articles & Videos
By Dr. Robert Owens on June 15, 2017
That is the screech we’re about to hear emanating from the denizens of the swamp. It is beginning to percolate already. Though predicted in this column by this author before the inauguration it still has a jarring impact on the senses.
Back in the Dream Times when the Deep State was able to turn Watergate into a Silent Coup the precedent was set. If someone tries to overturn the moneychanger’s tables they must be destroyed. If it’s a president, even one elected for the sole purpose of adding some reality to the mirage of a dysfunctional democracy portrayed by our functioning oligarchy, they must be hounded out of office, disgraced, and discredited.
That’s the play book. The perpetually re-elected hacks aided and abetted by the ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCPBS Cartel and their paleo partners in print have latched on to their intended weapon, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!”
No matter that the initial facts of the story are ludicrous: the fictional Golden Shower Dossier and the Russian hack of the DNC, which was in fact an inside job. It doesn’t matter that the very foundation of the Russian collusion theory is built on sand; we now have a Special Counselor. We can’t call him a Special Prosecutor because there is no legal foundation to appoint a Special Prosecutor, so if we call him a Special Counselor that should fool all of us out here in fly-over country.
Prosecutors always believe whoever they are investigating is guilty and that their job is to find enough evidence to prove what they believe. Innocent until you are proven guilty, right. Anyone who has ever been lucky enough to have been involved in a criminal trial and lived to talk about it knows how that feels in reality. It inspired some to look at the courthouse and say, “It may say justice on the outside but there isn’t any on the inside.”
Remember the Valerie Plame investigation? Someone blew her cover as an undercover CIA operative. Before the investigation even started they knew who did it. Eventually after a few years and millions of dollars they never prosecuted anyone for the leak; instead they prosecuted Lewis “Scooter” Libby the Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Chaney for inconsistencies in his testimony.
These are search and destroy missions. They are looking to get at least one conviction to justify all of their expense and to puff up the reputations of the scalp hunters who run them. This Special “Counselor” is one of the closest associates of James “The Leaker” Comey. He is staffing his office with Obama and Hillary supporters and we’re supposed to believe his investigation of a non-crime that never happened will produce objective results that anyone anywhere would imagine are justice?
Witch hunts find witches. That’s what they do. Have you ever been on a snipe hunt? Ever find any snipes?
If anyone was interested in finding real collusion to disrupt an American election they could look into the subject of the DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks; the proven collusion between the Hillary Clinton campaign, Donna Brazile, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Did you ever notice that none of the principles ever denied what was in the leaked emails, they merely complained about who leaked what to who. Why isn’t there a Special Counselor looking in to how these people stacked the cards against poor old Bernie Sanders? He said all along the election was rigged and he was right after all. Why no interest in this? It doesn’t serve to keep the swamp damp that’s why.
Our elite masters, the perpetually re-elected, the Deeps State, and the Media Cartel are setting the stage. They must drive Trump from office before he can actually drain the swamp. They must drive him out disgraced and repudiated or else we poor blind masses might figure out that we don’t need technocrats to rule us.
I am for establishing a new political party. I think it should be the Telephone Book Party. I think we could pick the first 535 names out of any phone book in the country and get a Congress at least as good as the best one that money can buy. At least that way we might get some actual working people in there.
Until my new party figures out how to win a mandate we have to endure with what we have and these political savants are determined to undue the results of the last election. None of their fellow swamp dweller won, so they have banded together and the twin headed bird of prey that is the government party is clearly on display.
They won’t let little things like votes, or facts, or what’s good for America get in their way. No, they will soldier on and soon we will hear this predator’s screech “IMPEACH TRUMP!!!! IMPEACH TRUMP!!!!” echoing through the land.
By Dr. Robert Owens on June 9, 2017
Resist 45 and the Government in Exile
Just when you thought it was safe to come out of the packed gun shows his extreme disjointed attacks on the Second Amendment inspired, we’re confronted with the sorry spectacle of a former American President speaking against us on foreign soil. I knew this guy reminded me of Jimmy Carter. When you hate America it doesn’t matter what your job is or isn’t, you’ll always find a venue that rejoices as you attack Old Glory.
After an all too brief (for us) vacation orchestrating the Resist 45 Movement from his lair in DC the Instigator-in-Chief couldn’t resist a chance to visit the scene of one of his most famous speeches, Berlin. The fact that Europe’s leading exponent of unlimited immigration German Chancellor Merkel agreed to receive him as a fellow head of state must have made his narcissistic head swim.
Here he is trying to upstage President Trump’s well received visit to Saudi Arabia by attempting to push his shopworn platitudes down people’s throats instead of playing golf with Tiger Woods. It seems no one told him Americans are tired of hearing the same old song no matter how loudly the supine Germans cheer as they’re overwhelmed by the migration flood.
“We can’t isolate ourselves,” the former president said from a platform at the Brandenburg Gate. “We can’t hide behind a wall.” Of course everything should be taken in context. What was the Ex-President (oh how I love the ‘Ex’ part of that) saying: “One way we can do a better job is to create more opportunities for people in their home countries,” Mr. Obama said. “If there are disruptions in these countries, if there is bad governance, if there is war, or if there is poverty in this new world we live in, we can’t isolate ourselves — we can’t hide behind a wall.”
And do you think that applies to everyone equally? According to the Washington Times, “Like so many liberals and ‘progressives,’ the former president does not mean that what he says should be taken literally, or even seriously. Walls, after all, are relative. America can’t have one, but he can. The president lives in an enormous rented mansion behind a brick and stone wall built just for him, and which he has fitted out as the White House in exile, with a staff and lots of electronic communications gear, requiring the seizure of a quarter of a mile of a quiet residential street to be guarded by a Secret Service detail not much smaller than the platoon of heavily armed agents who kept him safe, sound and ready for action at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”
He even had some advice on child care, “A child on the other side of the border is no less worthy of love and compassion than my own child. We can’t distinguish between in terms of their worth and inherent dignity, and that they’re deserving of shelter and love and education and opportunity.”
This from a man who Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, just revealed directed Customs and Border Protection to release 16 members of the remarkably brutal MS-13 gang, freed to look at will for opportunities to kill and plunder. “[The federal authorities] apprehended them, knew they were MS-13 gang members, and they processed them into our communities,” the senator told his committee. How does this help provide safety for American children when these gang members terrorize our schools and communities?
These globalists are more interested in advancing their agenda than in protecting America and its citizens.
According to one of their minions, a senior judge on the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “Judges are humiliated and dehumanized whenever they must enforce the nation’s immigration laws.” Judges are humiliated when they have to enforce laws? What kind of tin hat wearing alternate reality is this puffed-up self-anointed Carter appointed king in a black robe coming from? What set this ruler of men in a rage against the machine?
He was unable to block the orderly repatriation of an illegal immigrant who has two drunk driving convictions, plus a U.S. wife and three children. The outraged jurist complained, “We are unable to prevent [Andres] Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system.” In his blast from on high he continued, “We are compelled to deny Mr. Magana Ortiz’s request for a stay of removal because we do not have the authority to grant it. We are not, however, compelled to find the government’s action in this case fair or just. … The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not.”
This judge is a perfect representative of the Deep State, the permanent government. They don’t care who is elected or what the people may want. They have their agenda and they’re going to continue to try and shove it down our throat until we either accept it or choke.
A president in exile leading a resistance movement against the man elected to succeed him, a Deep State of bureaucrats dedicated to the disruption of the government they are sworn to serve. What are we to do?
Why worry when we can pray?
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
By Theodore Miraldi on June 7, 2017
Apocalyptic & PUNCH-DRUNK On Power
The Left’s gone Apocalyptic!
Trump has given the Planet the Finger! Somehow if the Middle Class in our nation refuses to pay polluters to stop destroying the climate, it’s America’s FAULT!
