The “Wrap-up Smear”

We all have wondered how for the past years whenever attacks come from those on the Left, they seem to be coordinated. Most Americans when seeing this happen over and over again have only two options in their determination of what is happening. One is to simply believe what those on the Left are saying is true. The only other believable explanation is that there is some liberal conspiracy designed and implemented. The latter seems unrealistic because there are so many involved in the process, it would take immense efforts to coordinate with everyone to be on the same page. But it seems that there is now a third option.

America looked on as the angst from the Left reached a fever pitch during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. That angst revealed itself in well-coordinated demonstrations in multiple cities but especially in Washington D.C. Protestors stormed the Capitol, famously confronting Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in an elevator. That confrontation was documented on national television. Was it planned and coordinated? (Read on for the answer) Senate Judiciary hearings were flooded with protestors who in a coordinated fashion consistently interrupted proceedings by screaming and then visibly being dragged out of the hearing by Capitol police. Demonstrations outside the Capitol and Supreme Court involved hundreds and even thousands of protestors. What was going on?

Planned or Not

Immediately after the Saturday afternoon vote in which Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed through a Senate vote, it was revealed that many of those protestors were actually paid to protest. The obvious financial “backer” was globalist George Soros who, it was later revealed, actually through several of the non-profit organizations he funds, DID pay for protestors regarding this confirmation process. How many? I doubt we’ll ever know.

You have seen and heard many conservative radio and television talk show hosts point out that the media have adopted the role of being the second branch or arm of the Democrat Party. It has been uncanny to watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, C-SPAN, the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and other news outlets in seemingly coordinated fashion parrot the same talking points over and over again. They all have been unified around one cause: to discredit Brett Kavanaugh while “reporting” anything that looked bad about the nominee, saying anything no matter what it took to block his confirmation. Before Kavanaugh and certainly going forward, this approach has been and will be to perpetuate daily criticism of all things Trump.

How did all this media uproar and furor become unanimous in content and timing in its presentation? Was it really planned and coordinated? Is there some vast conspiracy that involves all the liberal media in cahoots with the Democrat Party?

The answer to the last two of those questions is “yes” and “yes.” The answer to the first is “Wrap-up Smear,” a process used by Democrats for a long time in fighting against conservative legislation and appointments. Even though it has been in operation for decades, in the brutal and far-reaching drive by the Left to kill the Kavanaugh confirmation, its identity and its uses slipped through the carefully devised and maintained veil of secrecy hiding the Left’s operational guidelines so no conservatives know how it’s used.

Carefully watch and listen to Pelosi, Blumenthal and other politicians separated by reports from liberal media reporters. Nancy Pelosi in a press conference actually exposed the Democrat coordinated plan and tells how they use it:

Conspiracy

Any conservative who dares to call tactics of the Left “conspiratorial” is immediately excoriated by all on the Left. The power of this tactic so successfully used again and again has been fueled in the past by its anonymity. With the Kavanaugh hearings, this tactic of “Wrap Up Smear” has been exposed to the World to the Left’s horror. Remember this: the one thing in which evil and darkness cannot exist is light. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and associated news hysteria have shined the light on this conspiratorial process used by the Left. I did not make that up, and I am not some conspiracy nut job.

I liken this current political process employed by the Democrat Party to what in my city we experience with a powerhouse high school football team. Evangel Christian Academy is a very small private school (less than 400 students) that has amassed 14 state high school championships while playing in the Louisiana High School Athletic Association’s public school category. There are dozens of Evangel alumnae who have played in the NFL and are playing right now at the NCAA Division 1 level who are probably headed to the NFL.

One can imagine the furor targeted at this small private school’s football success from public high school coaches and school administrators. Even some other private school administration and sports personnel hate their success as well. For years, this public school organization has systematically endeavored to push Evangel and at least one other private school in the state from its ranks. Evangel and this other school have weathered the outrage and are still at it.

What’s the big allegation from coaches and administrators from Louisiana public high schools? Evangel is successful they must be cheating. But in more than 20 years, Evangel has been the most investigated high school in LHSAA’s history, according to its longtime executive director. And Evangel has never been found cheating. Still, the allegations by others continue annually and become deafening about September 1. That’s when football season starts!

How does this analogy compare to the “Wrap Up Smear” of the U.S. political Left? Both have the same fundamental premise as their foundation: “We will NOT change our operations to compete with others by working to rise to the same level in which they play. Instead, we will just go out in the public and make unfounded allegations of cheating against our opponents. That is much easier than working harder and working smarter, and surely will achieve the same results.” But they never do.

But they HAVE worked in the past. But how?

Their success draws from the same fuel used in peoples’ animus against that private high school. Rather than find and implement the same or similar processes used for a couple of decades by Evangel’s coaches in preparing players in whatever ways necessary to pick up 14 championship trophies, they opt to verbally denigrate Evangel, perpetrating the thought, “If they’re winning this much, it must be because they cheat.” That effort has not worked to stop Evangel Christian Academy. It has not worked for America’s political Leftists either. But as in the case in Louisiana among public school administrators and coaches, the allegations continue from the Left against conservatives.

By the way, what’s the definition of insanity? “Doing the same thing, again and again, expecting different results.” Doing so has not worked in Louisiana, has not and will not work for political Leftists in the U.S.

Should Conservatives be Afraid?

No. Conservatives should be invigorated! The exposure of these tactics prove several points:

  • Democrats and their minions are running scared. And as most know, it really is hard to make good decisions when one is afraid. It daily becomes more obvious the Left is NOT making good decisions;
  • When one knows for certain who their enemies are, it is much easier to plan and implement specific responses aimed directly at a specific target. Conservatives now know for certain where their arrows need to fly;
  • This craziness of the Left being revealed to all of America proves that there really IS a conspiracy in American politics — and that conspiracy is NOT from conservatives. There is a real conspiracy on the left that includes Democrats AND the drive-by media.

What are the opposites of “Fear?” “Trust” and “Faith.” Conservatives in government, for the most part, trust the current administration — especially now that this leftist conspiracy has been exposed. Further, those same conservatives have stronger faith than ever before to believe all of the positive information being revealed every day about the good things happening for Americans of every socioeconomic sector. And those Americans know for certain these good things are direct results of the Donald Trump Administration.

EVERY Leftist is horrified by Trump Administration success.

Summary

As promised, today’s story is the first that we will share this week detailing the falsehoods that have been sold to the American public by Democrats and others from the Left. As the clock ticks and pages of the calendar turn toward the midterm elections, two things are critical:

  1. Conservatives MUST get out to vote. Not doing so will give Democrats control of the House of Representatives and possibly control of several Senate seats currently occupied by Republicans. And even today the Democrats along with their watchdog leftist Media are promoting the investigation and impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh if they win the House. Though Dems know such an attempt would not be successful in unseating Justice Kavanaugh, their hope is to keep their base stirred up so as to ensure maximum numbers of votes;
  2. Every Republican MUST engage in understanding how critical it is for all to fight back against the tyranny of the Left is trying to turn our government toward Socialism. Simply understanding it is NOT sufficient. All must engage in this process of educating everyone within our circles of influence. “You shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.”

I really do not think a midterm blue wave is coming. But I know for certain the Left is energized in a way I have not witnessed in my lifetime. Knowing the truth is one thing. Acting on that truth is something else and is much more important. If conservative Americans don’t act on these truths, knowing the truth is really meaningless.

Remember the story above about coaches and administrators from those Louisiana public schools holding such anger for that little private high school? They though knowing what’s wrong and how to successfully address the problem by stepping up THEIR game, watching their opponent and learning the truth about the success in achieving those 14 state championships, they simply stand back and mount a constant verbal attack using hollow allegations wrapped in anger and hatred. Democrats doing so in the Kavanaugh case did not stop his confirmation to SCOTUS. But unless conservatives act, they may just be successful in the midterms with a true “blue wave.”

