voters showed up at their designated polling stations only to discover that their party registration had been changed, or they were dropped entirely from the rolls. And it was evident this was done from within the state’s electronic voting system.
  • “A group from Princeton needed only seven minutes and simple hacking tools to install a computer program on a voting machine that took votes for one candidate and gave them to another,”
  • Recent DNC delegate manipulations made it so nearly every primary and caucus magically favored Hillary Clinton, despite the millions of winning votes going to Sanders” [and the probability that he won].  Just last week, a new book by longtime democrat consultant Donna Brazile claimed that Hillary rigged the DNC Primary, or, as she corrected that notion on Friday, that Hillary “totally controlled” the bankrupt Democratic National Committee. She did this, as reported by Jon Levine of The Wrap, by agreeing to pay off the DNC’s debt in exchange for overseeing the “party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.”
  • Three liberal federal judges (two appointed by Pres. Clinton, one by Barack Obama) overturned voter-ID laws––in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Texas––claiming they were racially discriminatory.

Going back to the fiasco of the 2012 presidential election and liberals’ aversion to voter identification cards, Rev. Austin Miles writes:

  • Voting machines, supplied by George Soros, were rigged to automatically receive an Obama vote, no matter who the voter actually voted for.
  • In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not a single vote recorded for Romney (a mathematical and statistical impossibility).
  • NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Barth cites a study on Democrat fraud in multiple states, the conclusion of which was that election fraud [occurred] and benefitted Hillary Clinton – especially in states that used unaccountable, electronic voting machines.

“What’s more, two of the three companies that controlled the electronic voting machine market, Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic) were on the list of big money donors that donated to the Clinton campaign, as shown by the DNC documents leaked by Guccifer 2.0.”

These stories were nowhere to be found in the mainstream media. Either was the video––since removed––of a Diebold machine spitting out incorrect votes in favor of Hillary.

In addition, according to Dean Garrison at dcclothesline.com, not only did Reuters rig a major poll to show Hillary winning when Breitbart News was reporting a 17-point swing towards Trump and away from Hillary, but Thomas Reuters, owner of the Reuters News Service, was among the top-tier donors ($1.5 million) to the Clinton Foundation!

It is impossible not to mention the famous “popular vote” that Hillary insisted she won by. Actually, in October of 2015, just a year before the presidential election––perfect timing––a motor-voter law cooked up by California Governor Jerry Brown was enacted. In short, this gave over three-million illegal aliens the “right” to vote.

A report from Investors Business Daily said that: “According to the American Civil Liberties Union—which opposes the motor-voter law—California houses 3.3 million illegals, or a quarter of the nation’s total. So the stage is set not just for extending voting to illegals but for swinging national elections, too.”

Well whaddaya know? That number––3.3 million–– is just about the exact number Hillary and her bitter minions––and her pathetic book––say she won the popular vote by!

We all know how this massive voter-fraud attempt ended. Donald Trump not only won the 2016 election, but successfully exposed the fake news and fake polls that until 8 p.m. on election night continued to insist that Hillary was ahead and would win.

They never ever counted on the one entity for which neither media hacks nor pollsters have any respect: the American public!

WHAT NOW?

To this day, in their profound denial of the outcome of November 2016’s election, Democrats/leftists/progressives––whatever they’re calling themselves these days––are living in the past, denying there’s a new sheriff in town, and railing against the president’s voter fraud commission as if individual or collective temper tantrums by the media or staged bought-and-paid-for demonstrations can undo reality.

Walter Murray of The Horn News, understands this species. “If you can’t win by the rules… change the rules!” he writes. “Crazy? Maybe––but no one has ever accused the far left of being sane when it comes to their plans to seize power, gain control and skew elections.”

One of their desperate schemes, he reports, is “to undermine the electoral process” by using the courts…to forever change presidential elections by doing a complete end run around the Electoral College. He says that liberal Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig “intends to file lawsuits in 48 of 50 states” to do away with the Electoral College.

“With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored,” Lessig told Fox News. Murray adds: “By `most of America,’ of course, he means California and New York.” Oh, and Lessig would also like to “disenfranchise older white Americans, who tend to vote Republican.”

But leaving a number of fringe ideologies behind, things are already happening as a result of the president’s commission:

  • As reported by Jim Hoft in July, top Democrats are worried after more than 3,000 likely illegal voters cancelled their registrations in Colorado since learning about President Trump’s voter fraud commission. The same thing happened when the president announced building “the wall” on our southern border and illegal crossings dropped precipitously. This is what happens when a leader is perceived as a “man of his word.”
  • The ever-vigilant Judicial Watch has warned California to clean its voter registration lists or face a federal lawsuit.  The watchdog group sent a notice-of-violation letter to the state of California and 11 of its counties threatening the suit, and it sent similar letters to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee.
  • We should know by Tuesday’s vote if there has been compliance––and, if not, what the consequences will be.
  • In early September, a federal court required that all voters in Texas present an accepted photo ID card in order to vote. The U.S. Department of Justice and President Donald Trump supported the ruling.
  • The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database just got a major upgrade. With the addition of powerful new search functions, the database gives Americans a quick and easy way to sort through 1,088 documented instances of fraud, to see how nefarious election activity has affected their own states and communities. The site features over 100 new cases, documents 1,071 instances of voter fraud spanning 47 states, and includes 938 criminal convictions.

Still, huge challenges remain. A couple of months ago,  computer experts told Pres. Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission that the country’s voting machines are susceptible to hacking, which could be done in a way so that it leaves no fingerprints, making it impossible to know whether the outcome was changed.

“There’s no perfect security; there’s only degrees of insecurity,” said Ronald Rivest, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

And here is an irrefutable truism about Democrat voters from an unknown source: “It’s worth noting that the U.S. population has increased since 2012, meaning there are likely more dead and invalid voters than before.”

The Democratic Party’s Intersectional Path to Destruction

The psychosis of intersectional theory creates a terribly destructive pathway, and one that is duty-bound to ensnare those who participate in it and those who try to politically benefit from it. This will lead us directly to what may be a tributary in the river that could actually drown the Democratic Party as we know it today.

Intersectionality is the delusion positing that in the daily operation of life, there are only the innocent oppressed and the evil oppressor. The always-oppressor is white males. All other categories are varying degrees of oppressed, and derive grievance authority depending on the intensity of the oppression according to intersectionality.

In Part I on intersectionality, we explained the myth that endures that America is crammed full of oppressed groups — from gays to women to blacks and Hispanics — and pointed out how that simply is not true.

For gays and women, they are demonstrably thriving like no time in history and like almost nowhere else in the world. The data is irrefutable and the conclusion means, by definition, they are not oppressed. Thriving people are not oppressed people. Blacks and Hispanics in the middle and top of the socioeconomic scale are also doing better than anywhere. Those suffering at the bottom are simply succumbing to the reality of three choices: not graduating high school, not waiting to have children until marriage and/or not getting a job. Those choices impact the same across races.

So in conclusion, among the Big Three on the intersectionality chart (there are many smaller ones) there is definitively no oppression by the only group deemed to be oppressors: white males. In fact, white males as a group, are doing relatively poorer than 50 years ago. Not very good at oppressing.

However, the intersectionalists persist. And they resist. And…etc.

This has taken hold more deeply in academia than most Americans may realize. Traditionally, the cause célèbre on college campuses today, becomes the policies of tomorrow. However, there have generally been truths to those in the past. During the anti-War protests in the 60s that led to the military dismantling of the 90s, the underlying truth was that war is indeed terrible. What the protests missed was that sometimes it is necessary in pursuit of good. War is horrible but war to defeat Nazism is necessary.

