Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Article Five Convention Could Save America

Our founding fathers were insightful guys!

From the outset, there was always a lurking fear that the government that they were creating might someday get away from the people that it was supposed to serve. Sadly that day has come.

I have attended "Convention of States" meetings. I have read carefully their positions. Most, if not all, I support.

For those not familiar, here is the skinny: We need 34 states to agree to hold a convention. But first, we must define the stark distinction between an Article Five convention and a Constitutional Convention. It's confusing!

In an Article Five Convention, the states "pre-set conditions within the existing structure." In a constitutional convention, it's more about "rewriting the government outside the existing structure."

I have heard horrible predictions by noteworthy people, regarding the dangers of a Constitutional convention. It amounts to anything can happen, depending on "who" is most influencing the convention.

An Article Five Convention poses fewer surprises. 34 states meet and make alterations within the existing structure.

Co-founder, Michael Ferris explains the distinction. The objectives are,

Reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
Fiscal restraint through a balanced budget amendment.
Enacting term limits for elected federal officials, including Supreme Court Justices.

Thus far, 15 of the needed 34 states have signed on.

When I attended a rally held in Frankfort, Kentucky it became painfully apparent Kentucky was not going to be an easy addition. Many in attendance who otherwise supported the measures, didn't like the idea of term limiting a Kentucky Senator, who had made his way to Majority leader!

There are others who are saying, "no so fast," when it comes to a balanced budget amendment!

In short, while the proposed measures gather justified support, the question becomes, "can we ever expect to gain participation from the required 34 states?

Here is a thought. "What if we focused on some critical issues that would address some current stalemates in Washington?"

Such as,

+- Making English official language in the U.S.
+- Mandating that ONLY American Citizens are allowed to vote
+- Requiring that all voters present photo identification at a polling center. No "ballot harvesting." Any absentee ballot would need to be applied for at the county clerk's office thirty days prior to the election.
+- Congressional Representation would be based of U.S. Citizens, not persons. When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an "American Citizen." You were a citizen of the state you resided.
+- Birthright citizenship would be defined as "any person born in the U.S. who was previously engaged in involuntary servitude or who had no previous status."
+- Chain Migration would be defined as "an immediate family member only."

I have no doubt that we can get 34 states to agree to these specifications!

Make no mistake! There should be discussion regarding reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Term limits should be on the table! And we must get our fiscal house in order! Yet, can we do these things before it's too late!

For skeptics, take a look at California! Facts are facts! We are running out of time!

America stands at a crossroads! We can "swing for the fences," hoping to hit a home run. Or, we can play "small ball," temporarily settling for singles and doubles.

It begins with returning control of the country to American citizens.



Sunday, September 8, 2019

Green New Deal May Run Through Russia- Part II

Last month, I posted what some might consider a preposterous idea: "Working with Russia to reduce global carbon emissions."

In fairness, there might be an insightful few who would ask, "Even if we offered to foot the tab, could we honestly trust Putin to do his part?"

To fully gain a valid answer, one merely needs to place themselves in Putin's, and most Russians' shoes for an instant. Their predicted response would be, "could we trust the Americans who were making such a proposal?"

Which brings us to their next question: "Which Americans?"

Russian intelligentsia concludes correctly that there are two Americas, vying for power and control in the United States. They have identified the two factions as "faith based, national populists," who are backing the President, and "secular, global socialists," who oppose him.

To do anything with the United States amounts to knowing "which" America that you are negotiating with.

Did the Russian leadership favor Trump's election. Yes, but for different reasons than most American media elites will acknowledge.

Contrary to popular opinion, Putin and his inside circle, are not the Communists. In fact, they are the opponents of the Communists in Russia.

Since 1993 Gennady Zyuganov had been the leader of the Russian Communist Party. Last year, the 73-year-old Zyuganov announced that he would not oppose Putin in the upcoming election. Instead, he was passing the mantle to 57-year-old Pavel Grudinin, who ran and lost.

The background of Pavel Grudinin is a separate topic for a different post. But, it should be noted that Zyuganov and Grudinin are friends with John Brennan, who served as C.I.A. Director under Barack Obama.

Putin and Associates see the commonalities between Donald Trump's opponents and their own. They see Trump as a Nationalist, which makes him both a more difficult negotiator, but easier to figure.

Putin is also a Nationalist. He loves Russia and doesn't have a problem with Trump's "America first" ideology. If anything, he admires Trump for making a point of it!

As one Putin surrogate phraised, "Putin is "nash ceela moosheena."(Our strong man) Trump is "vash ceela moosheena."(Your strong man).

Most recall the almost fanatical fixation Trump's opponents and Democrats held when Trump met with Putin in Helsinki. Some even wanted to interrogate the translator!