The World is a Mess, and Trump barely in office 6 months is to BLAME!
They must really think the rest of us are just plain stupid. It’s the failed policies of the Anointed One that is responsible for bringing the mess out There … HERE!
The greatest tragedy befalling the Democrats has been the loss of feeling the pulse of the middle class. So invested in minority issues, the oars that power the Ship of State are floating aimlessly in a sea of delusions.
Feeling invincible after 8 years of petulant power brokering, Harvard types and Ivy leaguers have created a maze of half truths, and fake information.
The wholesale failures of the Free Press to investigate and report is pushing propaganda to the young and idealism to the hardliners who care little for the truth.
The Arrogance of Power displayed by Obama has trickled down to his fanatical base in an effort to make the United States of America, a South American Nightmare.
The losers within our society have been made to feel like the winners through no logical process, or qualified achievements. This folly of fools have talked themselves into thinking they have finally overcome their stupidity to become the brain trust of the nation.
The so-called Free Press isn’t all that Free anymore. What unfortunately has become easy to divulge is, un-sourceable gibberish and hacked classified documents. Hillary Clinton was proven to leak classified information by the thousand. Where was the Free Press?
The same nefarious forces within the Obama regime are still at work trying to take down our government. They are Punch Drunk by a charlatan that gave the nation his middle finger and enjoyed every second of watching this nation loose its footing at home and abroad.
Nothing but hysteria from the Losers. Nothing seems to change.
By Dr. Robert Owens on June 1, 2017 American politics, Dr. Robert Owens
American Spymaster and Election Hacker Revealed
For months we’ve heard endless reports concerning the supposed ties between the Trump campaign and the Darth Vader of the progressive’s nightmares, Putin’s Russia. The thin gruel of this plot has swirled from the swamp in DC through the megaphone of the ABC CBS NBC PBS CNN MSNBC Cartel until one would think every day Americans out here in fly-over country were actually thinking about it.
Finally after months of exhaustive research the spy-master of the most extensive surveillance campaign aimed at Americans can be revealed. The one man who used every avenue possible to invade the privacy of American citizens in History has had the mask of denial ripped away. Besides Hillary and the DNC rigging the primaries to stop Bernie who actually tried to use illegally obtained information to influence the presidential election in 2016?
The Obama Administration routinely spied on Americans. According to John Solomon and Sara Carter of CIRCA:
The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community.
More than 5 percent, or one out of every 20 searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa.
The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm. Trump was elected less than two weeks later.
The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.
The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.
According to Paul Sperry of the New York Post the Obama Admiration used its control of America’s vast intelligence gathering apparatus in an attempt to hack the election. While the show trials in Congress continue to build a paint-by-numbers PR case about Russians acting in collusion with the Trump campaign those who really tried to subvert the electoral process are being protected by the same political hacks running the phony investigations.
As Sperry reveals and relates:
New revelations have surfaced that the Obama administration abused intelligence during the election by launching a massive domestic spy campaign that included snooping on Trump officials.
The irony is mind-boggling: Targeting political opposition is long a technique of police states like Russia, which Team Obama has loudly condemned for allegedly using its own intelligence agencies to hack into our election.
The revelations, as well as testimony this week from former Obama intel officials, show the extent to which the Obama administration politicized and weaponized intelligence against Americans.
We now know the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama routinely violated privacy protections while snooping through foreign intercepts involving US citizens — and failed to disclose the breaches, prompting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a month before the election to rebuke.
The FISA court called it a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue” that NSA analysts — in violation of a 2011 rule change prohibiting officials from searching Americans’ information without a warrant — “had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”
A number of those searches were made from the White House, and included private citizens working for the Trump campaign, some of whose identities were leaked to the media. The revelations earned a stern rebuke from the ACLU and from civil liberties champion Sen. Rand Paul.
We also learned this week that Obama intelligence officials really had no good reason attaching a summary of a dossier on Trump to a highly classified Russia briefing they gave to Obama just weeks before Trump took office.
Under congressional questioning Tuesday, Obama’s CIA chief John Brennan said the dossier did not “in any way” factor into the agency’s assessment that Russia interfered in the election. Why not? Because as Obama intel czar James Clapper earlier testified, “We could not corroborate the sourcing.”
But that didn’t stop Brennan in January from attaching its contents to the official report for the president. He also included the unverified allegations in the briefing he gave Hill Democrats.
In so doing, Brennan virtually guaranteed that it would be leaked, which it promptly was.
In short, Brennan politicized raw intelligence. In fact, he politicized the entire CIA.
Langley vets say Brennan was the most politicized director in the agency’s history. Former CIA field operations officer Gene Coyle said Brennan was “known as the greatest sycophant in the history of the CIA, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton before the election. I find it hard to put any real credence in anything that the man says.”
Coyle noted that Brennan broke with his predecessors who stayed out of elections. Several weeks before the vote, he made it very clear he was pulling for Hillary. His deputy Mike Morell even came out and publicly endorsed her in the New York Times, claiming Trump was an “unwitting agent” of Moscow.
Brennan isn’t just a Democrat. He’s a radical leftist who in 1980 — during the height of the Cold War --voted for a Communist Party candidate for president.
When Brennan rants about the dangers of strongman Vladimir Putin targeting our elections and subverting our democratic process, does he not catch at least a glimpse of his own reflection?
What he and the rest of the Obama gang did has inflicted more damage on the integrity of our electoral process than anything the Russians have done.
How does all this surveillance keep us safe? In Great Britain where there is more government surveillance than in any other western state it didn’t help stop the recent Manchester bomber. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem?
Of course here in America our government’s watchers are going to do it better ……. of course they will… ;–)
My question is: As they are watching us who watches them besides secret courts that report only to the perpetually re-elected guardians of the dysfunctional democratic process in a well-functioning oligarchy?
Never mind the facts. Don’t pay any attention to who did what. Ignore an ex-president operating a deep state government in exile while orchestrating the Resist 45 Movement.
By Aleks Yakubssohn
As the debates on the nature, scope and need of American-Ukrainian relations do not subside and keep flaring, and in light of some fairly controversial statements made recently by the current US state secretary, i’d like to lay a ‘magic seven’ of arguments in favor of America continuing its policy of support for the fledgling post-Soviet state, other than, of course, me being its native.
1. Ukraine is an important asset in European collective security system. It’s stability and territorial integrity is vital to the order and safety of hundreds of millions of people residing in neighboring regions, in particular to the nation’s West, which are almost all member of European Union and/or NATO. Sure, Ukraine itself is not a member of either alliance and won’t likely be for a while, but the best way to ensure one’s own security is to help out a neighbor, moreover one that has repeatedly shown good disposition to you. US, as a guarantor and benefactor of European stability, is surely interested in Ukraine’s role in it.
2. Unfortunately, in recent dozen or so years we have had to contend with increased assertiveness and sometimes outright aggression of current Russian government, the brunt of which Ukraine has taken in the last three years. But the disturbing conduct of the Kremlin inhabitants does not by any means end in its or other post-Soviet republics’ territory: we ourselves are seeing repeated provocations by Russian airforce and battleships even near our shores, near-conflict situations on Syria, North Korea and so on. Supporting Ukraine in its European political and cultural choice would help fend Kremlin’s advances and eventually positively influence Russia proper, by striving to create a Western-style free and prosperous society. Sure, right now that goal seems quite far, but as the proverb goes, when there’s a will there’s a way.
3. There are many Ukrainians and people of other East European origins in the United States, such as Poles, Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Czechs, Russian and Russian speakers and so on, who are sympathetic to Ukrainian and broader, East Europeans causes and affairs, in some states such as Illinois they even make up a very large part of the population(Chicago, for instance, is the world’s second-largest ‘Polish’ city after the nation’s capital of Warsaw), who watch anxiously what’s happening in their native lands, partake in their plights financially, personally and in many other ways, and whose interests and aspirations should not be neglected. Showing understanding of the needs and struggles faced by those East Europe nations, we would secure support of that electoral bloc, while serving general interests of our values.
