Democrats playing ‘dangerous game’ by questioning the legitimacy of President Trump

In a recent column titled “The Elephant in the Living Room,” I surmised that liberals and Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by continuing to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency.  What makes that bit of nonsense so dangerous for Democrats is the fact that, by continuing to question Trump’s legitimacy, they could easily invite renewed interest in Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility… an issue that lies festering just beneath the surface.

In Obama’s case, enough is known about his lack of presidential eligibility to invite future researchers to dig deeper into his personal history.  As a result, the American people will one day be shocked to learn that, between January 20, 2009, and January 20, 2017, a period of time during which the forces of Islamic jihad made the greatest gains in the conquest of the Christian world since the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, the United States was governed by a half-Muslim impostor with no legitimate claim to the presidency.

But man is a curious animal, and if he feels that he’s been lied to or that certain historical facts have purposely been kept from him, he will move mountains to discover the truth.

A great many major historic events and mysteries remain unresolved and unexplored for years… often for decades, centuries, and even millennia.  For example, as World War I raged on in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson (D) reassured the American people of U.S. neutrality.   He said,

“The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men’s souls.  We must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.”

However, what the American people did not know was that Wilson, himself, was violating U.S. neutrality by supplying war materiel to the British and, with no apparent regard for the safety of the traveling public, shipping it to England aboard passenger ships.  The German spy network in the United States was fully aware of the deceit, causing the German government to publish an April 22, 1915, warning in 50 major newspapers, urging travelers not to sail aboard the RMS Lusitania.  And when travelers expressed concern, the Wilson administration assured them that trans-Atlantic travel was safe and that there was no reason for concern.

The Lusitania sailed on May 1, 1915 with 1,198 passengers and crew aboard, and just one week later, on May 7, 1915, as she sailed off the coast of southern Ireland, the RMS Lusitania was attacked and sunk by a German U-boat.

There is no better example of man’s irrepressible search for truth, or the Democratic penchant for deceit, than the events surrounding America’s entrance into World War II.  Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, many Americans were suspicious of the claim that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was, in fact, a “surprise” attack.  Like the truth of events such as the Kennedy assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing, the truth of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was held under lock and key for more than a half century.  It was not until 1994 that official documents detailing events leading up to the Japanese attack were declassified and made available to the public.

Among those declassified documents was an October 7, 1940, memorandum prepared by Navy Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence.  The memo was addressed to Navy Captains Walter Anderson and Dudley W. Knox, two of FDR’s most trusted advisors, and contained the complete blueprint for the Roosevelt administration’s effort to precipitate a Japanese attack against the United States.   It was the “smoking gun” that historians had been seeking for half a century.

In sections 1 through 7 of the memorandum, Lieutenant Commander McCollum describes in great detail the status of the war in Europe and the tactical and strategic importance of the tri-lateral alliance between the Axis powers… Germany, Japan, and Italy… laying the groundwork for the recommendations contained in sections 8 and 9 of the memorandum.  Those sections, as transcribed below, outlined in detail what naval intelligence felt was necessary to precipitate a Japanese attack on U.S. territory and/or U.S. military installations in the Pacific, as follows:

  1. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade. A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike at us effectively.  Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely strengthen Britain’s position against Germany and Italy and, in addition, such action would increase the confidence and support of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.
  2. It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude.

Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:

A.  Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore.
B.  Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies.
C.  Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D.  Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E.   Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F.   Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G.  Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
H.  Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

The memorandum went on to say, “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.  At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war.”

In his response to the memorandum, Captain Knox hinted in a chilling postscript, saying, “Re your #6: – no reason for battleships not visiting west coast in bunches (emphasis added).

Although they were not privy to Japanese timing, it is clear that FDR, his senior civilian aides, and his top military advisors knew in advance that the Japanese would attack the United States.  In fact, it was they who created the circumstances under which Japan felt compelled to go to war against us.  In their defense, and the kindest thing we can say about them, is that they greatly underestimated the magnitude and the ferocity of the Japanese attack.  The attack lasted just ninety minutes, but in that period of time a total of 2,403 Americans lost their lives (military and civilian combined) and 1,178 were wounded.  Eighteen ship were sunk or run aground

As recommended by Captain Knox, the Navy had no fewer than eight battleships “bunched up” at Pearl Harbor.  These included the USS Arizona, USS California, USS Maryland, USS Nevada, USS Oklahoma, USS Pennsylvania, USS Tennessee, and the USS West Virginia.  Of these, the USS Arizona and the USS Oklahoma were sunk and were declared total losses.  The USS California and the USS West Virginia were sunk, but were later raised and repaired; and the USS Maryland, USS Nevada, USS Pennsylvania, and the USS Tennessee were badly damaged but were quickly repaired and returned to service.  The U.S. also lost 350 aircraft in the attack.

Just as the truth of the U.S. entry into World War I and the truth of events leading up to the Pearl Harbor attack has finally been exposed, more than fifty years after the fact, so too will the whole truth of Democratic deceit in the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the illegitimate presidency of Barack Obama.  It’s only a matter of time.

I am aware that my friend and neighbor, author Craig Roberts, the only Tulsa police officer assigned to the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, is beginning work on a book telling the whole behind-the-scenes story of how the Clinton Administration, through Attorney General Janet Reno and the FBI, prevented on-site investigators from following evidence wherever it led.  Their interference misdirected the investigation away from a number of collaborators and focused the investigation only on Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

In recent weeks, as President Trump has fought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and to appoint the strongest cabinet in memory, Democrats have shown that they are willing to say whatever is necessary to stand in his way.  And just as the truth of Democratic deceit in drawing the United States into World War I and World War II has now been made known, so too will the truth of the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, and yes, the true identity of Barack Obama.

As a relatively young “ex-president” he will likely live long enough to experience his own political dismemberment.  Let the games begin.

What’s the big deal over General Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador?

Is General Flynn in trouble over talking with the Russian Ambassador during the transition period when he had not yet been appointed as National Security Adviser? The Logan Act of 1799 (1 State U.S.C. 953 “forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiation with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S. It was intended to prevent undermining the government.”

Has anyone ever been charged and convicted of violating the Logan Act? Answer: No one.

So, why now?

It appears that something General Flynn should have known that holding a phone conversation with the Russian Ambassador in Washington, that several intelligence agencies and the FBI would be listening in recording and transcribing it.

Moreover, there had been charges about Russia engaging in cyber attacks during the election seeking to undermine the Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton trying to influence the election of President Trump. Eventually those transcripts would be leaked into the hands of the investigative press to be cross checked with the FBI and intelligence agencies to verify that Flynn’s conversations took place.

Anything the press could do to bring down Flynn to bring him down, rest assured they would be on the hunt for. There was their objection to his his dalliance with RT.com and being invited to an anniversary dinner in Moscow in 2015 seated near President Putin. Then there was his Flynn Intel Group’s contract with a shadowy Dutch Turkish businessman seeking Washington representation for President Erodgan in his attempt to extradite his former ally Sheik Fehullah Gulen, a holder of a Green Card as a permanent resident to prosecute him for fomenting Erodgan’s faux coup last July in Turkey That was followed by an op-ed published by the Hill on November 8th praising Erodgan’s Turkey as a NATO ally and beating up Gulen suggesting that his extradition was a good thing for relationships between the two countries. SEE: Our Ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support.

Then Flynn had pissed off many in the Intel community during his tenure of the Defense Intelligence Agency, especially the Director of National Intelligence, retired USAF General Clapper.

Add to that Trump’s criticism of Flyn’s son Michael G. Flynn for the crackpot DC Pizza involving Hillary Clinton ‘sex with minor’ ‘fake story’ tweet episode that Gen. Flynn deleted. Then Gen. Flynncombative management style didn;t sit well with some of the Trump team and you get what came out this weekend and Trump saying on Air Force One to question about these reports about Flynn and Russian sanctions flying down to a Margo de Largo weekend with special guest Japanese Premier Abe, that he hadn’t read the story.