Democrats try to ride the intersectionality beast as it is the ultimate outcome of the identity politics the party has disingenuously cultivated for decades to win votes, pitting “aggrieved” Americans against each other. Democrats have been setting blacks against whites, Hispanics against whites, women against men, the poor against the rich, gays against straights, for a long time as a way to get the support of the aggrieved groups.

That the radicals have expanded it to include disabled against abled-bodied, fat against slim, Muslims against Christians and so many other categories, should hardly be a surprise. And that they want to fortify it as some sort of natural law is also not surprising. Radicals — particularly those surrounded in an insulated environment with other radicals, such as college campuses — don’t always think straight.

This is the thinking behind “white privilege.” Not choices, skin color. In fact, if intersectionality were honest — and it is just about as opposite of that as possible — the real oppressors would be Asians and “Asian privilege” would be a thing. But it’s not — nor should it be!

The impossible allies

Intersectionality grew out of Marxist-feminist critical theory concepts — both of which have comfortable homes in the identity politics-driven Democratic Party. But it ends up clumping together some of the most impossibly opposed views as though they should be allies.

This theory requires LGBT activists to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with Muslim advocates of Sharia Law — the very law that would have them executed for being gay — in opposition to white males, who (in America anyway) are largely in favor of live and let live towards gays.

Blacks must stand in solidarity with African Muslims who openly promote and practice slavery today — demanding that whites who did not ever own a slave apologize and pay reparations to blacks who never were slaves.

Low-income working class Hispanic women stand with President Obama’s daughters against the white patriarchy — even though the Obama’s girls represent the very opposite of oppressed with opportunities few one-percenters could even dream of, and really have nothing systemically in common with the working class Hispanic women.

It gets a little head-spinning at times.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a renowned liberal, sees intersectionality as a platform for the growing anti-semitism of the Left. It makes sense as Jews in this country (for this purpose, usually considered white by intersectionalists) do exceptionally well. That cannot be because of personal choices, only oppression can account for it, therefore they are oppressors. Dershowitz also calls intersectionality the “phoniest academic doctrine I’ve encountered in 53 years.” That covers a lot of specious academic doctrine.

But, you see, he has no standing — even no right — to voice such opinions to the aggrieved group of intersectionality because Dershowitz is Jewish.

Intersectional death of a party?

But phony doesn’t mean harmless. What it means practically is that individuals in aggrieved groups need take no responsibility for poor decisions in life. The resulting consequences are always blamed on the oppressors.

However, before this cancer runs its course, intersectionality could turn out to be a fatally destructive force to those trying to harness it. It is a cancer in the country, but more specifically in the body politic of the Left, encompassed most formally in the Democratic Party, because it is an insatiable beast, eating away at its host.

Although intersectionality is built upon, and aggressively uses identity politics, the ultimate practical problem is that society, culture and relationships have never been improved through identity divisions. In fact, they are all generally made worse. Consider that under intersectionality, a white person and a black person cannot truly be friends, because the theory itself assumes at bedrock that the white person is an oppressor and the black person is oppressed. And that is true without exceptions because it is based on unchangeable genetic skin color. Oppressor and oppressed cannot be true friends.

Further, there is no way to ever fix this dynamic of the powerful oppressor crushing the weak, under the theory. It is genetic. White. Males. Genetics. So the prescribed course of action is to “be aware” of it — whatever that may mean, and whatever “it” is — and then the oppressor must censor himself in the presence of an oppressed.

So a white male must shut up at all times, supposedly unless it is with only other white males. If a woman or a black or a gay or a Latino — or definitely a black lesbian — is present, by dint of genetics she holds the high moral ground and cannot be disagreed with. But even the black lesbian may need to shut up in the presence of a disabled, overweight Native American lesbian. That person scores higher on the oppression scale.

Seriously, this is exactly what is taught on more and more campuses.

Do you wonder sometimes why certain people tell others to shut up during actual discourse on an issue? Just shut up! What kind of debate is that? Well in intersectionality there is no debate, just right based on genetics. They simply make no pretense of an argument. So the infamous gay coffee shop owner in Seattle that made the pro-life Christians leave continually told them to shut up when they were asking questions. Non-stop shut up. Antifa tells everyone to shut up — verbally and physically.

The longer this poisonous theory persists, the more a certain type of college-educated American will believe they have a natural right to shut up people who disagree with them — the exact opposite of the First Amendment and the founding concept that all men are created equal. Everyone not a white male, who has imbibed this theory (which is a minority but growing) feels entitled to shut down anyone lower in the hierarchy, particularly if they use wrong-speak.

Given this, the political party that embraces intersectionality (as it has identity politics for decades) is almost destined to ruination. The longer the Democratic Party has insisted on splitting and pitting Americans against ourselves, the overall worse they have done at the ballot box. It reached a critical point in 2008 and the Democrats have since been decimated in Congress, in the White House, in state legislatures and in governorships across the land. It wasn’t just that Obama was a bad president, but that he was the first totally identity-driven president. Americans liked electing a black man. They didn’t like what he stood for in office.

Intersectionality makes their fall in elected officials problem even worse. In fact, impossible. Because it involves Democrat against Democrat in the intersectional hierarchy. Democrat demographics dominate in these aggrieved groups. Meaning there becomes a genetic hierarchy within the Democratic Party.

The more popular intersectionality has become, elevating identity politics to an ever uglier level, the more race-baiting and bigotry we see. And, the natural ugly responsive rise of white supremacy. Seems obvious that the natural result of that original ugliness of telling all whites they are bad because they are white would lead to an ugly backlash?

In this situation, Republicans can own the mantle of Martin Luther King and his vision for a colorblind society where people are judged on their character and not the color of their skin. That would send the identitarians into shrieking apoplectic fits of rage. But it would be true, it would be powerful and it would be American.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

What America Really Means

We are coming up on the one year anniversary of the election of President Donald J. Trump. A man that, in many ways, typifies America.

Mr. Trump proved the old fashioned notion that parents used to tell their children. You or anybody can be President of the United States of America. Immigrants often told their children this. Many of those children fully believed in it.

It was the American dream. You can be anything you want to be. You can do anything you want to do. In America, you have the freedom to become who you were meant to become. In America you can be whoever you want to be.

But, this past year we have seen Democrats, Liberals, Blue Blood Republicans and others, tell those children that they can only do and be what they approve of.

If you want to be rich, well you must be evil. If you want to be an industry leader, then you must want to steel it from the less fortunate. If you want to be President, get in line and wait for us to say its your turn.

In today’s America, the leftist tell those who want to improve, upgrade and move the nation forward that they will be taxed to death. They will even be taxed heavily upon death.

In today’s America, those who work hard and provide for their families are looked down upon. You must be neglecting your family if you work too hard. After all, the government is here to provide your basic needs.

In today’s America, if you don’t attend an indoctrinating institute of higher learning, you must be stupid, dumb, unsophisticated.

In today’s America, unless you are a member of the elite, you should not strive to be your best. You should not strive to improve yourself, educate yourself, take pride in yourself, your family and your community.

The words that those parents of days gone by have been coopted by the left and repurposed, refashioned, to the tune of, We Know What Is Best For You.

Donald Trump and the millions of Americans who voted for him, the millions more who support him are telling the elites that their words mean nothing. They have had years and years to prove their vision of America works. That their vision and belief is better. They have failed.

The American people are again saying that they are in charge of their lives. The American parent is again telling their children that even they can become President of the United States of America. The American parent is again telling their children that if they work hard, study their craft, that they can be a success and make a real difference.