4. Ukraine’s struggle for freedom itself should be seen in the light of America’s own values and history, as United states both faced early in its own existence very similar challenges and threats of ‘brotherly’ overlordship, and also has been historically known to aid other freedom-aspiring nations, be it in its own hemisphere, East Asia, Europe or Mid East. It is, in short, a very AMERICAN thing to support a nation, especially so large and influential, in its attempt to basically stand on its own two feet, without outside coercion.
5. It is besides everything else, a matter of American prestige. To abruptly end support of Ukraine’s drive to independence and right to pick its own destiny, would be a blow to American reputation, even if no other significant interests were at stake–though they definitely are. and in continuation of the ‘interests’ theme, let me say that’
6. the opportunities for American business community, of which our current administration is rightfully mindful, abound in Ukraine. The nation has great infrastructure, scientific, technological and other baggage developed over centuries, as well as untapped potential in exploration of fields such as energy production(coal, shale gas, hydroelectric plants etc). And while neighboring Russia may present larger and richer field of exploration, Ukraine’s attempts at purging itself of corrupt and ineffective aspects of its economy, and to restyle and realign itself with Western concepts and practices of conducting business, provide much healthier working atmosphere. Ukraine needs both support and investment on its way to develop truly modern successful economy, and one who has greater hand in aiding it in this endeavor, will reap richest rewards. There are also great opportunities for American business in working with both government and their colleagues in Ukraine, in such fields, as military, high tech and so on. And while it is always bad when things turn to outright military conflict, the ever present chance of escalation of Kremlin-supported formations’ activities against Ukrainian armed forces, provides a potential for serious military equipment sales to the country–something the previous US president simply chickened out to do.
7. Finally, president Trump has recently stated that he needs and believes in strong cohesive Europe, capable of dealing with modern day challenges: in security, economy, immigration, and other fields. Ukraine is an inalienable part of European history and civilization, and any such planning simply cannot successfully and lastingly work without its inclusion.
There are our seven ‘magic’ arguments in support of continued cooperation and aid by United States of America to Ukraine. Though we are pretty sure that readers can find many more on their own reasons to do so, whereas for opposite views, one might seriously struggle to produce them. We hope this material catches attention of at least someone in current American policy-making circles, and falls on fertile ground.
By Theodore Miraldi
The Multi-Cultural Farce
Culture is the guiding characteristic of every society across the globe. What may astonish many, is that merely 10% of the world lives with the positive effects of Western Society. Western Culture has tamed the savage beast, giving the individual freedom of choice and higher standards of living.
But most of all, it has given higher morality a conscience in a world ripe for disasters each and every day. It’s why most Western Constitutional Democracies/Republics have incremental type governments filled with checks and balances.
Many nations take Immigrants from around the world guided by the old maxim that assimilation into the cultural norms of their adopted countries are expected. Not so any longer, and that’s the heart of the problem.
In the past the only way outside invaders could hijack your community was by physical force, laying the groundwork to change the norms. Now, we gleefully invite individuals from savage nations to disrupt the public safety and destroy the rule of law.
What we are seeing today are immigrants from nations with the most dysfunctional cultures crossing our borders and disrupting our social and cultural norms.
We have seen the dramatic results in our cities, towns and communities and sit idly by contemplating the usefulness of marginal players upon an ever expanding welfare community.
And although Immigrants have contributed to our expansion and power in the past, the majority of the newly arrived care less about becoming American citizens.
We are being raped, morally, economically and legally by a wave Immigrants bent on confrontation and bully tactics. They call Americans Racists who stand up and defend our Laws or Beliefs.
The United States has been looked upon as the last best hope for the world, by the rest of the world.
Immigrants have been welcomed and embraced throughout our history. Those who feel they have some special privilege are wrong. We as a society give that honor to those who are deserving.
It’s time to put the bullies back in the bottle! If you’re here illegally, you have NO RIGHTS!
Thirty years ago, I said the huge influx of Immigrants from our southern border would set our nation back 40-50 years in social development. Why? The left decided that assimilation was either too much trouble for government to oversee, or the immigrants themselves had no intention of assimilation into an English speaking nation. Seeing no clear future adjustment in policy the flood gates remained open.
Americans are now seeing the truth regarding this charade from the left as merely a plan to make this nation less white, and by extension less successful. What could be more irrational than that?
I suggest anyone who still promotes the fantasy that cultures must be embraced should move their wives and children into a community filled with foreigners who disrespect our citizens and nation daily. Try getting a job, try defending your national honor.
It is apparent in cluster communities. The same communities civil rights leaders have opposed as a form of segregation. Have we learned so little, or is this a planned invasion?
One must feel the fear of an ever growing population that wants to tear away the foundations of Western Culture. It’s the very culture that offers the rest of the world hope of a better and safer life.
Diluting the power of the American Dream needs to be resisted at all costs.
The fact that there are more Non-English speaking immigrants in our nation than any time in history should be a dead give-away regarding non-assimilation.
Immigration needs to be slow and with the intent, so that anyone who wants our Freedoms must prove their allegiance to our standards of an orderly society, and not that of a nation that they are fleeing.
When you have figures like Jose Ramos spewing his hatred of White America and its values, gleeful of a possible future when Whites will become the minority, it’s time to act.
Multi-Culturism is failing around the world, and it’s not the first time!
My apologies to those Immigrants who love and serve our nation, sometimes with their lives. We welcome you with open arms. To those who insist on resistance, maybe you’re in the wrong place.
The U S Military could launch strikes against specific North Korean targets as early as next month if North Korea continues threats of nuclear
By Dr. Robert Owens
Are Democrats Smarter Than Republicans?
I have asked myself this question many times. Have recent events changed my mind?
The headline blares, “Nunes steps aside from Russia probe.” Why? As Nunes puts it, “Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power.”
Do you think if this was House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Democrat Adam Schiffserving as the head of the committee he would step aside? No way. If this was going on against a Democrat the entire Progressive establishment would be attacking the Ethics Committee for even accepting such accusations.
In a second example let’s look at the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. He recuses himself from the Russian witch hunt over non-issues. Does anyone remember that Obama’s last AG Loretta Lynch meeting with Ex-President Clinton on an airport in Arizona while her department was conducting a criminal investigation of his wife? Did she recuse herself? Of course not only Republicans are held to those standards.
Or look at the fake news tsunami about Russian meddling in our recent election. After all this inquiry there is no evidence to support it. WIKI Leaks has provided documents that show our own intelligence organizations routinely hack computers and make it look like the Russians did it. And besides as I have been pointing out all along if the Russians did hack the election and Hillary won the popular vote who was the recipient of any Russian help? Now it comes out that President Obama’s political hatchet woman Susan Rice was the one unmasking people from the Trump campaign and transition team in broad sweep intel gatherings. So it looks like if any government was trying to interfere in a fair election it was ours.
And yet the media drum beat and the hearings, investigations, and charges continue. If this was happening to a Democrat, say to President Obama what would we hear? The media megaphone would be blaring day and night that it was a racially motivated witch hunt. And unlike the Republicans who have some of the leaders of their party in and out of government and those in the media joining in the attacks in a similar situation the Democrats would circle the wagons and defend the attacked 24/7.
Like Charley Brown trying to kick the football over and over again only to have Lucy pull it away; each time the Democrats keep running the same play and the Republicans keep falling for it. This brings us to the question of the day, “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?”