The fear is simple: "Trump and Putin might just cut a deal, that would derail their globalist agenda permanently."

It's a foregone conclusion that Putin would be willing to cut a deal with Trump. And Trump would be willing to "lock in granite" any deal that was favorable to Nationalist America.

Putin would see a "green new deal" instigated by Trump as an opportunity to work out other differences. Starting with Russian return to the G-7. Trump has already hinted that he thinks it's a good idea, while admitting that Putin might be too proud to embrace such an overture.

Then comes the new "Start" treaty, followed by the lifting of sanctions and the recognition of Crimean annexation. Neo-Cons, most Democrats and of course, the mainstream media, would likely experience convulsions!

Calls for impeachment would dominate the airwaves!

Yet, there would be an unanswered question: "What would the President get in return?"

Putin is nobody's fool! He would know that to gain those concessions, he would need to offer something in return. The idea of global carbon emission reduction would not be unwelcomed. In fact, it would be the foundation for something much bigger.

Let's start with Russia, Ukraine and Georgia becoming part of N.A.T.O. Unbeknownst to most, this was the secret want a decade ago. It could still happen. Could it happen? Those former Warsaw Pact nations would oppose it. Primarily because they didn't then and still don't trust the Russians. The rest of Europe could see logic behind peaceful relations throughout the continent.

Russians have made it clear that they were interested in "integrating, not submitting" to N.A.T.O. This would be a giant step. They would know that to gain such statue, there would need to be serious concessions.

Starting with peace in Eastern Ukraine, allowing Ukraine total access to the Sea of Azov. There would be Russian withdrawal of troops from the Transdneistria region of Moldova, allowing Ukraine to access this "Delaware sized" strip of Moldova, while allowing Moldova to reunite with Romania.

Russia would join the U.S. in mandating to Kim Jong Un, that "nuclear options would not be allowed on the peninsula."

Russia would exit the Western Hemisphere, abandoning Soviet vintage allies, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Russia would even help the United States establish an independent Kurdistan in Kurd held provinces, jointly committing to a condition of religious freedom for all.

It would be called, "an exchange of ideas." To insure that neither side regressed, America would adopt Russia's gender standards. Russia would adopt America's federal land bank. More on both in a future post.

Meanwhile, America's current emission standards would not only be adopted by Russia, but adopted, under the threat of sanctions, by China and India. In reality, this is the only "New Green Deal that will be a New Green Deal."

The bald truth about A.O.C. and friends version of the Green New Deal is that it won't work. But, reduction of carbon emission isn't the objective.

Simply put, it's about "recreating the Soviet Union in America." Nothing more. Nothing less.

Why?

It's called "power." THEIR power! It is incomprehensible the absolute power that A.O.C. and friends would gain, if they forced their Marxists agenda upon the well intended, but feckless American mainstream.

That the mainstream media would advocate such a ruse is inexcusable. But, they are part of it. Never forget this.

















Monday, September 2, 2019

Immigration Debate Fraught with Demagoguery

Immigration remains a hot topic for much of America. Most disquieting is how much "demagoguery" has slipped into the discussion!

At the center is "birthright citizenship." Over the decades, the idea that "if you were born in the U.S., you were automatically a citizen," was strategically spawned. Yet, in returning to that 1868 Reconstruction Congress and examining the actual intentions of the authors, a different meaning becomes plainly evident.

Two groups were included. "People who had been previously engaged in involuntary servitude." And, "people born in the U.S., who held no previous status." That's it! No other groups were included. No outside circumstances were considered.

Case in point: The Native American did not gain citizenship until 1924. Case closed!

Chain Migration is a bit more subjective. Was it intended for immediate family members only? Or, were extended families afforded the same inclusion?

Herein lies part of our nation's emerging "clash of perceptions."

Two points of view: (a) Open borders, anyone can come and bring along their distant relatives. (b) We should be more selective with whom we allow into the country, because half the planet would love to be here.

Those supporting "A" are quick to call "B" supporters, "racists."

Those supporting "B" respond in saying, "we need immigrants who can immediately assimilate and contribute; not
jump on the entitlement rolls!"

In 2008, then Louisiana Senator, David Vitter introduced legislation that would base Congressional representation on "U.S. citizens and not persons." To the average American, this amounted to nothing more than "semantics." A deeper look acknowledged that if adopted, California would lose six house seats, New York two and Illinois one. Nine different states would gain seats.

What does the Constitution say?

It says "persons." Because, at the time of it's writing, there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen. You were a citizen of your state. Many U.S. residents held citizenship in another country as recently as 1900.