In a separate FB post we noted that Flynn NSC Africa former Marine officer Robin Townley had been denied a higher classified security classification clearance by Trump CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

So the proverbial Washington long knives were out to get Flynn. That is what is really behind this New York Times story inveighing the hoary Logan Act that never has been used.

Note the innuendos in this New York Times report:

President Trump said he plans to “look into” reports that his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed sanctions in his pre-inauguration conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States and possibly misled administration officials about it.

“I don’t know about that. I haven’t seen it,” said Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Air Force One late Friday, during a flight to Florida from Washington. Several news outlets reported on Thursday that Mr. Flynn and Ambassador Sergei I. Kislyak had discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia.

The White House has denied publicly that the two men discussed sanctions.

Even as Mr. Trump professed his lack of knowledge of the episode, administration officials were scrambling to contain the fallout of the latest revelations about the embattled former three-star general, who has been criticized internally for his judgment and for staffing the National Security Council with military officers instead of trained civilian personnel.

Perhaps a bigger concern for National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn is his relationship with Vice President Mike Pence, who sometimes has had to defend him in public.

According to two administration officials, Mr. Flynn told Mr. Pence in January that he had only exchanged pleasantries with Mr. Kislyak during a phone call in December and denied discussing sanctions with him. Mr. Pence repeated Mr. Flynn’s account during a television appearance.

The president still confers daily with Mr. Flynn, one of the few former military leaders to support him during the campaign.

But three weeks into Mr. Trump’s presidency, Mr. Flynn’s role on national security matters has been challenged by other West Wing power players — including the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who have both taken expansive roles shaping foreign and defense policy.

Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, questioned on Friday whether Mr. Flynn should be allowed to stay in his job.

The allegation that Mr. Flynn spoke about sanctions relief with the Russian ambassador “raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office,” Mr. Schiff said in a statement. “If he did so, and then he and other administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious, and he should no longer serve in this administration or any other.”

Two Democratic senators on Friday renewed their calls for a review of Mr. Flynn’s security clearance, citing the reports of the December call.

“This disclosure highlights just one in a series of decisions made by Flynn both during his military service and as a private citizen that give rise to questions concerning his suitability for continued access to classified information,” the senators, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, said in a letter to Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, and Mike Pompeo, the director of the C.I.A.

The senators first questioned whether Mr. Flynn should be allowed to hold a clearance in a separate letter sent in December. That letter focused on past investigations into allegations that Mr. Flynn leaked classified information, and potential conflicts presented by a private intelligence firm that he started after being forced out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014.

Republicans in Congress have remained largely silent on the matter, and have said they see little gain in openly criticizing Mr. Flynn. Some believe he will ultimately stumble hard enough that he will be forced out of the job.

The accounts of Mr. Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador added to the questions about connections between people close to Mr. Trump and Russia. American counterintelligence officials are already known to be investigating at least three of the president’s aides: Paul Manafort, his former campaign chairman; Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser; and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

Those investigations are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad inquiry into possible links between Russian officials and associates of Mr. Trump.

As the president claimed to be unaware of revelations about the embattled national security adviser, officials were scrambling to contain the fallout.
NYTIMES.COM|BY MATTHEW ROSENBERG AND GLENN THRUSH

Syria’s Assad: Some refugees are “definitely” terrorists

When Isikoff presses him about whether the terrorists constituted a significant percentage of the refugees, Assad noted correctly that the number didn’t matter, because a small number could do great damage, as on 9/11.

Assad is right, of course, but his words will be dismissed as those of a bloody dictator, and misrepresented as if the only information he has on this are Internet memes, when he was merely invoking something he thought might be familiar to Isikoff. In any case, clearly Assad, however much of a scoundrel he is, recognizes the security risks involved in admitting the refugees that eludes the grasp of so many American jurists.

“Exclusive: Syria’s Assad tells Yahoo News some refugees are ‘definitely’ terrorists,” by Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News, February 9, 2017:

Weighing in on one of the most contentious issues in American politics — the danger posed to host countries by the 4.8 million people who have fled from Syria’s civil war — Syrian President Bashar Assad told Yahoo News that some of the refugees are “definitely” terrorists.

In an exclusive interview with Yahoo News at a presidential office in Damascus, Assad said President Trump’s freeze on admitting refugees from his country — part of an executive order that has drawn widespread protests and is being challenged in federal court — “is an American issue” on which he would not take sides. But asked if some of those who fled are “aligned with terrorists,” Assad quickly replied, “Definitely.”

“You can find it on the Net,” Assad went on: “Those terrorists in Syria, holding the machine gun or killing people, they [appear as] peaceful refugees in Europe or in the West.” He said he couldn’t estimate how many there might be, but he added that “you don’t need a significant number to commit atrocities.” He noted that the 9/11 attacks were pulled off by fewer than 20 terrorists “out of maybe millions of immigrants in the United States. So it’s not about the number, it’s about the quality, it’s about the intentions.”

As for the future of Syria’s 4.8 million refugees, Assad said, “For me, the priority is to bring those citizens to their country, not to help them immigrate.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim migrant screams “Allah” as he slashes man’s face with knife on bus

Two Muslims arrested in Slovenia on way to join the Islamic State — while under house arrest in France

White House Petition: Issue an International Arrest Warrant for George Soros

soros9

George Soros

Petition Title: Issue an International Arrest Warrant for George Soros

George Soros is a menace to the free world and stands in the way of making America great again. He is guilty of the following crimes:

1) Financially supports open sedition in major American cities resulting in millions of dollars of property damage as well as loss of life.

2) Attempts to manipulate democratic elections by donating millions of dollars to his preferred candidates.

3) Seeks to curtail American sovereignty. In his own words: “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States … Changing [the] attitude and policies of the United States remains my top priority.”

4) Is a currency manipulator. Soros initiated a British financial crisis by dumping 10 billion sterling, forcing the devaluation of the currency and gaining a billion-dollar profit.

Those readers who wish may sign the petition by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump to Use Obama Executive Order to declare George Soros a National Security Threat?

‘Indivisible,’ With Ties to George Soros, Sows Division Against Trump, GOP Lawmakers

How Trump’s Executive Orders Line Up With Past Presidents

North Korea Tests a Missile, and Donald Trump

209 Anarchists Charged with Felony Rioting

disruptj20The Code of the District of Columbia states:

§ 22–1322. Rioting or inciting to riot.

(a) A riot in the District of Columbia is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of 5 or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.

(b) Whoever willfully engages in a riot in the District of Columbia shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

(c) Whoever willfully incites or urges other persons to engage in a riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.

(d) If in the course and as a result of a riot a person suffers serious bodily harm or there is property damage in excess of $5,000, every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage in the riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both. [Emphasis added]

Phil McCausland from NBC News reports:

A grand jury has indicted more than 100 Inauguration Day protesters on rioting charges in Washington, D.C. In total, 209 people have now been indicted.

The indictment, handed up D.C. Superior Court on Wednesday, February 8th, 2017, charged 146 additional protesters with felony rioting — meaning they face a fine of up to $25,000 and a maximum of 10 years in prison.

On Inauguration Day — Jan. 20 — 230 people were arrested and charged with felony rioting. Twelve cases have been dismissed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CA Tax Dollars Funding Eric Holder Firm to Develop ‘Legal Strategies’ Against Trump

Total chaos in US refugee flow; United Nations depends on US to take lion’s share every year

Who is Suhaib Webb, ‘soft Salafist” and former Boston Radical Mosque Imam?