I was a fourth generation Republican who cut my teeth in Nixon’s first presidential campaign back in 1960 and then in Barry Goldwater’s failed Presidential bid. I worked for Goldwater, Reagan, and all the following Republican flag wavers who tried to rally the country to a return to limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom. That is I did until Trent Lott’s Republican Senate Majority gave us the impeachment debacle and the explosion of government growth and spending under Hastert, Lott, and Bush. When the Republican Senate refused to impeach President Clinton for crimes he later admitted and when they and their House brethren became Democrat Lite as the party of power, I mailed my membership card to the party that was no longer the Grand Old Party of my great grandfather and became an Independent.
For most of my life I was a party man: accepting some things I didn’t agree with for the greater good of electing a party with a platform I could agree with. However, once it became apparent that as far as the budget went we had elected the foxes to watch the hen house, that the conservative social agenda received a tip-of-the-hat during elections followed by no action, and that the only victims of the impeachment were those brave enough to bring the charges the scales fell from my eyes. Once I saw that the Republicans had lost their moorings and were swilling at the public trough, I realized the platform we conservatives battle so hard for and hold so dear is merely a mirage held in front of social and fiscal conservatives to keep them loyal to a Party captured by the Progressives.
Back in the Dream Time, when my mind was still locked in the glow of Ronald Reagan and all his example and message meant to America, even then I wondered, “What’s wrong with these leaders of ours? Why do the Democrats always seem to outsmart them at every turn?”
Even Reagan, the best of the best, was hoodwinked by Tip O’Neal in the amnesty bargain: we would grant amnesty and then seal the border. The problem is the illegal immigrants got the amnesty; however, America’s border was never sealed. He also signed several tax deals with the Democratic majority. We the People lost many deductions in exchange for lower rates. The deductions never came back even though the rates started rising again as soon as theGipper said good night and George the First forgot to read his own lips.
George Bush the Elder was out maneuvered by the Progressives so many times that 20% of his base ran to Perot opening the door for Clinton and the first attempt to ram national health care down America’s throat. That time they overplayed their hand and the last great strategist among the Republicans, Newt Gingrich, was able to sell a Contract with America and bring the first Republican majority in Congress in 40 years.
Newt kept the promises and brought some fiscal sanity back to Washington. Within a few short years the Republican led Congress ended welfare as we had known it for generations andbalanced the budget. Unfortunately the Party of Lincoln then nominated someone who campaigned as if he had voted for Lincoln. The 1996 Republican campaign would have had to improve several thousand percent to make it to dull. Suddenly, with an assist from the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media it was Clinton, who had been dragged kicking and screaming to the benefit and spending cutting table, who was the author of everything positive Congress had accomplished. The Republicans had been outmaneuvered and outsmarted again.
According to every one of the serial re-counts Bush the younger won Florida and legitimately the presidential race of 2000. Yet, to this day people talk of him being selected not elected. After the dastardly deeds of 9-11 the rhetorically-challenged George captured the hearts of America and the admiration of the Western world by taking a bullhorn and talking to a crowd at ground zero. Yet by fighting and winning America’s first preemptive war and then losing the peace through the lack of planning he soon lost the PR campaign which led to the Pelosi-Reid Congress in 2006 and eventually to the absolute triumph of Progressivism in 2008.
Once their secular messiah was enthroned at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the Progressives with their filibuster proof majority took the reins of single-party rule and imposed their radical agenda to transform America into a Nanny-state based upon the re-distribution of wealth. This wanton destruction of the traditional American society based on limited government and free enterprise sparked a vast rebellion of the silent majority resulting in the teanami of 2010which brought a Republican majority back to the People’s House and an expanded minority to the Senate.
And what is the first thing these political savants do? They reaffirm the same tired leadership and strike a deal that anyone who was paying attention could see was tailor made to save the discredited Obama presidency and set the stage for him to follow in Mr. Clinton’s footsteps taking credit for anything good the historic election might have made possible. What were these so-called leaders thinking? They turned the victory of the grassroots into a capitulation to the elites. Not only did they sign a deal that extended uncertainty and raised estate taxes, they gave the Administration cover for a stealth stimulus filled with porkulous pay-offs designed to help re-elect the President.
Along comes 2012 and the Republican establishment and their friends in the Progressive Media engineer the nomination of the one man who couldn’t beat the worst president in American History with the worst economy since 1932. They surrender the issue of a massively unpopular Obamacare by nominating the author of its prototype. Mr. Romney spends the last debate agreeing with the President’s handling of foreign policy and ignoring the raging controversy over the debacle in Benghazi. If he didn’t throw the election he tossed it away.
Then came Trump, he wins fair and square yet he is illegitimate. There is no evidence of any collusion with the Russians but the seriousness of the charges demand an investigation as is the Democrat standard operating procedure. All of this smoke and mirrors might easily be a cover so that no one gets to investigate the real scandal, that the Obama administration spied on and distributed the findings in an attempt to sabotage the incoming Trump. And the Republicans are either right in there working with the Democrats, they recuse themselves, or they’re merely ineffective in dispersing the smoke and revealing the truth.
So, “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?” The answer is they aren’t. It isn’t a matter of intelligence it’s a matter of people with dedication to something larger than themselves, as opposed to people with dedication to seeing themselves as something larger than they are.
The leadership of the Democrat Party is composed of committed radical Progressives. They have a long term agenda to transform America into a socialist welfare state with an unlimited government, and they never lose sight of that goal. They’re willing to commit political suicide, or more accurately they’re willing to encourage their follow travelers who do not occupy safe seats to commit political suicide usually with pay off jobs in government agencies. They never take their eyes off the ball. They’re constantly pushing to move closer to the goal line even if it’s one inch at a time. And after the debacle that was Hillary they are warming to the idea of allowing an outright Socialist to become the leader and agenda driver of their Party.
They say a leopard can’t change his spots and at least the sheep’s clothing is falling off the Faux Socialists who call themselves Democrats. It is interesting to remember that the Communist Party USA went all in for Obama and Clinton. Why run your own candidate when one of the major parties is doing it for you. These are some dedicated community organizers who aim at nothing less than fundamentally transforming America.
By comparison, the leadership of the Republicans is composed of professional politicians. They’re pragmatists who do whatever they have to do and say whatever they have to say to retain their seats, their power, and their perks. They believe the inside the beltway press who tell them how visionary they are to compromise, losing sight of those back home in fly-over country who instead believed the campaign promises and expect their representatives to stand up for principles.
The Party of Lincoln over-and-over chooses to be on the receiving end of Pickett’s Chargeinstead of behind the spit-rail fence firing point blank as their enemy wastes itself in a senseless assault against an immovable barrier. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They could be that immovable barrier holding back the advancing forces of bankruptcy and collapse. Instead the Progressives of the right are once again embracing the frivolous and spurious attacks of the Left against anyone who is really trying to lead away from the super state. Soon they will join the Progressives of left in a bi-partisan campaign to continue the spending, increase the debt, and fool the public.
Paraphrasing the first Republican President, Historian Will Durant once wisely observed, “It may be true that you can’t fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.”
Looking at the question which is the title of this essay, “Are Democrats smarter than Republicans” over many years of pondering this question, I haven’t changed my mind. Singleness of purpose and focusing on a goal will make one appear smarter than someone who is merely in it for what they can get. In other words, people who are dedicated to achieving long-term goals who have the ability to delay gratification will always trump self-serving pragmatists who can see no further than the feathers in their own nest.
By Aleks Yakubssohn
As Rex Tillerson is confirmed the new US Secretary of State, and president Trump's foreign policy takes shape, it's time to share some thoughts and suggestions for it, that i find vital.