It was never intended by the Founders and Framers of this nation to have an elite class of citizen who controlled every aspect of life.

Indeed, the very notion of America was raw independence. The belief in the American Ideal was a can do spirit and that every child could grow and become the best American, the best human being they could be.

Freedom in America meant a lot. It meant the freedom to succeed. The freedom to fail. The freedom to rise. The freedom to fall. The freedom to pick yourself up and dust yourself off and start over. And if you had to start over more than once, America gave you the freedom to do just that.

That idea of America is alive and well once again. The hopes and dreams of the Founders, the parents of days gone by can be realized and fulfilled once again.

But be on guard for those who want to squash such a dream. Watch out for the elite who says they know what is best for you. They are Anti-American.

Those who look for handouts at the expense of those who work hard are not fulfilling the notion of what America was intended to be.

We, as a nation, grew from a backwater agricultural baby into the most powerful, most prosperous nation the world has ever known. It was done with work, grit, determination. And it was done without the government being our baby sitter.

What America really means is FREEDOM. You are still free to be the best you can be. And Donald J Trump has proven that you can be a citizen not born of the elite class and become President.

How evil it is to tell a child that only the elite can be leaders. How horribly evil.

How Un-American.

TAKE ACTION: Send us your videotape of the ‘Theater of the Absurd!’

Here’s the story:

THE COMMUNIST PROTEST, IN THEIR WORDS:

Take To The Streets And Public Squares in cities and towns across the country continuing day after day and night after night—not stopping—until our DEMAND is met.

This Nightmare Must End: The Trump/Pence Regime Must Go!

In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America!

MORE

OUR VIDEOTAPE RESPONSE

For over a year The United West has investigated anti-Trump, anti-America groups like Antifa. Though they can be dangerous they are very comical, cartoonish, even to the point of being entertaining! We know that the Marxist left really wants to be taken seriously, so part of what we do is the exact opposite, expose them as goofy, incompetent, trust-fund losers.

The best way to do that is with a cell phone camera!

If you are at one of the protests and you are videotaping let us know and we may use some of your footage in our work exposing this movement that plans on destroying our President and Country.

ACTION STEPS

  • CLICK to locate an Antifa Protest city
  • GET YOUR PHONE READY – Make sure you have a full battery and even a spare. DO NOT tape a “vertical” video, ONLY horizontal videos.
  • STAY SAFE AND LEGAL – Never do anything illegal or anything that can put you in danger!
  • CONTACT THE UNITED WEST – If you believe you have some good footage contact us at – TUW@TheUnitedWest.org

ANTIFA REVOLUTIONARIES

“MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship

The elimination of words leads to the elimination of thoughts, which leads to the elimination of freedom.

We often hear that we are living in a “Politically Correct” era. This is treated as an annoyance when, in reality, the ever-accelerating widespread effort to expunge words and terminology from the vernacular should sound alarm bells.

“Political Correctness” has been viewed as a well intentioned way of combating bigotry by eliminating words of hatred and politely expunging words that are defamatory, insulting, humiliating, or denigrating. Certainly the desire to be compassionate, fair, and considerate is laudable.

It is important to be clear, the true “curse words” are words that insult or humiliate other people. Decent and compassionate people want to be considerate and respectful in their interactions with others. Reasonable individuals avoid hurtful language to describe other people. It has been said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Too many decent people have fallen victim to con artists who swindle them out of their life savings, or otherwise take advantage by gaining their confidence. Multiple scams run by pundits, pollsters, and politicians have produced the current immigration crisis. When it comes to immigration, consider how effectively scammers with malevolent motives have cynically played the “compassion card.” They see vulnerabilities to exploit in the compassionate and charitable characteristics of Americans, turning virtues into veritable weapons to be used against Americans. Never forget that Political Correctness is a form of censorship. It can be benign or as dangerous as a weapon, depending on those who are doing the censoring
and what motivates them.

Humans generally construct thoughts with words. Eliminate words and the thoughts those words represent are eliminated. Control of language, therefore, results in control of thought.

This is why “The road to tyranny is paved with words (and thoughts) lost to censorship.” The desire of the majority of people to be fair and polite has been perverted to obfuscate important issues. On border security, immigration, and sovereignty, globalists and other profiteers have resorted to this tactic. When rebels overthrow a government they first seize control of the medium of mass communications and take control of the flow of information to the masses:
television stations, radio stations, and newspapers. Since the human thought process is dependent upon words, censorship is an important tool of totalitarian regimes to maintain control of their citizens.

The Founding Fathers understood the nexus between freedom of speech and all of the other freedoms. This is precisely why the Founders considered Freedom of Speech important enough to enshrine as a protected right in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Control of language (censorship) is the first step along the path to the destruction of the First Amendment, and subsequently all other freedoms. Without free speech no other freedoms are possible. Left unchecked, an attack on words may bring us to the precipice of totalitarianism.

Political Correctness, either by design or by exploitation of those who saw that “golden opportunity” to exploit political correctness, has morphed into censorship to alter perceptions about broader issues. This is not unlike the device of “Newspeak,” a central component of 1984, George Orwell’s 1949 novel about a dystopian state.

“Newspeak” was the term Orwell used to describe a language that was created by the government to slowly but inexorably expunge ever more words from the vernacular of its hapless citizens. Essentially Newspeak was censorship on steroids, based on the idea that control of language would lead to control of thought. Control of language, coupled with extreme surveillance of its citizens that included the installation of telescreens (television monitoring devices) in the citizens’ homes that broadcast a constant barrage of programming from the omnipresent “Big Brother” created the ultimate police state.

A detailed explanation of Newspeak is found in this paragraph from the Appendix to Orwell’s novel, under the title, The Principles of Newspeak:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialist Party) but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Today the elimination of words has certainly been expedited by the use of social media, such as Twitter, which limits the number of characters that can be transmitted. America has gone from having a highly literate population to a country where most people are unwilling to read more than the headlines of articles. College campuses which used to be the bastions of free speech and debate now provide “Safe Spaces” to keep the ears and minds of the students from hearing alternative perspectives and, perish the thought, the Truth.

Certainly Democracy is anything but safe when “Safe Spaces” are imposed on college campuses. Further undermining public access to facts and truth are the 24-hour news programs that generally spend no more than three or four minutes on important news reports that do little to truly inform the viewers. This is further exacerbated by “debates” between guests who are not real subject matter experts but are all too often willing to spout a position on important issues without any real background or understanding about the subject that they are discussing, often turning their discussions into “food fights” that don’t inform the viewers but actually obfuscate the truth.

Such debates and discussion could be helpful to educate the viewing audience and enable them to formulate worthwhile fact-based opinions, only if the on-air participants in those segments were true experts. Real expertise would mean that these participants would qualify as expert witnesses in court proceedings about the issue of the debate they are participating in, the broadcast “court of public opinion.”

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, having testified before numerous congressional hearings, I was invited to participate in hundreds of news programs to discuss immigration-related issues, especially where immigration policies impacted national security and public safety.

In the beginning I was called by television news program producers who would simply call me up or send me an e-mail about the topic they planned to discuss on air, and ask if I was available and was interested in participating in the on-air discussion.

Over time, in addition to being asked if I was available to appear on the program, some producers subjected me to a “pre-interview.” If I expressed an opinion that did not march lockstep with the narrative that the producers of the program wanted to create, my invitation would be unceremoniously withdrawn, with the producer telling me that they were going to go in a “different direction” or made some other comparable excuse.

