Toward 2020: Answering The Main Objections To Trump

/in , , , , /by

As I spend a fair amount of time on TV and in other media defending President Trump’s policies, I understand better than most that supporters of President Trump are tasked with the difficult job of defending the man’s presidency in a world dominated by every culture mover universally opposed to him on an unbelievable scale.

But supporters must be able to defend his presidency to neighbors, friends, co-workers and family who are middle-of-the-road voters. Hardened Democrats are not the target. Do not concern yourselves with any brand of hardened never-Trumpers. It is a fool’s errand today. Their minds are cast in concrete and no amount of evidence or argument will change them. So be it.

Elections are won on two fronts: turnout and swings in the middle. On the former point, that comes down to a lot of party and campaign infrastructure doing it right. Trump will take care of the energy for turnout because of who he is.

On the latter, however, a lot of this can fall to those who understand the threat of the shockingly radicalized Democratic Party and the measurable successes of President Trump. The country is much better off, and so is the world, under Trump’s presidency. But many voters in the middle don’t know that

Those swing voters don’t read conservative news outlets or watch Fox News or read commentaries such as The Revolutionary Act. Supporters must assume they do not know the rest of the story, because the mainstream media has not, and absolutely will not, tell them. They mostly know the Democrat-driven narrative through the mainstream media and the culture.

You, in real-life relationships, are the ones who can inform them, who can change their internal thinking on Trump. Even if you are uncomfortable with Donald Trump the person and don’t like all of his communications, if you are voting for him you need to persuade others because as in 2016, but maybe even more so, the alternative is radically bad.

One thing Trump supporters cannot do successfully with those in the middle is be bombastic, exaggerate or get facts wrong. Calm, level-headed, rational and fact-driven responses can break through for some, and it will only take some. The case is so strong, but people are flabbergasted when they hear it. Frequently Democrats I debate cannot even respond to it, they are so completely unaware of the other side.

(Here’s a clip of that from a recent ABC debate I was in, that is both enlightening and sort of shocking.)

With that said, here are solid answers to what middle voters hear from the Democrat/media establishment (often taken from direct conversations and debates I’ve had.) This is the first of several parts coming.

A threat to the Republic

“Donald Trump is a direct threat to the Republic. He’s dismantling the Constitution and acting like a dangerous dictator.”

It’s tempting to want to laugh hysterically at this objection in all its myriad and daily forms. Resist the temptation. Too many voters who can swing elections are seriously concerned about this because they don’t pay close attention. They watch CNN in the airport or catch their local news or see “trusted news sources” on Facebook and are unaware of a few key facts.

Briefly, Trump has made Americans’ lives better through getting government out of our lives in many areas, reducing our taxes, spurring the economy, presiding over the lowest unemployment rates in generations and pushing back on our enemies abroad. He’s also continually deregulated — which is the opposite of what a dictator does.

One great factoid: 4 million fewer people are on food stamps now than when Trump took office; 4 million Americans who have more self-worth, more purpose in life, and are contributing more to the country than before. That’s a win for everyone.

Well, not the Democrats. That party is running leading presidential candidates who are proud socialists, who would raise taxes, promise free college (more taxes) free healthcare (lots more taxes) abolish ICE and have open borders and pursue reparations. Sometimes it sounds ludicrous to go through even part of the list, but the people you need to reach may not know it exists and that it’s true. A surprising number of firm Democrats don’t even know it, and disbelieve me when I bring it up.

There is a threat to the Republic, but it is not President Trump.

Obstruction of justice

“The Mueller Report showed collusion with Russians and Mueller said he could not clear Trump of obstruction. There is a criminal in the White House.”

Believe it or not, this remains a thing and will remain one.

Robert Mueller was made Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference in the election. Democrats and the media immediately labeled it collusion and Mueller morphed into that, and then into obstruction.

Here’s the key: In his report, Mueller specifically cleared Trump and Trump campaign officials of any collusion. That was the serious charge. He said he could not clear him of obstruction of justice. But that was not his job, nor the job of any prosecutor. The job is to either bring charges or close the case. This, along with airing 448 pages of dirty laundry — again something prosecutors do not do — is what leads many to believe Mueller ended up with a politicized investigation.

But it muddies the water for middle voters who the media leads to believe the accusation.

If he had stuck with an investigation of Russian interference, including collusion with any candidates or parties, the evidence would have led him directly to the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, which through intermediaries assuredly paid Russians for “information” on the Trump campaign. This is the notorious Steele dossier, which has been largely discredited.

Attorney General Barr and other federal investigators are now looking into how such an investigation, that included bugging the presidential candidate’s team and planting informants in it, got so deep and invasive when there was no underlying evidence to support it, as Mueller concluded.

Just as with the threat to the Republic, the real corruption appears not to be on the Trump side.

Inhuman immigration policies

“I can’t get past the inhumane treatment of our Latinx sisters and brothers, especially the children, at the border.” “The dead children at the border are Trump’s doing.”

We all agree that the border is a dangerous place, particularly for everyone crossing it illegally between the legal ports of entry. But this did not start with Trump. We’ve had a border crisis for as long as we have had politicians unwilling to enforce our border and immigration laws. A very long time. (As an aside, we’re obviously an exceptional country because people from all over the world are willing to risk their lives to come here.)

The picture of the drowned father and his 2-year-old daughter is heartbreaking, but it is the result of border policies that Trump has been trying to change. And let’s be honest, too many Republicans in the past have been complicit in those policies of wink-and-nod encouragement of illegal immigrants.

They are coming and crossing illegally so they can ask for asylum — which about 80 percent of them do not qualify for. They have to be housed and adjudicated. But because of the high numbers, they are overwhelming the system with wait times averaging almost two years. Combined with court rulings on dealing with adults and children, that means that those with minors must be released far before they can be adjudicated with just a promise to show up in court.

This essentially means that virtually every illegal immigrant gets released into the interior and stays in the United States, in reality under pre-Trump enforcement, as long as they want. This is untenable at every level, and it leads directly to people doing exactly what this father did. It also leads to the overwhelming of border patrol facilities and poor conditions, which the Democrats decry even as they push policies furthering the situation.

But all of the deaths we hear about at the border under Trump. Surely all of this is much worse now, right? Wrong. Here’s a chart published by the BBC, no friend of conservatives.

So if the conditions for people at the border are a major concern, whatever else you do, vote for President Trump because he is trying to change it.

Remember, it was Obama who built the “cages” for children who were being used then as now as a tool to get in — due to Democrats in the Ninth Circuit rulings. It is Democrats who are encouraging people to come. It is Democrats who now want an open border. It is Democrats who have set much of the entire stage for this. And for a long period, it was Democrats who refused to fund more beds and more care for the waves of people coming, as Trump and the GOP sought.

This is Part I in an ongoing series of these issues. Future articles will cover the charges of racism, of attacking the media, of this being Obama’s economy, of being a puppet of Putin and of being anti-Christian.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Incentivized Arab Emigration: An idea whose time has come?

/in , , , , , /by

Of all the policy paradigms for the resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs, incentivized Arab emigration is the most humane if it succeeds and least inhumane if it does not.

“Past attempts to encourage Palestinians to voluntary emigrate have always failed, so time and effort would be better invested in reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.” – Yossi Beilin, former Israeli government minister, and a principal architect of the Oslo Accords, Al Monitor, August 26, 2019

The above quote is from an article by Beilin, still an unchastened champion of the fatally flawed process he helped initiate in the early 1990s,  in response to a spate of recent reports indicating that Israeli officialdom is considering—albeit with some hesitancy—the idea of offering the residents of Gaza material assistance to facilitate their emigration to third party countries—see for example here, here, here, and here.

Disingenuous dismissal?