If there's one central point to Donald Trump's political persona, it's that he's a man of strong, brave and often non-systemic, sometimes even anti-systemic convictions and decisions. And while this may cause uncertainty, it also can be a boon for better future. After all, even though unlike our new president I have for most part been a believer and supporter of what is usually termed these days as 'globalization', 'world system' and so on, I also always maintained that it should only be respected insofar as it benefits the cause and interest of liberty, democracy and justice. In the words of late Russian democratic politician Valeria Novodvorsky, 'a bad regime should not have a good economy, i bad regime should not have a good army, a bad regime should not have a good culture' and so on. Add to it that bad regimes should not have access to free market and other elements of modern society, as they tend to abuse and take advantage of opportunities this society provides, rather than adhere to general rules of conduct, or be grateful to US and others who put this very 'world system' in place and provided these very opportunities, and you pretty much get my foreign policy worldview.
It is also interesting to note, that while much has been made of our new state secretary's connections with Russian president Putin and his hydrocarbon industry cronies, with fears being fanned he and the president might change and even undo key elements of Russian policy of previous US administrations, it has to be noted that Mr Tillerson was a big donor to Jeb Bush's campaign early on in republican primary, and also apparently was suggested as Secy candidate by such 'mainstream' people as Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. Plus as a super experienced oil executive, he is a staunch supporter of exploration and development of energy industry, in particular here at home, which may very well once again bring oil and gas prices down, weakening in process standing of Russian, Venezuelan and some other rogue or unreliable partners.
What's to be done regarding Russian direction of our foreign policy, at this point? While understanding president Trump's desire to obtain good relations with that country, several important factors need to be noted. First of, as is proved among other by recent flair-up of violence in East Ukraine, such desire may meet insurmountable obstacles, that are possibly even beyond control of twice-world's most influential man, current Russian president Vladimir Putin. The situation he and his team largely created, is quite possibly out of their grasp by now. I would suggest at least keeping current sanctions in place, if not, given the president's so far rather friendly disposition towards Putin and his country, increasing them.
Let's also not forget that Russia in big part is at the center of several other conflicts currently going on, in various stages of intensity, from being original and most long-running supporter of North Korean regime(which i sincerely hope president Trump will stick to his promise to obliterate at some point, with goal being the unification of Korea Germany-style), Syrian civil war, where Putin has involved himself formally in order to aid 'legit' regime but really to divert his own populations; attention from Russia's own internal struggles; or currently 'frozen' conflicts in such nations as Georgia, Moldova or Tajikistan; or for that matter, well-attested friendship of Russian government with such 'troublemakers' and, in the language of our new president 'bad hombres' as Maduro or Castro. Whom, by the way, i also hope our new leadership will up the pressure on, as it seems time is ever riper for decisive changes in these and a few other countries currently under far left-regimes. In case of Cuba, i'd suggest restoration of both broadcasting and refugee programs undone by previous US administration, even as we are facing this huge controversy with refugees from other nations. President Trump perhaps knows very well, and it can also be attested by his former primary rivals such as sens Rubio and Cruz, that Cuban refugees are a group much more closely identifying with US and its values, and much less prone to presence of terrorist and other hostile elements, than those currently at the center of controversy. Kremlin is also known to be friends with other regional ultra leftist entities, even as Putin's own ideology and policy is much more right-leaning, in particular in Africa, where it among other supports one of most abject failures and simultaneously brashest self-aggrandizers in all governance history, that is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. No one in their right state of mind in entire world would object had those regimes-- Zimbabwean, NorthKorean, Venezuealan, Cuban, Iranian, Palestinian(in its HAMAS branch), or Lebanese based shia terrorists of Hezbollah--disappeared off the face of Earth's political map this very instance, and if at some point US directly of indirectly has to do with it, so be it; and the fact of all these entities being on good terms with Russian leadership should not be a deterrent in the least. Times of tying our own hands behind our backs, and apologizing to entire world for nonexistent faults are hopefully over, and this is yet another possible benefit of new president's attitude.
Main fear of possible problems in Russia proper, it appears, has for many years been possible loss of control over world's one of two largest nuclear arsenals. Toward that end, previous US administrations, especially those of Bush senior and Clinton, failed to even fathom possible collapse and split-up of Russian Federation a-la USSR's own demise in 1991. This has led to historical overlooking of other former Soviet countries, and readiness to invest all eggs in a Kremlin basket, shutting eyes on almost anything the Kremlin may be doing in ad to its own country. And while i already mentioned president Trump's original well disposition towards Putin, i also did catch his more recent quote of sometimes changing opinion of people if they fail his trust. Towards this end, let me note that Mr Putin may both be not as reliable nor as strong in control over his nation, as may at first look. Underneath artificially whipped 86% approval rating lies dying economy, burdened by corruption, nepotism, pressure especially on small and medium level business community, unfair taxation and resource distribution system, which takes all earnings from regions into central budget and then kicks back crumbles to regions proper, making both dependent and donor regions and their governors dissatisfied. Severe problems in relations between various regions, especially when residents of 'Russian proper' territories like Siberia see preferential treatment of regions like Chechnya, on appearance of control over which the entire Putin legacy was essentially built. Crumbling infrastructure and many other problems make the situation in Russia appear far less predictable in at least middle and long term if not immediate future, as it seems at first glance.
It may be wise to at least take closer look at regional elites, opposition Russian figures, especially those of somewhat more conservative and nationalist leaning, and perhaps even some military, law enforcement and other 'power structures' personnel of levels under the top one, in order to seek possible future partners dealing with Russia eventually. Nuclear armageddon does not appear to me an inevitability in case of Russian Federation's breakdown, as it seems ways to take the WMP arsenals under control can very well be found, and actually were discussed even in Russian itself during crisis of late 90x-early 2000s. There may very well be people willing to not only cooperate but to call US, NATO and other responsible and capable players to take stock of Russian nukes. Also, it should be noted that had RF split into a few smaller states, none of them would be experiencing such global hegemonic aspirations as whoever finds themselves in Kremlin usually do, so dealing with smaller disjointed entities, even if not all of them are equally democratic or transparent, would be incomparably easier.
This having been said, i do not categorically rule out appearance of new and more agreeable leadership in Russia, and i especially want to emphasize that contrary to long held and seemingly false conviction in western policy making circles, better chance of finding such partner would be among somewhat more conservative and nationalist figures there. let us not forget that staunchest allies and supporters of America and its cause of opposing communism, islamism and other totalitarian entities, have usually come from more right-wing circles, even when it comes to former countries of Axis. Finding pro-American, pro-western and ultimately democratically leaning politicians among nationally conscious Russians is not as hopeless a task as many think. Take it from someone who knows such people first hand, some of whom actually evolved from very originally Anti-Western stances.
After collapse of Eastern bloc and then USSR proper, some western figure said in an interview, that 'we don't have a Marshall plan for former USSR'. i honestly think and always thought that was the problem, and such plan should exist, and not only for former Soviet or generally communist states. If we are to up the pressure on North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Zimbabwe and other regimes from 'the other side of the barricades', we should be ready for the 'morning after the triumph'. lack of such readiness hampered the world's perspectives after WW1, while existence of it helped after WW2. Even as ardent and clear anti-globalist as Pres. Trump will realize that in this matter best defense is offense, and in order to not have to stave off possible aggression at home, we need to be prepared to bring our 'game' to sources of that aggression. And given that president Trump as one of his first actions installed the bust of Churchill back in the oval office, he fully realizes it. Which is extremely encouraging.