The phrase “going in another direction” was invoked by some news program producers if, for example, I drew a nexus between immigration failures and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, or otherwise raised issues that were clearly supposed to be off limits, including the way that “comprehensive immigration reform” would undermine the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

This is an insidious form of censorship because the viewers of that program have no idea that a true expert guest was prevented from appearing on the program to provide a viewpoint that went against that program’s contrived narrative.

Over time, discussions about immigration have come to involve fewer and fewer true subject-matter experts. Often those who do discuss immigration on camera have no direct knowledge or experience with immigration law enforcement.

Today, while news programs still call upon real experts to discuss certain issues, such as military officers and commandos to discuss military matters, retired police officers to discuss homicide patterns and other crime trends, or former astronauts to discuss the space program, immigration-related issues are generally discussed by pollsters, pundits, and political consultants with an occasional radio talk show host thrown in for good measure.

Furthermore, the audience may not be given any meaningful information about the true backgrounds of these “talking heads,” including how they may personally benefit from the position that they take on the issue they are debating.

In such cases the “news” program simply becomes an outlet for propaganda.

All too often the parent company of the news program may also have a vested interest in the issues being discussed. Consider, for example, how broadcast networks that have second language subsidiaries benefit from the increase in viewers who are literate in that other language. Broadcasting is a business. Airtime is expensive, and the amount of money that advertisers pay for airtime is directly proportionate to the size of the viewing audience.

What network executives would want immigration laws enforced if this could lead to a reduction in the size of the viewing audience upon which they base their charges for air time for advertisers? This could easily impact the editorial policies of the networks they run, yet this is never publicly discussed. Many viewers have no idea what constitutes objective and fair reporting.

In totalitarian regimes, political leaders and “journalists,” who are actually thinly disguised propagandists, become the arbiters of acceptable language, not only by the crime of commission, by reporting on false “facts,” controlling the language that the citizens of their countries use, but by the crime of omission, by expunging words from the public lexicon. Today this practice is becoming all too commonplace in the U.S. Leading the charge are journalists.

You are probably familiar with the rhetorical question that asks, “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to witness its fall, does that tree make a sound?”

Perhaps the more appropriate question that should be asked is, “If a tree falls in the forest, will anyone know about it if reporters don’t report about it?” That question has a clear and obvious and resounding answer: “No!”

This is a matter of common sense. However, what happens when those decisions are not based on honest pragmatism but on political bias? What happens when journalists decide to use language that is based on their prejudice, bias, or political orientation? I am concerned that all reporters have been coerced, in one way or another, to use language that is anything but balanced and/or objective.

In Orwell’s 1984 the “Ministry of Truth” was empowered to erase problematic words from the public lexicon, deciding what words should be expunged and, in some cases, what words or terms should be created. There is a similar arbiter of language control today. This contrivance actually exists today and it reaches into all newsrooms for broadcasters and newspapers alike. It has a firm grip on the publishing industry and on language used on college classrooms across the U.S. It even reaches into corporate boardrooms and corporate and governmental headquarters across our nation. Today control of language is implemented via a number of mechanisms. One of them is the highly influential Associated Press (AP) Stylebook that is widely used in all of the above-noted venues and even more. AP actually describes its stylebook as “The Journalist’s Bible.” It could have been published by the Ministry of Truth. Stylebooks are reference books that lay out how
written words are to be punctuated and how, for example, footnotes are to be used to reference sources quoted in books and articles.

The use of stylebooks is not new, and in fact many colleges require that students use those stylebooks as a sort of “Bible” to make certain that reports and articles they write adhere to certain standards.


The AP Stylebook on ‘Illegal Immigrants’

Anyone following the immigration debate over the years has noticed the mass media’s increased usage of “undocumented workers” in reference to illegal aliens. TSC contributor Michael Cutler draws attention to the influence of political correctness on language and rhetoric when it comes to the topic of illegal immigration.

Accuracy in language usage and the stifling impact of euphemistic uniformity are legitimate concerns. The Associate Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law* is the standard reference guide for journalists. It contains useful information on capitalization, abbreviation, spelling, numerals and usage, punctuation, privacy, access to government information, defamation, and libel.

The AP Stylebook uses the term “illegal immigrant” (not “illegal alien” or “undocumented worker”). It states that illegal immigrant is “used to describe someone who has entered the country illegally or who resides in the country illegally. It is the preferred term, not illegal alien or undocumented worker. Do not use the shortened term an illegal or illegals.”

Immigration and ethnic activists have pushed sympathetic journalists to use “undocumented worker” in their reportage over the years. In December 2010, on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” Washington Post columnist Esther Cepeda, mentioned the negative reaction that engulfed one newspaper in California when it used “illegal immigrant.”

“The Fresno Bee in California wrote this eight-day series, this beautifully reported series about all the issues surrounding illegal immigration in California’s Central Valley. And they’re talking about it from an economic perspective, a personal perspective, a bureaucratic perspective, political perspective. And yet what garnered the headlines is that some of the people reading the pieces were just inflamed because the newspaper took the Associated Press Stylebook’s standard of calling illegal immigrants illegal immigrants. And they were just inflamed. It was like the entire conversation went off of how this issue affects a particular community. And it became all about language.”

Truth and factual accuracy should be the benchmark standard when it comes to the use of language, not political pressure from organized interest groups.


Today that widely used reference book has become the guide to censorship in that it also instructs writers about what words are acceptable and what words are not acceptable. Furthermore, the AP Stylebook itself is a “work in progress,” where words may be added or removed at the whim of its faceless editors, who receive their marching orders from others.

What is not known is who those “others” are. There is a total lack of transparency and accountability in this process that has such a profound impact on our First Amendment rights and hence our freedoms. Here is an excerpt from the online version of the AP Stylebook* that should send shivers up your spine and cause our nation’s Founding Fathers to spin in their graves:

At more than 600 pages, the AP Stylebook is widely used as a writing and editing reference in newsrooms, classrooms and corporate offices worldwide. Updated regularly since its initial publication in 1953, the AP Stylebook is a must-have reference for writers, editors, students and professionals. It provides fundamental guidelines for spelling, language, punctuation, usage and journalistic style. It is the definitive resource for journalists.

Let’s focus on how this is playing out in regard to the issue of immigration. Elimination of certain words, such as “alien,” under the guise of being “Politically Correct,” is actually Orwellian in its nature and purpose. Words are being excised from the current language in much the way that Newspeak, the language that Orwell invented for 1984, excised or replaced words to control the thoughts of the masses.

President Jimmy Carter took the first steps to start America on its journey to the implementation of Newspeak, at least when discussing immigration. Carter ordered all INS employees, under penalty of severe adverse action by the agency, to eliminate the term “illegal alien” and instead use the preferred term “Undocumented Immigrant.”

At that time I was a special agent of the INS and shared my colleagues’ rage at this edict. I began referring to illegal aliens as “Pre-Citizens.” Soon many other INS employees adopted my nomenclature. One day a Border Patrol agent called to tell me that he had arrested a “PreCitizen” who was attempting to enter the U.S. without inspection. That alien had been previously arrested and deported from New York City and his Alien File was located in the file room of the NYC District Office. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the all-encompassing body of immigration laws enforced by the DHS, the term “Alien” is described simply as “any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.” There is absolutely no insult in that definition or that term. This is certainly not the equivalent of the “N-Word.”

The elimination of “alien” from the vernacular has had an overwhelming impact on the immigration debate. Because of the elimination of that one word, over time Americans have been utterly misled about the entire issue of immigration In the decades that followed, this bit of Orwellian semantics has created a massive deception, convincing millions of Americans to believe that calls for immigration law enforcement and secure borders are based on racism and bigotry, even though our immigration laws have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity, or other such factors.