RELATED INFOGRAPHICS:

5 things about socialism

liberal logic

Illegal Immigration Drives Income Inequality

Applying some common sense to the immigration debate offers an immense amount of clarity. And it reveals errors at both ends of the argument: Immigration is a powerful engine for economic growth, but wrong immigration can be a recipe for low wages and the bottom end of the scale, high governmental costs and high wages at the top end of the scale.

And there is wrong immigration. We’ve been practicing it for decades and are reaping the results.

The unstated policy of the past 30 years or so has been to have a de facto open border with Mexico that allows somewhere between 11 million and 20 million illegal immigrants — one of many problems is that we just don’t know — to be here and work, live and enjoy the benefits of this country.

But they are allowed to come illegally with a wink and a nod because politicians have opposed enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Yes, we have some fencing and a Border Patrol and we do stop some and send them back — about 250,000 annually. But they come right back again and eventually get through. And apparently we miss most the first time. The proof that the de facto policy is open borders is the 11-20 million people that are here illegally.

In the rest of the picture, we have legal immigration that takes many years and is an arduous and expensive journey. But because we are controlling it, we are getting immigrants that as a batch are capable of not only improving their own lives, but those of other Americans.

In 2014, 29 percent of the 36.7 million immigrants ages 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of native-born adults. While that lines up nicely with the existing American population, the bottom end still does not: 30 percent of immigrants lacked a high school diploma or GED certificate compared to 10 percent of native-born Americans.

What this overall picture shows is that we allow — legally and illegally — millions of low-end workers into the country, and that has enormous consequences for low-income Americans.

Compassion for whom?

Often the defense of keeping quasi open borders is that we are a “compassionate” nation. Well yes, that is indisputable by practically every definition of charity at home and around the world.

But in the case of immigration, compassionate for whom? While letting millions of poor, unskilled, illiterate immigrants in our country may be showing compassion toward them, it is demonstrably not showing compassion toward tens of millions of poor Americans.

Consider: Millions of uneducated, unskilled and illiterate immigrants from south of the border come to America seeking a better life — or for many, just income to send money back “home.” The economics is undeniable: Their very presence depresses the low end of wages. They not only take millions of entry-level jobs, but also keep all those wages low or even lower them.

So the jobs “Americans won’t do” theoretically, are actually only jobs Americans won’t do at the prevailing wages. Without all those immigrants — legal or illegal, but most are illegal — low end wages would rise. Perhaps a lot. They would have to for supply to meet demand. It’s basic economics and the effect trickles up to middle class incomes.

How much? It’s hard to say, but George Borjas, Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, writes in Politico:

“Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent.”

This explains the flattening or declining of wages in real terms of lower skilled American workers with the huge influx of unskilled workers, and it is a minor tragedy that so few understand the reality.

But this also explains a big social bogeyman in American politics: income inequality.

A surprising source of income inequality

In a recent fascinating EconTalk podcast, Russ Roberts interviewed Borjas, himself an immigrant and leading expert in the economics of immigration, and Borjas laid out a fascinating case.

First off, immigration has historically increased capital, even with those who bring nothing to the country. They work for companies who provide goods, a percentage of them start and build successful companies, and overall the economy grows and capital is produced. This dynamic, along with a fairly free market capitalism and rule of law, explains the dramatic economic engine that the United States developed into after the Civil War.

If immigration demographics of skill level roughly mirror the makeup of the United States, then the net impact on the country is economic growth and capital growth, without much relative change in distribution between low, middle and upper incomes. Roughly, it’s a win-win-win.

However, if the immigration demographics do not mirror the country, there will be income distribution impacts. In the United States in recent decades we have seen immigration heavily weighted toward the low income end, depressing wages as explained above.

But it also has a converse impact.

Because capital has been expanded with the immigration, the value of people’s skills at the high end of the scale has gone up. This is because there are relatively fewer of these people to provide their services in an environment of both increased demand for them and increased capital due to immigration that is not mirroring the country’s current demographics.

There may be other policies that drive income inequality in a trade-off for another benefit, but there can be little doubt that the millions of illegal immigrants at the low end not only depress low-end wages but drive up high-end wages and create income inequality.

No public policies can alter the laws of economics. They are immutable. But public policies can alter the laws of immigration, which can positively impact the economics and the people in the economy.

That’s a debate worth having.

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

Trump – The Great Manipulator?

It is no secret in political circles that vote fraud is rampant in U.S. elections, and always has been.  Democrats know it, Republicans know it, and the mainstream media know it… but ignore it.  Unfortunately, when one major political party is the primary beneficiary of the fraud, and at least 90% of those in the mainstream media are members of that party, there is little chance that anti-fraud laws can be enacted and/or enforced.  Fraud, violence, and intimidation merely become the “dirty little secret” of the greatest constitutional republic on Earth.

In the not too distant past, voter registration was done only in person.  All it took to become a registered voter was to make a brief visit to the election board offices in the county courthouse.  In some states, roving registrars set up tables in malls and shopping centers where it was possible to register while shopping.  It was a time when local, state, and national elections were held on a single day.  The only exception to that rule was absentee ballot voting by those who knew well in advance that they would be traveling, hospitalized, or otherwise unavailable on Election Day.

But then, in recent decades, as Democrats strove to assemble a permanent governing majority of special interests, they developed a vast array of fraud-friendly electoral processes.  Under the guise of “fairness” and “inclusiveness,” they created abominations such as postcard registration, motor-voter registration, same-day registration, electronic voting, voting by mail, and many others… all open invitations to fraud and all disguised as ways of extending the benefits of democracy to the greatest number of people.  But is that what the “reformers” actually had in mind, or were they more interested in creating ways to “scam” the system?  Either way, the system has become so fraud-friendly that the entire process is in need of major overhaul.

Democrats have demonstrated no shame whatsoever in their support for fraud-friendly voter registration and voting procedures.  In fact, when confronted with the proposal to abandon photo ID legislation, which they invariably oppose, in exchange for a system in which voters would be required to dip a “pinkie” into a vial of indelible ink after voting… so that voters could be prevented from voting more than once… Democrats opposed even that anti-fraud reform.

But now it appears as if Donald Trump has found a way to turn the tables on them.  By claiming that, were it not for the votes of more than 3 million non-citizens, he would have won not only a majority in the Electoral College, but a majority of the popular vote as well, he has caused Democrats to suddenly switch sides.  They’ve abandoned their long-held claim that “vote fraud doesn’t exist,” in favor of a challenge to Trump to “put up, or shut up.”  They apparently feel that by investigating his charge and proving him wrong they can put the issue to rest, once and for all.

If this turn of events was the result of careful planning by Trump and his inner circle, then he is truly a “manipulator” of unparalleled skill.  But whether planned or inadvertent, the evidence is all on Trump’s side and Democrats have inadvertently walked into a political trap.