We should try to abstain from possible temptation of recognizing some countries as 'backyard' of Russia, or for that matter of any other. For once, Ukraine, currently under Russian pressure and partial military occupation, is too large to be anybody's 'backyard'. A country of roughly 45 million and territory larger than that of France, cannot by definition be anybody's backyard. Secondly, while there's also huge temptation to 'forgive misbehavior' of Russian leadership in order to obtain access once again to tremendous opportunities working in that country's market provides, it also has to be kept in mind that Ukraine in many senses is even more promising. It's market is much more compact, it's shale gas deposits are as attractive as those of Russia, while it's culture is historically much more private business-oriented. And it's always easier to do business with one closer to you mentally, culturally and so on. If we are to adapt the 'America's business as business' as our foreign policy motto, then towards that very goal we need to realize the need for strong geopolitical stance, as sustaining and spreading American values is gonna serve that very goal. Finally, while many in the world like to claim that US is running roughshod in its own 'backyard', let us remind them this is really not so, as US does not muzzle its neighbors unless they pose clear threat such as attempts to spread openly hostile form of government and ideology, such as was in Grenada, or engage in grand levels of criminal activity such as was with Panama's Noriega. In one instance the US even restored its harsh critic, former Haiti president Aristide, in power, despite him using violence against opposition. Not to mention the patience we have exhibited with such openly hostile regimes as those of Castro, Chavez/Maduro, Correa, or Ortega. Far from 'forcing our way everywhere', as Mr Putin likes to do in what he incorrectly deems his own 'backyard' or 'neighborhood'--although as i said before, if we eventually play a role in actually getting rid of those regimes, very few people would complain.
Also, there's recently been novel but slightly disturbing news of so-called 'Calexit' movement opening an 'embassy' in Moscow. I think we would be well positioned to counter such rather unfriendly, on part of Kremlin, act with possible recognition of "Sibexit', 'Chechexit' and so on.
Finally, actions such as recently declared sale of Russian fighter planes to our possibly biggest current adversary, Communist China, also appears to be quite a suspicious move. In the very least Kremlin could refrain from such transactions.
Another hot pressing topic is Syria, and Middle East in general. While president Trump may be seen by many in very skeptical light on these, his initiatives on establishing Syria safety zones, keeping Iran in check(perhaps even striving for regime change there, and i most definitely call on the president to heed the appeal of those asking to support the MEK movement), returning to more clearly supportive stance towards Israel and other signals, are very encouraging. And since as we already said Mr trump is not one overly fearful of violating conventions, including territorial ones, let me express a few ideas here as well.
I trust it is extremely unfair that a 40 million strong and historically influential nation such as Kurds, do not have a statehood of their own. I also find it appearing ever harder for Turkish authorities to maintain control over their country's portion of Kurdistan, and i also find their stern opposition to establishment of possible Kurdish homeland to be misbegotten and near-sighted. Far from provoking more violence between Turks and Kurds, such development could actually help alleviate that tension by providing the chunk of Turkish Kurd populace absolutely unwilling to live under Ankara's rule, with a nationhood of their own.
I also pity the plight of Syrian as well as Iraqi and for that matter, Egyptian Christians, who are at the biggest threat due to instability and violence, and unlike their Lebanese counterparts, don't have either numbers or means of adequately defending themselves. Meanwhile, historically it was precisely Syrian Christians who originated the idea of special "Syrian nationalism', and at this moment at least one of leading Syrian opposition figures is one George Sabra, a Christian. A man like this would make a great compromise figure to lead the country into a new era of reconciliation and true coexistence.
And finally, onto perhaps the most important piece of our new foreign policy landscape--our relations with China, the country alluded to in the headline, as it is known that oranges are native to it and that the very name of orange used in both Russian and German languages''--apelsin'--means 'Chinese apple'. I commend president Trump's brave act of accepting congratulatory phone call from Taiwan's president, but personally i think we shouldn't as much question 'one China concept' as try to plan out for what kind of 'one China' it will eventually be. Even though that country may look much stronger than Putin's Russia, it has many of same problems such as corruption, overt centralization(with current leader Xi Zinpin actually trying to restore Maoist system of personalist control over entire state system), material disparity both between classes and regions, separatist tendencies in places from Tibet to Hong Kong, plus horrible ecological condition and other. Hence, its political system may also not be all that firm as it appears. Once, at much lower state of development and openness to the world, it nearly gave out--in summer of 1989; who's to say it can't happen again?
But we need to realize that it will get worse before it gets better, and the path to weakening or even demise of current Beijing regime may very well lie through lengthy war of nervous attrition with US, as the leadership will do everything in its power to pull the society closer around itself. Only upon reaching certain breaking point will it essentially admit its ideological defeat and need for true changes in various aspects of its country's life, be it economy, politics, treatment of neighbors near and far, internet and other media liberties, religious tolerance and what not. So if we are serious about confronting People's Republic of China, we need to quite brace ourselves.
And since i have already stated that best defense in geopolitical tussling is offense, and one need to find an ally in the camp of adversary in order to seriously increase its chances of success, i again want to call our leadership's attention to the plight of Christians, this time in the 'Orange motherland'. Christians in China are under constant scrutiny and various restrictive measures, forcing them to only attend officially approved churches and congregations, swear loyalty to the government and the party; recently Chinese regime in its pettiness has even resorted to encouraging its citizens to ditch "heathen" wedding traditions, costumes etc. which are mostly closely based and associated with Christian influence, in favor of 'native' ones. Meanwhile, Christianity in the country keeps growing, attracting up to 100 million followers, according to most optimistic estimates; and perhaps most importantly, it essentially, albeit not always explicitly, serves as a mean of cultural association with Western influences. Hence, just like in Middle East too, Chinese Christian community could be counted on as an ally in pushing for more democratic and generally dignified societal organization in China. For with all due respect towards all other religions and cultures, it just so happens today that Western culture sets the basic parameters of most correct way of life, albeit each nation and region are entitled to adapt them to their specifics.
In the words of our 43rd president, said in his penultimate State of The Union address, 'Our union is just, our cause is strong, and tonight that cause goes on. G-D BLESS!'
This video is made as a tribute to the very first actual choice of the American people to be their president as opposed to usual choice of the establishment that the people merely chose from in the past.
By Michael Moore
I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I gave it to you straight last summer when I told you that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee for president. And now I have even more awful, depressing news for you: Donald J. Trump is going to win in November. This wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full time sociopath is going to be our next president. President Trump. Go ahead and say the words, ‘cause you’ll be saying them for the next four years: “PRESIDENT TRUMP.”
Never in my life have I wanted to be proven wrong more than I do right now.
I can see what you’re doing right now. You’re shaking your head wildly – “No, Mike, this won’t happen!” Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for president. You alternate between being appalled at him and laughing at him because of his latest crazy comment or his embarrassingly narcissistic stance on everything because everything is about him. And then you listen to Hillary and you behold our very first female president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy because that is what the American people clearly want! Yes! Four more years of this!
You need to exit that bubble right now. You need to stop living in denial and face the truth which you know deep down is very, very real. Trying to soothe yourself with the facts – “77% of the electorate are women, people of color, young adults under 35 and Trump cant win a majority of any of them!” – or logic – “people aren’t going to vote for a buffoon or against their own best interests!” – is your brain’s way of trying to protect you from trauma. Like when you hear a loud noise on the street and you think, “oh, a tire just blew out,” or, “wow, who’s playing with firecrackers?” because you don’t want to think you just heard someone being shot with a gun. It’s the same reason why all the initial news and eyewitness reports on 9/11 said “a small plane accidentally flew into the World Trade Center.” We want to – we need to – hope for the best because, frankly, life is already a shit show and it’s hard enough struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. We can’t handle much more bad news. So our mental state goes to default when something scary is actually, truly happening. The first people plowed down by the truck in Nice spent their final moments on earth waving at the driver whom they thought had simply lost control of his truck, trying to tell him that he jumped the curb: “Watch out!,” they shouted. “There are people on the sidewalk!”
Well, folks, this isn’t an accident. It is happening. And if you believe Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump with facts and smarts and logic, then you obviously missed the past year of 56 primaries and caucuses where 16 Republican candidates tried that and every kitchen sink they could throw at Trump and nothing could stop his juggernaut. As of today, as things stand now, I believe this is going to happen – and in order to deal with it, I need you first to acknowledge it, and then maybe, just maybe, we can find a way out of the mess we’re in.