I don’t want to watch an impeachment process. To stop it, we MUST act.

 

 

 

Play

The “BrouHaHa” That Should Not Have Happened

I’m certain you saw or heard that — apparently — the Republicans have sufficient “Yes” votes to confirm the Supreme Court Justice nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Friday at 3:00 PM Eastern, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) gave a passionate (and historical) speech on the floor of the Senate that will not soon be forgotten.

Her speech was extremely important because she, as a Moderate Republican, has been known as holding a crucial vote on all Senate confirmations for pretty much every presidential appointee — and especially on this one.  As a Moderate, Collins is pro-choice, fiscally conservative, and has been jealously watchful over Roe v Wade and Obamacare. She also has been non-committal on the Kavanaugh confirmation to everyone — until today.

The speech today was lengthy, well thought-out, well-written, and VERY specific and non-political. It was without question the best U.S. Senate speech I have ever heard from any senator or any other, and will undoubtedly go down as a “forever” reminder of how dangerous American politicization has become and the necessity of abandoning it to help our nation re-engage with the Rule of Law. 

It was so appropriate and to-the-point, I am attaching it in its entirety in PDF format below so that you can download and keep it for your reference and that of your children. I will refer in my Summary to that speech as I wrap-up today’s story titled “The BrouHaHa That Should Not Have Happened,” but will spare you from reading her speech in its entirety as part of this story. PLEASE, download it and read it for yourself.

Analysis

At the top of her speech, Senator Collins hit the nail on the head as it pertains to members of the U.S. Senate exercising their right and responsibility regarding the confirmation process of presidential appointees — specifically that of Brett Kavanaugh:

“Now it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record.  I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.”

Here’s what set Senator Collins apart from all those who had embraced the madness that Americans watched play-out in this highly publicized and amazingly partisan war of words over the last two weeks: SHE investigated Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial history, examined his 300 published case opinions, read his numerous speeches and judicial writings, and then interviewed him personally for more than 2.5 hours. She asked him every imaginable question about all those things that are pertinent for any person seeking a seat on any federal court — especially the Supreme Court.

She listened to the opinions of thousands of her constituents who were both in support of Kavanaugh and against him. She spoke to both Democrat and Republican fellow senators at length listening to their thoughts on the nominee. Don’t forget she watched and listened to the many hours of his testimony and responses to questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the same during the second hearing before the Committee in which both Professor Christine Ford and Kavanaugh addressed her 35-year-old allegations of sexual abuse against Judge Kavanaugh.

“Advice and Consent”

In the United States, “advice and consent” is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors.

The term “advice and consent” first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the Senate’s role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate’s role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president’s duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Needless to say, Senator Collins fulfilled her Senatorial obligation of “advice and consent.”

Summary

Before you read Senator Collins’ speech attached below, I have some final comments regarding the “BrouHaHa” we are discussing today:

  • Our political process is far too partisan. We as Americans are approaching a tipping point regarding political matters that is tearing our republic apart. Common decency is absent from political conversations. Respect for the opinions of others is not even an afterthought. A disagreement has devolved into first anger and now hatred;
  • Some point to our forefathers who fought partisanship too. Sometimes their division resulted in physical violence, even among themselves. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr actually had a gun duel! But it has been the better part of two centuries since this type of animus resulted in gun violence — until on a baseball field in suburban D.C. a year ago, Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) was gunned down by an angry Democrat partisan. Fortunately, Scalise has made a miraculous recovery;
  • On Thursday, 300 angry protestors who were illegally protesting the pending Kavanaugh confirmation were arrested in Washington D.C.  To make that situation worse, it was later revealed that hundreds of protestors (including some of those 300) were actually paid to protest by at least two non-profit organizations funded with several million dollars by liberal global activist George Soros to simply protest this and other conservative speakers, groups, and causes;
  • We should have known Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination would begin a political battle — especially when minutes after his nomination was announced, before any interviews, witness appearances, committee hearings or testimony was provided to senators, multiple Democrat senators publicly announced they were going to vote “no” on his confirmation. Several protestors carried professionally produced signs that said “I Am Against the President’s Nominee XX.” They did not even take the time to write Kavanaugh’s name on their signs! Obviously, to leftists, it mattered not if the nominee was Kavanaugh or some other conservative under consideration, the leftists would reject any nominee of THIS president. I thought it would have been humorous if President Trump had nominated an African American woman to the Court. Democrats would have probably treated that nominee the same, just because Donald Trump nominated her.

It may seem trivial at this stage for me to say “We need healing.” But we really do.

We’re not Republicans or Democrats or Socialists or Libertarians — WE’RE AMERICANS. The strength we have domestically and internationally comes from that strength.

There’s an age-old battle cry that has been used by many a despot, military leader, and dictator: “Divide and Conquer.” The division in the United States right now is at a fever pitch never before seen — at least not in my lifetime. What is its source? Who initiated it?  The most important question we all need to ask is “Can we obliterate it and replace it with unity?”

Senator Collins vividly painted a picture of what SHOULD have happened regarding this justice confirmation and that of every other presidential nominee to any federal position. She is a Republican. But in her speech, she spoke as an American. She challenged all of her fellow Senators and each American to go back to the drawing board, re-visit the ideals our forefathers drew upon when penning our Constitution. Further, we all should consider just how effective that constitution has worked for more than 200 years in crafting, managing, and maintaining the United States as not only the freest country on Earth but the richest — not just financially, but richest in its values regarding everything pertaining to liberty and justice for all and equal justice under the law.

We all need to examine that for ourselves. It’s decision time!

Susan Collins Kavanaugh Senate Speech

 

How Can We Stop this Sexual-Domestic Assault Horror?

Millions of Americans watched as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford gave testimony in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Ford provided testimony of the attempted sexual assault allegedly attempted by a high school student — Brett Kavanaugh — in suburban Maryland 35 years ago.

While most take sides on the belief of her allegations based on presented evidence (or lack thereof), I’m certain a consensus is that Dr. Ford experienced a sexual horror perpetrated by someone at some time that changed her life forever — initiated if not by Kavanaugh, by someone else.

Sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, Domestic abuse, intimidation or any other oppressive sexual act even just attempted against anyone — child or adult — almost always totally or in part destroys a person’s life. And these abusive occurrences have been and still are sewn deep into the cloth that constitutes the fabric of our country.

It absolutely is one of the greatest tragedies in U.S. history. Women and children are the principal targets of sexual and abusive predators and have been for centuries. Many in our nation together created — and have perpetuated a climate — at best unfriendly, at worst antagonistic — towards those who wish to come forward with the stories of their abuses and attacks.

It is inhumane for such things to be experienced by the most vulnerable among us. But it is incomprehensible that Americans have allowed that climate of secrecy — the secrecy that has allowed and maintained continued existence — is one of the greatest scourges of this generation. IT MUST BE STOPPED!

What?

Let’s begin by looking at a segment from a post first published here November 20, 2017:

How Can Sexual and Domestic abuse be Stopped?

It MUST be stopped. No doubt there is no easy answer, but we must find one. Here are my thoughts:

This “environment” that has actually fostered these acts and their proliferation in numbers throughout all of America was created by Americans. And the acceptance of it as simply a part of life in the USA has become almost universal. In doing so, thousands if not millions of young men and women have been at least direly and permanently impacted by their abuses, and some scarred irreparably for life. Just as is the case with our children and even adults in our lives, recognizing there IS a real problem does not fix the problem. But seeing the problem as a problem is necessary to allow change. But it’s just a start.

For any changes to be created and implemented, the mental and emotional state of the Nation that even allows sexual and domestic abuse must be obliterated. That is a tall order. At least an entire generation riddled with this unacceptable behavior must make a 180-degree change. Personally, I think that is unlikely. So what’s an alternative?

We did not get here quickly. It has taken generations of compromise, benign acceptance — both in a vacuum of ignoring these practices — to get us to this moment in history. We cannot get it right overnight. And there will be a price to pay.