The deceptions and lies that have been woven around Carter’s tactics distort the immigration debate to this very day. Carter’s goal to manipulate the immigration system for political purposes did not end with his censoring the language of INS employees. Carter also ordered INS agents not to arrest illegal aliens during the Census. The word from INS Headquarters was that all people needed to be counted during the Census, irrespective of their immigration status. This was done in an effort to gerrymander Congressional Districts and votes in the Electoral College. Most illegal aliens lived in cities that tended to support Democratic Party candidates. By increasing the number of residents of those districts by encouraging illegal aliens to be counted during the Census, Democratic Party strongholds would likely gain representatives in the wake of the Census.

Consequently illegal aliens were provided with political representation even though their mere presence in the U.S. was a violation of some of our nation’s most fundamental laws.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 created a massive amnesty program for more than 3.5 million illegal aliens during the Reagan administration; however, the idea of an amnesty program began during the Carter administration.

That ill-conceived program was supposedly balanced by including in that revision of the immigration laws a provision that, for the very first time, created “employer sanctions,” a series of penalties, including criminal penalties, for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

This was a typical Washington “compromise.” It created the illusion that all of the issues were being addressed. However, while it had been estimated that roughly one million illegal aliens would “emerge from the shadows” (how often do we hear that phrase today?), in reality more than 3.5 million aliens acquired lawful immigrant status.

It was widely known that a lack of resources was a major factor in the growth of the illegal alien population. Yet few additional INS agents were hired, not only to deter illegal immigration but to enforce what were referred to as employer sanctions laws that were part of IRCA, even as that new enforcement imperative requires many agents to enforce those laws. Nature’s laws are immutable. The speed of light is determined by the laws of physics and hence need not be enforced by a police officer wielding a radar gun and summons book. The speed laws that govern motor vehicle speed on our nation’s roads, however, certainly require such law enforcement efforts, if those speed laws are to be meaningful.

The same pragmatic approach needs to be applied to all legislated laws. Laws that are unenforced may as well be erased from the law books if violators of those laws are not identified, apprehended, and face consequences. The Border Patrol has always been seen as the key to immigration law enforcement efforts. While it is essential that our borders are as secure as possible, of at least equal if not greater concern is the ability to effectively enforce U.S. immigration laws.

This is the third leg of what I have come to refer to as the “immigration law enforcement tripod,” in which the Border Patrol enforces our immigration laws along our nation’s borders between ports of entry, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors enforce our immigration laws at ports of entry, and the Special Agents and other enforcement personnel enforce our immigration laws within the interior of the U.S. However, politicians and the media portray effective immigration law enforcement as simply a matter of beefing up the Border Patrol, especially along the U.S./Mexico border, and preventing the endless entry of illegal aliens.

Over the years, all of this has convinced many people that our immigration laws are primarily designed to keep out citizens of Mexico. The U.S./Mexico border is roughly two thousand miles long and is unique in that it separates a Third World country from the most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth, the U.S., thereby creating huge economic pressure and a push/pull effect that attracts poverty-stricken Mexicans to enter the U.S. by any means possible.

The widespread official corruption and extreme violence perpetrated by the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) exacerbates this already volatile situation that resulted in Mexico becoming the source country for the greatest number of illegal aliens. However, what is almost never discussed is that illegal aliens also enter the U.S. without inspection along the much longer U.S./Canadian border, stow away on ships, and then leave those ships covertly or come ashore, without detection along America’s 95,000 miles of coastline.

Furthermore, nearly half of all illegal aliens enter through America’s 325 ports of entry, perhaps by committing visa fraud or by lying to the CBP inspector about their intentions, and then, in one way or another, violate the terms of their admissions determined by the category of visas under which they were admitted. I compare the interior enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws to the necessity of outfielders in a baseball game who chase down balls in the outfield.

The following examples will inevitably occur: first, a given percentage of aliens will successfully evade detection by entering the U.S. without inspection; second, a given percentage of aliens who are lawfully admitted into the country will violate the terms of admission; third, some aliens, prior to their entry, will be convicted of serious crimes; fourth, some aliens will commit fraud in applying for various immigration benefits, such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status, and even U.S. citizenship.

Not unlike the outfielders of baseball who shag balls that are hit over the infielders’ heads or run down line drives that also wind up in the outfield, ICE enforcement personnel need to be able to address the aliens I have described above and conduct vital field investigations. Such investigations are needed to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity to prevent aliens from getting away with violating our laws, and also to deter even more aspiring illegal aliens and
fraudsters from attempting to violate the law.

I refer to this as “deterrence through enforcement.” For decades the entire enforcement mission has been all but ignored. President Donald Trump, with able assistance and insight from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has called for hiring more than ten thousand additional enforcement personnel for the vital mission of enforcing our immigration laws. The vulnerability of the immigration system to incursions was clearly identified by the 9/11 Commission, yet it has been essentially ignored until President Trump took office.

The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel detailed numerous examples of instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud, including political asylum fraud, to enter and embed themselves in the U.S. See this excerpt from page 54 of the Report, “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot”:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack. Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

It is remarkable that the blatantly bogus argument that immigration enforcement is about Latinos in general, and Mexican citizens in particular, persists to this very day.

By referring to all aliens as “immigrants,” as Carter demanded, it became easier to accuse anyone of being “anti-immigrant” who suggests that illegals should be arrested or that our borders should be secured against the entry of “immigrants.”

If proponents of immigration law enforcement and secure borders were to be labeled “anti-immigrant,” it would follow that their opponents should be referred to as “pro-immigrant.”

Over time this has gathered momentum and acceptance, so that today the very word “alien” causes most people to wince, not because the term “alien” is a pejorative, but because of the concerted effort of globalists to condition Americans to believe that it is a pejorative.

This is Pavlovian conditioning at its worst. Over time, perceptions become reality. The term “alien” is problematic for open-borders immigration anarchists because it provides clarity to the immigration issue, and thus runs contrary to the goals of the globalists to eradicate the distinction between not only lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, but ultimately between citizens and aliens.

This is of critical significance because under our nation’s immigration laws, U.S. citizens may never, ever, for any reason whatsoever, be prevented from entering their country. Aliens, on the other hand, have no inherent right to enter the U.S.

By eliminating this critically important distinction, a huge step has been taken to dismantle our borders, which are, in point of fact, America’s first and last line of defense. However, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a long, long list of other organizations that represent a wide variety of industries and special interest groups, our borders are not viewed as our first and last line of defense, but as impediments to greatly increasing their wealth and power, no matter the cost to the vast majority of Americans.

Criminal aliens and violent transnational gangs from across the planet have entered the U.S. and set up shop in small towns and major cities. Terrorists have been able to enter undetected and carry out deadly attacks.

Foreign workers who take the economic bottom rung jobs have displaced American workers, particularly among America’s minority communities, preventing young Americans from ever setting foot on the economic ladder that is essential to become successful. This crisis is particularly acute among members of America’s minority communities.

This influx of Third World workers has also driven down wages. Labor is a commodity. Flooding the marketplace with any commodity generally depresses the value of that commodity.

Politicians who have accepted the thinly disguised bribes known as “campaign contributions” are quick to say that these aliens are “taking the jobs Americans won’t do,” leaving out, of course, the second part of the sentence — for the wages and working conditions that desperate illegal aliens are willing to accept.

High-tech jobs that highly educated and highly experienced Americans had been doing for decades are now being done by foreign workers, who have replaced their American counterparts through such programs as the infamous H-1B visa program, which the Trump administration is seeking to curtail to favor American and lawful immigrant workers.