Senator Vitter's proposed legislation never made it out of committee. Yet, there remains strong support for it's adoption. So strong that if advocates of an Article Five Convention were smart, they would make this measure their top initiative! I have no doubt that the necessary 34 states would vote to adopt this standard!

Perhaps this is where our immigration discussion needs to begin. The United States was always meant to be a "melting pot." Not a "salad bowl!" We are a nation of immigrants. We need immigrants. The question becomes, "do we want immigrants who want to adopt our culture?" Or, "are we looking for immigrants who want to bring their culture to our shores?"

Hence our "clash of perceptions!'

Most disturbing is how one side, when sensing that they are losing the argument, readily turns to "racism" as the true position held by the other side. This is the worst kind of demagoguery!

Our country is unique. Most of us can claim ancestry that came from another land, seeking something better. In doing so, we have founded the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Those who disagree, probably don't need to be here.

Oops! I recently recall the current President suggesting something along those lines. He was called everything from a bigot to racist to a NAZI to a white supremacist!

From childhood, I recall a popular assertion: "America. Love her or leave her!" Never heard was the cry of "racist or bigot or NAZI or White Supremacist!"

My, how things have changed!

Maybe it's because there is an agenda behind this belief that it's okay to trash out country. Perhaps there are those who are inwardly embarrassed by our success as a nation. I do recall a previous president rushing to Europe to launch an "apology tour."

What I still can't fathom is "what was he apologizing for?" Saving it from Hitler?

When seen in this light, a new question emerges: "Are those who prescribe to position "A" the true fascists?" Jonah Goldberg thought so! In his book, "Liberal Fascism," he revealed a chilling hint that through political correctness, AKA "Cultural Marxism," those proponents of position "A" would ultimately squelch all opposition.

Sound familiar?

Riding point in this discussion is Immigration.

Should we open our borders and allow anyone who can make it here entry? Should these "newcomers" be afforded the right to participate in elections? Should they gain access to entitlement rolls?"

The "A" camp would proclaim, "absolutely, positively, definitely."

The "B" camp proposes that immigration be "merit based." Or, in the words of the current House Speaker, a plan to "white-a-size" America.

Is there no end in sight?











Sunday, August 18, 2019

Green New Deal Runs Through Russia

Forget about A.O.C.'s Green New Deal! It is a ruse; a wily effort to slip Communism through the back door!

The Soviet Union controlled their population by essentially impoverishing them. In grounding, disarming and making Americans Vegans, the A.O.C. crowd will have done the same to their countrymen.

Make no mistake! This Green New Deal is about certain people gaining power. Real concerns are irrelevant.

Case in point: Many communities in rural America do not have access to clean drinking water, thanks to outdated infrastructure. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the costs of remedying the looming water crisis might take $190 billion in the decades to come.

Being forced to follow through with the Obama plan; to cut gas greenhouse emissions 80% by 2050 came with a price tag of $5.3 trillion dollars, per Columbia Business School economist, Geoffrey Heal. There would obviously been little money remaining for clean drinking water in rural America!

In truth, Obama's plan amounted to an excuse to push a Socialist, Globalist agenda. According to Heal, the plan would have had a marginal, if any effect on global temperatures!

Global temperatures have been rising and falling for eons. During the Minoan Warm Period,1300-1000 B.C., the Earth was about five degrees Celsius warmer than today's average. Today, Earth's temperatures are comparable to the Roman era. When Columbus was discovering the New World, we were probably three degrees cooler than today. That period was known as the "Little Ice Age."

Billions have been spent on research. Yet Government funded scientists have ignored evidence that global warming has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions.

This is the real problem! As carbon emissions go, we do have a problem. But, fixing the problem doesn't amount to destroying American prosperity. We already ARE the example for the rest of the world! And don't bring up our pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord! That amounted to "trusting" the United Nations with 100 million of our dollars. I don't think so...

Here are the facts about bringing about a real Green New Deal: We must forced China and India to comply. In essence, we must successfully pressure them to adopt our standard. And that won't happen. Unless, we have help...

From Russia? Are we kidding ourselves. Russia has nearly as bad of an environmental record as the Soviet Union had. How could they be anything but a nuisance, if not a deterrent?

When I first visited Russia in 1998, I was astounded to learn that the average life expectancy for Russian men was but 57! Medical sources cited the fact that 70% of Russian men smoked cigarettes, often of the highest nicotine content. Then there was the inexpensive, often preferred beverage of choice: Vodka! Today, most of those in power during Gorbachev's years are six feet under.

Gradually these old Soviet types are being replaced by the "Children of Perestroika;" those in middle and high school during Gorbachev's time. These Russians have lived for the most part with computers, cell phones and world access. Many are noticeably embarrassed with the nations' recent environmental record.