Fortunately, in this electronic, hi-tech world of satellite and internet instantaneous information worldwide distribution, we now have a tool that can make time fly. With the right leadership and developed plan combined with a mass American will to rid our world of sexual and domestic abuses of every kind, we can certainly see it happen during the next decade.”

Who?

Who can make it go away? It will take a partnership: a really large and encompassing number of people who are committed to find and achieve a solution. But any successful solution MUST be built on a foundation that is sound, far-reaching, and unavoidable by perpetrators. That foundation must be fundamentally based on law: Congress must act!

Here are the elements that must be included in any laws implemented by Congress and the President:

  • Law Enforcement Infrastructure. Laws are never effective when enforcement resources necessary for the success of their implementation are not made available. Those resources cost. But just like anything else in our lives, “You get what you pay for.” This administration must be totally committed financially to whatever processes and applicable laws are created. That will include federal law enforcement operations which cooperate with state and local law enforcement agencies. Human resources must be comprised of thoroughly vetted and qualified people to fill each identified and created position. Budgets must include the cost of outside necessary expert inclusion from the Mental Health community. This should NOT be another federal bureaucracy, but needs to be autonomous in its investigatory processes, but must be supervised by the Department of Justice. Members of the entity for this operation must be accountable in every way — and not just for funding — to the U.S. Congress.
  • Operational Laws. Laws for authorization and operation in this system must be carefully crafted in conjunction with Congressional identified experts who deal with sexual and domestic abuse all the time. Laws must be significant with severe penalties for those who violate them. Laws need to create a process whereby those who are violated by perpetrators have instant access to legal recourse with total confidentiality while investigations are performed, perpetrators are indicted by grand juries, and during trials to their conclusions.
  • Legal Representation. Built into these federal laws should be the creation of an environment in which victims have a freedom to report abuse directly to law enforcement without intrusion by attorneys who “shop” for sexual and domestic abuse clients. Fear of litigation and the significant costs of litigation in these cases need to be minimized as much as possible. Lawyers who troll for abuse clients need to be dissuaded from “shopping for dollars.” Punitive damages should be disallowed in abuse litigation. Damages need to be for actual damages only. Why? Americans will be much better served by including an environment of fairness so that all parties understand it’s not about making anyone rich, but about giving every wronged person recourse against those who attack them. It’s not just about making attorneys a lot of money.
  • Protection. There MUST be a method to stop the political tsunami of politization that is driving much of the current “enlightenment” in sexual and domestic abuse. Example: in the current Kavanaugh investigation, there is NO presumption of innocence for the accused and DEMANDS for all to take the word of accusers at face value. Those who make these demands demonize all who ask for and expect the American fundamental of “innocent until proven guilty” to be applied. There is no doubt the trauma of actual abuse most often keeps victims from stepping forward for fear of disbelief, rejection, shame, and retribution for doing so. Those elements of reporting abuse must be removed!
  • A two-way Street. As horrible to victims abuse always is, so it is for the accused in the cases in which their innocence until proven guilty is absent. Regardless of the outcome of the 7th Kavanaugh FBI investigation, his personal and professional life if not ruined, will never be the same. If he committed any of these travesties, he SHOULD lose the vestiges of jurisprudence that he maintains now. But if he is NOT proven guilty, how can he ever recover his integrity, professional and self-esteem, and the trust of many that he has garnered through years of working with him in professional and personal capacities? The answer to that is simple: it almost always is lost forever. No person who is innocent deserves that. For the “Protection” details listed above and the consideration of innocence as the default until guilt is proven, there MUST be an environment that maintains that innocence until guilt is confirmed. How do we do that? Such a process must be devised, implemented and maintained to protect ALL the innocents while assuring the guilty will be identified and prosecuted.
  • Prosecution. Sadly today in the criminal justice system, far too many who are guilty of of even serious crimes are not prosecuted orand sentenced appropriately. Why? There are far too many criminals who when convicted escape full sentences because of crowded jails and prisons. I could detail personal examples I have witnessed throughout my life in which too harsh sentences are handed down to some while in others, perpetrators either walk free after sentencing, sometimes sentenced to only to “timed served” while others have the book thrown at them for political or personal reasons. Punishment MUST be severe. Sentences MUST be served.

Congress

The linchpins in this process are Congress and Congressional action. The answer to the question “Why has the government not done anything to stop this?” has never been given. And, quite honestly, at this point asking and answering that question is worthless. CONGRESS NEEDS TO ACT!

The House and Senate together need to craft, pass, and send those bills to the White House for presidential signature that will do just that. These laws, besides addressing the assault perpetrators and stopping their criminal actions, need to protect those wrongly accused. Within the laws that are written, responsibility for truth underpinned by facts in evidence must be included.

“That will discourage victims from coming forward,” many will say. Think about this: if when this process is created and implemented, it is publicized in every way possible to the American public, and the built-in protections against abuse by accusers AND perpetrators are well understood by all, the process will ultimately prevent abuse.

  • Confidentiality must be a legal requirement in the system to protect the innocent;
  • Use of the process and those who are caught up in it must be off-limits to the political system. Use in any way of any part of this process in campaigning must carry significant criminal penalties. Politicians who abuse this system must be punished for doing so.
  • Statutes must clearly detail rights and obligations of accused and accusers and must limit the all-too aggressive methods used by attorneys to attract clients. Penalties must be clearly detailed;
  • Stiff penalties for those who are found to be untruthful (as defined by law) in these cases must be included;
  • Members of the Media must NOT be allowed in any way to have access to any information about any details of these cases (including the very existence of cases) before and during an investigation and when prosecutions are occurring. There MUST be serious PERSONAL criminal sentences for every media member, entity, or even non-media “leaker” for breach of confidentiality. Those innocent must at all costs be protected, and every precaution must be taken.

Summary

Unfortunately, in whatever the final process looks like, there will be casualties. Not every victim will receive immediate results of coming forward — at least in the beginning. How so?

We are caught in a catch-22. We have no way of knowing how many and who have already been victimized by sexual and domestic wrongdoing at the hands of others. While the process of ridding the nation of all the elements of this, some of these people will necessarily become sacrificial lambs. IF as we do in criminal law, we adopt for these cases “innocent until proven guilty,” those that have already been abused — without hard proof of the abuses — will likely not see a good conclusion for some of their stories. And some of their abusers without proof of their wrongdoing will walk free. I see no other way to quickly change a socially embedded process that for so long has been a scourge to our nation. It’s a process, it will be hard, and it will take time. It must be soon, it must be thorough, it must be fair, but it MUST be done.

 

Play

How Does Socialism Actually Work?

It’s a bit spooky that the “next” generation of Americans are getting so chummy using the word “Socialism.” Many of their heroes are tossing that word around, too. The reason for the far-too-common use of the term is simple: today’s educators have wrapped their classroom agendas in a cloak of Socialism. They talk about it like it has brought Nirvana to the countries who have embraced it, and they use that to demonize Capitalism. Educators don’t discuss the horrors of Socialism in Germany, China, Venezuela, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and nations who long ago disappeared because Socialism there was unsustainable. All they share with our next generation is this: “Socialism is a political environment in which everyone is guaranteed by the government that all their fundamental needs are going to be met — no matter what!”

What’s so spooky about it is that this utopian promise is based on totally false information. These educators are filling the heads and hearts of the next generation of Americans with untruths. And our kids are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

So let’s today compare Socialism with Capitalism — the political and social structure embraced by the U.S. for 240 years — and contrast how these work in various countries in which they are used.

Capitalism

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Capitalism has always been the home of true entrepreneurship, encouraging through free market trade the initiative for people to create and develop new technology, free market trade, and continual innovation for improvement and invention. Those who take advantage of the capitalistic environment receive rewards tied directly to their efforts. 

The greatest drawback of Capitalism is corruption that results in individuals and groups from both private and government sectors taking advantage of capitalistic opportunities to garner power and wealth: sometimes illegally and sometimes skirting the law but doing so unethically.