Don’t get me wrong. I have great hope for the country I live in. Things are better. The left has won the cultural wars. Gays and lesbians can get married. A majority of Americans now take the liberal position on just about every polling question posed to them: Equal pay for women – check. Abortion should be legal – check. Stronger environmental laws – check. More gun control – check. Legalize marijuana – check. A huge shift has taken place – just ask the socialist who won 22 states this year. And there is no doubt in my mind that if people could vote from their couch at home on their X-box or PlayStation, Hillary would win in a landslide.
But that is not how it works in America. People have to leave the house and get in line to vote. And if they live in poor, Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, they not only have a longer line to wait in, everything is being done to literally stop them from casting a ballot. So in most elections it’s hard to get even 50% to turn out to vote. And therein lies the problem for November – who is going to have the most motivated, most inspired voters show up to vote? You know the answer to this question. Who’s the candidate with the most rabid supporters? Whose crazed fans are going to be up at 5 AM on Election Day, kicking ass all day long, all the way until the last polling place has closed, making sure every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Bob and Joe and Billy Bob and Billy Joe and Billy Bob Joe) has cast his ballot? That’s right. That’s the high level of danger we’re in. And don’t fool yourself — no amount of compelling Hillary TV ads, or outfacting him in the debates or Libertarians siphoning votes away from Trump is going to stop his mojo.
Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:
(Next week I will post my thoughts on Trump’s Achilles Heel and how I think he can be beat.)
By Dr. Robert Owens
State Department spokesman John Kirby acknowledged Wednesday that Islamic State terrorists are trying to mingle with refugee populations overseas in the hopes of making it to the U.S. posing as a refugee.
New York bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami said he received instructions from 'terrorist leaders... to attack non-believers'
5000 ISIS terrorists sneak into Europe disguised as ‘refugees’
ISIS plotting terror attacks in America 'THIS YEAR' after jihadis 'exploit refugee crisis'
ISLAMIC State (ISIS) jihadis are plotting to launch terror attacks in America this year after exploiting the refugee crisis, intelligence chiefs have warned.
Islamic State operating in Mexico just 8 miles from U.S. border
Citing sources that include a “Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector,” the conservative watchdog group reported that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is organizing only a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in the Anapra neighborhood of Juárez and in Puerto Palomas.
America’s Trojan War combines gut wrenching realism and fast paced action to make this feel like it was ripped from the morning’s headlines.
Lisa Billingham and Sargent Bushings rushed into the building firing into the faces of the enemy. Hundreds and soon thousands of police, firemen, and civilians poured into the buildings of St Elizabeth Hospital. They shot anything that moved. By force of numbers they pushed the defenders back from the windows and doors. Room by room sometimes desk by desk the fire fights raged leaving dead, wounded and dying scattered in every conceivable pose, piled on the floor, slumped over desks and chairs, and half in and half out of doors and windows. It was no exaggeration to say the building was littered with bodies. Still the Americans in their righteous anger assaulted the enemy with a ferocity they had never imagined.
By Dr. Robert Owens
I have often heard it said that the universe is so large that anything we can imagine exists somewhere.
We wouldn’t have had the 16th amendment. Therefore we would still have a land without personal income tax and the Federal Government would have lived on fees and tariffs as it always did before the Progressives secured a source of money large enough to spend us into oblivion.
An astrophysicist, Ranga-Ram Chary at the European Space Agency's Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang more than thirteen billion years ago.
Then there is always the possible parallel universe of dark matter. As researchers learn more about dark matter's complexities, it seems possible that our galaxy lives on top of a shadow galaxy without us even knowing it.
I have often heard it said the universe is so large that anything we can imagine exists somewhere. Taking that as a starting point for a flight of fancy, let’s imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.
We wouldn’t have had the 16th amendment. Therefore we would still have a land without personal income tax and the Federal Government would have lived on fees and tariffs as it always did before the Progressives secured a source of money large enough to spend us into oblivion.
We wouldn’t have had the 17th amendment and the senators would still be selected by the State legislators. This was one of the checks and balances the Founders embedded in the original Constitution to protect the federal nature of the Federal Government. The House represents the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the States.
We wouldn’t have had The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve System, and America’s representative of the international banking cartel. Without the Fed to mismanage the money supply there would never have been the banking crisis of the early 1930s. This is crisis that set the stage for the re-boot of America’s free economy as a centrally-planned command and control machine used to transform every sector of American life.
We wouldn’t have had Woodrow Wilson to take us into the War to End all Wars that ended up building up the three largest empires in the world and setting the stage of WWII.
We wouldn’t have had FDR to impose fascist economic forms on America extending what would have been a recession into the Great Depression
We wouldn’t have had JFK to lose his nerve in 1961. Thus the Castro brothers and their murderous savagery would have fallen with the successful Bay of Pigs invasion.
We wouldn’t have had LBJ to build a Great Society safety net that has become a hammock entrapping uncounted millions and generations in the snare of dependency.
We wouldn’t have had BHO to fundamentally transform America into a falling empire and a soon to be third world backwater.
And we wouldn’t have HRC campaigning for president as Mrs. Santa Clause promising to give everyone who doesn’t work everything they want while she seeks to take the Second Amendment from the rest of us.
Think about this; look at how our government treats citizens now as taxing units or dependent voting units and we are armed to the teeth. Imagine how they will treat us once we are disarmed. Many believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
By Arkadiy Fridman and Ilya Galak, Citizens Magazine
Photo: By Ilya Galak
C.M: I’ll start with a question about your background…Please tell us a little bit about your life story.
J.M: My name is Janine Materna and I’m a 3rd generation Staten Islander with deep roots in the Staten Island community.
I am the proud product of public school education by attending: P.S.3, I.S.34, and Tottenville High School.
After high school, I attended, and graduated from, Columbia University holding a Bachelors of Arts degree in Political Science and Environmental Science. Currently, I’m a Management Consultant, working for the past 10 years in the financial services industry consulting Fortune 500 companies both domestically and globally on ways to become more productive and efficient in the workplace. While practicing my profession, I continued my education by earning a certificate from the Women’s Campaign School at Yale University. I also attended St. John’s University to attain a Master’s in Education with a dual certification in Childhood Education and Teaching Students with Disabilities. Currently, I am entering my third year of law school at New York Law School, where I am involved in the evening program.
I’m involved in a variety of organizations and proudly serve as the President of the largest Civic Association on the South Shore of Staten Island, the Pleasant Plains, Prince’s Bay, Richmond Valley Civic Association where I’ve had many speakers educate the community on the issues we face. The Civic Association has also implemented traditions for generations to come. Some of these traditions include: Meet the Candidates Forum, We Care Community Clean-Ups, The Annual Christmas Tree and Menorah Lighting Ceremony, and the Great American Barbecue, demonstrating patriotic pride. I have also worked tirelessly on educating the community on drug addiction, mental illness, domestic violence, transportation issues, organ donation, autism, etc.
Along with leading the Civic, I’ve been active with the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York Junior Board, Women’s National Republican Club, Co-Chair the Alumni Representative Committee for Columbia University, New York Junior League, Staten Island Women’s Political Caucus and the Women’s Auxiliary of the Staten Island Historical Society at Historic Richmond Town.
Being a strong believer in giving back, I serve on a variety of fundraising committees for the Jewish Community Center (JCC), American Cancer Society, March of Dimes and serve as a member of Governor Cuomo’s NY Rising Committee as well as volunteer at God’s Love We Deliver and the Bowery Mission, where I orchestrate groups to help feed homeless and hungry New Yorkers.
Coming from a family of veterans, I have demonstrated a strong commitment in making sure that our members of the armed forces are respected and continuously recognized for their sacrifices.
I have fought for many years to provide better quality roads for the people of Staten Island by starting the Facebook group: Staten Islanders for Pothole Free Roads. I have been a very big advocate of introducing a sustainable product known as asphalt rubber to New York City.