Of course, Beilin’s dismissal of the notion of Israel encouraging Arab emigration is more than a little disingenuous. For if past failure is his criterion for disqualifying a policy proposal, the first to incur such rejection should surely be his own preferred Oslowian land-for-peace, two-state formula.

After all, from Beilin’s critique, the uninformed reader would never guess that far more “time and effort” has been invested in an almost three-decade long endeavor to “reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement” than in any attempt at inducing Arab emigration.

Indeed, no other policy prescription has been backed with such massive and sustained outlays of treasure, political and diplomatic capital and…blood, as that embraced by Beilin and his like-mined pro-Oslowian ideologues—in their foolhardy gamble of trying to reach a resolution to the conflict with their overtly Judeophobic Palestinian interlocutors, by means of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal.

But setting aside for a moment Beilin’s disingenuous invocation of the lack of success of previous efforts to induce Arab emigration, there are substantive reasons why the past may well not be a reliable indicator of the future.

The first is that the Arab population—particularly in Gaza—have already experienced the onerous travails of life under a duly elected Palestinian-Arab government.

Documented desire to leave

This of course is particularly true for Gaza, although there is also considerable dissatisfaction in Judea-Samaria, where after over a quarter-century of government by Fatah, all that has been achieved is a dysfunctional polity and an emaciated economy, crippled by corruption and cronyism, with a minuscule private sector and a bloated public one, patently unsustainable without the largesse of its alleged “oppressor,” Israel.

But, it is Gaza, where the misguided experiment in two-statism was first initiated back in 1994, sparking a surge of deluded optimism fanned by the likes of Beilin, that has now become its gravest indictment—for both Jew and Arab alike.

The gross misgovernment of Gaza has left the general population awash in untreated sewage flows, with well over 90% of the water supply unfit for drinking, electrical power available for only a few hours a day, and unemployment rates soaring to anything between 40-60%–depending on the source cited or the sector involved.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to a wide spread desire to leave Gaza and seek a better future elsewhere—which is reflected in both numerous media reports and in statistical polling, which regularly shows that between 40-50% of respondents are willing to openly declare their desire to leave.

Significantly, according to some sources, since May last year, between 35-40,000 have  left—despite heavy restrictions at the border, ominous disapproval of the regime and the lack of any purposeful policy of Israel to incentivize their departure.

Enhanced scale & scope

Another reason why past failures to induce emigration may not necessarily indicate that future attempts are futile is that any envisaged future endeavor must be qualitatively different in nature, in size and in scope to those previously undertaken.

In the past, the emigration initiatives have been timid, hesitant and surreptitious, while the material inducements offered were decidedly miserly.

In prior attempts, Israeli authorities attempted to conceal the initiative to encourage emigration. Thus, one internal Foreign Ministry memo (1968) stipulated: “This must be done discreetly and ‘spontaneously’ and under no circumstances should this be declared as official policy or appear to be organized by us.”

By contrast, what is called for today is an overt, publicly declared strategic initiative, including an assertive public diplomacy offensive and accompanied by a comprehensive set of highly tempting incentives to leave and commensurately daunting disincentives for continued residency in Gaza.

The point of departure for any successful incentivized emigration policy is to identify the Palestinian-Arab collective for what it is—and for what it identifies itself to be: An implacable enemy and not a prospective peace partner—and to differentiate between the inimical collective and non-belligerent individuals, which it may include.

Disincentives for staying; incentives for leaving

This brings us to the disincentives for staying.

As its implacable enemy, Israel has no moral obligation or practical interest in sustaining the economy or social order of the Palestinian-Arab collective—either in Gaza or Judea-Samaria. On the contrary, an overwhelming case can be made – on both ethical and pragmatic grounds – that it should let them collapse by refraining from providing it with any of the goods or services it – perversely – provides today: water, electricity, fuel, tax collection and port services to name but a few. After all, these are in large measure used to sustain the hostility against Israel and imperil the lives of its citizens and undermine the security of the state.

Although this cessation of provision should be executed gradually over a defined period of time, it will undoubtedly precipitate a grave deterioration in the already dire situation that prevails in Gaza.

Which brings us to the incentives for leaving.

In order to allow non-belligerent Gazans to extricate themselves from the inevitable humanitarian crisis such measures will entail, non-belligerent individuals should be offered generous relocation grants to allow them—and their dependents—the opportunity to seek more prosperous and secure lives elsewhere.

As for the incentives, these need to be of a completely different order of magnitude to those of the past and sufficient not only to cover the travel cost of the recipients to their future countries of abode, but to make them relatively affluent and welcome emigres in those countries.

Approximating the Cost

It is not an easy task to determine the optimum compensation for prospective recipients, but for the sake of argument let us assume that 100 times the current Gazan GDP per capita per family is not an unreasonable point of departure. This would amount to about $250-300,000 per family. With the estimated number of families in Gaza around 400,000, the total cost would amount to about $100 billion or about one third of Israel’s total annual GDP.

At first glance this might appear daunting, but if the implementation of the initiative were spread over a period of a decade and half—far less than the efforts to effect a two-state outcome have been tried—this would come to only 2-3% of GDP—something Israel could probably shoulder on its own. If other OECD countries could be harnessed to participate, it could be implemented at a fraction of a percentage of their GDPs—showing that political legitimacy rather than economic cost is the principal obstacle to be overcome.

To give a sense of proportion, the US spent several trillion dollars on its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, which dwarfs the size of the budget required to resettle all the Gazans, together with all their kinfolk in the “West Bank”, safely and comfortably in some third party country.

Who will host them?

One of the questions inevitably raised regarding the incentivized emigration idea is that of who the host countries are likely to be—especially given the migration crisis in Europe following the chaos in the wake of the “Arab Spring” and the Syrian civil war.

Indeed, according to the previously cited reports regarding renewed Israeli interest in encouraging Gazans to emigrate, it was noted that there was some difficulty in locating countries willing to accept them.

Clearly, however, within the parameters of the initiative set out previously, the situation would be very different. After all, within these parameters, the Gazan emigrants will not be arriving at the gates of their prospective host countries as destitute—or at least desperate—refugees but, as mentioned above, as relatively affluent emigrants by the standards of many such potential host countries.

Indeed, by absorbing Gazan emigrants, the host countries will generate significant capital inflows into their economies. For example, a country that accepts 3000 Gazan families can expect a capital injection of almost a billion dollars!

If additional international aid can be extended to the host countries, absorbing the Gazan emigrants could be an act that is both profitable and humane.

The moral high ground

Israeli officials have erred badly in being reticent as to the intention of encouraging Arab emigration. Indeed, there is no reason for any sense of moral unease. To the contrary, incentivized emigration is clearly morally superior to any other policy paradigm addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and certainly to that touted by Beilin calling for a two-state outcome. After all, any prospective Palestinian state will almost certainly be yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim majority tyranny—whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents. Indeed, no two-stater, however fervent, has ever produced any persuasive argument why it would not be.

Here of course, a trenchant question must be forced into the public discourse on the legitimacy of incentivized emigration in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, and of Gaza in particular. This is the question of “Who has the moral high ground?”

Is it those who advocate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic Muslim majority tyranny which would comprise the very antithesis of liberal values usually invoked for its establishment?

Or is it those who advocate incentivized emigration and providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

The most humane; the least inhumane

Indeed, there is another, even more pertinent question to be asked of the proponents of Palestinian statehood:
Why is it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; while it is considered morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

The proponents of incentivized emigration need not feel any sense of moral discomfort as to their policy prescription—especially when compared to that of the proponents of Palestinian statehood.

Indeed, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the incentivized emigration paradigm is in fact the most humane of all policy proposals if its implementation is successful; and the least inhumane, if it is not.

This is the message they should be propounding vigorously, openly and unabashedly–as the harbingers of an idea, whose time has come.