Meanwhile politicians ignore the truth and claim that America has a shortage of high-tech workers, even as hundreds of thousands of American workers who have been successfully doing these jobs for years, sometimes decades, are fired and replaced by foreign workers, whom they are ordered to train if they want their severance packages.

Continuing failures to secure our borders and combat fraud in the visa process and immigration benefits program leave America vulnerable to future attacks, but for those supremely wealthy and powerful individuals, organizations, and special interest groups who benefit from these failures, those vulnerabilities are the “price of doing business.”

They are far more concerned with “head counts” to fill airliners, sports stadiums, cruise ships, universities, and work sites than body counts at the morgue. They have employed a strategy that can be thought of as a massive marketing campaign, aided and abetted by politicians who have been “bought and paid for.” Advertising campaigns involve repetition of simple slogans of usually fewer than ten words. Another tactic involves the “branding” or labeling of people who take a position that runs contrary to the narrative created by the politicians and/or “journalists.”

Today nearly every news program or publication refers to advocates for fair and effective immigration law enforcement and for secure borders as being “anti-immigrant.” On the other hand, anyone who calls for massive amnesty programs for illegal aliens, including foreign criminals, is rewarded by being referred to as “pro-immigrant.” There is, however, one unique situation where the term “Alien” is an entirely acceptable term. When the DREAM Act failed to be approved by Congress, President Obama bemoaned “the failure of the Congress to act” when it voted against terrible legislation.

In reality, Congress did act; it just did not act the way that Mr. Obama wanted it to act. Consequently he cobbled together the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program to provide hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who claimed that they entered the U.S. before their 16th birthdays with temporary lawful status. They had until age 31 to file their applications. With no resources and no desire to uncover immigration fraud (the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as a threat to national security) there were no interviews of applicants for this immigration nor field investigations conducted of hundreds of thousands of applications.

Today such illegal aliens are commonly referred to as “DREAMERS” because they would have been the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.) The urge to somehow link a massive amnesty program to the “American Dream” was so strong that its proponents apparently decided that no one would notice the hypocrisy in this acronym, and for the most part they were completely correct.

Immigration law enforcement officers are vilified by politicians who have created “Sanctuary Cities,” openly boasting that they will not cooperate with federal agents.The use of the term “Sanctuary” to describe cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities, whose job is to secure America’s borders against illegal entry, while these cities commit violations of immigration laws is an incredible example of Newspeak. As a noun, “Sanctuary” is defined as a “place of
refuge or safety where…people automatically sought a sanctuary in time of trouble.”

How safe are the residents of a city or town that protects illegal aliens whose identities, backgrounds, and intentions are unknown and unknowable? How safe are the jobs of lawful immigrants and U.S. citizen workers, who have to compete with illegal alien workers, and who will settle for substandard wages under substandard, indeed, illegally dangerous working conditions?

One of the key sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which guides our decisions about the admissibility of aliens seeking entry, is Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182, which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens are those who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, and spies are to be excluded, as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment — thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed — and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Note that our current immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape, or form as to the race, religion, or ethnicity of any alien who seeks entry into or is present in the U.S.

Those who utter the overused phrase that “the U.S. is a nation of immigrants” to justify attacks on those who support effective immigration law enforcement need to be told that the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a house-guest and a burglar. America is most certainly not a nation of trespassers. Finally, much has been made in the news of President Trump’s Executive Orders that were issued shortly after he took office to keep his campaign promises to protect America and Americans from international terrorists and criminal aliens. Trump’s Executive Order regarding eligibility of immigrants for admission to the U.S. is entirely consistent with the provision of Section (f) of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 — Inadmissible aliens. This statute has been used by previous presidents to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Terrorists
certainly fall into that category. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

President Trump’s Executive Order, because of the news reports, became widely known as the “Travel Ban” for citizens of “Muslim majority countries.” The Executive Order was not a travel ban and it certainly did not contain a single word about the religion of any aliens who would be impacted. In fact, Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population but its citizens were not impacted by that Executive Order. Citizens of other Muslim majority countries were similarly
not impacted by the Executive Order.

By comparison, when President Obama issued his immigration Executive Order known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the title of that order was faithfully reported in the media. In point of fact, most Americans have never seen the actual name of the Trump Executive Order that was promulgated to protect America and Americans. The media apparently refused to provide it, perhaps, because publishing the actual name of that Executive Order would end that manufactured controversy that, because of recent court rulings, including the ruling of the Supreme Court, has weakened national security immeasurably and created a legal precedent that will hobble every future U.S. president.

“Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the U.S.” is the actual name of President Trump’s supposedly controversial Executive Order. Today “journalists” are not just content to expunge words they deem troublesome from the public lexicon. Now entire sentences such as the title of a Presidential Executive Order are to be excised, lest the public reject and oppose the globalist agenda being ever more aggressively marketed to the American public.

Back when I attended high school, too many decades ago, George Orwell’s important novel, 1984, was required reading. Today few schools require their students to read that prescient novel.

Whether you have never read 1984 or perhaps read it many years ago, I strongly suggest that you read Orwell’s classic tale of totalitarian control. It will open your eyes to the subversive tactics that are whittling away at our freedoms, thereby undermining our democratic republic.

Americans must always have access to the truth, and the truth begins with honest and clear and uncensored language. Anything less undermines the First Amendment and, with that, the very foundation of our cherished democracy.

Perhaps signs should be posted that read, “Newspeak not spoken here!”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Fall 2017 edition of The Social Contract.

Stop with this ‘Self-Radicalization’ crap!

The expiration date for this nonsensical term has passed and it’s time to deal with the harsh truth about Islam.

Following the Muslim jihad truck attack in New York City the term “self-radicalization” has become a household concept.

This is very bad.

For anyone who continues to foolishly use the term, “self-radicalization” you must either abandon the actual meaning of words or realize that you are propagating an erroneous understanding of the traditional doctrines of Islam.

Truth-speakers hate when this happens, Sayfullo Saipov loves it.

Almost as much as he loved killing and maiming non-believers with a rental truck.

Here are some simple facts to stimulate your proper thinking about “self-radicalization.” First some definitions:

  1. “Self” means…Self
  2. “Radicalize” means…to make radical
  3. “Radical” means…favoring drastic reform from the traditional

When we put the actual meaning of these words together “self-radicalization” reads like this:

“A person committed to drastic reform of some tradition.” 

Now, here’s where the weak-minded drive the English language off the rails by changing this simple definition to a more socially acceptable definition like this:

“That crazy-ass Muslim, who is probably mentally ill, who just killed a bunch of innocent people became that way in some unknowable way, through the influence of nothing while sitting in his garden smoking from a hookah!”

Once this “socially comfortable,” detached from reality definition gets into the public square, usually through the 24-hour news cycle, then somehow this abolition of the English language becomes a mainstream belief for those among the weak-minded.

Once accepted as mainstream then there is no turning back to the truth, it is too late, too much stupidity to overcome…the bad guys win, again.

Now, back to the real definition of “self-radicalization,”

“A person committed to drastic reform of some tradition.” 

It is here that the weak-minded do their bait and switch on the word tradition with the inference being that the tradition of Islam never heard of the words sword, beheading, submission, infidel, kill, enmity, or jihad. The weak-mined paint some traditional image of a blue-sky Islam with streaming rivers, smiling faces and people hugging each other while running through fields of flowers.

You know that blue-sky image, just like the image on every Islamic flag minus the swords, AK 47’s and Allahu Akbars.