In every capitalistic society, there have always been politicians or other leaders who impose very non-capitalistic restrictions intended to siphon money to politicians or to protect favored friends with various capitalistic concepts — like monopolies — which can only exist if the government allows these to exist. What we do know though is the more economic freedom given to a people, they will not only do better, they will always default to the best and easiest economy: Capitalism.

Capitalism is NOT a form of government. Believing that a “free market” can solve all problems is not really a valid expectation. Since most “problems” are caused by government, it seems it would be wiser to “fix” government than to expect an economic system to get past government incompetence.

In reality, NO country has really allowed capitalism to fully run its course, (meaning “total economic freedom”) where a government is only there to handle dishonesty and disputes — not prevent these, just resolve them with a specific process and only as they occur.

Socialism

“1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

Socialism is almost totally a political system, which does claim to magically solve all problems even though a socialist concept is what creates the problems that result in its inevitable failure. The Soviet Union is a good example. The claim for establishing the socialist Soviet Union was to solve the disparity between rich and poor and assure that everyone will have at least a minimum good life. The reality is, Socialism Soviet-style resulted in making everyone extremely poor and destitute, including people who were not poor before it was instituted.

There have been attempts at pure Socialist governments throughout history. Socialist founders of these governments really did believe these governments could solve all problems. None have worked.  And the “pure” Socialists countries have all either died or ARE dying.

Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. Socialism is basically Feudalism by another name. Both develop, maintain, and are controlled by a ruling class who directs everything. The only real difference is that feudal lords claimed that their right to authoritarian rule was divine, whereas the socialists claim that their right to authoritarian rule originated with their commitment to helping the poor along with other altruistic claims or beliefs.

Whatever the justification, the results are the same: elite authoritarians in charge of everything. This type of rule has been around for centuries, and so far all of them have failed.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  2. The fifth would pay $1.
  3. The sixth would pay $3.
  4. The seventh would pay $7.
  5. The eighth would pay $12.
  6. The ninth would pay $18.
  7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected: they would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

  1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
  3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
  4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

  1. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
  2. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
  3. “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
  4. “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Summary

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system AND Socialism works. The people who pay the highest taxes today or do the most effort and provide the greatest amount of work in Socialism don’t get any extra benefit from what they bring “to the table.” Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, take from them the extra they put into the system, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier!

Play

I’m Sad Today

Today’s story “I’m Sad Today” is presented only in audio. For those of you who regularly read our story, I apologize. I am so emotional about the travesties that play out daily in Washington D.C., I felt you should all be able to not only read my thoughts on these subjects, but I wanted all to hear them.

We don’t do this often here. And it will seldom happen in the future. But as we get closer to choosing whether or not Brett Kavanaugh will become the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we all need to take what we discuss daily at TruthNewsNet.org, hear the emotion along with the factual information disseminated in our Podcast, and align it somehow with your already developed thoughts.

More than ever I encourage you to share your thoughts AND this Podcast with your friends and associates. I must confess that I rail against Leftists and the “new” way of governing with which they slap Americans in the face daily.

It is imperative that everyone knows the truth of these allegations levied against the nominee. But it is just as imperative that everyone knows the purpose and process that are aligned behind the curtains of governing by Leftists.

Thank you for understanding and your tolerance!

Dan

Play

How to Catch Wild Pigs

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man — an exchange student — who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question: “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free food.” He continued, “When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming to eat corn. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.”

The story began to intrigue the professor. The young student continued his story: “You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.”

By now, everyone in the chemistry class was listening intently. “Suddenly, the wild pigs realize they have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught, sooooo, they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to the free corn that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity because in captivity they have free corn.”

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing Americans toward Communism/Socialism, and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs, such as supplemental income, tax credits for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare entitlements, free medicine, drugs, etc. All these freebies keep coming while Americans continually lose more and more freedoms. But because those freedoms are taken from us only gradually, their loss is seldom even noticed.

One should always remember two truths:

  1. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself;
  2. If you see that all of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to share this with others who are important to you.

God help us all when the gate slams shut!

“The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those that vote for a living.”

“You Can’t Handle the Truth!”

It seems odd that a long list of politicians and other high profile individuals have announced their belief of the allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Why does it seem odd? The answer to that lies in another question: what does it take for one to learn the truth of an allegation — ANY allegation?

That second question is precisely why the founders of the U.S. demanded a justice system that was built on the fundamental principle they never had the benefit of in their European homeland: “Innocent until proven guilty.” That principle has been the linchpin of American justice for almost 250 years. But its existence and the founders’ reasoning for demanding it as a building block for our country is lost on many today who number themselves among the “political elites” in American government. Here’s what a number of U.S. Senators had to say:

  • New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Gillibrand offered words of support to Ford during a Tuesday interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, telling him simply: “I believe Kavanaugh’s accuser.”
  • California Senator Kamala Harris (D) “I believe her,” Harris told CBS in a Tuesday interview. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?”
  • California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D )”During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable.”
  • Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono (D) “Not only do these women need to be heard, but they also need to be believed,” Hirono said.
  • Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) “Christine Blasey Ford is brave, deserves to be heard, and treated with respect as she raises new questions about Brett Kavanaugh.”
  • Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said there needs to be an FBI investigation before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and declared, “I believe the survivor, Dr. Ford.”
  • South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said he’d gladly listen to her story. “I don’t know when she took the polygraph,” Graham later said, referring to a lie detector test Ford’s lawyer says was administered to her by an FBI agent. “I don’t know who paid for it. I don’t know when she hired the lawyer. But if you didn’t want to go public why are you buying a polygraph and why are you hiring a lawyer?” he added. “All those things will come out.”

There are dozens of others in Congress who have come out in full support of Dr. Ford’s allegation, even before reading the letter in which the allegations were made or facing her in a Q&A before the Senate Judiciary Committee! How is it possible for anyone to determine guilt or innocence of a person when there is NO evidence, (either direct or circumstantial) there is NO testimony from the accuser or the accused, and there are no corroborating witnesses? Before we go into further details, it is noteworthy that not one Democrat in Congress has publicly stated disbelief in Ford’s story. And not one Democrat in Congress has publicly stated support for Kavanaugh’s nomination to SCOTUS before Ford’s allegations or since.

Do you think there may be possible politicization going on?

How Best to Determine if Someone is Telling the Truth

I thought it best to bring a small bit of objectivity and knowledge into this political debacle. There ARE experts among us who professionally conduct such investigations every day. Certainly hearing from one of those experts could shed some light on the probable upcoming testimony of Dr. Ford.

J.J. Newberry was a trained federal agent, skilled in the art of deception detection. So when a witness to a shooting sat in front of him and tried to tell him that when she heard gunshots she didn’t look, she just ran — he knew she was lying. How did Newberry reach this conclusion? The answer is by recognizing telltale signs that a person isn’t being honest, like inconsistencies in a story, behavior that’s different from a person’s norm, or too much detail in an explanation. While using these signs to catch a liar takes extensive training and practice, it’s no longer only for authorities like Newberry. Now, the average person can become adept at identifying dishonesty, and it’s not as hard as you might think. Experts tell WebMD the top 10 ways to let the truth be known.
Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies

“When you want to know if someone is lying, look for inconsistencies in what they are saying,” says Newberry, who was a federal agent for 30 years and a police officer for five. When the woman he was questioning said she ran and hid after hearing gunshots — without looking — Newberry saw the inconsistency immediately. “There was something that just didn’t fit,” says Newberry. “She heard gunshots but she didn’t look? I knew that was inconsistent with how a person would respond to a situation like that.” So when she wasn’t paying attention, he banged on the table. She looked right at him. “When a person hears a noise, it’s a natural reaction to look toward it,” Newberry tells WebMD. “I knew she heard those gunshots, looked in the direction from which they came, saw the shooter, and then ran.”