© All rights reserved.

Trump’s Personal Assistant Fired, Caught Leaking Info on Trump Family to the Press

/in , , , , , /by

“Look, we want freedom and we want liberty in this country. But we’ve also got to have the guts to stand up and run a tight ship in America. Morality is now a word that many people consider very square and outdated. But if we don’t stand up for it, we deserve what we will get in the end – unprincipled anarchy.” –  Actor Cliff Robertson

“Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government. Like other values it has its counterfeits. So much emphasis has been placed upon the false that the significance of the true has been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning of crafty and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere service.” – President Calvin Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable, than loyalty.” —Cicero

President Trump’s personal assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, resigned Thursday, August 29th, amid tensions.  Trump reportedly discovered that Westerhout shared private details about his family and White House operations. The exchange took place at a recent off-the-record dinner with reporters, per Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and the information got back to the White House. “The breach of trust meant immediate action,” per the NYT, adding Westerhout, who has been with Trump since the first day of his presidency, was immediately deemed a “separated worker.”

Westerhout has sat outside the Oval Office since day one of the administration. She had become a trusted aide to the President.  Unscrupulous behavior and a lack of principles is only too common in the Washington D.C. swamp.  The Deep State is everywhere and yes, moles are still working against the people’s President.

Some questioned her loyalty to the president after a recent book about the White House reported that she cried in anguish in 2016 when the election results rolled in.

Of course, we know Democrats are going to target her next to try and dig up dirt on Trump. I’m sure they are hoping she turns on Trump just as did Anthony Scaramucci, Omarosa Manigault-Newman and Michael Cohen.

Westerhout Career

In the 2012 presidential election, Westerhout worked for the campaign of Mitt Romney. In the summer of 2013, Westerhout began working for the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party Organizing Committee. From January 2015, she worked as an assistant to RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh.  In 2016, she worked as a “greeter girl” for visitors to the Trump Tower during the transition period after the election.

On January 19, 2017, Donald Trump’s transition team, headed by VP Michael Pence, announced that Westerhout would serve as special assistant and executive assistant to the President.  Her salary was $130,000 for the position. The sole way of reaching President Trump, other than calling his cell phone, was through gatekeeper, Madeleine Westerhout. It has been alleged that this was arranged by former Chief of Staff General John Kelly.  She was promoted to Director of Oval Office Operations on February 2, 2019.

VP Mike Pence

Governor Michael Pence was chosen as Trump’s Vice President because he needed a man who knew the people in Congress and could help him pass legislation.  Allegedly, he was Ivanka Trump’s choice.  Pence had served 12 years in Congress and was longtime friends with Paul Ryan, and John McCain who he endorsed for election prior to Trump’s support.  His other close friend who retired was Jeff Flake.  After his stint in Congress, Pence ran for Governor of the State of Indiana.

Had he not been chosen by Trump, Pence quite likely would have lost his second gubernatorial bid for many reasons, but one of them was because he was taking “victory laps” for eliminating common core, when in reality, all he had done was rebrand it.  It’s now the Indiana Core, but their standards are almost mirroring exactly what’s commonly referred to as the Common Core standards.  Link

Pence gives an Oscar winning performance masquerading as a devout Christian, yet he launched a   allegedly to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections…a lot of good that did when 40 of them retired, no thanks to Paul Ryan.  No vice president in modern history had their own PAC less than 6 month into the president’s first term, until Mike Pence.

In a previous article, Our Pro-Amnesty Vice President and His Establishment Friends, I discussed VP Pence’s globalist pro-amnesty, pro-trade, and pro-alien workers goals.  His guest worker program would have required participants to apply from their home country to government-approved job placement agencies that match workers with employers who cannot find Americans for the job. Link The plan received support from neo-cons such as pro-amnesty former Congressman and Freedom Works founder Dick Armey.  Link However, it attracted criticism from conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan, who viewed Pence as lending “his conservative prestige to a form of liberal amnesty.”

Pence is also closely aligned with the pro-Constitutional Convention and Trump hating Koch brothers who are pro-abortion, pro-trade, pro-open borders and cloak themselves as conservatives.  The Koch brothers heavily fund the GOP and countless conservative organizations urging them to promote a Constitutional Convention.

They have financed Pence’s political career since its inception along with Dick and Betsy DeVos.  Pence stated in 2014, that he was “grateful,” for David Koch, who recently passed at the age of 79.

Pence Transition Team

President Trump’s transition team was originally led by former Governor Chris Christie until he and a number of his supporters were replaced or demoted on November 11th because of the Bridgegate affair.  VP-elect Michael Pence then took over.

One of the key responsibilities of a presidential transition includes the identification and vetting of candidates for approximately 4,000 non-civil service positions in the U.S. government whose service is at the pleasure of the president.  Their vetting procedure has seemed less than stellar, perhaps because of who was chosen to replace Christie.

I would surmise that Pence and his transition team staff chose the majority of folks who were on board with the Trump administration, the day he took office, but many people brought in by VP Pence were folks he worked with in his home state of Indiana.

Seema Verma is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Two other former Indiana staff members joined Verma at the CMS office, Brady Brooks and Matt Lloyd, the latter a former close aide to Pence.  Lloyd had returned to the government after a stint working as director of communications at Koch Industries.

Dr. Jerome Adams, Pence’s former Indiana state health commissioner became the U.S. general surgeon.  He defended Pence against complaints of his slow response to the HIV outbreak among drug users in Indiana.

Tom Price, who ultimately was forced to resign, was Pence’s friend when they served in Congress and he was the first secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alex Azar, the President of Eli Lilly based in Indianapolis, was named to replace Price and he was one of Pence’s major corporate campaign contributors, despite the fact that Eli Lilly threatened to leave Indiana if Governor Pence had not watered down Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Sonny Perdue, the former governor of Georgia, became Trump’s secretary of agriculture and he was related to the wife of Pence’s Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers who has strong ties to the Koch brothers along with Mike Pompeo and many others.

Globalist Dan Coats, Pence’s friend and a former U.S. Senator from Indiana was named director of national intelligence succeeding James Clapper, but has since resigned.  He did not support Trump and believed in Russian interference.

Betsy DeVos of Michigan, the Amway billionaire and Pence’s long-time political benefactor became Secretary of Education.

Conclusion

President Trump and his family live in the DC swamp and have endured and suffered so many vitriolic and uncivil attacks by people who should have been charged with sedition.  Yet he fights on for us, for our country, and for every American citizen.  Pray for him and his family, and pray that his future choices are men and women who love and appreciate what he’s doing to save our country and will work hard for him.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Personal Assistant Abruptly Quits

Trump Admin to Create Special “Office of Transparency” to Expedite Release of Stalled DOJ Docs

/in , , , , /by

Posted by Eeyore

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report of Investigation of Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey’s Disclosure of Sensitive Investigative  Information

DOJ Watchdog Says James Comey Violated FBI Policy in Handling Sensitive Memos

 

Recent Energy and Environmental News

/in , , , , /by

Our normal publication date is next Monday — but that is a major US holiday (Labor Day). To avoid that conflict the Newsletter is being issued before the holiday weekend, so that you have more time to review it. For the full version of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material this cycle, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eight (8) categories!

My vote for the most outstanding material this issue: Public Officials say that Wind Turbines Can Cause Sickness, The Latest Travesty in Climate “Consensus” Enforcement and How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate plus two excellent short videos: PragerU v. YouTube and True for You but Not for Me.