In short, America will eventually need to come to terms with Russia on a number of key issues. This might be the starting point. If we come up with a plan that we can adopt; and that amounts to American financial help for Russia to implement our emission standards, it's probable that we will gain immediate European support. At that point, our "New Green Alliance" can pretty much mandate the plan to the rest of the planet. That's the real "New Green Deal!"

The biggest opponents will likely be 70's and 80's Vintage Cold Warriors still in power, who are stuck in Gorbachev's day. Their Soviet/Russian counterparts have already passed. Now, we must either vote them out of office, or wait for them to retire, or die.






Sunday, January 27, 2019

Pelosi's Posture Assuring Trump's 2020 Re-election?

Nancy Pelosi is an vain, egotistical 79-year-old woman; the proverbial "poster girl" as to why we need congressional term limits.

Through the past week, never once was it mentioned that Donald Trump receive 306 electoral college votes in the 2016 election. Nor was it admitted that Pelosi represents one of the most "far left fringe" congressional districts in America.

Two nights ago, my wife issued a startling metaphor: She called Robert Mueller "Stalin."

This came on the heels of another metaphor: "CNN is America's Pravda."

Interesting that such an assertion would come from someone who spent her first 25 years in the former Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it is more fact than fantasy!

When I speak to friends from Alaska to Florida, from California to Maine(as I have done during in the past two weeks), it seems that literally EVERYONE favors building not simply a barrier, but a serious border wall that will inhibit traffic. I found one person, a 26 year-old-male who lived at home with his mother, who said that a wall "didn't feel right."

Yet, "polls" say otherwise. But who are these respondents? Perhaps they are they same the respondents who had Hillary Clinton winning by 7 to 14 points, the day before the 2016 presidential election.

Yesterday, Louisiana Senator, Bill Cassidy noted that "four billion dollars" had been apprehended from Mexican drug cartels in 2018. "There is the money for the wall." said the Senator. "If you go back to what was captured in 2017 and 2016, there is even more money."

Money for the wall. Mexico, in effect pays for it. Trump makes good on a campaign promise. Borders are better secured. End of discussion. Right?

Unfortunately, the discussion has gone past securing the borders. It is now a matter of Trump not being allowed to add "building a wall" to his growing string of accomplishments. The question becomes, "are Democrats that petty?"

Pelosi is. She sees Trump's agreeing to reopen the government without 100% assurance of a wall being included, as a political victory. In her mind, it was never about securing the wall, the dreamers or anything other than winning a political argument.

Should Trump simply declare an emergency? Who would object to his using confiscated drug money to achieve this goal? Chuck and Nancy would! But, they are only thinking about political aspects.

Trump knows that he will ultimately face the 9th district if he declares a national emergency. At that point, it would be a year long wait for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court. These same polls are suggesting that Americans oppose his declaring an emergency.

For those who bother to read history, Abe Lincoln made some calls that were not too popular! Had they taken polls during that time, it's likely that his approval rating would have hovered in the high 20's. Lincoln knew that in order to preserve the nation as we knew it, he would need to make some unpopular decisions.

This Lincoln did, knowing that if he did not, a determined minority might find that magic moment where they could defy the odds and achieve their objective.

That magic moment came in September 1862. CSA General Kirby Smith had between 18,000 and 20,000 battle tested, Confederate troops in Lexington. He had learned from Calvary General John Scott that the Union had "less than 5,000 raw levies" guarding Louisville.

Had Smith moved on Louisville, the Union would have evacuated the city. British Prime Minister, David Palmerston would have moved forward with his bill to recognize the Confederacy as a Sovereign nation. The American Civil War would have been over. In spite of the odds, the Southern states would have gained their independence.

Why Kirby Smith did not move is another topic for a different post. The parallel is noteworthy, in that Donald J. Trump has the machinery to end the border question, once and for all. Will he use it?

Many on the inner circle suggest that Pelosi's stiff necked, stubborn posture, coupled with the Democrats inability to find a strong challenger, will ice the 2020 election for the President. Perhaps they are right. But, what if they are not?

The country needs major immigration reform. Nearly everybody is in agreement on this subject. But, where is the compromise?

In a true compromise, neither side is totally happy. To the President's credit, he has tried to find some middle ground. The fact that the other side has shown virtually no interest in compromise, suggests that there is a motive that goes beyond the question of "do we or don't we build a border wall."

Maybe that motive is to sufficiently change the American demography just enough to tip the scales in states like Texas. This past weekend, it was discovered that 58,000 illegal votes have been tabulated over the past four years in the Lone Star state. In a close election, this could prove decisive.

We all know about California's "ballot harvesting" this past election.