So, the proper understanding of self-radicalization lives or dies on the TRUE tradition of Islam. Now really, do I have to take time and lie through my teeth about what everyone sees with their own eyes?

Violence, war, death and destruction are the tools used by the “greatest man,” Mohammed and his followers to accomplish their First Jihad and Second Jihad successes and now working on the Third Global Jihad. If you reject this factual aspect of history what do you believe? Did Mohammed go door-to-door sharing the love of Allah and how his grace could save mankind from a life of desperation and an eternity of destruction?

Was that how Islam conquered the world, TWO times, never using those swords or AK’s?

So can we agree that the tradition of Islam directs the war-fighting actions of its men?

Ask New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio or Governor Coumo if this jihad tradition is true and they will have you arrested for violating the safe-space of the Muslim Brotherhood in New York!

Talk to the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle-East, or any Islamic scholar from Al Azar in Egypt, or any Ayatollah in Iran or read Reliance, the handbook of Islam, and they will tell you exactly this – the tradition of Islam directs the war-fighting actions of its men. 

Well if this is true, and it is, then the weak-minded must unravel this enigma.

How can Sayfullo Saipov radicalize himself to drastically reform the tradition he fully believes in, to change that tradition into the blue-sky image of Islam that he rejects?

Do you see how crazy this puzzle becomes when we abandon the true meaning of words and history?

Consider this alternative explanation that maintains the integrity of words and the facts of history.

In that the Muslim terrorist, Sayfullo Saipov, is following the historic, doctrinal tradition of Islam he obviously has no interest in “drastically reforming” that traditionto the blue-sky version pushed by those well-know Islamic sages, DeBlasio and Coumo. Instead, the killer is devoutly following the exact traditions of doctrinal Islam and is no more radical than a Christian who devoutly follows the traditions of Jesus Christ. If words have meanings then it is really those Muslims who push Islam as a “religion of peace” who are the radicals, drastically trying to change from the traditions of Islamic jihad to a blue-sky, interfaith nonsensical view of doctrinal Islam.

Now, non-Muslims may prefer the blue-sky Islam but as we know, preference does not dictate reality!

If you are following this reasoning you may be getting a bit uneasy in your belly as the fog is slowly clearing and you are starting to see that the Muslims jihadis are really the most pleasing to Allah and Mohammed as they devoutly follow the doctrinal traditions of Islam!

But, this can’t be, you cry out! How can a “religion-of-peace,” have a tradition of violence?

A casual reading of Islamic scriptures substantiates the tradition of Islamic violence as a modus operandi in fighting the unbeliever, creating terror and pleasing Allah.

Quran 8:12, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

If you are Sayfullo Saipov and you want to devoutly follow Mohammad and Allah and you read many verses like Quran 8:12, is it “radical” from Mohammad’s point of view to run a bunch of infidels over with a truck, in a sinful city on a pagan holiday?

Ah, now you are starting to understand the conclusive argument that Sayfullo Saipov is NOT a radical Muslim but a devout Muslim, following the directives of the Quran, the words of the Prophet and the traditions of Islam. Saipov is NOT “self-radicalized,” but simply a student of traditional Islam deeply engrossed in an on-line study program, just like millions of other students doing course work. There is nothing “self” about this process, it requires the participation and assistance of many other fellow travelers.

It is about this time that the weak-minded start screaming and calling me a “hater” for accurately explaining the history, doctrine and traditions of Mohammad’s Islam. When asked to point out a flaw in the analysis the weak-minded scream more with spit flying from their cursing mouths while they walk away, unable to engage and discuss civilly.

I feel their pain.

If the real radical Muslim is the one who wants to change the factual traditions of  Islamic jihad to a more benign, pot-luck kind of lovey-dovey religion then you can imagine the internecine battles that could occur.

Oh really, check the newsfeed on your phone any time of the day and you will see multiple battlefronts of Muslim-on-Muslim, killing and slaughtering fellow-believers! It ain’t a big jump from Muslims justifying killing each other to Sayfullo Saipov carefully planning the brutal murder of non-believers for the sake of the Islamic State and Allah, very close to a spectacular Islamic success, in the greatest city on earth!

Will there be more Muslim truck attacks in the United States?

YES.

Is there any hope to defeat a devout Muslim killing machine, following the doctrinal traditions of Islam, seeking to please Allah, with an ultimate hope of Paradise?

NO.

As long as weak-minded people like Mayor DeBlasio and Governor Cuomo are in charge of defeating traditional Islam, we lose.

As long as America refuses to understand the traditional doctrines of historic Islam, doctrines that mandate the submission of all mankind to Islam, we lose.

As long as Law Enforcement is obstructed in their investigations of Islamic organizations and people who are traditional, devout Muslims, we lose.

As long as intelligent people continue to speak gibberish with the obfuscating  concept, self-radicalizationwe lose.

Looks like we lose folks.

RELATED ARTICLE: Stop Denying the Obvious. Terror Attacks Are Motivated by Radical Islam.

Two Steps to Drain the Swamp: Prosecute Aggressively, Slash Government

It’s become even clearer with the information made public as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s charges and plea deals that President Trump’s campaign was infected in pre-planned fashion by those trying to entrap him and his team. Goals: ensure his election loss or cripple his presidency.

The first failed, the second is ongoing.

Between a series of set-up meetings with “Russian officials” and Trump election people, including very low-level foreign policy volunteer George Papadopoulos, who just copped a plea with Mueller to presumably provide some dirt on someone, the apparent attempts to plant little scandal timebombs were everywhere. In fact, even the recommendation of Paul Manafort to be campaign chairman, apparently from the Republican establishment in D.C., turned out to be part of the poison with Manafort’s known Russian connections. (Known to the swamp — apparently not to Trump.)

This was the swamp creature reaching out to attack a potential threat. The very thing that Trump was promising to drain to the roaring cheers of thousands of Americans who know instinctively that Washington is only out for itself, was at that very moment oozing its way into his campaign with poison.

Trump was naive. His team inexperienced. But he was an outsider. Very outside. And the swamp had set the rules for a long time. Play by them and you gain. You may lose your soul, but you gain power and money and prestige. Trump doesn’t even know the rules, let alone play by them. Sure, he’s arrogant, abrasive, self-centered and politically shoots himself in the foot too much, but he actually seems to love his country — and he’s not of the swamp. He could be the man for the hour.

The revelations through Mueller’s first prosecutorial moves reveal a lot about how things operate and were operating. First, Mueller’s case looks weak. Paul Manafort is the big fish, but none of the charges have to do with Trump, the Trump campaign or collusion. So essentially, they are not part of what Mueller was even charged with investigating. They’re mostly money-laundering and related criminal activities — most all of which were happening while Mueller was head of the FBI.

Then there’s Papadopoulos, who was a twenty-something volunteer who said he was trying to ingratiate himself and curry favor by showing his chops setting up a meeting with Russians. He was a kid easily being played as a pawn by the Russians — or someone. But he was immediately rebuffed by Trump’s team. He tried again, and was rejected outright again. So all Mueller has on him is lying about his timeline when questioned by the FBI. A basic process charge against a scared kid. Again, there’s nothing there but the chance to get him to flip.

But a weak case doesn’t mean a short-lived investigation. Mueller won’t stop. He and his 16 Democrat lawyers will keep strong-arming witnesses, digging for dirt far beyond his mandate to look into Russian interference in the election. This will go on and on, and the reason is obvious. Keep Trump crippled. The second goal of the entrappers. With a swamp that includes many members of his own party, it’s not really that hard.

So, what to do? There are two broad, strategic strokes the President could pursue that would effectively start draining Washington. They’re bold, but necessary — probably the only way to actually accomplish what Trump promised.