Energy Economics

China has slashed clean energy funding by 39%, leading a global declineChina switches $1B in ‘green’ finance to coal projects in first half of the yearThe Misanthropic Bankers Behind the Green New DealHow Elon Musk Fooled Investors, Bilked Taxpayers, etc.
General Electric shares tank following accusation of ‘bigger fraud than Enron’NY Offshore Wind bids rigged for unions

Renewable Energy Health Effects

Wind Turbines Can Cause Sickness, Say Public Health Officials
Wind Turbines and Adverse Health Effects: A Cardiologist’s View
Duke Energy study points finger at solar for increased pollution

Nuclear Energy

Report: Advancing Nuclear InnovationThe new nuclear option: small, safe and cheap
Nuclear is a clean, reliable source of energy that we should embrace
Britain’s Mass Blackout Drives Push For Ever-Reliable Nuclear Power

Offshore Wind Energy

Troubling questions, concerns raised about off-shore wind projects
Opposition Grows Against Vineyard Wind Ocean Wind Project
Vineyard Wind 720′ Turbines Risk To Military Radar Unanswered
Wind turbines and radar mix poorly
NY Offshore Wind bids rigged for unions

Wind Energy and Blackouts

Telling the Story of a Blackout
Australia’s Energy Regulator Sues Four Wind Farm Operators Over Blackout
Former National Grid director says there should be limits on wind and solar to avoid blackouts
Britain’s Mass Blackout Drives Push For Ever-Reliable Nuclear Power

Energy Misc.

Green New Deal Trial Crashes and Burns
Utility Studies delay both Wind and Solar Projects in the US Northeast
Renewable Energy Hits the Wall
Why Wind and Solar Aren’t Enough
Big Wind’s Big Headwinds
Wind Project is Trespassing
Physics Professor: Turbines could compromise radar signals
Short Video: The Green Real Deal
China and India Will Watch the West Destroy Itself

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Change: What’s the Worst Case?
The Latest Travesty in “Consensus” Enforcement
Re-evaluating the manufacture of the climate consensus
Dr Roy Spencer: How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate
Superior Video: Global Warming — Fact or Fiction
Dr. Tim Ball wins Dr. Michael Mann lawsuit
Frontal Assault on Our Standard of Living: Multi-billionaires Are Financing ‘Climate Protectors’!
See how climate science becomes alarmist propaganda
Climate Change Discussions Need to Include A Few Cold Facts
The Climate Change Crisis Racket
Ice-pack of Lies
The Great Failure of Climate Computer Models
Global Warming? Climate Doomsayers Are The Problem
Exposing radical UN sustainability conference

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

Short Video re Major Lawsuit: PragerU v. YouTube
Scientist: A Major Cyber Attack Could Be Just as Deadly as Nuclear Weapons
US House Testimony: Scientific Integrity in the Legislative Process
Short video: True for You but Not for Me (Is Truth relative?)
Clean air law: A study in arbitrary rule
Why Everything They Say About The Amazon Rainforest Is Wrong
Why Google Poses a Serious Threat to Democracy, and How to End it

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

© All rights reserved.

When Counties Become More Diverse, Republicans Lose

/in , , , , , , /by

“Mass immigration is swamping the GOP base. Tens of millions of immigrants who vote Democratic, once they are naturalized and registered, have come and are coming to America.” – Pat Buchanan in 2006

It is true!

And, once again we hear the statistics that confirm that immigrants (‘new Americans’) choose Democrats over Republicans when they get a chance to vote.

Forget the humanitarian mumbo-jumbo from the Open Borders agitators.  This is all about changing America by changing the people.

Simply ‘new Americans’ want their government-funded social services and that is what the Dems promise them.

Republican suicide?

Yup! That is what every Republican who supports more immigration is doing—killing the Republican party.

Here is John Binder at Breitbart (hat tip: Julia),

Analysis: Increasingly Diverse U.S. Counties Quickly Turn Democrat

The more counties across the United States become diverse, the more quickly Democrat-majority they become, new analysis reveals.

The latest Pew Research Center study, as Breitbart News reported, finds that about 109 U.S. counties across 22 states that were once majority white in 2000 became majority-minority in 2018. Today, there are roughly 293 majority-minority U.S. counties, concentrated mostly along the coasts in states such as California, Florida, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Analysis conducted by One America News Network’s (OAN) Ryan Girdusky reveals that the overwhelming majority of these increasingly diverse 109 U.S. counties also became more and more Democrat over less than two decades.

“The big takeaway is this: Republicans were losing ground because of mass immigration long before Trump. The Republican vote declined in 81 of the 109 counties,” Girdusky wrote in his weekly newsletter of the analysis. “Formerly safe Republican districts in places like Georgia, especially, that went for George W. Bush by huge majorities in 2000 were lost by John McCain and Mitt Romney.”

Much more here.

See Binder’s earlier article with graphs and charts.

RELATED ARTICLE: Somali National, Others, Arrested in Brazil for Trafficking Africans and Middle Easterners to US Border

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

A Fabricated Recession?

/in , , , /by

I have been hearing about an impending recession which my Democrat friends insist will happen either later this year or in 2020. The media reports likewise and I suspect these prognosticators will become louder as we get closer to the 2020 election. On the other hand, Republicans are at a loss as to what all the hubbub is all about, as our economy is still chugging along just fine. One cannot help but wonder if this is real or politically motivated.

First, let’s be clear what we mean by a recession. “The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession as ‘a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.’ A recession is also said to be when businesses cease to expand, the GDP diminishes for two consecutive quarters, the rate of unemployment rises, and housing prices decline.”

So far, none of this has occurred, nor are there signs it will.

The United States is currently the economic engine of the world. Our GDP is up, unemployment is down to record levels, and consumer confidence is up. It is true, people are concerned about a trade war with China, but this is something that needed to be corrected in any event, unless we prefer kowtowing to the Chinese. Some are suggesting Europe is behind, but the reality is only Germany is showing signs of changes in production. In Asia, there is concern regarding trade between Japan and South Korea, but it is likely these differences will be amicably resolved.

So where are the accusations coming from regarding a potential recession? One prominent source is Diane Swonk, the Chief Economist for Grant Thornton in Chicago. She recently told Fox Business’ Liz Claman, “I think (a recession) is highly probable. I do have a recession in 2020.” She sees Brexit and Japan/South Korea trade as contributing to it.

In sharp contrast, Sonal Desai, Ph.D., the Chief Investment Officer at Franklin Templeton Fixed Income claims, “the economic data show no evidence that either the United States or the global economy is approaching a recession.” She adds, “The markets and the Fed seem to be looking at each other, feeding each other’s fears, and completely ignoring what’s actually going on in the real economy.”

So, who are we to believe?

One thing we should consider, Diane Swonk has made campaign contributions to Democrat candidates, and her father, Jim Swonk, was well known in the Livingston County Democrat Party, Michigan. In other words, she undoubtedly has sympathies for Democrats and the party may be trying to capitalize on her notoriety.

The biggest asset Donald Trump has going into the 2020 presidential election is our robust economy, and this is the Achilles heel of the Democrats. They have tried to gnaw away at his other accomplishments, but if the economy falters, they believe they can defeat him. This is why these rumors of recession are spreading, even though there is no factual basis to suggest it will occur. So, the drumbeat from the far-left and the media will be “Recession, Recession, Recession…” The Trump bashers believe if they say it enough times, people will believe a recession is actually in the works when, in reality, it is not. Meanwhile, American business will continue at a rapid clip, and workers will benefit from this prosperity.

For years, economics has had a role to play in politics, but I never dreamed it could be manipulated for political gain. It is rather sad when political strategists would rather put people out of work and cause misfortune for business, all for political gain. This goes beyond mere pessimism; it is just plain reckless and dangerous.

Interestingly, President Trump welcomes talk about a possible recession. He understands why the rumors are spreading, but it gives him a chance to tout how well his economic policies have worked. As usual, he fights fire with fire.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my new books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

RELATED ARTICLES:

THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Democrats go from screeching ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ to ‘Recession, Recession, Recession!’