And how about this endless Mueller probe? What I cannot fathom, is "why" similar action has not been taken against Hillary Clinton? Or, Obama for that matter?

We all hope that tomorrow morning, we'll awaken to a world of no media bias, no election fraud, no endless, politically inspired probes and no prejudice against insuring the safety of American citizens.

Sadly, we are not dealing with a foe that actually "gives a shit" about American citizens!

When traditional Democrats put "two and two together," many will walk away. After all, this isn't the party of Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton.

"Give us a crime, we'll find a man." Or, "it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes." In the end, as Harvard Law Emeritus, Alan Gershoeitz, describes, "the criminalization of politics."

How utterly "Soviet!" Joseph Stalin would have been proud!

Does Nancy Pelosi see this?

Of course she does. She isn't stupid. The sad thing is that she doesn't care! She is consumed with winning a political argument and is obsessed with her hatred of Donald Trump. That is all.

Could it be enough to insure the president's reelection in 2020?

Too early to tell. There are other factors that will play in. My biggest concern in the near inevitability of voter fraud. "Where" and "to what extent" will be key questions.

Conversely, if the President declares an emergency, it will ignite a firestorm in the Democrat party. Even, if he announces that he will use confiscated monies from captured Mexican Drug lords. To his opponents, this would represent a win for the President and a fulfilled promise to his base.

Polls or no polls, border security is a winning issue for the president. Better to do as Lincoln did: Make a tough decision, knowing that the people who put you in power favor it, taking your chances with those who already oppose you on everything.

Which brings us to the final question: "When you know who your true opponent is and know that their desire is to destroy this nation, do you even want to allow this debate to continue?"

Today, Donald Trump has the Military, Homeland Security, I.C.E. and "armed America" in his corner. As distasteful as an "old fashioned, mano y mano brawl" might appear, it's also fact that the President would score a victory that would end in Communist expulsion from the continent.

We must also remember that the United States of America was never founded as a "Democracy." We are a "Republic." In short, a nation founded on "laws."

A "Democracy" has never worked over the long term. Never! They always end up as "Oligarchies."

Sooner or later, the two factions are going to fight over this question. We can either stick out heads in the sand and allow self interested "relics" like Nancy Pelosi call the shots. Or, we can "right" a long festering wrong that should have been addressed decades earlier.

Like Kirby Smith, the President is entering that "magic moment" where he can make the historical determination.







Monday, January 21, 2019

Trump's Overture Insufficient for Fantasy Based Democrats

So it's on the table!

President Donald J.Trump cagily rendered a compromise plan that is just moderate enough to generate moans from his conservative fringes. Overall however, it is brilliant.

Without getting into specifics, the President and Republicans are offering to postpone the DACA decision until after the 2020 election. This sets it on the table as a campaign issue. In process, they are providing items from the original Democrat "wish list." And, they are reopening the government.

It's all about positioning.

5.7 billion is a lot, but not really when compared to the 50 billion that we're forking out for foreign aid. If Trump were asking for fifty-seven billion, wall opponents might have a serious beef. But, it's not even twenty five billion, the original number. 5.7 billion? That's a compromise!

In a true compromise, neither side is totally happy. This proposal is no exception. If you don't believe it, ask Ann Colter! It's nothing either side wanted. But, it is a plan that Mitch McConnell thinks that he can find 60 Senate votes. If he does, it's over. Nancy Pelosi will have been outmaneuvered.

Then again, "Fancy Nancy" may not see it this way! If she doesn't,the Democrat party as we know it,will be gone. Look for at least 10% of party membership to become "walk-a-ways."

Historically, when finding themselves on the losing end of a debate, the left has cried racism.Trump's initiative most benefits those trying to get an economic leg up. As in, African Americans and Hispanic Americans! They suffer the most from the "wage depression," that results from an influx of unskilled illegal aliens into the U.S. labor market.

Many question "why" Republicans didn't answer this question when Paul Ryan was House Speaker. The answer is easy: "Paul Ryan Republicans" saw illegal aliens as an endless source of cheap labor. Many were replaced by Democrats in the midterm elections. A record number of them retired, in anticipation of primary challenges. In most cases, their districts were carried by Donald Trump in 2016.

Good, bad or indifferent, the President has found a winning issue: "Border security." Spin it as you wish, CNN, but people care! The recent skyrocketing of Hispanic approval numbers reflect as much. Pelosi's ill advised refusal to even counter the offer will open the door for Trump to declare an emergency. Conservatives hope that he will take the offensive.

This would amount to ending sanctuary cities as refuges for illegal aliens; starting with the arrests of non-compliant sanctuary city mayors. This might trigger a war. But what kind of war? And for how long?