Sure enough, he was right. “Her story was just illogical,” says Newberry. “And that’s what you should look for when you’re talking to someone who isn’t being truthful. Are there inconsistencies that just don’t fit?”

Tip No. 2: Ask the Unexpected

“About 4% of people are accomplished liars and they can do it well,” says Newberry. “But because there are no Pinocchio responses to a lie, you have to catch them in it.”

Sir Walter Scott put it best: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” But how can you catch a person in his own web of lies?

“Watch them carefully,” says Newberry. “And then when they don’t expect it, ask them one question that they are not prepared to answer to trip them up.”

Tip No. 3: Gauge Against a Baseline

“One of the most important indicators of dishonesty is changes in behavior,” says Maureen O’Sullivan, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco. “You want to pay attention to someone who is generally anxious, but now looks calm. Or, someone who is generally calm but now looks anxious.” The trick, explains O’Sullivan, is to gauge their behavior against a baseline. Is a person’s behavior falling away from how they would normally act? If it is, that could mean that something is up.

Tip No. 4: Look for Insincere Emotions

“Most people can’t fake smile,” says O’Sullivan. “The timing will be wrong, it will be held too long, or it will be blended with other things. Maybe it will be a combination of an angry face with a smile; you can tell because their lips are smaller and less full than with a sincere smile.”

These fake emotions are a good indicator that something has gone afoul.

Tip No. 5: Pay Attention to Gut Reactions

“People say, ‘Oh, it was a gut reaction or women’s intuition,’ but what I think they are picking up on are the deviations of true emotions,” O’Sullivan tells WebMD. While an average person might not know what it is he’s seeing when he thinks someone isn’t being honest and attribute his suspicion to instinct, a scientist would be able to pinpoint it exactly — which leads us to tip no. 6.

Tip No. 6: Watch for Microexpressions

When Joe Schmo has a gut feeling, Paul Ekman, a renowned expert in lie detection, sees microexpressions. “A microexpression is a very brief expression, usually about a 25th of a second, that is always a concealed emotion,” says Ekman, Ph.D., professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. So when a person is acting happy, but in actuality is really upset about something, for instance, his true emotion will be revealed in a subconscious flash of anger on his face. Whether the concealed emotion is fear, anger, happiness, or jealousy, that feeling will appear on the face in the blink of an eye. The trick is to see it.

“Almost everyone — 99% of those we’ve tested in about 10,000 people — won’t see them,” says Ekman. “But it can be taught.” In fact, in less than an hour, the average person can learn to see microexpressions.

Tip No. 7: Look for Contradictions

“The general rule is anything that a person does with their voice or their gesture that doesn’t fit the words they are saying can indicate a lie,” says Ekman. “For example, this is going to sound amazing, but it is true. Sometimes when people are lying and saying, ‘Yes, she’s the one that took the money,’ they will without knowing it make a slight head shake ‘no.’ That’s a gesture and it completely contradicts what they’re saying in words.”

These contradictions, explains Ekman, can be between the voice and the words, the gesture and the voice, the gesture and the words, or the face and the words. “It’s some aspect of demeanor that is contradicting another aspect,” Ekman tells WebMD.

Tip No. 8: A Sense of Unease

“When someone isn’t making eye contact and that’s against how they normally act, it can mean they’re not being honest,” says Jenn Berman, Ph.D., a psychologist in private practice. “They look away, they’re sweating, they look uneasy … anything that isn’t normal and indicates anxiety.”

Tip No. 9: Too Much Detail

“When you say to someone, ‘Oh, where were you?’ and they say, ‘I went to the store and I needed to get eggs and milk and sugar and I almost hit a dog so I had to go slow,’ and on and on, they’re giving you too much detail,” says Berman. Too much detail could mean they’ve put a lot of thought into how they’re going to get out of a situation and they’ve crafted a complicated lie as a solution.

Tip No. 10: Don’t Ignore the Truth

“It’s more important to recognize when someone is telling the truth than telling a lie because people can look like they’re lying but be telling truth,” says Newberry. While it sounds confusing, finding the truth buried under a lie can sometimes help find the answer to an important question: Why is a person lying?

These 10 truth tips, experts agree, all help detect deception. What they don’t do is tell you why a person is lying and what the lie means. “Microexpressions don’t tell you the reason,” says Ekman. “They just tell you what the concealed emotion is and that there is an emotion being concealed.” When you think someone is lying, you have to either know the person well enough to understand why he or she might lie, or be a people expert.

“You can see a microexpression, but you have to have more social-emotional intelligence on people to use it accurately,” says O’Sullivan. “You have to be a good judge of people to understand what it means.”

Summary

Even if one agrees with the steps given above to discern truth, one thing with Dr. Ford is missing: no one has had even a conversation with her, yet alone a face-to-face meeting. Hopefully, that will happen soon. But even if terms of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee are agreed to and she does testify, it is doubtful any tangible evidence is even available to either confirm or deny her 35-year-old allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh. What it will come down to will be conclusions drawn by those in the room about her testimony and that of the nominee — now known as “the accused.”

Here’s a summary question: how can any American feel any finding of the truth can result from her testimony? Those Senators listed above and dozens of other Democrats in the House and Senate have already made their commitments of belief of her story. It is impossible for anyone to determine that now. And even after Dr. Ford’s sworn testimony and that of Judge Kavanaugh, a decision will still be subjective for anyone and everyone.

Sadly, even if this concluded today, there will always be a cloud of suspicion hanging over the head of Brett Kavanaugh. He obviously was given NO presumption of innocence by any of those who blindly support his accuser.

Is Dr. Ford telling the truth? Only two people knows that answer: Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. And without the ability to “read” their brains, no other human will ever know for sure.

As the clock ticks and the calendar pages turn, it has become more and more obvious to me that our political process is structured totally by political partisanship — especially among those on the Left. “Innocent until proven guilty” is actually thrown out the window when it comes to sexual allegations against Republicans. Universally though, Democrats accused of sexual assault or domestic abuse are immediately considered by their peers to be innocent or immediately forgiven and restored.

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) is the latest Democrat who has been accused of brutal abuse by his former girlfriend. Her accusation includes video, audio, and sworn testimony of others. Yet Ellison remains in Congress with no DNC investigation. And he is the Vice-Chair of the Democrat Party.

Former President Clinton was accused of all types of sexual assault and harassment as well as rape by multiple women. Democrats stood idly by in support of the Democrat President. He was impeached — but not for committing sex crimes. He famously committed perjury in sworn testimony in a civil trial. Remember this: “I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.” “That” woman was White House intern Monica Lewinsky. And he HAD sexual relations with that woman. Clinton survived his impeachment trial in the Senate and was rewarded for his sexual crimes against these women by being elected to his second term as President.

It all comes down to this one thing: they don’t want the truth. They simply want Democrat power in government wrestled from the grasp of the Republicans — and they’ll do or say anything to get it. They do not care if they must lie, cheat, or steal to get it. Any price they must pay is all right. “The end justifies the means.” And they daily show that’s their goal and their methodology.

Will any Democrat change their opinion of Brett Kavanaugh serving on the Supreme Court? That is doubtful.

It’s hard for Americans to reconcile any elected representative in Congress would even consider making such a critical decision based on anything but Truth.

How can they predetermine their vote on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, many making their announcement to vote “no” on his confirmation before he appeared before Congress or met one-on-one with Senators?

The answer to that question came from Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men.” (Click to see/hear his answer)

 

They cannot handle the Truth, so they refuse to even consider it.

 

 

Play

It’s Mob Rule

American Democracy has devolved into Mob Rule. Life in the United States has dramatically morphed into something akin to life in a third-world country. There are those in leadership that have literally tossed out reliance on the U.S. Constitution as the roadmap to governing. Their choice? Mob Rule.

Gone is the Bill of Rights; gone is the Rule of Law; gone is “Liberty and Justice for All.” All of these tenets of the United States of America have been replaced with a new process of governing: rule by a political few who make the rules as they go, force their rules on the American people, and shake their fists in the faces of all of us who still believe that America is a nation of laws.