If we’ve learned nothing else from the last seventy years of political and social experimentation we’ve learned that, given a choice between doing things the right way or doing things the easy way, Americans will almost invariably choose the easy way… and to hell with the consequences.  There can be no better example than our current electoral system.  But if we are to reform our electoral processes so that we can once again have faith that our votes actually count, we must make some bold reforms.  First, it is imperative that we go back to basic principles:

  1. Voter registration must be done only in person.  Fraud-friendly motor-voter, postcard, and same-day registration schemes must be either repealed or superseded.
  2. Registrations must be done only by full-time paid registrars, employees of counties and/or township government.  Third party registrars, paid and unpaid, must be prohibited.
  3. Registration must be done only in the county and/or township in which the registrant maintains his/her primary residence.
  4. As a requisite for voter registration, each voter must show proof of citizenship (birth certificate or passport) and proof of residence (driver’s license, residential deed, apartment lease, utility bills, etc.).
  5. Qualified voters must be issued a voter I.D. card, complete with photo, permanent address, and precinct number, which must then be presented upon entering a polling place at each election.
  6. Court administrators must be required to furnish local election boards with name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number of every individual convicted of a felony.  Election boards must be required to purge voter registrations of all felons at least ten days prior to any election.
  7. County coroners must be required to furnish election boards with copies of all death certificates.  All deceased persons must be removed from the voter rolls no later than ten days prior to any election.
  8. Registered voters who move from one state to another, from one county or township to another, or from one precinct to another, must obtain a voter registration transfer document from their local election board.  This document must be presented, in person, to county or township officials of the voter’s new place of residence.
  9. Absentee ballots must be received no later than ten days prior to an election.  Absentee ballots must be tallied no later than the day and hour that polls close on Election Day.
  10. Absentee ballots completed by residents of nursing homes, elder care, and mental health facilities must be completed only in the presence of representatives of both major political parties.
  11. Other than absentee ballots, voting must be done in person, only on the day of the election, and only in the precinct in which the voter maintains his/her primary residence.  Electronic voting and vote-by-mail schemes must be repealed or superseded.
  12. Provisional ballots must be limited only to the most serious instances of clerical error by election board officials.  And finally,
  13. The national Voting Rights Act must be amended to provide fines and mandatory jail sentences for any individual who would, in any election in which the name of a candidate for federal office appears on the ballot, do any of the following:
    1. Vote in the name of another person.
    2. Vote or attempt to vote more than once.
    3. Vote in the name of a deceased or fictitious person.
    4. Vote in more than one state or political subdivision.
    5. Vote without benefit of U.S. citizenship.
    6. Intimidate, interfere with, or cause injury to the person or property of any other person peaceably engaged in the political process, or cause any other person to do any of the foregoing.

All of these recommendations meet the test of fairness and inclusion because they apply equally to all citizens.  But what are the chances that such a program of reform could be enacted?  The chances are not good because Democrats have far too much vested interest in maintaining and liberalizing the fraud-friendly system we have.

But, regardless of the reforms we might impose on the present system, there can be no substitute for an educated and informed citizenry.  The election of Barack Obama on November 4, 2008, illustrated precisely the sort of government we can expect when our voting age citizens are uneducated and/or uninformed.

In a November 13-15, 2008, Zogby poll of 512 Obama voters (97.1% high school graduates and 55% college graduates) we learned that: 57.4% could not identify which party controlled Congress; 71.8% could not identify Joe Biden as the candidate who had engaged in plagiarism; 82.6% could not identify Barack Obama as the candidate who won his first primary race by having all of his Democratic opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities; and 88.4% could not identify Obama as the candidate who said that his policies would bankrupt coal-burning electric utilities and drive power costs through the ceiling.

However, 86.3% identified Sarah Palin as the candidate whose political party spent $150,000 on a campaign wardrobe; 93.8% identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter; and 86.9% identified Palin as the candidate who said that she could see Russia from her home in Alaska (Actually, Palin did not say that.  That quote is from comedienne Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live).  Only 12 of the 512 Obama voters answered at least eleven of the twelve multiple choice questions correctly, while only 3 of the 512 interviewed answered all twelve correctly. Clearly, most Democratic voters get their political information from Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Saturday Night Live. 

And since we can’t do much to change that, the least we can do is to make the electoral process as idiot-proof and as fraud-proof as possible.

Globalists Fight Psychological War of Words against America

Borders are a nation’s first line of defense and last line of defense against the enemies of that nation. In fact, it could properly be said that the primary role of our military is to keep America’s enemies as far from our shores (and borders) as possible.

However, “up close and in person,” the issue of border security becomes the domain and responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies charged with border security and the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

The report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” began with this paragraph:

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

However, border security is a problem for globalists who see in secure borders impediments to their wealth. And, politicians who depend on political campaign contributions, by necessity, must take into account the demands of their campaign contributors, many of whom have globalist objectives.

Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of other special interest groups that depend on the exploitation of the immigration system are eager to fill the campaign coffers of politicians irrespective of whether they are Democrats or Republicans in order to get “the best government money can buy.”

Today news reports on immigration often lack clarity and honesty. Frequently news reports appear to have been written by Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” and the term “propaganda” comes to mind when considering them.

Consider that “propaganda” has been described thusly:

propaganda |ˌpräpəˈɡandə|
noun
chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.

the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary.

All too frequently journalists have been participants in efforts to obfuscate the issue of immigration following the lead of Jimmy Carter, originator of the Orwellian term, “undocumented immigrant.” Their news reports foisted on Americans are part of what I have come to refer to as the immigration con game.

President Trump’s executive order to temporarily block the entry of aliens from seven countries parallels the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Aliens from those countries cannot be effectively vetted; yet, major news organizations breathlessly exclaimed that aliens who had been issued visas were denied entry into the U.S., blithely ignoring the fact that aliens with valid visas are routinely denied entry into the United States by Customs and Border Protection Inspectors, an issue with which I am intimately familiar.

For the first four years of my 30-year career with the former INS I was an Immigration Inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport. My article, “Aliens Guaranteed Entry Into The U.S.?Trump’s executive order on immigration and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission,” explained how a visa should be simply thought of as a “ticket” that enables an alien seeking U.S. entry to a port of entry and make an application for admission. However, an alien who has been issued a visa is not guaranteed entry into the country. Indeed, aliens do not have an inherent right to enter the U.S.; only American citizens do.

Furthermore, while nearly every news report identified those seven countries as being “majority Muslim countries,” ignored was the fact that the Obama administration had compiled that list of countries because they were identified with terrorism and were therefore extremely problematic.

Unfortunately too many Americans are “drinking the Kool-Aid,” an expression that refers to the deaths of more than 900 people who killed themselves or murdered their children, blindly following the insane exhortations of charismatic cult leader Jim Jones, in what came to be known as “The Jonestown Massacre.”

Those Americans should put down their straws and be relieved, not angered, that for once our government is seeking to protect innocent lives, putting safety ahead of the globalists’ anti-American agenda.

DeVos Confirmed: Everything They Said about Her Is False by James Agresti

Betsy DeVos has been confirmed as Secretary of Education, but just barely. In the course of the hearings, outrageous claims were made about her views. Most originated from the public school industry itself, which is clinging to old forms for dear life. The result has been nothing but confusion. Let’s look more carefully.

In an op-ed for the New York Times, U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) alleges that she is voting against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education because:

  • DeVos opposes policies that allow “our young people, all of them, to participate in our democracy and compete on a fair footing in the workforce.”
  • DeVos supports “voucher systems that divert taxpayer dollars to private, religious and for-profit schools without requirements for accountability.”
  • “The voucher programs that Ms. DeVos advocates leave out students whose families cannot afford to pay the part of the tuition that the voucher does not cover; the programs also leave behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs.”

Each of those claims is belied by concrete facts, and Hassan is guilty of most of the charges she levels at DeVos. Also, Hassan sent her own daughter to a private school, an opportunity that she would deny to other children.

A Fair Footing

Under the current U.S. education system, the quality of students’ schooling is largely determined by their parents’ income. This is because wealthy parents can afford to send their children to private schools and live in neighborhoods with the best public schools. Such options narrow as income declines, and the children of poor families—who are often racial minorities—typically end up in the nation’s worst schools.