Most of the nation simply does not have a stomach for an 1860's style bloodbath. The parts that do, are the same parts that are already armed, in hopeful anticipation that this day might come. They represent the core of Trump supporters.

Easy to see why some are so enthusiastic about gun control!

In short, it would be a massacre.

Those left leaning ideologues would realize that their far left brothers and sisters had taken them on a fateful detour. In the end, the left would lose; obliterated. It would be the most one-sided crushing in the history of warfare!

The country would subsequently take a rightward swing that would not be reversed for at least two generations. Maybe longer!

Conservatives would reference "The Naked Communist," a telltale, 1958 book written by former FBI special agent and political theorist, W. Cleon Skousen. They would rebrand the so-called,"Progressive Left" as "Communist Insurgency." Skousen's analysis would lend credence to this assertion.

It will start with education. The Department of Education in Washington D.C. would be eliminated. The National Education Association would be labeled a "Communist Insurgent Organization." All members would be precluded from ever working in the industry again. "Tenure" at all public colleges and universities would end. Each faculty member would be subject to an annual "objectivity review."

The term "separation of church and state" would be redefined. History would be consulted. It would be decided that the objective of the wording was the "keep the state out of the church." In essence, Americans didn't want a "Church of America" ala Great Britain's "Church of England," or Anglican Church. Over the years, Secularists have quietly reversed the original intent.

The "Lyndon Johnson era" edict of "disallowing churches protected tax treatment if they endorsed political candidates," would end.

America would be educated on the evils of political correctness. "P.C." would be classified as "cultural Marxism." Those advocating P.C. would be identified as "cultural Marxists." Employers would be encouraged not to hire "cultural Marxists."

Members of the Broadcast(over-the-air) media would be required to take a loyalty oath to the United States constitution. Those apprehended in the act of generating "fake news," would be treated like bankers generating fraudulent mortgage loans: They would be "precluded for life," from any employment in Broadcasting Journalism.

Sound crazy?

Think again. Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that less that 30% of Evangelicals voted in 2012. That number climbed to almost 50% in 2016. To these Americans, it's about destiny and the ultimate "slaying of the beast."

Bottom line is this: Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to make her stand at this time. At best she will create a landscape for a 2020 presidential election which the Democrats will probably lose. At worst, she will compromise freshmen Trump districts, leading to major Republican House pickups in 2020.

In short, the nation is currently experiencing a "cold" war. Potentially, Pelosi and her party leadership could turn the "cold war" into a "hot" war.

A better idea is to try to work for the good of all of the people! Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi doesn't care if she starts a war! Not even one that might result in two million deaths. She is "Americas political class; the ruling class." If war comes, she'll be sitting in her Geneva chateau, sipping chardonnay. It helps when you are enormously wealthy as she is!

The new Democrat left is all about "hating America and doing everything within their power to destroy it." A growing number of "salt of the earth" Americans(Hillary Clinton called them deplorables)may ultimately conclude that the only remedy is "an old fashioned ass kicking."

Unlike the first civil war, the second war won't initially be "civil!" So many of these "deplorables" harbor a belief that "the only good Communist is a dead one."

With a clash of perceptions, both sides are right in their individual assertions. The side that wins is the side with the most power.

Jefferson Davis would attest to it.









Saturday, January 5, 2019

Could Trump Declare an Emergency?

Depends on who you ask.

Friday, the President emerged from an energetic tussle with "Chuck and Nancy." He gave his assessment of the discussion. It didn't sound all bad; unless it was your paycheck that has been suspended.

On the heels of that meeting came the December economic report. For Chuck and Nancy, it took some luster off their argument. The economy created 312,000 jobs in December. For the year, wages are up nationally 3.2 %. This is actually great news, for the country. If you are a Democrat trying to find fault with Donald Trump, it's deflating!

During the holidays, I had numerous chances to discuss funding of the border wall and Trump's first two years in general. Two conversations stood out.

He was a 26-year old, unmarried man who resides with his mother. When asked "why" he opposed the wall, he stated, "it just doesn't feel right."

When asked, "do you have any alternative suggestions," his answer was "no."

At another party, a dear friend and neighbor, who happens to be a Professor of Theology at a local college in the area, blatantly emphasized. "The problem with Trump is he just doesn't have the mental capabilities to handle the Presidency."

I coyly asked, "Who would you have in mind?"

His response: "I don't know."

Bear in mind. Both people aren't stupid. From an education standpoint, both have logged more than their share of classroom time. Yet, neither could admit why they held Donald Trump in such low esteem.

Odds are, an absurdly biased mainstream media contributed to their quandary. Yesterday's MSM reaction to the economic news was comical; as if someone had let the air out of their tires.

In short, great economic news translated to their being made to look stupid. Never mind how this news impacted the country!