America is a country ruled by political elitism determined ONLY by the politically elite.

Who are the Purveyors of this Elitism?

Oddly enough, this group is comprised primarily of formerly genuine public servants who have been swept into what many conservatives now call the Swamp or the Deep State. The flow of governing from these places is driven by an overpowering quest for power. It is unclear if there is an individual or a small group who “run the show,” but if its leadership is held by more than one person, that group is small in number, but vast in power.

I won’t speculate on who those may be. But what is evident in a greater way today is the duplicity of government being implemented and enforced by this Mob that has set one set of standards for its adherents and another for everyone else.

No where else is that duplicity more evident than in the rules, the enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of those rules by the Mob, and how determination of the classes of Americans are set. There really are only two classes. And one is comprised of liberals, progressives, or Democrats — the other of conservatives or Republicans.

Center political stage illustrating how this elitism works are the several current examples of male sexual attacks or allegations of sexual misconduct. Let’s start here:

That is the former girlfriend of Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison who besides being a Congressman is vice-chair of the Democrat Party. There are police reports and eyewitness testimony of Ellison’s physical, mental, and emotional abuse of her. The Mob has done nothing to punish the Congressman. In fact, he made a decision to not run for re-election to Congress. Instead he just won a primary in his quest to be elected as Minnesota’s next Attorney General and is the darling of the Democrat Party.

Then there’s Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ):

I know that this newspaper column written by Booker may be hard to read. It was published in 1992. In it, the Senator details a New Years Eve interlude he had with a young woman in which he confesses to have groped her despite her rebuffs.

This is the Senator Cory Booker — or “Spartacus” — who famously invited censorship by the Senate for his releasing confidential documents regarding the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Booker (and every other Democrat Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee), before interviews with the nominee or any hearings by the Committee where even held, declared he would not vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation .

Further Booker excoriated Kavanaugh when recent allegations of an identical interlude as Booker detailed in that column were made against Kavanaugh for an alleged incident witnessed by no one 35 years ago.

Why should Booker be given a pass for something he admitted and then declare Kavanaugh unfit to serve based solely on an allegation that has NO evidence in support of it? Answer: Mob Rule.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

On MSNBC, Gillibrand illustrates Mob Rule when she was asked should Kavanaugh’s accuser appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee: (click to listen)

Gillibrand illustrates best just how this new Mob Rule really works: two sets of rules — two sets of standards. There’s one for Democrats in D.C. and another for Republicans. Republicans are damned based solely on allegations while Democrats are given free passes for the same things Republicans are accused of but that Democrats either admit or overwhelming evidence confirms their guilt!

Remember Bill Clinton, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and Monica Lewinsky? Overwhelming evidence of his sexual improprieties and even allegations of rape were totally overlooked by Dems. But let’s get back to today and the current Mob Rule ruling regarding allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.

What’s craziest about Gillibrand’s statement regarding the accuser’s invitation to testify is that Kavanaugh has undergone extensive FBI background investigations multiple times. Even though as of this writing it appears Ford and her attorney may have backed away from the FBI investigation demand, understand THE FBI INVESTIGATION ALREADY HAPPENED! For Senate nominees in every case, the FBI does this:

  • Examines every bit of public and private historical information available about the nominee. That includes financial records, driving records, criminal records, any previous and current civil actions, social media records, and employment records;
  • Interviews immediate and extended family members, current and former fellow employees, current and former employers;
  • Conducts an exhaustive investigation of educational history, including academics, social and civil involvement in attended schools, interviews with former classmates, teachers, and professors when possible;
  • Conducts door-to-door interviews with current and former neighbors as far back as possible;
  • Conducts investigations of newspaper reports about or including the nominee in all localities in which he/she lived;
  • Meets with any church or other religious organizations in which the nominee attended or participated in/with.

With this extensive and exhaustive investigation process undertaken by the FBI 6 previous times, and with Brett Kavanaugh’s extensive role within the federal government, one must ask, “How could any such alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the nominee NOT be mentioned by someone during the FBI investigations? Knowing the nominee was the subject of such important federal appointments, wouldn’t somebody in his life who participated in these investigations feel obligated to share his conduct with the FBI if such conduct existed?

Summary

We are immersed in a Swamp in which the Mob is finally showing how it operates. It did not just happen. It has summarily evolved over years, quietly working behind the scenes. The Swamp creatures have stealthily stretched their tentacles into every part of American government and have slowly, quietly, but steadily squeezed the life from Lady Liberty, replacing that life with the stench of Mob Rule.

So what is about to happen?

  1. Conservatives in the Senate will either stand up for the Rule of Law, reject what the Mob is demanding, and send the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the floor of the Senate for a vote, or
  2. Conservatives will cave to the Mob who all are hoping for the return of control of both the House and Senate to Democrats in the midterm elections. If that happens, there will be NO Kavanaugh confirmation and certainly a liberal judge will be confirmed to the Court as soon as the Mob can force that to happen.
  3. With a Democrat controlled Congress, we will see almost immediately impeachment proceedings initiated to roll-back the results of the 2016 election to remove Trump from office.
  4. The Mob will cancel the tax cuts put in place by Trump, and will further raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans to previously unseen levels, doing so as punishment of conservatives.
  5. There will be NO immigration reform, and real border control will disappear. Massive numbers of illegals will be granted full amnesty with American citizenship, and the U.S. will have only virtual borders that are not enforced.

Our only hope is for those folks in D.C. that wear the white hats to either develop (or draw from hidden) intestinal fortitude to stand in the gap for democracy and the American Rule of Law, and summarily reject the Mob and Mob Rule. Hopefully the investigators in the Justice Department together with Utah’s federal prosecutor will quickly conclude their work and bring more indictments, arrests, and prosecutions of those members of the Mob who have violated innumerable federal laws over the last decade or so. There are so many of those it would take hours to name in this story. But believe this: there are thousands who have already been identified and have federal warrants issued against them that are currently sealed.

This is a developing situation that is changing almost momentarily. But know this: there are a number of Americans that have for a longtime been watching those perpetrators, and a plan has been developed and implemented to correct this push toward Mob Rule.

Let’s pray it is in time.

 

 

Play

Puerto Rico “Death-tistics”

Looks like we coined a new word: “Death-tistics.” The furor that has escalated about the number of deaths attributable to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico begs some explanation. Pretty much every news organization has — just as they always do — created the stories about the death-tistics, re-buffed the original “official” report of deaths from the hurricane that  were given by the Puerto Rican government, and launched a crazy string of “new” reports stating a much higher number of Maria-related deaths, Breitbart News weighed in with “The Rest of Story.” Let’s look-in:

(Breitbart News) On Thursday morning, President Trump pushed back on Twitter, alleging that Democrats had inflated the death toll “in order to make me look as bad as possible.” That led to more criticism, with the Associated Press accusing Trump of making claims “without evidence.”

But Trump is correct.

His opponents — including the media — have strained for more than a year to turn Hurricane Maria into his version of Hurricane Katrina, the devastating 2005 storm that prompted criticism of President George W. Bush’s response — even though state and local authorities had been far worse — and foreshadowed a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. Leading the charge was CNN, which made a special effort to link Hurricane Maria in 2017 to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and made a temporary media sensation of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, who accused the Trump administration of neglect.

However, the media’s effort at the time was frustrated by several factors.

  • First, experts praised the federal government’s response to Hurricane Maria, which posed special challenges because Puerto Rico is so far from the mainland U.S.
  • Second, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló himself praised the federal government’s response: “The president and the administration, every time we’ve asked them to execute, they’ve executed quickly,” he told Fox News in September 2017.
  • Third, Puerto Rico was already something of a disaster before the hurricane hit, thanks to mismanagement by the territory’s government that led to a debt crisis in recent years. (Mayor Cruz herself is reportedly under FBI investigation for corruption.)