“Restaurant Recession” Hits NYC Following $15 Minimum Wage

Trump — or What, Exactly?

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

‘Angel Has Fallen’ a film about the Democrats’ Russian Collusion Hoax?

/in , , , /by

The newly released Lionsgate Movies film “Angel Has Fallen” is about how loyal and patriotic Secret Service Agent Mike Banning is falsely accused of conspiring to assassinate the President of the United States. The entire plot is controlled out of the White House by Vice President Martin Kirby (played by Tim Blake Nelson). The Vice President uses the media, the Secret Service, the FBI and other para-military assets to to assume the presidency.

Watch the trailer:

After watching Angel Has Fallen I couldn’t help but think of what happened with President Trump. Let me explain.

Angel Has Fallen and the Russian Collusion Hoax

The plot, you guessed it, is based on a false accusation of colluding with the Russians. Oh my. 50 Shades of the Mueller Investigation?

Lionsgate Movies may have inadvertently given those who watch the film a very personal glimpse of what it is like to be falsely accused of something like colluding with a foreign government, Russia, to get rid of a sitting president. The film is produced by Gerard James Butler who also plays to role of Secret Service agent Mike Banning.

Agent Mike Banning is a distinguished war veteran who is suffering from PTSD. He becomes the focus of a plot by our own government (a.k.a. the Deep State) to remove the sitting President of the United States. Sound familiar? It get’s better.

Of course the hero Agent Banning is able to expose the plot against the President and save the day. However, once accused the Secret Service, FBI, media and White House turn against him to further the hoax. Again, sound familiar?

It seems ironic that a film with this plot line would come out just after the end of the Mueller Investigation of President Trump’s campaign.

Today, as Americans learn more and more about how the plot to take down Trump the more and more we learn that there are those in the CIA, NSA, FBI and even the Obama White House were involved.

Agent Banning, like President Trump, is finally vindicated. What is hilarious is at the end of the film the Vice President is taken out of the White House in handcuffs. Maybe this film will be prophetic?

Maybe others in the CIA, NSA, FBI and even those in the Obama White House will experience the same fate?

Conclusion

This is a great action film and the best, of the now three, Fallen series. This film comes out in the same year that we have people trying to take out the sitting President, Donald J. Trump. Happenstance or intentional? You decide.

President Trump’s words once again have been misconstrued

/in , , , , , /by

Once again President Trump’s words concerning the Jewish people and Israel by Democrat supporters have been misconstrued. President Trump and Harry S. Truman are the best friends ever of the Jewish people and Israel by any other U.S. President.

Read more by Melanie Phillips:

GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF A TRAGIC “DISLOYALTY”

There appears to be no limit to the sheer stupidity and reflexive malice with which people misrepresent what US President Donald Trump has just said.

On Tuesday, he said: “I think Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Cue an instant storm of outrage by Jewish groups and commentators claiming that he had accused Jews of dual loyalty — one of the trademark libels of classical antisemitism.

“This is yet another example of Donald Trump continuing to weaponize and politicize antisemitism,” said Halie Soifer, executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America.

[ … ]

The full context of what President Trump said made it abundantly clear that this “dual loyalty” interpretation of his words simply didn’t stack up. Commenting on Omar’s call to cut aid to Israel, Trump said:

“Five years, the concept of even talking about this, even three years ago, of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people, I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they are defending these two people over the State of Israel? I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Read more.

VIDEO: 5 million years of climate data shows the Sun is the driving factor not CO2

/in , , , , /by

In this December 15, 2011 video (below) Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa and director, G.G. Hatch Isotope Laboratories, one of Canada’s leading analytical facilities, testifies before a Canadian Senate hearing on climate change.

Professor Clark presents three important findings on what impacts the earth’s climate:

  1. Earths warming and cooling periods over millions of years has been due to activity on the sun.
  2. H2O (water vapor) is driving green house gas models, not CO2. It is H2O that keeps earth at a livable temperature for mankind.
  3. CO2 has little to do with global warming. CO2 actually helps keep the planet green.

Please take the time to watch this entire video to understand how data and science are used to define green house gases and their effect over time on our climate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada’s Peoples Party: ‘Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future.’

Don’t Let Climate Change Alarmism Ruin Your Future

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

VIDEO: Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change

VIDEO: The Vortex — The New Normal

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

It’s now been one year to the day — yesterday, to be precise — that the first of a series of bombs were exploded by Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò over the Catholic world.

Recall the context: The Pennsylvania grand jury report had been released roughly a week before and was a prevalent topic in the secular press.

The Establishment’s crooked cardinals were somewhat on the defensive, playing the spin game and lying about everything they knew. The news about McCarrick had come out two months earlier and had become something of established fact.

Various Catholics, who up to that point had been pretty sleepy about all this evil, were starting to become red-pilled as the expression goes, meaning having their eyes opened up.

The Vatican had managed to deftly avoid any meaningful on the record comments about what was unfolding in the United States. And then, just as the Pope was on a plane coming back from a trip to Ireland, the news broke like a giant thunderclap.

The former Vatican ambassador to the United States, the papal nuncio, a very highly regarded man was coming public, revealing that not only everything reported about McCarrick was true, but much more importantly, the Pope himself knew, a large contingent of U.S. bishops were involved in the mafia-style cover-up, many of them were active homosexuals and the Pope should resign.

To add to the seriousness of his testimony, he confessed that he was going into hiding for perhaps the rest of his life, for fear of lethal retaliation.

Viganò’s testimony forced the entire issue back onto the front pages and became the topic in the Catholic media world.

It caught everyone, in particular what Viganò would later term the corrupt gay mafia running the Church, completely off guard.

Indeed, the days leading up to the release of his testimony had seen a shift in momentum back to the Establishment; they had trotted out liars like Donald Wuerl and Kevin Farrell to deny the cover-up part of the story surrounding McCarrick.

Wuerl took center stage, which made sense since he was the man who had replaced McCarrick in D.C. and covered up his crimes for him.

He did various interviews where he flat-out lied. Other cardinals rushed to the microphones to lie and deny.

McCarrick may be guilty, they said, but as to the climate in which such an evil monster could climb the ranks, they were all “shocked”

Wuerl, speaking to the lying, cheating, now-disgraced priest Fr. Thomas Rosica, said Catholics have nothing to worry about, the Church was moving along just fine.

The Establishment was re-gaining control of the messaging, which is somewhat easy to do when you are completely unaccountable and non-transparent.

This was the backdrop, a sleepy summer morning, when the Viganò truth bombs exploded over Pope Francis and corrupt gay mafia.

The homosexuals in the hierarchy were sent into a scramble, no one knew how to respond and they didn’t know how to respond because they knew it was the truth. Liars and cheats always melt when confronted with truth; it’s that “deer in the headlights” moment.

Even Pope Francis was caught completely off-guard as reporters fired questions at him. It was in that instant that he gave the response which this papacy will be most remembered for: “I will not say a single word.”

That phrase — not “who am I to judge?” — will be the phrase which encapsulates this pontificate in years to come.

In the ensuing year, Viganò kept issuing new testimonies which kept causing subsequent explosions. He named names, talked about specific instances of corruption and called fellow bishops liars.

Eventually, he gave a name to what he had first termed a “homosexual current” in the hierarchy: “a corrupt gay mafia.”

His relentless testimonies forced the agenda of U.S. bishops in their November meeting in Baltimore.

That it turn forced the Pope’s hand as he directly intervened and ordered the U.S. hierarchy to drop the subject immediately, that he was convening a special sex summit the coming February in Rome.

The implication was that all would be set right at this Roman summit scheduled for three days.

It was not to be the case. It was a sham, designed to cover up and ignore the thrust of Viganò’s claim, that the evil was due to the corrupt gay mafia.