From a sheer journalistic perspective, what we have today are a lot of "tabloid type" news people. Gone are the days when media professionals could present a story as it was. Now "editorials" are positioned as straight news. The end result: A lot of well meaning people are confused.

From a purely historical standpoint, Donald Trump is on track to be America's greatest president! Statistics don't lie! Main Street sees this. Sorry Chuck Todd, Don Lemon, Rachael Maddow, Chris Cuomo and Morning Joe! You are making fools of yourselves! You are essentially "majoring on the minor." Time to "man up" and admit that you have been gravely wrong about practically everything regarding this presidency.

A free press is essential in a free society. Unfortunately, with freedom comes responsibility. Glamorizing a particular position, while degrading the opposition is harmful. A prime example is newly elected, New York Congresswoman, Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez.

The mainstream media has idolized her, taking a "doglike deference" to her lack of intellectual credentials. This woman didn't even know that Israel was a country? Yet, to hear the revered Wolf Blitzer speak of her, you would think that she is the second coming of Marie Curie!

The inherent danger lies in how masses react to "rabble rousers" like Congresswoman Ortasio-Cortez. Certainly the question of immigration is beyond her depth. Or is it?

Political correctness is "cultural Marxism." A self proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" and avowed "radical," Ortasio-Cortez is comfortable with such a distinction. Little does she see from her "Bronx bubble" that large parts of America are seething!

Let's return to the original question: "Could Trump declare an emergency?"

The answer is "yes." Here is how the sequence could unfold.

The proclamation is issued. "Pandemonium," mostly from paid protesters breaks out in the streets of major cities. This time, however, things proceed differently.

Acting Attorney General, Matt Carpenter, informs sanctuary city mayors that they will have "seven days" to deliver all criminal illegal aliens to I.C.E., or face arrest. The charges? "Aiding and abetting criminals" and "obstruction of justice."

Would this be legal?

Absolutely.

Riots would ensue. ANTIFA would overwhelm law enforcement officials. At that point, the President could call upon "civilian volunteers" to "assist local law enforcement and I.C.E. maintain order" in Sanctuary cites.

How many civilian volunteers would be summoned? Expect "three to four times" the number the President called for.

Colin Woodward, a Maine native, introduced an insightful read recently. It is called, "American Nations." In this book, Woodward identified eleven different Americas, who have miraculously held together from the time of the continent's settlement. As in 1861, the Union might be tested.

The American Nations siding with the President, per Woodward, are and have been the most "warlike" of the American Nations! For many of them, a kind of joy would be unleashed. For the average civilian volunteer, it would be the culmination of decades marked by pent up frustration.

For these souls, it would amount to "we are with you, Mr. President. Don't worry about arms or transportation. We've got that covered!"

And off they would go; to California, Chicago's south side, the Bronx, Portland, Oregon and other areas that needed to experience "a reckoning." Most would be men between ages 18 and 50, in groups of four and five, graced with 12-gauge pumps, AR-15's and nine MM's.

Once there, it's doubtful that they would stop with ANTIFA protesters! Most shocking to the media establishment would be the large numbers of local loyalists who would arise, embrace and join the incoming civilians!

The"Progressive Left" movement would crushed; and later re-branded. The new moniker: "The Communist Insurgency.."

It would be then and there, that the veil would be lifted from America's eyes!

Suddenly Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would be facing the same opposition!

In a matter of weeks, Obama holdovers would be expunged from the State Department. Finally a meaningful peace would be at hand, beginning with a pacified Iran and a united Korea. Europe would be secured. Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia would join NATO.

A unified, mostly mostly Christian world would turn to the real global threat: China, where they are now implanting computer chips in their school children! Facing that kind of firepower, the Chinese would quickly acquiesce.

This ultimate face-off would be remembered as "Faith based National Populism" versus "Secular Global Socialism." Almost overnight, it would be "cool" to be a Nationalist!

When on the losing end of an argument, the "progressive left" has always resorted to the cry of "racism." To an Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez, Donald Trump is a racist, a bigot, a fascist and a NAZI. It's doubtful that the freshman Congresswoman knows anything about "National Socialism." Here's a hint.

Were Trump a NAZI, he would propose sending the apprehended criminal illegal aliens to Alaska, where work on a railroad connecting the state to the lower 48 would commence. Criminal illegals would be assigned to a "chain gang," placed on an 800 calorie per day diet, and worked 16 hours per day.

Within a few weeks, they would be dead. The official cause of death would be "general physical weakness." NAZI rationale would insist that "they were condemned anyway, why not get a few weeks of work from them?"