However, Trump’s critics did not give up. Over the past several months, they have attempted to cite several new studies that created new estimates of the “real” death toll of Hurricane Maria — based on statistical models, not on actual death counts.

Many studies addressed a real concern that the Puerto Rican government lacked the competence to do an accurate death count, but much of the media hype around the results were clearly motivated by the attempt to damage the Trump administration. The Washington Post noted just some of the studies as of June 2018 (original links):

  • The New York Times calculated 1,052 deaths through October.
  • The Center for Investigative Reporting calculated 985 through October.
  • University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez professors calculated 822, with a 95 percent confidence range that the total was somewhere between 605 and 1,039.
  • Pennsylvania State University professors calculated excess deaths of about 500 in September, or a total of 1,085 if the same pattern held in October. That estimate was based on six weeks of mortality records.
  • A Latino USA analysis, using updated data from Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, calculated 1,194 excess deaths in September and October.
  • The Washington Post noted that the new estimates hovered around the 1,000 mark.

Then, in June, a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated the number of deaths from Hurricane Maria at 4,645 instead of the official figure of 64. The researchers had conducted a survey and extrapolated the results — an extremely sloppy methodology. The number was highly inflammatory. Puerto Rican opponents of the president cited it to accuse him of “genocide.” Much of the media hyped those claims: the caption that accompanies a Getty/AFP photograph reads: “Hurricane Maria, which pummeled Puerto Rico in September 2017, is likely responsible for the deaths of more than 4,600 people, some 70 times more than official estimates, US researchers said Tuesday.”

Even the Washington Post was skeptical of the absurdly high estimate: “This is not a verified number, unlike body counts in wars. The Harvard study offers only an estimate – a midpoint along a broad range of possibilities. It is not based on death records, only estimates of deaths from people who were interviewed in a survey.”

Last month, a new study was produced by George Washington University that estimated the “excess mortality” from Hurricane Maria over a six-month period at 2,975 within a 95% confidence interval of 2,658-3,290 “excess” deaths. This was the second-highest estimate after the faulty Harvard study and was based on a statistical model that subtracted the number of people who theoretically should have died over the same period from the number of people who actually died during that time. It is also a rather useless way of comparing death tolls, because, in order to evaluate the relative scale of Hurricane Maria, the same method would have to be used to measure other natural disasters, likely increasing their estimated death tolls as well.

The media reported the new estimate as if it were an actually confirmed death toll — with CNN taking care to note that the new number was released near the anniversary of Katrina. The Puerto Rican governor, under heavy political pressure due to the slow pace of the island’s recovery, officially revised the death toll to match the estimate. That gave the media an excuse to throw out science and statistics, and to report the 2.975 number as an established fact — even though it was just an estimate based on a statistical model, and three times higher than all but one of the previous estimates.

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that “3,000 people died in Puerto Rico” in Hurricane Maria — as if it were a proven fact. It did not indicate that the number was simply one estimate among many and that its evidence was a controversial statistical model.

On Thursday, the AP — with a touch of chutzpah — accused the president of stating “without evidence” that the “Puerto Rico hurricane death count is a plot by Democrats to make him look bad.”

(Update: National Public Radio weighed in to accuse Trump of “falsely” claiming Democrats had inflated the numbers.)

Setting aside the AP’s odd effort to “fact-check” an opinion, the evidence is ample that the Democrats — and much of the media — did exactly what Trump accused them of doing. Their goal, and the goal of Democrats who are hyping probable outliers as established facts are to take down the Republican Party in the 2018 midterm elections by linking Trump with Bush’s alleged failures in Hurricane Katrina.

Actual Puerto Rico “Death-tistics” in 2017

The graph below shows actual total Puerto Rican deaths from 2010 through 2017, as computed by the Puerto Rico government. Take a look:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This graph shows the “official” statistics of total deaths during September, October, November, and December in Puerto Rico by year from 2010 through 2017. These are important comparison numbers when discussing Puertican deaths directly attributable to Hurricane Maria, for it hit Puerto Rico September 17, 2017. By any realistic comparison of deaths, directly and indirectly, attributable to Maria, AND ancillary deaths during the 3 months following the hurricane, (which is what the purveyors of the death-tistics number of 3000-4000 are doing) there were 326 more total deaths in Puerto Rico during those 4 months in 2017 than in 2016. Even assuming every one of those increased deaths to Maria, there is no way to “factually” state there were several thousand deaths in Puerto Rico from Maria, and certainly, no way to claim those were because of Trump’s mismanagement of the disaster.

So What’s Going on Here?

Have you ever seen in recent history any scenario where Democrats and others on the Left do not find ways to blame President Trump for everything wrong and/or bad in America — and, for that matter, any bad thing anywhere in the World? Brexit was his fault, immigrants overrunning Europe was his fault, separation of babies from illegal immigrant parents during processing in 2014 was his fault, icebergs are his fault, every hurricane for the balance of World history will be his fault because he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accords, MS-13 is his fault, etc.

It is safe to say the insanity in New York and Washington D.C. among the liberal news media has reached epic proportions. I have stated before many times that it exists and will escalate — especially heading into the mid-term elections. The truth is insignificant and irrelative when it comes to political narrative. And the only political narrative that matters is this: Destroy Donald Trump.

Summary

Have you stopped to consider exactly why this lunacy not only exists but continues to ramp-up? Is there any other plausible explanation for it other than to do and say anything and everything to 1) win back the House of Representatives, and 2) set the stage for a Trump re-election White House bid upset in 2020? I don’t think there is.

Nevertheless, I feel strongly that even if the House turns blue and the U.S. Senate turns bluer, it will only make Trump’s message to the public during the next two years stronger, easier to understand, and much more obvious that the truth means nothing to Dems and other liberals. They will try to ram meaningless legislation through the House that all will attack President Trump and his agenda, take back those tax cuts, reinstall regulations, and will do everything within their power to do away with immigration as we know to open our borders.

If and when that happens, it is my opinion that it will open the eyes of more and more Americans to the horrors conservatives have been warning about. That will make the 2020 elections nationally and on the state and local levels a red bloodbath.

Americans are not stupid. Americans understand that Mainstream media does not present factual and unadulterated news to the American people. The Hurricane Maria deathtoll reports in Puerto Rico are prime examples of how corrupt the MSM is and will continue to be. And that’s all right. Americans understand that the truth is out there — somewhere. More and more Americans are spending the time necessary to find the truth and put it in place of the current political agenda being crammed down their throats by the lies of the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Associated Press (AP) and others.

It’s just a matter of time!

Play

Mueller Bullet Points: 10 Reasons to Dislike the Guy”

With the appointment as Special Counsel by his buddy Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller has become just about the most powerful man in the U.S., making him just about the most powerful man on Earth. With his convoluted appointment that violates all types of moral and legal ethics, breaks every rule regarding conflict of interest, and has given him and his group of legal henchmen an unlimited budget with no time restraints whatsoever, this Russia collusion hoax has morphed into what President Trump calls a Witch Hunt.

In this atmosphere, it is easy to see the political, social, moral, and cultural divide steadily widen as this probe forces most Americans to pick a side: Mueller or President Trump. Very few Americans have taken the time and given the effort to research who Mueller is, his political and legal history, and researched the actual basis for this investigation, which is unquestionably based on a false legal premise. For a Special Counsel to even be appointed, the process requires actual evidence of a crime to be present to justify such an appointment. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s named justification for the appoint was “collusion with Russians by members of the Trump Campaign to change the results of the 2016 election.”

Rosenstein was given NO evidence of any collusion that would justify Mueller’s appointment. And even if there was, there is no federal law regarding collusion except in Anti-Trust proceedings! And after 18 months, Mueller has turned up NO collusion with Russia.

Many Americans are steamed about this probe. In fact, a majority who have been polled say this investigation needs to end. And many Americans have negative feelings about Mueller and don’t appreciate what he’s doing.