Contrary to popular perception, funding is not the primary cause of differences between schools. Since the early 1970s, school districts with large portions of minority students have spent about the same amount per student as districts with fewer minorities. This is shown by studies conducted by the left-leaning Urban Institute, the U.S. Department of Education, Ph.D. economist Derek Neal, and the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Moreover, contrary to the notion that certain minorities are intellectually inferior, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that with competent schooling, people of all races can excel. For example, in 2009, Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, had:

  • a mostly Hispanic population.
  • one-third of the students not fluent in English and no bilingual classes.
  • 80% of the students poor enough to qualify for free lunch.
  • lower spending per student than the New York City average.
  • the highest average math score of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of the students scoring “advanced.”
  • the top-dozen English scores of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of students passing.

These and other such results indicate that school quality plays a major role in student performance. Hassan and other critics of school choice are keenly aware of this, as evidenced by the choices they make for their own children. For example, Obama’s first Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, stated that the primary reason he decided to live in Arlington, Virginia, was so his daughter could attend its public schools. In his words:

That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor. That was the most important thing to me. My family has given up so much so that I could have the opportunity to serve; I didn’t want to try to save the country’s children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children’s education.

Duncan’s statement is an admission that public schools in the D.C. area often jeopardize the education of children, but he would not let this happen to his child. Few parents have the choice that Duncan made because most cannot afford to live in places like Arlington, where the annual cash income of the median family is $144,843, the highest of all counties in the United States.

Other prominent opponents of private school choice—like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton—personally attended and also sent their own children to private K-12 schools. Likewise, Hassan’s daughter attended an elite private high school (Phillips Exeter Academy) where Hassan’s husband was the principal.

The existing U.S. education system does not provide an equal footing for children, but Hassan criticizes DeVos for supporting school choice, which would lessen this inequity. By its very definition, school choice allows parents to select the schools their children attend, an option that Hassan and other affluent people regularly exercise.

Taxpayer Money and Accountability

Four lines of evidence disprove Hassan’s claim that DeVos wants to “divert taxpayer dollars” to non-public schools “without requirements for accountability.”

First, private school choice generally increases public school spending per student, which is the primary measure of education funding. As explained by Stephen Cornman, a statistician with the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, per-pupil spending is “the gold standard in school finance.”

Private school choice programs boost per-student funding in public schools because the public schools no longer educate the students who go to the private schools, which typically spend much less per student than public schools. This leaves additional funding for the students who remain in public schools.

According to the latest available data, the average spending per student in private K-12 schools during the 2011-12 school year was about $6,762. In the same year, the average spending per student in public schools was $13,398, or about twice as much. These figures exclude state administration spending, unfunded pension liabilities, and post-employment benefits like healthcare—all of which are common in public schools and rare in private ones.

Certain school costs like building maintenance are fixed in the short term, and thus, the savings of educating fewer students occurs in steps. This means that private school choice can temporarily decrease the funding per student in some public schools, but this is brief and slight because only 8% of public school spending is for operations and maintenance.

Second, school choice provides the most direct form of accountability, which is accountability to students and parents. With school choice, if parents are unhappy with any school, they have the ability to send their children to other schools. This means that every school is accountable to every parent.Under the current public education system, schools are accountable to government officials, not students and parents. Again, Hassan knows this, because her son has severe disabilities, and Hassan used her influence as a lawyer to get her son’s public elementary school to “accommodate his needs.”

Unlike Hassan, people without a law degree, extra time on their hands, or ample financial resources are at the mercy of politicians and government employees. Short of legal action or changing an election outcome, most children and parents are stuck with their public schools, regardless of whether they are effective or safe. That is precisely the situation that DeVos would like to fix through school choice, but Hassan talks as if DeVos were trying to do the opposite.

Third, taxpayer funds are commonly used for private schools, and Hassan actually wants more of this. Her campaign website states that she “will fight to expand Pell Grants” but fails to reveal that these are often used for private colleges like, for example, Brown University, the Ivy League school that she, her husband, and her daughter attended (disclosure: so did this author).

In other words, Hassan supports using taxpayer money for top students to attend elite private universities, but she opposes the same opportunity for poor students to attend private K-12 schools.

Hassan’s position on college aid also undercuts her objection that DeVos supports programs that “leave out students whose families cannot afford to pay the part of the tuition that the voucher does not cover.” If that were truly Hassan’s objection, she would also oppose aid that doesn’t cover the full costs of every college, because that would leave out students who can’t pay the rest of the tuition.

Fourth, contrary to Hassan’s rhetoric about accountability to taxpayers, she supports current spending levels in public K-12 schools, “debt-free public college for all,” and expanding “early childhood education” in spite of the facts that:

  • the U.S. spends an average of 31% more per K-12 student than other developed nations, but 15-year olds in the U.S. rank 31st among 35 nations in math.
  • federal, state, and local governments spend about $900 billion per year on formal education, but only 18% of U.S. residents aged 16 and older can correctly answer a word problem requiring the ability to search text, interpret it, and calculate using multiplication and division.
  • the average spending per public school classroom is $286,000 per year, but only 26% of the high school students who take the ACT exam meet its college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science).
  • federal, state and local governments spend $173 billion per year on higher education, but 80% of first-time, full-time students who enroll in a public community college do not receive a degree from the college within 150% of the normal time required to do so.
  • 4-year public colleges spend an average of $40,033 per year for each full-time student, but one-third of students who graduate from 4-year colleges don’t improve their “critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem-solving, and writing” skills by more than one percentage point over their entire college careers.
  • the federal government funds dozens of preschool programs, and the largest —Head Start—spends an average of $8,772 per child per year, but it produces no measurable benefit by the time students reach 3rd grade.

In sum, Hassan supports pumping taxpayer money into programs with high costs and substandard outcomes, but she opposes doing the same for private K–12 schools that produce better outcomes with far less cost.

Left Behind?

Hassan’s claim that private school choice programs “leave behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs” is also false.

In Northern and Central New Jersey, there are more than 30 private special education schools that are approved by the state. As far as parents are concerned, these schools serve the needs of their children better than the public schools in their areas. If this were not the case, these private schools would not exist.

More importantly, if parents don’t think that a private school will be best for their special needs child, school choice allows them to keep the child in a public school that is better-funded thanks to the money saved by school choice.

In a recent brief to the Nevada Supreme Court, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, and its state affiliate argue that free-market voucher programs will lead to “cream-skimming—the drawing away of the most advantaged students to private schools––and lead to a highly stratified system of education.”

As detailed above, the current public school system is highly stratified by income, and income and education go hand in hand. Hence, the real issue is not stratification but what happens to students who stay in public schools. Contrary to the belief that school choice will harm these students, a mass of evidence shows the opposite.

At least 21 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one found neutral-to-positive results, and none found negative results. This is consistent with the theory that school choice stimulates competition that induces public schools to improve.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

Wide-ranging facts prove that school choice is a win for students, parents, and taxpayers. However, it financially harms teachers unions by depriving them of dues, because private schools are less likely to have unions than public ones.

In turn, this financially harms Democratic politicians, political action committees, and related organizations, which have received about $200 million in reported donations from the two largest teachers’ unions since 1990. Unions also give many unreported donations to Democratic Party causes.

Teachers’ unions are firmly opposed to private school choice, and the National Education Association has sent an open letter to Democrats stating that “opposition to vouchers is a top priority for NEA.”

So why does Hassan oppose giving other children opportunities that she gave to her own children? Motives are difficult to divine, but the reasons she gave in her op-ed are at odds with verifiable facts and her own actions.

James Agresti

James Agresti

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a nonprofit institute dedicated to publishing verifiable facts about public policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bill to Shut U.S. Education Department Introduced in Congress

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sought to REDUCE security screening for Syrians in 2015

UPDATE: Who was that man over Senator Blumenthal’s left shoulder [in the above featured image]? That is CAIR-Connecticut’s Executive Director behind Senator Blumenthal. Getting pretty brazen aren’t they, or is Blumenthal just pretty dense to invite CAIR to be so prominently involved in lessening security screening for refugees?