Few would know of their disposition. Prisoners would spend their first day writing letters to friends and loved ones. In most cases, recipients would be reading correspondence from corpses! The large Arctic wolf population would take care of the disposal problem.The sordid deed would be "sanitized" from history, in the same manner that ANTIFA seeks to erase Confederate history.

Fortunately, Donald Trump is anything but a NAZI.If he were, the last person advising him would be his Jewish son-in-law!

One could expect "limousine liberals" such as Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters to be on the first Leer Jet out of the country.! Left behind would be the "constituents" and the bulk of the Communist Insurgency(Progressive Left), exposed as the "Sheeple."

"Constituents" are the bought and paid for members of the bureaucracy. They are often joined by "tenured" professors at colleges and universities,such as my neighbor.

Americans would be shocked to know how many of these "constituents" are Democrats! Remember, Kathleen Sebelius? For those who don't, she was the head of the I.R.S. who took the 5th, when asked IF tea party members had been targeted by the agency.

"Sheeple" are what the word implies: "People who behave like sheep," doing what they are told and never questioning the rationale. This designation holds true to the young man who voiced opposition to a border wall, while offering no alternative. A large percentage of "Sheeple" are functionally illiterate.

So goes the border wall debate. Demanding entry are roughly 2,000,000 Central Americans. Their average education level hovers around the third grade. Almost none speak English.

Statistically "two-thirds" of all illegal aliens are receiving some sort of entitlement. Many have Medicaid cards and receive food stamps.

Once in the country, they are difficult to remove. In places like California they are able to acquire drivers licenses. Democrats see them as "ready made votes." Perhaps not immediately, but they are working on it.

Republicans conclude(correctly) that a wall, fence or something that says, "you can't come in," will discourage most. The journey is long and dangerous. Not all, but probably more than half of the border traffic will be thwarted.

Few have acknowledged the degree of voter fraud that exists today. Steps addressed in "E" is for English, would immediately eliminate voter fraud, seen by many as "the single, greatest threat to our Republic." The "progressive left" fears these measures will remove "fraud and cheating" as pathways to victory. It was Joseph Stalin who said, "it's not who votes, but who counts the votes!"

There are other corrective measures that would insure that we never had another 2018. It's probable, that an "Article Five convention of states" might provide the forum to instigate these changes.

In best case, this is how the "Emergency" would end. The "left" AKA "The Communist Insurgency," having witnessed ANTIFA's violent demise, would be stunned. Then, they would do a "180 degree turn" and condemn those who lead the Communist Insurgency. Most of the Oligarchs who inspired them, would be comfortably housed in European Chateaus, having exited early. Constituents,including Academicians, would ultimately do an "about face." Sheeple would experience the cold reality of a people manipulated.

In the end, America would still be one! There would be a massive decentralization, as well as some new amendments to the constitution. With some luck, the following would unfold:

1. H.U.D., Education and E.P.A. offices in Washington D.C. would be closed. All three would be reassigned to the states.
2. A National "Catastrophic" Health Insurance pool would be created. Health insurance could be purchased across state lines. Pharmaceuticals would be purchased directly by Medicare and Medicaid. Pharmaceutical companies would be precluded from contributing to political candidates or campaigns. Lobbyists would no longer be allowed in the capital.
3. Twelve-year term limits would be enacted on all Congressmen, Senators and non-military members of the federal bureaucracy. 18-year term limits for federal judges including Supreme Court justices.
4. Federal employees would be precluded from unionization.
5. English would be adopted as the official language in the U.S..
6. Voter I.D.'s with current photographs, would be required. Early voting would be limited to "no more than 14 days" prior to election. All participants would be required to vote in person at their local precinct or fill out absentee requests, thirty days prior to the election.
7. Only U.S. Citizens would be allowed voting privileges.
8. Congressional Representation would be based on the number of "United States citizens" in a district. Not "persons."
9. Birthright citizenship would be limited to those "previously held in involuntary servitude" and/or "those born in the U.S. but having held no previous status."
10. Immigration would be "merit based." The "immigration lottery" would be eliminated.

The founding fathers were deeply concerned about a government that might get away from the people. The Article Five convention of states was their stopgap measure that would address it.

Not addressed was whether a sitting president might preside over an Article Five convention. If this were the path chosen by Donald Trump, he would essentially be doing something similar to what Abraham Lincoln did.

In retrospect, Lincoln did the unimaginable. But historians credit him with "saving the union."

Trump would be doing something similar, albeit less profound.

It would later be referred to as "The Great Reckoning." Americans would see how close they came to having their country stolen from them by a tiny group of corrupt, insiders now commonly referred to as the "deep state."

In reality, the Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez' are nothing short of diversions. Lying beneath is a dark objective of a one-world socialist order, inspired by demonic figures such as Mao zedong.