Instead of our traditional “Bullet Points,” today we are going to look at “10 Reasons to Dislike Robert Mueller,” even if you don’t know him. Let’s get going:

1. The guy’s a leaker.

Breitbart says so. Sure, Mueller’s got a rep for rarely speaking in public or giving interviews. But behind the scenes he’s obviously spending day and night dishing dirt on Donald Trump and the president’s oh-so-honorable colleagues to any reporter who will listen. The deluge of daily stories disparaging President Trump, after all, began the day Mueller was appointed; before Mueller, Trump press coverage was constant sunshine and rainbows. Plus, it’s clearly to Mueller’s strategic advantage to have his investigative steps aired to the public in real time. Besides, who else would leak this kind of stuff? Only Mueller and his team have a motive. The White House isn’t a factionalist den of vipers; the president’s legal team is a well-oiled machine that never leaks; defense lawyers are paragons of virtue. Don’t even get us started on tight-lipped congressional staff — those guys never talk. The only logical explanation here is information about the investigation is coming from Mueller.

2. Mueller is a highly political actor.

Thank God, Newt Gingrich has seen through Mueller’s act. He tweeted recently that “Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he has hired. (check FEC reports) Time to rethink.” It’s quite a rethink. Mueller is so political that he’s spent his entire career going back and forth between politicians. He worked in the first George H.W. Bush administration as an assistant attorney general, then he was a prosecutor on murder cases in Washington, D.C., after running the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, and then he flip-flopped back to be a U.S. attorney in the Bill Clinton administration. Get this: He then goes on to run the FBI for both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (a bipartisan Congress even extended his term for two years at Obama’s request). The guy is so political he can’t even decide which side he’s on.

3. Mueller is too thorough and taking too long.

This thing is seriously taking forever. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke for all of us in saying that, “the president is frustrated by the continued witch hunt of the Russia investigation and he’d love for this to come to a full conclusion so that everyone can focus fully on the thing that he was elected to do.” You and me, both, friend. Could Mueller go any slower? It’s as if he’s a highly methodical actor systematically gathering strings on multiple broad areas simultaneously: Trump-Russia collusion, Trump Organization business dealings, misconduct in the Trump campaign, and obstruction of justice. He needs to hurry this thing along. Trump just wants to be cleared without the fuss of an investigation. Wouldn’t you? The president knows he is innocent and only wishes to spare us all the pain of this drawn-out ordeal. Of course, Trump recently told the New York Times that “I’m not under investigation. For what? I didn’t do anything wrong.” It’s completely reasonable of Trump to be frustrated that this investigation — which doesn’t exist — is taking so long and that Mueller is being so thorough about it.

4. Mueller is too aggressive and is moving too fast.

Slow down, buddy. The New York Times reported that “The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors” and their “shock-and-awe tactics.” When Mueller isn’t moving at a glacial pace, he’s being unprecedentedly aggressive. The Times reported clucking in the defense bar:

Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller’s investigation privately complain that the special counsel’s team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth that precedes — or substitutes for — grand jury testimony. They argue that the team’s more aggressive tactics might end up being counterproductive, especially if some grand jury witnesses turn out to be more guarded than they would have been in a more informal setting or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

This well-meaning concern among defense lawyers for the effectiveness of Mueller’s investigation is touching. When they aren’t overwhelmed with concern Mueller is moving too slowly, they’re worried sick that he’s going too fast for his own good.

5. He’s hiring bad people with conflicts of interest.

Trump warned us that Mueller’s staff comprises “some very bad and conflicted people.” Fact check: True. Some of Mueller’s staff attorneys have indeed committed the iniquitous crime of donating to Democratic candidates. This is what matters. Ignore their famed careers as prosecutors or appellate lawyers. Ignore the Supreme Court clerkships. Mueller’s staff actually are just human embodiments of contributions to Democratic candidates. No previous special prosecutor has ever employed people with political affiliations. We can’t recall any Republicans in sight for Kenneth Starr’s investigation, and Democrats absolutely fled from working for the Watergate special prosecutor and in the Iran-Contra investigation. If Mueller’s team isn’t wearing #MAGA t-shirts to work underneath their suits, the whole endeavor is hopelessly biased.

6. Mueller himself has conflicts of interest.

Mueller is the most conflicted one of all. Trump astutely pointed out that he’d even agreed to discuss becoming FBI director again following Comey’s dismissal: “He was up here and he wanted the job,” Trump told the New York Times. After he was named as special prosecutor, “I said, ‘What the hell is this all about?’ Talk about conflicts. But he was interviewing for the job.” Plus, Mueller’s old firm also had clients involved in the investigation. The Justice Department reviewed those and found no problem with Mueller’s current role, but what do those guys know anyway? And there’s even more! Trump told the Times that “There were many other conflicts that I haven’t said, but I will at some point.” When he does tell us, everyone is going to feel very foolish about trusting this Mueller guy.

7. Mueller keeps expanding his investigation.

The president warned Mueller that his investigation “is about Russia” and it would cross a red line if he strays into areas like Trump-family finances. And yet, the prosecutor keeps having the temerity to stray beyond the lines that Trump — the conduct of whose campaign and company is the investigation’s very subject — thinks he should be examining. It’s possible Mueller just got confused by his capacious mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, which gives him authority not merely over “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” but also over “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” and any attempt obstruct the investigation. But clearly, Mueller is trampling the time-honored legal principle that the subjects of investigations get to say which parts the police are allowed to investigate.

8. Mueller is best friends with Comey.

A lot of people say this. Here’s Republican Rep. Trent Franks: “Bob Mueller is in clear violation of federal code and must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties. Those who worked under them have attested he and Jim Comey possess a close friendship, and they have delivered on-the-record statements effusing praise of one another.” Here is blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a problem. He has a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding a large part of his work. It involves a choice between investigating or relying on former FBI director James Comey, a longtime close friend of Mueller’s.”

Sure, their actual premise is wrong and Comey and Mueller are not close friends. But never mind that. If we say it enough times, it will become true.

Mueller and Comey certainly know each other. They ran the same federal law enforcement agency in sequence. They worked together when one of them was deputy attorney general and the other was running the FBI. And they appear to have a mutually respectful relationship. They’ve probably even had lunch. And just as all of us maintain intimate personal friendships and unfailing loyalty towards all our former co-workers, so too is Mueller in the tank for Comey and incapable of remaining objective about President Trump.

9. Mueller is a problem because he was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who is a problem because he appointed Mueller.

No less a figure than the estimable Sean Hannity made this decidedly sensible — and certainly not circular — argument by way of arguing both that Mueller’s probe has gone on too long and that it was exceeding its jurisdictional boundaries, both points discussed above. Rosenstein, you see, is suspect because, among other things, “Rosenstein is … the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn’t know or didn’t care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director’s job.” Mueller, thus, is suspect because his investigation is being overseen by the guy who is suspect for having appointed him. “You can’t make this up,” Hannity writes.

Indeed you cannot.

10. Mueller is respected and admired at the FBI, and the FBI is the depths of the Deep State.

Do you need a better reason to dislike him than that?

Summary

I don’t think anyone knows for certain how this Mueller thing is going to play out — even Mueller himself. But in the midst of the strangest and most obviously evil federal investigation I know of in American history, something certainly IS about to happen. Only time will tell what it is.

Regardless of its outcome, one thing has been lighted like Rockefeller Center during Christmas holidays: there is a large number of evil folks in our government in D.C. And there is a very large volume of evil that needs to be identified, rooted out, and “turned” out — whether it’s laws, policies, government employees or elected legislators. The bad stuff and people must go.

If this Mueller probe does nothing more than simply shine a light on all of this wrongdoing, isn’t that enough? The light is on in the kitchen and the roaches are scrambling for cover. This is not a political thing. This is a good vs. evil thing. And the war has just begun.

This American for one hopes the guys wearing the white hats win this one.

Play