Because he is all over the news today as the focal point in one more attack on President Donald Trump, I’m re-posting this story from 2015 so you know just who Senator Blumenthal is and why he must be pretty unhappy with Trump.

In 2015 Senator Blumenthal held a press conference with the director of CAIR Connecticut seeking to speed up Syrian refugees to America by reducing security screening requirements. 98% of Syrians entering the US are Muslims.

This is what I said October 7, 2015:

Yesterday we told you that Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is leading the charge to lessen the security screening for Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees and he wants to expand the so-called P-3 (fraud ridden!) family reunification program.

See yesterday’s post by clicking here. (Go there to see exactly how Senator Blumenthal wanted to make it easier for Syrians to get  through the refugee screening process.)

Now we know the answer to the question I asked all of you to help answer.  Looming over Blumenthal’s shoulder is none other than Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)- Connecticut director Mongi Dhaouadi.

(When I mentioned to a friend that I had updated my post with that information (thanks to Kyle), she suggested I write a second post because as a subscriber, who received the earlier one, she would not see the update.)

But it is worth mentioning again because this is now the second time we have seen CAIR involving itself directly in the Syrian (mostly Muslim) resettlement issue (and you can bet they are not advocating for the persecuted Syrian Christians).

Clearly their interest is in boosting the Muslim population in the US.

CAIR was here in the St. Louis ‘Bring them here march’ last month.

Here is Mr. Dhaouadi’s bio at CAIR’s website:  (update: Apparently Mr. Dhaouadi has moved on since I first wrote this story)

Mongi Dhaouadi
Executive Director

Mongi S. Dhaouadi was born and raised in Tunisia. He moved to the US when he was 19 years old and studied Electrical Engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. As The Executive director of CAIR-CT, he conducts civil rights workshops throughout the state of Connecticut under the title “Know Your Rights.” Also, he leads several workshops and discussions on Islamophobia and the Muslim experience before and after 9/11. He has participated in and led several media campaigns and press conferences on issues concerning the Muslim community ranging from discrimination cases to advocating for the change of racial profiling laws in the state of Connecticut. Dhaouadi was featured in countless local, national, and international media outlets including NPR, FOX News, and Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. During the summer, he runs a youth internship program during which high school and college students work on several projects ranging from preparing a toolkit on Islamic cultural competency for schools, to writing and publishing articles from a Muslim youth perspective in the local papers and publications. Dhaouadi leads a Connecticut delegation at the Capitol Hill visits; an event that is organized every year by CAIR National, where members of the Muslim community visit their representatives in Wasington, DC and advocate for issues of concern domestic and foreign. Prior to joining CAIR-CT on a full time bases Dhaouadi was the Head Administrator at SKF Academy in Hamden Connecticut. Dhaouadi is married with three children: ages 11, 14 and 18. He lives with his family in New London, Connecticut. His favorite past time is playing or coaching soccer.

So far Connecticut doesn’t get very many refugees compared to other states.  I guess Blumenthal and Dhaouadi would like to change that.

Is CAIR getting into the refugee resettlement program where you live?  Let me know.  And, while you are at it, see if you notice the involvement of Islamic Relief (USA) as well.

Go here to find the regional offices of Islamic Relief (USA) thanks to reader Cathy.

More on Connecticut here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Retired Dept. of State worker fully supports President Trump’s efforts to rein-in refugee program

Dept. of State bringing refugees in at furious rate

Will Trump Department of State be more forthcoming in response to FOIA requests?

List of Soros Politicians ‘Bought, Paid For’ Includes Republicans | Politics

Muslim in tweet ‘To infidels of the West’ Exposes the Truth about Radical Islam

 wrote on Twitter:

This Radical Islamist just commented this under one of my posts!

According to Democrats for Trump Adegoke O. Adebayo tweeted the following:

adebayo tweet

adebayo tweet 2

adebayo tweet 3

This lays out the strategy of radical Islam and who are their supporters and partners.

I have said that the Democrat Party is the party of Marx, Mohammed and Manning. Mr. Adebayo’s tweet appears to confirm my analysis.

RELATED ARTICLE: NEW AXIS OF EVIL Highly-trained Hamas commandos head to Egypt to team-up with terror group ISIS

VIOLENT ACTION ALERT: ‘Roudy As Hell Autonomous Rebels’ F17 Strike in Tucson, AZ

The demonstrations that seemingly just “pop-up” are not at all what they appear.

These are planned and well-coordinated acts of anarchy with the intent to promote destruction of property, both private and public, and to disrupt financial sectors creating financial loss and hardships on business. Those involved are trained in various forms of destruction including, but not limited to: physical violence, the setting of fires, breaking and entering, destruction of property, aggressive acts towards law enforcement. The information below substantiates what I just wrote, and the recent Berkeley campus riots are further proof of anarchists accomplishing far more than exercising their First Amendment Rights.

Tucson, Arizona downtown is now scheduled to experience a Berkeley-style demonstration.

An action notice to disrupt downtown Tucson on February 17th at the Ronstadt Transit Center has been posted by ItsGoingDown.org.


igd_square-300x300F17 Tucson: Strike Is a Verb!

No Pipelines or Presidents on Stolen Land. Or Anywhere.

For a World Without Borders, Prisons, or Police.

        To be sure, No Ban – No Wall.

Always Anti-Capitalist, Always Anti-Fascist,

          Rowdy As Hell.

In response to the call for a national general strike on February 17th, a group of autonomous rebels hope to open up space for resistance here on occupied Tohono O’odham land, Tucson, Arizona.

Meeting at 6PM at the Ronstadt Transit Center downtown, we will gather with the intention of being as disruptive as possible. In order to not be complicit in the continued destruction of the earth, in the cycle of genocide and fear mongering and racist hate, we have to choose to disobey. We must make it impossible for this system to govern on stolen land.

Participants are encouraged to come organized to carry out whatever plans you can come up with – our intention is to open up a space to make varied forms of resistance possible depending on YOUR desires! Anyone without the capacity or desire to come with a prepared group is, of course, absolutely welcome and encouraged to show up! Some resources on organizing affinity groups to carry out actions in the safest and most effective ways possible can be found here and here.

Read more…

Communist Party USA: Eager to Work with the Democratic Party to Advance Communist Goals

Upon its inception in 1919, the CPUSA was inextricably linked to the Soviet Communist International (Comintern), which was controlled by Moscow leadership and possessed “uncontested authority” over all international parties. When it was founded, the Party had approximately 50,000 members.

By the 1920s, the CPUSA’s membership had dwindled to approximately 15,000 because the Comintern forced it to adopt an ultra-revolutionary stance and give up attempts at “coalition building.” The Great Depression presented the Party with an opportunity to recruit and build its membership. Thus the CPUSA used hard times as a propaganda tool to assail the failure of capitalism, targeting particularly the liberal policies of the early FDR administration while successfully infiltrating government agencies, notably the Agricultural Adjustment Administration.

In 1935, with the rise of Nazism, the Comintern changed its policy and adopted the Popular Front tactic, which allowed the CPUSA to pose as the anti-fascist defenders of American liberalism. As Earl Bowder, the leader of the CPUSA from 1935 to 1945, declared, “Communism is Twentieth-Century Americanism.” This new tactic increased the Party’s membership to nearly 100,000 people — its high point — , and it simultaneously allowed the Party to infiltrate a whole host of liberal institutions and use them as front groups. The CPUSA worked especially on becoming a presence within the powerful labor federation, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (which would later merge with the American Federation of Labor, to become the AFL-CIO).

In 1939, the Nazi-Soviet pact brought an end to the CPUSA’s anti-fascist pose. Soon after, the Party returned to its prior aggressive denunciations of mainstream American politics — a move that eventually brought about a collapse in membership, especially when the Party reversed course once again with Hitler’s invasion of the USSR.