Together, the Pope and the lying Cdls. Blase Cupich and Donald Wuerl, who eventually had to step down in disgrace, developed the PR message that it was not a “corrupt gay mafia,” but rather “clericalism” that was to blame for the crime.

Cupich who had been dispatched by the Pope to put out the blaze, forbid any mention of homosexuality at the summit, or any talk of homopredator clergy abusing anyone other than minors.

The specific subject of seminarians being sexually abused and assaulted by homosexual faculty and staff was strictly off-limits.

The Rome summit in February was where the corrupt gay mafia re-gained control of the narrative. In the popular mind of Catholics who care, a new normal has been established.

Homosexuality within the clerical ranks is now exposed, and Rome doesn’t care. The lack of accountability in this life, and the concentration of power, has allowed the corrupt gay mafia to return to business as usual.

Men like homosexualist James Martin are in one sense even more free now than before to be bold.

The issue now out of the closet, is now able to be lied about and spun tirelessly, and the faithful are now able to be denigrated and mocked by various clergy in heightened political terms like bigot and hater.

What is now blindingly clear is this: The rot and filth of the corrupt gay mafia is deeper and more widespread than anyone who loves the Church could ever have imagined.

This rot and filth has been covered up for, excused and deliberately overlooked by the entire Establishment who rely on their connections and relationships with these evil men to keep bread on their table.

This is a long, long battle that needs to be engaged. It will not go away for years. In fact, until all these wicked prelates are rotting and smoldering in their graves, only then will there be any hope, in a temporal sense, of change — and even then, not a thing is guaranteed.

The climate in religious orders, in the hierarchy, in dioceses and chanceries all over the West is one which embraces the world, does not seek to convert it.

Even among various Catholics who may not necessarily agree with the corrupt gay mafia, there is still a spirit of acquiescence and softness, an emasculation, a lack of willingness to confront evil head-on and call out wickedness in high places in the Church. Ultimately, this is why Viganò is still in hiding for fear of his life.

The major contribution Abp. Viganò made was not to expose the evil, but to show the battle lines, to bring them into the Catholic consciousness.

Now, it is up to the faithful to decide to fight for the soul of the Church. That is going to require highpersonal sacrifice on every level, mostly reputation and relationships.

There is a corrupt gay mafia with a stranglehold on the Church. Loyal sons and daughters of the Church must now fight in any and every way their individual circumstances allow.

The “new normal” must be resisted and defeated.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Medicare for Bernie

/in , , , , , , , /by

Preview: 

  • ​Bernie Sanders is strongly promoting “Medicare for All,” and claims to be its father (“I wrote the damn bill,” he proclaimed to the nation during the second round of Democratic Presidential debates).
  • His plan does not look like Medicare at all. It appears that he hardly knows anything about Medicare. He probably has no experience with it. Despite his advanced age, he does not need to depend on it.
  • If Bernie himself were stuck on Medicare with no way out, he might think it not so wonderful. Has anyone heard him tell people about these Medicare problems?

Bernie Sanders is strongly promoting “Medicare for All,” and claims to be its father (“I wrote the damn bill,” he proclaimed to the nation during the second round of Democratic Presidential debates).

His plan does not look like Medicare at all. It appears that he hardly knows anything about Medicare. He probably has no experience with it. Despite his advanced age, he does not need to depend on it. Members of Congress are allowed to receive Medicare benefits, but unlike most other Americans, they can receive other benefits in addition.

Sitting members of Congress can get routine examinations and consultations from the attending physician in the U.S. Capitol for an annual fee. And military treatment facilities in the Washington area offer free emergency medical and dental care for outpatient services.

Members are also eligible for the Federal Employees Health Insurance Program, and they won’t be kicked off as soon as they reach Medicare age. They do have to go through an ObamaCare exchange, but it is a small one, the DC Health Link, which reportedly functions well. There are 57 gold-tier plans to choose from, not one or two as in many states. Their portion of the premiums could be as little as 25 percent of the total premiums. Apparently, subsidies for senators don’t run out just because their salary exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

Funding for Medicare for All will apparently be vacuumed up from all other sources of payment for “healthcare,” and will go into the big collective pot. Then people can get everything without premiums, copays, or deductibles—so they say. This is not at all like Medicare.

Medicare Part A, for hospital care, is funded through the Medicare payroll tax: a 2.9% first-dollar tax—no deductions–on all employment income, half of which is paid by the employer. Seniors believe that they have been funding this through their working years, as they are constantly told. They have indeed paid, but their taxes were immediately used to pay for the care of older retirees. So, their hospital bill today will be paid from the wages of about 2.5 workers (say the persons pumping their gas, collecting their trash, and repairing their plumbing). Already that is not enough, so the IOUs in the “trust fund” are being redeemed from general tax revenues. That fund will soon be gone, according to the Medicare trustees, as Baby Boomers are flooding into the system. It would vanish in a nanosecond if we loaded in everybody, with or without illegal immigrants.

Medicare has long been implementing ways to curb runaway expenditures. From the mid 1980s comes the Prospective Payment System, or Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), under which payment has nothing to do with services rendered to a particular patient. According to my 1985 “Ode to DRG Creep”:

“Now the pay’s by the head, if alive or if dead,

Diagnosis determines the money,…

We need costs less than average, and discharges quicker

We will get no advantage — For care of the sicker.”

Since “quicker and sicker” discharges might cause a need for readmission, the government penalizes hospitals for readmission. One way to prevent readmission is to discharge to hospice or directly to the morgue. If Bernie were an anonymous Medicare patient, he’d get a consultation on POLST. That’s Physicians Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, which translates in the Newspeak Dictionary to “Legally Enforceable Orders to Terminate Life-Sustaining Treatment Including Food and Water.”

Bernie might think he had been admitted—say he had an IV in a hospital room. But if he gets discharged before his second midnight, he might be classified as an outpatient, which is covered under Medicare Part B, and get a “surprise” bill for thousands of dollars, because of the “Two-Midnight Rule.”

Or Bernie might expect to have a little rehab after an orthopedic procedure, but if he is in hospital for fewer than three midnights, rehab isn’t covered. He might have the choice of paying out of pocket, or going home where he will be alone, unable to get out of bed.

Yes, Bernie on Medicare will have free choice of doctors—except for the ones who aren’t accepting Medicare patients.

If Bernie himself were stuck on Medicare with no way out, he might think it not so wonderful. Has anyone heard him tell people about these Medicare problems?

Maybe he means the Canadian medicare system. It does have a way out for non-senators—called the United States.

Failing to use required DNA technology to identify criminal aliens

/in , , , , , /by

DHS malfeasance undermines national security and public safety.

The pace at which events occur often makes it all but impossible to keep pace. This is particularly true where the multi-faceted immigration crisis is concerned.

While much attention is paid to the abject lack of security of the U.S./Mexican border, there are many other failings of the immigration system that often go unreported and ignored by the mainstream media and our politicians.  I have repeatedly noted that while I am a firm supporter of the need to construct an effective wall/barrier along the southern border, there are many other elements of the immigration system that are no less important.  I have therefore come to compare the wall along the border with a wing on an airplane.  Without its wing an airplane won’t fly, however, a wing by itself goes nowhere.

On Wednesday August 21,  I was invited by the producers at Fox News’ Fox & Friends First to participate in an interview to discuss a just-posted  Fox News report, Watchdog Alerts President Trump That Border Agency Violated DNA Collection Law For Years, Letting Violent Criminals Walk Free.

That troubling report included the following excerpt:

In a scathing letter to Trump, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) said CBP’s “noncompliance with the law has allowed subjects subsequently accused of violent crimes, including homicide and sexual assault, to elude detection even when detained multiple times by CBP or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

CBP REBUKED FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT DNA FROM MIGRANT DETAINEES

The OSC told the White House that it was taking the “strongest possible step” to “rebuke the agency’s failure to comply with the law,” as well as its “unreasonable” attempts to defend its own conduct.