Aggressively prosecute corruption: IRS, obstruction of justice, Uranium One, leaks

Is there any reason we shouldn’t hold Washington to high ethical standards? Why assume and allow all the dirtiness? Just the past eight years has enough corruption to keep hundreds of investigators buried in work. And these are just the ones we know about during the time the watchdog media was being a purring kitten.

Let’s start with the most recent high-profile candidates for prosecution.

 Uranium One. The Obama Administration, under then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, approved the purchase of Uranium One by a Russian company with tight ties to the Kremlin even while the same Russian interests were actively under investigation by the FBI. It was a staggering breach of national security and swampy corruption. In return — and it seems pretty obvious this was a quid pro quo — Bill Clinton was paid a cool $500,000 for one speech by a Kremlin-tied Russian bank just a few months later. This was all part of an ongoing influence-peddling scheme by Russians in the swamp, and the easiest targets when dragging a dollar and requiring influence are the Clintons.

Congressional Republicans were trying to stop the uranium transfer — the media was still purring through all of this — so Eric Holder’s Justice Department actively concealed what it knew from Congress. Team Obama stonewalled Congress for four years and reportedly threatened a whistleblower who wanted to go public. This is truly a massive scandal and considering the entire “Russian reset” from Clinton and Obama, and the ongoing strengthening of the Russian position worldwide during Obama’s term, it screams for a criminal investigation.

 Email crimes and obstructions. The controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email server is well documented. It was a blatant security breach and a violation of State Department policy. Worse, when those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, she gave Congress a tiny portion of hand-picked emails and then destroyed the rest — 33,000 emails. That was illegal, and in contempt of Congress.

This is all normal Clintonian behavior. The real swampiness comes in when there were absolutely no repercussions for her actions. Why? Because it would tank her presidential bid and implicate everyone up to and including President Obama — who it turns out was communicating with Clinton on the unsecured, private server using a synonym. As National Review points out:

“If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

Rules, laws, justice, Congress were all flaunted, and yet everyone skated. This all looks totally prosecute-able, but only with the will to do it. And Trump has not shown that. So far.

 Weaponizing the IRS. The Obama administration went far beyond what Nixon ever did in actually targeting political opponents during President Obama’s run for a second term. An unknown number of Tea Party and other conservative political organizations — more than 400 — seeking tax-exempt status were blocked from forming and therefore raising money to oppose Obama.

Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS unit that violated Americans’ rights to equal protection under the law, was put on paid administrative leave indefinitely. After four years, the Obama FBI said there was no evidence to warrant criminal investigation. Naturally.

The Trump administration has agreed to a “very substantial” payout to these groups to settle a class-action lawsuit that was launched because the Obama DoJ wouldn’t do anything. But all this does is transfer some taxpayer money to these groups. Nothing happened to the actual wrongdoers. Lesson learned, and not the one Americans want.

Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has already said it is not going to investigate the IRS on criminal activity. Perhaps even they are afraid of the IRS, but this is a lynchpin now in protecting the swamp if IRS leaders can get away with what Lerner did, with nothing more than a very long, paid vacation. Expect more.

There are many more controversies that should be investigated, such as the illegal sale of arms by the federal government to Mexican drug and sex traffickers for reasons that have never been adequately explained. Those guns have been used to murder American law enforcement officers along the borders. No repercussions.

Then there is the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in literal cash, on a plane, to Iran — a known exporter of terrorism by our own definition. A good faith gesture? To terrorists? That’s not just bad “optics.” That should be criminally investigated. But it probably won’t be.

This needs to be as non-partisan as possible. We know there are dirty Republicans. They just have not had executive power recently. Go after them. And lobbyists, lawyers, Deep State leakers, anyone else who is breaking the law. Why were we looking the other way during those years Manafort was working with both Democrats and Republicans in shady activities. Because of the swamp. Everyone knew. And there are hundreds of Manaforts in D.C.

Investigate and prosecute to uphold the law and ethics and start the draining.

Slash the size of the federal government. Deeply.

The primary feeder of the swamp is the monstrous size of the federal government. Congress is currently fashioning a $3.76 trillion — trillion — budget. That’s just to run the federal government for 12 months.

Within that slushy grab-bag of spending — including another $300 billion in debt — there is room for a lot of people to skim and direct money to their pet projects, for re-election projects, for friends and benefactors and for themselves.

But the eye-boggling spending is really only part of the feeding mechanism. The regulatory state is a crushing colossus on Americans, American businesses and state and local governments. Consider just the number of major departments and what they regulate in everyday life (excluding the Department of Defense, which runs our military and does not regulate Americans.)

  • Department of Agriculture
  • Department of Commerce
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of Health and Human Services
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • Department of the Interior
  • Department of Justice
  • Department of Labor
  • Department of State
  • Department of Transportation
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Department of Veterans Affairs

There are, of course, hundreds of smaller elements of the federal government fitted with their own armies of overseers. Additionally, here are some of the agencies that directly impact Americans’ lives.

  • Central Intelligence Agency
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Federal Communications Commission
  • Federal Elections Commission
  • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
  • Federal Reserve Board
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • General Services Administration
  • International Trade Commission
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • National Transportation Safety Board
  • National Science Foundation
  • Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Selective Service Commission
  • Small Business Administration
  • United States Postal Service

And, not to be forgotten, the Internal Revenue Service. Here is a daunting and depressing list of all of the federal government departments and agencies.

All told, about 2.1 million federal government civilian employees oversee the regulatory behemoth of the federal government. This number excludes about 760,000 military members. So more than 2 million bureaucrats of some sort spend their full-time days controlling Americans’ daily activities.

It’s nearly impossible to overstate the power of the swamp in this regulatory morass. The most powerful corporations in the country, from Google to Microsoft to Exxon to General Motors humbly go hat-in-hand to meet with regulators who can create havoc in their industries and their companies, or can provide protection against competitors. There are plenty of honest bureaucrats trying to do a good job in the swamp, but the inherent features of the place ensure there will be ample players who are out to maximize their own desires. And that requires protecting the means to those desires.

Looking at the list of departments and agencies, wholesale elimination of departments such as Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development would in all likelihood have a net benefit to Americans in freeing them up and pushing any actually necessary regulatory control to the more local levels — where it should be. Shouldn’t your local, fairly responsive School Board be in charge of education over distant bureaucratic, unaccountable overseers?

That would eliminate tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of billions of dollars and make Americans freer in the process. And it would weaken the power of the swamp creature. Weakening that feeder system makes it less attractive and could potentially start a downward spiral in swampiness.

Whether Trump would ever undertake such a degree of draining is not clear. So far, he’s been great on deregulation and adequate on government growth. But this requires a far more revolutionary degree of action.

So is the swamp really drainable?

Yes. But the scope of the challenge is clear.

Trump is as constitutionally capable as anyone in that he is not part of the swamp, refuses to change who he is and play by its rules and is almost fearless on the attack. That is the right temperament.

And he clearly has the mandate. “Drain the swamp!” was a rallying cry that became louder than “Build the wall!” and “Lock her up!” Because drainage would more easily lead to the other issues being accomplished.

But it’s not at all clear that Trump has a real vision for it. He recognizes the problem. But he would need to be laser-focused with a long-term strategy, and his opponents are learning how to distract him. Plus, is Congress really in any way capable of slashing the federal government? Is Jeff Sessions really going to lead the charge on aggressive prosecutions?

Long shots, to be generous. But that is the pathway to draining the swamp. And the only one. Anything else is just campaign rhetoric.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.