After World War II ended, Soviet hostility to the West surfaced once more. In 1944, U.S. Army cryptanalysts broke the code to the KGB’s communications, and by 1948 the Venona project had identified hundreds of espionage operatives in the United States. Although the Roosevelt administration had dismissed Republican assertions that Communists had infiltrated the New Deal, by the late 1940s the Truman administration began to treat the internal Communist threat as a very serious matter.

In 1948, Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, both former Communists, testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that Communists had operated in the Roosevelt administration — especially Alger Hiss, who had served as a top official in the State Department. In January 1950, Hiss was convicted. A year later, on March 6, 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, members of the CPUSA and militant Stalinists, were put on trial for espionage and were executed two years later in 1953.  Generations of radicals perceived them as martyrs for the cause and, to this day, many still protest their guilt, even though evidence continues to prove that they engaged in a conspiracy to steal the atomic secrets of the United Stated and deliver them to the USSR.

Joseph McCarthy, United States Senator from Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957, became the most famous and aggressive politician to take up the anti-Communism banner. In 1950, although the purge of the CPUSA from American politics was well underway, McCarthy used anti-Communist sentiment to gain power. Claiming that he was in possession of a list of Communists in the State Department and later in the Truman administration and the U.S. Army, McCarthy propelled himself into the national limelight. His influence was to be short-lived, however; in 1954 he was censured by the Senate for abusing his legislative power. Rather than weeding out Communists in government, McCarthy’s methods became a boon to the radical Left. By evoking the specter of open-ended witch-hunts, he gave the Communist Left a banner around which to regroup.

As the Cold War developed and Congressional legislation targeted its revolutionary activities, the CPUSA had to retreat underground.  In 1956, Nikita Khrushchev’s “secret speech” — denouncing the crimes of Josef Stalin and the Soviet invasion of Hungary — further depleted the CPUSA’s membership, which fell to 3,000.  In 1959, Gus Hall became the leader of a marginalized CPUSA that was a diminished shell of what it had been a generation earlier.

Although the CPUSA’s support of the Soviet invasions of Prague and Afghanistan continued to brand the Party as part of the Old Left, it began to see some increased membership in the 1970s. Some previous Party members now felt it safe to rejoin the organization, and a small number of 1960s radicals also joined the Party.

From its inception, the CPUSA had put resources into recruiting African Americans into ranks. While this effort never yielded many members and collapsed with the advent of the Civil Rights movement in the late 1950s, Herbert Aptheker, a long-time member and founder of the American Institute for Marxist Studies, and Angela Davis now attempted to incorporate racial radicalism into the Party.

While its goal has always been the development of a national Communist Party, in 1984 the CPUSA began to give indirect support to the Democrat Party as the only alternative to the conservatism of the Reagan era. In 1987 Mikhail Gorbachev introduced Perestroika to the Soviet Union, leading eventually to the near disintegration of the CPUSA. In 1992 Herbert Apthetker and Angela Davis split away from the Party to found the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

In 2008 the CPUSA built what it termed “a labor and people’s alliance” to support Barack Obama’s presidential bid. On January 31, 2009, Sam Webb, the current leader of the CPUSA, gave a speech celebrating that “a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House.” He described President Obama’s inauguration as a sign that “an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.” According to Webb, the new administration was already considering “a new model of governance” that “would challenge corporate power, profits and prerogatives.”

In October 2010, CPUSA national executive vice-chair Jarvis Tyner spoke in Detroit on the need to for “left and progressive”-minded Americans to vote for Democrats in the upcoming midterm election.

On November 3, 2010 — the day after mid-term elections in which Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, more than 60 House seats, and 7 governorships — CPUSA Labor Commission chairman Scott Marshall emphasized that his organization had worked collaboratively on political campaigns with AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. SaidMarshall:

“The continuing independence of the labor movement was heightened tremendously by the election, and in very specific ways, not just in general. Not only did the campaigning take place from union hall[s],… but this time, as Trumka told us when he was in Chicago, they began the nuts and bolts [of] building independent labor campaign organizations in five key cities around the country.”

Also on November 3, 2010, the CPUSA praised the Obama administration for having “accomplished many things.” Moreover, the Party:

  • complained that prior to the previous day’s elections, a “corporate-Republican alliance depended on lies, fear, and hatred to spread its message”;
  • praised labor unions for having worked to raise “class consciousness”; and
  • asserted that a key CPUSA priority for the immediate future would be “to deepen and expand class-consciousness.”

Late in 2010, CPUSA member C.J. Atkins called for his comrades to drop their “communist” label, so that they could work more effectively inside the Democratic Party. Soon thereafter, Joe Sims, co-editor of the CPUSA publication Peoples World, acknowledged not only that collaboration with the the Democrats “will be an area of engagement for those wanting to make a difference,” but also that communists might someday be able to “capture” the Democratic Party entirely. Sims warned, however, against dissolving the CPUSA entirely into the Democratic Party. Rather, he advised his organization to remain a separate entity, working both inside and outside the Democratic Party as circumstances required.

On December 5, 2010, the CPUSA held an awards ceremony in Connecticut, where it honored, among others, John Olsen, head of the Connecticut AFL-CIO.

CPUSA’s modus operandi is to delegitimize and smear American society by depicting it as deeply and irremediably infested with racism, sexism, homophobia, and all manner of injustice. Click here, for instance, for an explanation of how the organization in 2014 used its flagship publication, People’s World, to foment racial strife in Ferguson, Missouri, in the aftermath of a white police officer’s fatal shooting of a black suspect.

In January 2015, CPUSA National Committee chairman John Bachtell published an essay in People’s World stating that American Communists were eager to work with the Democratic Party in order to advance communist goals. He wrote, for instance:

“[L]abor and other key social forces are not about to leave the Democratic Party anytime soon. They still see Democrats as the most realistic electoral vehicle to advance their agenda, especially in the national battle against the extreme right. Their main goal at this time is changing DP policies and approaches away from influences of the Wall Street wing and the more conservative elements…. First, we are part of building the broadest anti-ultra right alliance possible…. This necessarily means working with the Democratic Party. Second, our objective is not to build the Democratic Party. At this stage we are about building the broad people’s movement led by labor that utilizes the vehicle of the Democratic Party to advance its agenda. We are about building the movements around the issues roiling wide sections of people that can help shape election contours and debates…. [W]e are for building movements in the electoral arena and see engagement in the electoral arena and democratic governance as a vital means to further build movements.”

CPUSA is a member organization of the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition. The group also has strong ties to China, Cuba, and other nations hostile to the United States.

Socialist Alternative: Fighting to Undermine President Trump and Transform America

Inspired by the example of the United Kingdom-based group known as Militant Tendency, Socialist Alternative (SA) is a Trotskyist revolutionary political party that first emerged in the U.S. as “Labor Militant” in 1986. A decentralized entity with branches of varying sizes and levels of activity in almost 50 American cities, SA proudly claims to be “in political solidarity” with the Committee for a Workers’ International, which is a worldwide socialist organization with a presence in nearly four dozen countries. On the premise that “the global capitalist system” is “the root cause” of “poverty,” “discrimination,” “war,” “inequality,” and “environmental destruction,” SA aims to promote the creation of “a socialist United States and a socialist world.” Asserting that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” SA instead advocates a form of “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over [their] daily lives.”

sacovers

In the late 1990s, SA tried to help the now-defunct U.S. Labor Party to advocate for electoral opposition to Democratic Party politicians, whom SA viewed as being too moderate.

SA was particularly active in the anti-globalization movement from 1998-2002, and it continues to speak out against free trade and capitalism today.