Under the law, CBP was required to collect DNA from individuals in its custody, to be run against FBI violent-crimes databases. The procedure is separate from DNA collection designed to establish familial relationships among migrants at the border.

Aliens who were released by this demonstration of nonfeasance and, indeed, malfeasance, have committed more violent crimes, thereby claiming more innocent victims.

I accepted the invitation and Fox News has posted my interview under the title, Government watchdog says CBP violated its DNA collection law for years.

As I noted during my interview, bad guys use changes in identity the way a chameleon uses changes in coloration, to hide in plain sight among its intended victims.

Everyone associates the arrest of suspects with the fingerprinting and photographing of those who are arrested as a means of determining their true identities and to make certain that their fingerprints are retained for future reference.  Currently DNA is also used as a means of identifying those who are taken into custody for the same reason.

Fingerprints, photographs and DNA all constitute biometrics.

The law that mandated that ICE and CBP use DNA to properly identify aliens who are taken into custody, was enacted back in 2005.  During the Obama administration, Secretary Janet Napolitano asked the Attorney General to waive this important requirement claiming a lack of resources.  Not surprisingly, the Attorney General complied.

Incredibly, nothing has apparently changed under the Trump administration and, as a consequence, hundreds of thousands of aliens who should have undergone DNA screening did not during the Obama administration and during the current administration.

The issue of the consequence of the failure of immigration law enforcement to effectively use biometrics is not new.  In fact, we can look back to the particularly egregious case of Ángel Maturino Reséndiz-Ramirez  aka the “Railway Killer” as noted in this excerpt in a Wikipedia article about him:

Murders and methodology

By illegally jumping on and off trains within and across Mexico, Canada and the United States, generally crossing borders illegally, Reséndiz was able to evade authorities for a considerable time. United States government records show that he had been deported to Mexico at least four times since first entering the U.S. in 1973.[4]

Reséndiz killed at least 15 people[5] with rocks, a pickaxe, and other blunt objects, mainly in their homes. After each murder, he would linger in the homes for a while, mainly to eat; he took sentimental items and laid out the victims’ driver’s licenses to learn about their lives. He stole jewelry and other items and gave them to his wife and mother, who lived in Rodeo, Durango, Mexico. Much of the jewelry was sold or melted down. Some of the items that were removed from the homes were returned by his wife and mother after his surrender. Money, however, was sometimes left at the scene. He raped some of his female victims; however, rape served as a secondary intent. Most of his victims were found covered with a blanket or otherwise obscured from immediate view.

Reséndiz-Ramirez had been in Border Patrol custody at least four times, was deported back to Mexico, illegally reentered and killed more innocent people.

He was eventually identified as the cold-blooded murderer of at least 15 people, put on trial and found guilty.  He was subsequently executed but his execution did not bring any of his victims back to life.  The families of those victims will never be the same.

Back then immigration law enforcement personnel did not transmit fingerprints electronically but usually by mail!  All too often we would arrest an illegal alien, mail out the fingerprints and then, weeks later, receive a response that the alien was wanted for serious crimes.  Of course, by then he/she had been deported or released.

During my first Congressional hearing, on May 20, 1997 before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud when I was asked about a common problem I encountered in my positions as Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and Special Agent, I replied that one of the biggest challenges was to uncover the true identities of those whom we interacted with and that imposters were a huge issue.  Within a year the former INS began implementing electronic fingerprinting, but on a limited scale.

Here we are approaching the 18th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.  The 9/11 Commission was clear in its finding that the key method of entry and embedding for terrorists was immigration fraud and identity fraud.

Yet we are now finding out that DNA technology which is a tremendously valuable tool that could enhance national security and public safety has been all but ignored by elements of the Department of Homeland Security or, as I came to refer to it when it was first created, the Department of Homeland Surrender.

It is completely unacceptable that CBP and ICE failed in its most fundamental mission: to protect America and Americans from aliens who pose a threat to national security and/or public safety.

Immigration enforcement personnel should learn from the mistakes of the past.  However, as the famed playwright George Bernard Shaw lamented, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

The Trump administration must act swiftly and decisively to plug this gaping hole in the immigration system.

Failure is not an option!

RELATED ARTICLE: Taxpayer-Funded Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Sending Immigration Lawyers to Border so More Migrants Can Get In!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

/in , , , , /by

This week, March for Our Lives – the gun control group that arose in the wake of the criminal mass attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. – released a lengthy plan outlining its vision for firearm regulation in America. Reduced to its essence, the plan is to discourage gun ownership through numerous layers of red tape, fees and government mandates.

Perhaps to their credit, March for Our Lives are more forthcoming in their proposals than disingenuous anti-gun groups who falsely profess commitment to the Second Amendment (see, for example, this week’s article on “Gun Owners for Safety”). No one can come away from reading the entire March for Our lives ”plan” with anything but the impression that the group wants to end gun ownership as America currently knows it. Even the anti-gun mass media has had to admit it is “sweeping,” “ambitious,” and “far-reaching.”

Boasting the Orwellian title of “A Peace Plan for a Safer America,” the agenda is actually a disarmament plan against law-abiding gun owners.

The centerpiece of the plan is the ever-trendy concept of a massive ban on semi-automatic firearms, coupled with a program to force formerly law-abiding owners of those guns to surrender them to the government or face punishment.

The plan doesn’t get into the specifics of which guns would be banned, how much compensation would be offered for their surrender, or what would happen to those who did not comply with this “full mandatory” scheme, but the goal would be “a reduction of our domestic firearm stock by 30%.”

Needless to say, however, any plan that by its own terms aims to have the U.S. government collect and destroy nearly 1 in every 3 guns in America must contemplate harsh treatment for anyone who doesn’t comply. Americans are not known for just casually surrendering their lawfully-acquired property and essential freedoms.

Even those who weren’t forcibly required to surrender their guns would still be subject under the plan to programs to “encourage” the “voluntary” civilian relinquishment of “handguns and other firearms.”

The plan also targets those still stubborn enough to want to legally acquire or keep a gun or ammunition. That would require a “multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.”

Some version of this process, moreover, would have to be repeated each year that the person wanted to keep the gun.

And, of course, licensees would have to pay substantial “annual licensing fees” to atone for the high cost of “gun violence” they themselves are not committing.

Besides the licensing process, which would apparently allow licensing officials some discretion to deny even otherwise qualified applicants, mandatory disqualifiers for gun ownership would also be greatly expanded.

Young adults (ironically, the same demographic being used to market the “Peace Plan”) would be automatically prohibited. Anyone who was considered to have a “propensity for violence” would also be ineligible, a category that could be established by court records, misdemeanor convictions, and apparently even intemperate speech that did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense.

Those who passed this rigorous licensing process, however, would still not be out of the woods. The plan would provide ongoing mechanisms of disarmament, either by license revocation or through a “federal policy” of “extreme risk protection orders” filed by family members or others who objected to the person having a firearm.

As if this weren’t enough, the plan would create a new National Director of Gun Violence Prevention, answerable only to the U.S. President, to marshal the vast resources of the federal government in support of the plan’s gun control agenda. Among other things, this official would be responsible for “educating” the pubic to reject the idea that “guns are safe products” and ensuring Americans understand that “the presence of a firearm in your home dramatically increases your chance of death.”

Characterizing “officer-involved shootings” as a “leading cause of death for young American men,” the plan even takes aim at police use of firearms and deadly force. The aforementioned director would also be tasked with promoting “stricter policies on the use of force” and directing the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct civil rights investigations of local police departments to exact “consent decrees” that subject the departments to federal oversight.

Ironically, at the same time the plan calls for additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners and the police, it also insists on more lenient treatment of convicted criminals through criminal justice, pretrial, and sentencing reforms. The goal, in contrast to the increased surveillance and management of gun owners and police officers, would be to “lower the footprint of the criminal justice system” in everybody else’s lives.

And it just goes on an on. Most of the worst (and often discredited) thinking in gun control over the last 40 years is included in some form or fashion. For example, the plan calls for:

  • Rationing the purchase of firearms;
  • Banning “high capacity” magazines;
  • Banning online advertising of guns;
  • Banning online sales of ammunition and firearm parts;
  • Holding gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for crimes committed with firearms;
  • Creating a searchable national registry of firearms and firearm owners;
  • Creating national “safe storage” requirements; and
  • Granting the Consumer Products Safety Commission authority to regulate firearms.

How would any of this be consistent with the Second Amendment?

The plan has thought of that, too. The very concept of an individual right to keep and bear arms, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, would undergo a “serious rethinking.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, would be required to reexamine its own conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and work toward repudiating the foundations of the Heller decision.

A “different interpretation of the Second Amendment” would also become a litmus test for the “next generation of federal judges.” The president would choose judicial prospects in concert with March for Our Lives to “develop a slate of gun violence prevention champions for federal judicial nominations ….”

Even the U.S. Supreme Court itself would face “reform” under the plan, the better to ensure that “structural limitations” did not stand in the way of the court eventually reversing the “excoriated” and “controversial” Heller decision.

But the plan doesn’t stop there. It even envisions a federally-funded “Safety Corps,” modeled on the Peace Corps, to pay legions of young activists to promote the principles and objectives of the “Peace Plan.”

The “Peace Plan” concludes by calling “on every Presidential candidate for the 2020 election” to endorse it.

So far, none of the candidates seem to have taken the bait.

But if any of them do, March for our Lives will have done the entire American electorate a favor by showing just how far some politicians are willing to go to eradicate America’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Divide and Conquer: Giffords (Formerly LCAV) Looks to Split Gun Owners to Enact Controls

Florida Alert! “Assault Weapons” Ban Amendment Bans ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS

Another Week, Another Democrat Presidential Contender Out to Round Up America’s Guns

Flag on the Play: Media Promotes Gun Confiscation Laws by Exaggerating “Study” Results

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Inconvenient Truth about Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Laws

/in , , , , , , , /by

There are two broad categories of lies that could be referred to as crimes of commission and crimes of omission.

The crime of commission is when facts are blatantly misrepresented, while the crime of omission involves leaving out relevant information, for example, when statements are taken out of context or relevant information is left out of the report.

These tactics have become commonplace and routine particularly when the mainstream media reports on the Trump administration and also when it reports on issues pertaining to immigration.

When the Trump administration promulgates policies that impact immigration, synergy kicks in and the truth is likely nowhere to be found.

Over a century ago a popular expression, the streets are paved with gold, drew immigrants to the United States who were determined to strike it rich in America.  When they got here they found that the streets were paved, not with gold, but with cobblestones that came from the cargo holds of ships that used those cobblestones as ballast.

Back then the cargo holds of the merchant ships that arrived at America’s ports were filled with cobblestones that served as ballast to keep those ships stable on the voyage to the United States.  Once here, those stones were off-loaded and all sorts of products that were made in America replaced the cobblestones in the cargo holds of those ships that returned to their original ports with merchandise to be sold.

The cobblestones were used to pave the roads of the port cities.

Nevertheless the immigrants who came to America worked hard and earned a living and built their futures in our nation.  None of them expected, nor received a “free ride.”

You could say that rather than being paved with gold, the streets were paved with blood, sweat and tears of the immigrants.

With their new-found freedom to worship and to pursue their dreams, many succeeded in building successful and happy lives in the United States.

On August 12, 2019 Business Today breathlessly published a Reuters News report under the title, “New Trump administration rule to target legal immigrants who get public assistance”.  The subtitle of that report utterly twisted the truth:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that would limit legal immigration by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor

That article also included this excerpt:

The 837-page rule could be the most drastic of all the Trump administration’s policies targeting the legal immigration system, experts have said. Advocates for immigrants have criticized the plan as an effort to cut legal immigration without going through Congress to change U.S. law.

The new rule is derived from the Immigration Act of 1882, which allows the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone likely to become a “public charge.”

That last paragraph creates the utterly false impression that President Trump had to dig back to law books published 137 years ago to find legal justification for invoking the concept of public charge to prevent aliens on public assistance from receiving lawful immigrant status.

In reality, while the notion of public charge was first codified in 1882, it has persisted in all subsequent rewrites of America’s immigration laws and, in fact, is still an element of the current Immigration and Nationality Act.

The claim that Trump’s public charge policies would deny entry to aliens who are poor is false.  This concern does not deny entry to aliens who are poor.  Historically many immigrants who were destitute have come to the United States.  However, they worked their way up the economic ladder to create the American Dream for themselves, their families and ultimately, for America.

The issue is not whether or not an alien seeking to enter the U.S. is poor but if that alien has the physical capabilities and skills and/or education to work and be self-sufficient in the United States.

In fact, Ellis Island was run by Public Health officials along with immigration officials.  Public Health officials had two concerns- that the arriving immigrants were not suffering from dangerous communicable diseases that could create a deadly epidemic and that the arriving immigrants were mentally and physically capable of working and supporting themselves and, perhaps, their families.

My earlier article, “The Left’s Immigration Con Game”, referenced the extraordinary documentary, “Forgotten Ellis Island”, that chronicles the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic and runs contrary to the bogus mythology told by the immigration anarchists of today.

On August 16, 2019 CNBC reported, “Advocacy groups file suit to block Trump’s new ‘public charge’ immigration rule” that included this outrageous quote:

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration or whether or not people are wealthy.”

More recently NBC reported, “New York, Connecticut and Vermont sue to block Trump’s public charge rule.”

Once again, the Left is resorting to “Lawfare”, filing lawsuits to achieve political objectives.

The quote that appears in the CNBC article noted above from Western Center on Law and Poverty was quick to invoke race.  Let us also be clear that race, religion and/or ethnicity play absolutely no role in determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.

The grounds for determining admissibility of aliens into the United States is codified in a section of the current Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

Among the categories of aliens who are excludible are aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, serious mental illness, are criminals, spies, terrorists, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, aliens who had been previously deported (removed) from the United States and aliens who have committed fraud in their applications for visas and/or immigration benefits.

Additionally, it establishes that aliens are inadmissible (excludible) if they are likely to become public charges.

This is how the current Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously lays out the entire issue of public charge:

(4)  Public charge

(A)   In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B)   Factors to be taken into account

(i)  In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s–

(I)  age;

(II)  health;

(III)  family status;

(IV)  assets, resources, and financial status;  and

(V)  education and skills.

(ii)  In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

The media has accused President Trump of wanting to separate families.  In point of fact, family members may provide an affidavit of support wherein they guarantee that they will provide financial assistance to their family members who seek to immigrate to the United States.  This would help to unite families not divide them.

The issue is not about dividing families or denying poor people an opportunity to immigrate to the United States, but to protect the financial solvency of the United States, an issue of increasing concern as the national debt continues to soar into the stratosphere, by simply enforcing existing laws.

I must remind you that the imposition of American policies to address public charge laws is not new, but has a long-established history that goes back 137 years.

It is clear that the United States is unable to secure its borders.  Billions of humans around the world live below the poverty line.  If the United States was to permit all of the world’s poor to come to America with the expectation of receiving free healthcare, free education, housing subsidies and other such free benefits, our nation would implode.

As it is, our national debt has soared into the stratosphere and continues its upward trajectory.

The time has come for the Radical Left to be reminded of one of their favorite chants, the one that deals with “sustainability!”

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.