In 2004, SA members initiated Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR), a project that sought to persuade high-school students to resist military recruitment efforts and oppose the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beginning in September 2011, SA supported the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Early the following month, SA issued a statement of solidarity with OWS.

In the fall of 2011 as well, SA endorsed a national “Jobs Not Cuts” campaign in response to proposed congressional budget cuts. This initiative was endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, Jill Stein, Veterans for Peace, the American Federation of Teachers, Students for a Democratic Society, and the International Socialist Organization, among others.

On the premise that “the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business” and are thus unworthy of holding political power, SA seeks to “build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.” In 2013, SA for the first time ran, on its own ticket, two openly socialist candidates – Ty Moore and Kshama Sawant – in carefully selected political races. The results were encouraging for SA: Moore lost his bid for a Minneapolis city council seat to Democrat Alondra Cano by a mere 229 votes, while Sawant won a seat in the Seattle city council by defeating longtime Democratic incumbent Richard Conlin by more than 1,000 votes. Two years later, Ms. Sawant was re-elected.

In the wake of Republican Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election of November 2016, SA helped organize massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests in cities across the United States. Other notable organizers of these disruptions included the ANSWER Coalition, the Occupy Movement, and MoveOn.org.

Professing an uncompromising commitment to “fighting for the 99%,” SA supports measures that would: raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour “as a step toward a living wage for all”; provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; ensure “free … health care for all” in a system of “fully socialized medicine”; forbid any “budget cuts to education and social services”; impose “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business”; ensure “a minimum guaranteed weekly income of $600/week for the unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, and others unable to work”; “shorten the workweek with no loss in pay and benefits”; and institute “public ownership” of “bankrupt and failing companies” as well as “the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy.”

To promote “environmental sustainability,” SA demands that America’s federal and state governments “fight climate change” by minimizing the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with human industrial activity. Toward that end, the organization recommends “massive public investment in renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies to rapidly replace fossil fuels”; “a major expansion of public transportation”; and “democratic public ownership of the big energy companies, retooling them for socially necessary green production.”

In its “Equal Rights for All” initiative, SA supports the Black Lives Matter effort to “build a mass movement against police brutality and the institutional racism of the criminal justice system.” Further, SA favors massive “invest[ment] in rehabilitation, job-training, and living-wage jobs, not prisons”; the abolition of the death penalty; the “immediate, unconditional legalization and equal rights for all undocumented immigrants”; “free reproductive services, including… abortions”; “at least 12 weeks of paid family leave for all”; and “universal … publicly run child care.”

With regard to national security and defense issues, SA demands that the federal government “slash the military budget” of the United States, shut down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and repeal the PATRIOT Act.

To help promote and disseminate its ideological precepts and political agendas as effectively as possible, SA publishes a newspaper out of its New York City location.

SA supported the presidential campaigns of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2012 the organization supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and in 2016 it backed Bernie Sanders.

Trump Could Simply Ignore Court’s Order Halting Travel Ban

Does our current status quo make our Constitution a suicide pact? Thomas Jefferson certainly said as much, warning that accepting judicial supremacy would make our founding document just that, a felo de se, as he put it in Latin.

Acceptance of judicial supremacy, by the way, is precisely why President Trump’s temporary ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations is on hold. Imagine that, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78 that the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch of government because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse,” yet it’s trumping the man with the sword, the president. But does it have to be this way?

No, Trump could simply ignore the court ruling suspending his ban.

Outrageous!? Unconstitutional!? Actually, it’s wholly constitutional.

In his dissent from the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges marriage ruling, late Justice Antonin Scalia warned that with “each decision… unabashedly based not on law,” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” What did Scalia know about courts’ power?

That it’s basically an illusion.

Let’s do a civics quiz. Why does the legislative branch have the power to make law? Why does the executive branch (presidency) have the power to enforce law? The answer in both cases is because the Constitution grants it.

Okay, now how is it that the judiciary has the “power” to rule on law and have its decisions constrain not just its own branch, but the other two as well? How have the courts become king? Because the Constitution grants…no, stop. It’s not in the Constitution — anywhere.

Rather, this “power” was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.

That’s right, the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the supreme power to have the final say on laws’ meaning.

It’s a great con if you can pull it off.

The point is that the judiciary enjoys this power at the executive branch’s pleasure. As soon as the latter says, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, “The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it,” that power goes bye-bye. The judiciary is reminded of its impotence.

So it isn’t just that the courts lack the sword or purse, the possession and exercise of which could simply amount to might making right. They also have no constitutional claim to judicial supremacy. In fact, the power is a violation of everything for which America stands.

Jefferson explained why in 1820, writing that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy.” This is where we are now, and have long been — suicide-pact territory. The will of a nation 320-million strong is expressed through its duly elected representatives and laws are passed….

And then that will is thwarted by five black-robed lawyers in a central-government tribunal.

Does this sound like a government of, by and for the people to you?

As time has worn on, the judiciary has become increasingly brazen, issuing rulings more and more distant from the Constitution. This is no surprise. As Jefferson put it, “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.”

They even conjure up rationalizations justifying this power and privilege. For example, they long ago invented, out of thin air, the concept of the Constitution as a “living document” that can be interpreted to “suit the times.” Yet since the interpretations so often conflict with popular will, the only common thread is that they suit the judges.

These esteemed jurists then put a veneer of legitimacy on their violation of law and duty by assigning themselves an intellectual-sounding designation. “Why, we’re not constrained by a 200-year-old piece of parchment like those knuckle-dragging originalists,” they say, “We’re ‘pragmatists’!”

To understand how outrageous this is, consider an analogy touched on by Chief Justice John Roberts when, during his confirmation hearings, he said his job was only “to call balls and strikes.” Expanding on this, judges can in fact be thought of as baseball umpires, while the game’s ruling body is the legislature and the rule book is the Constitution. Now, what if an umpire considered the rule book living and said, “With the great pitchers in these times, three strikes are insufficient; I’m giving the batter four strikes”? What if he then stated, “I’m not abdicating my duty. I’m a pragmatist!”

Would this be taken seriously? Or would he be laughed off the diamond?

Obviously, it’s the job of the ruling body to alter the rules if necessary. Likewise, there is a lawful way to make the Constitution “live”: the Amendment Process. It’s long and difficult, and this ensures that before a change is made, a majority of the people agrees. This brings us to the problem with it — from the judiciary’s perspective:

Judges can’t control it.

So they usurp the people’s power with a wink and a nod. They must be stopped.

There’s more than one way to do this. Another little known fact is that Article III of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on immigration (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues.

Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court, except for the SCOTUS. So it could have made the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — a bench of fools now reviewing Trump’s immigration ban — disappear long ago.

Yet this would require that our cowardly politicians take a real stand on a contentious issue. They’d rather that judges, who don’t have to be re-elected, make the tough decisions. They can then pretend they did all they could and say, “The courts have ruled. The law’s the law!”

So is it any surprise the courts are going rogue? “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” as Lord Acton warned. And how can we have a balance of power among the three governmental branches, as the founders intended, when two branches refuse to exercise their power?

I’ve heard it said that if the president ignored the courts, it would spark a constitutional crisis. Newsflash: When a branch of government is continually trampling the rights of others and violating the Constitution, we’re already in a constitutional crisis. Showing the judiciary its impotence isn’t the disease — it’s the cure.

Only power neutralizes power. It’s shocking how we’ve betrayed the letter and spirit of our nation’s founding and have allowed the courts to run amok. We can continue drinking the judicial-supremacy Kool-Aid and committing national suicide, or we can drain the swamp infested with black-robed tyrants. It’s impotence for them — or irrelevancy for us.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Admin Releases List of Terrorist Suspect Cases From Travel Ban Countries – The Geller Report