Recently, I have been featured as a Republican Strategist on a number of different news networks, including but not limited to: NY1, NBC, NBC Latino and on the Kelly File, hosted by Megan Kelly.
Some honors and awards I have received include: Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition in Recognition of Outstanding and Invaluable Service to the Community, New York City Public High School Distinguished Graduate from Mayor Giuliani at Gracie Mansion, New York State Assembly Certificate of Merit & New York City Council Citation.
I have decided to run for New York State Assembly representing my hometown the 62nd Assembly district to give voters of the district a choice on who they want representing them. I will be facing a Republican primary on Tuesday, September 13th.
C.M: The influences of your family background on your life?
J.M: My Italian, Russian, and Polish roots have instilled in me a work ethic that is unmatched. Growing up I learned the value of a dollar and never took anything for granted. I learned that our freedom is something that does not have a dollar value and to be grateful for living in this great country of endless opportunities.
C.M: What are the three accomplishments are you most proud of?
I have lived in this very District my entire life and been involved in the issues we face for over a decade. My opponent recently moving into the district, he has become close with party bosses through personal relationships with some of the other party insiders, who then selected him for this Assembly seat back in April. When running, he remained on the ballot utterly unopposed, which is unfair and contrary to this nation’s democratic process. This, among many, is one of the reasons why I am challenging both him, and the current local political system on Staten Island.
C.M: What specific plans do you have to help Staten Island’s economy? Small businesses? Construction businesses?
J.M: I plan on hosting town halls and forums to understand what issues are most important to small businesses in our community. I pledge to fight to make Staten Island and New York State, in general, a place that is more business friendly by lowering taxes and cutting the red tape.
C.M: From Staten Island Advance (Rachel Shapiro): “Those who spent part of their lives in the former Soviet Union remember what it was like to live under a repressive socialist regime, and on Staten Island, some of them are hoping Donald Trump becomes the next American president”. In your opinion, why most of Russian – Speaking immigrants on Staten Island support Trump?
J.M: The Russian Speaking population on the island understands and fears the consequences of life under a socialist regime; equal wages regardless of occupation or profession, decimation of ambition in the workplace, lack of foreign resources, rationing, and corruption in every facet of life and the absence of personal freedoms. Their arrival in America marked a drastic change in their lives, it was liberating - to say the least - to live in a country where hard work was rewarded and corruption was curtailed. However, with the last few years, the America that Russian immigrants longed for was no longer the same America that they immigrated to. With years of fiscally liberal spending and egregious foreign policy decisions, Russians have begun to see what many other Americans fail to; a turn towards socialism, which frankly should be everyone’s biggest fear. Russians value this great nation and all the opportunities it gave them, all of which they would be bereft of in the Soviet Union. Trump supports all of the views that America once stood for, and all the values that Russians came to America for, which is exactly why Russians want to make America great again.
By Dr. Robert Owens
The Evansville Bar Association in its annual recognition of Constitution Day in 2015 summed it up well;
Although the terms "Separation of Powers" and "Checks and Balances" are not found in the Constitution, these principles are key to its vitality. As George Washington wrote in February of 1788, the two great "pivots upon which the whole machine must move" are: (1) "the general Government is not invested with more Powers than are indispensably necessary to perform the functions of a good Government[,]" and (2) "these Powers are so distributed among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, that [the Government] can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy or any other despotic or oppressive form, so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the People." As recently as 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed that these principles were "intended, in part, to protect each branch of government from incursion by the others. The structural principles secured by the separation of powers protect the individual as well.
Congress has abdicated its powers to unelected bureaucrats and the courts have decided that is the order of the day. Generation Opportunity covers this well when they say;
One of the reasons that elections are such so important is because legislative representatives are responsible to create federal laws that impact every one of their constituents.
This is not a task to be taken lightly, which is why voters must dedicate time to research candidates before heading to the voting booth. But few people realize that there are unelected individuals who create regulations that govern everything from what type of light bulb you are allowed to use, as well as how much water your toilet may flush. According to an article published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), no one is entirely sure how many government agencies actually exist, not even the government knows the exact number.
For instance, in the appendix of the Administrative Conference of the United States, there are 115 agencies listed with a disclaimer saying, “[T]here is no authoritative list of government agencies.”
The federal government has grown so large that no one can even keep track of it anymore. Worse still, each of these agencies are filled with unelected people who take on legislative authority to interpret laws passed by Congress.
Although Congress is prohibited from “delegating” its legislative function to another branch of government, Courts have consistently held that federal agencies may create their own rules as long as an “intelligible” principle can be discerned from the original statute in question.
In other words, if Congress passes a law that regulates a particular industry or action, unelected federal bureaucrats are given almost unchecked power to create whichever rules (or crimes associated with the conduct in question) that they please.
Here’s an example: When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, it mandated that certain environmental standards must be imposed on the states, but it hardly clarified what those standards were, or how they were to be enforced.
One of the components of the Act mandated states to establish a permit program that regulates, “new or modified major stationary sources” of air pollution. That seems simple enough, except that Congress never properly defined what qualified as a “stationary source.”
Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency was left with the task of defining what a “stationary source” meant. Additionally, the original legislation never detailed what the penalty would be for breaking any of the statutes created by the new amendments, leaving it open to interpretation by the EPA.
This predicament led to the 1984 landmark case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., where the Supreme Court held that federal agencies have authority to interpret statutes which they are in charge of administering.
This meant that the EPA now had legal authority to determine what would be considered a “stationary source” of air pollution.
Since the Chevron Doctrine applies to all government agencies, the opportunities for abuse are endless. Government is only legitimate when it derives its powers from the consent of the governed. When we give legislative powers to unelected government officials we completely disregard the core American belief of consensual representation.
In other words we elect legislators to make laws and they make general laws like, “We want clean water,” and then they let unelected bureaucrats fill in the blanks with the force of law.
Here is how it works. Everyone wants clean water so the legislators pass their “We want clean water,” law and they come back to their constituents and campaign on “I brought you clean water.” Then the EPA issues a regulation that says you can’t build on wet lands. The EPA gets to decide what wet lands means which consequently gives them De Facto control over any piece of property they say is a wet land. Then when voters complain to their congressional representative, who voted for the law and bragged about it, that they can’t build their house on a lot that is obviously dry the legislator becomes indignant. They tell their constituents, “We’ll just see about this!” Then they have an aide send a strongly worded letter to the EPA that makes no difference whatsoever.
Problem solved. Pat the denizens from fly-over country on the head and leave the matter in the hands of the commiczars who have inherited the rule of what was once a representative republic. This way the hack can get back to his real job of raising money and getting re-elected.
This abdication of responsibility on the part of the legislature is the root cause of our problems because it has led to or facilitated the rise of the imperial presidency wherein many presidents have expanded the power of the executive until today we have an elected monarch who rules by decree unchallenged by Congress and unfettered by the will of the people.
Although the imperial presidency by no means began with the present occupant of the White House, to many Barack Obama has pushed the envelope beyond any discernable constitutional limits and has become the prime example of this phenomenon.
According to the Christian Science Monitor;
President Obama’s use of executive action to get around congressional gridlock is unparalleled in modern times, some scholars say. But to liberal activists, he’s not going far enough.
Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer, was once skeptical of the aggressive use of presidential power. During the 2008 campaign, he accused President George W. Bush of regularly circumventing Congress. Yet as president, Obama has grown increasingly bold in his own use of executive action, at times to controversial effect.
The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform. This month, the Obama administration took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not recognize them while the issue is pending in court.
Early in his presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers, surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans – going beyond Mr. Bush's own global war on terror following 9/11. But more recently, he has flexed his executive muscle more on domestic policy.
In the process, Obama's claims of executive authority have infuriated opponents, while emboldening supporters to demand more on a range of issues, from immigration and gay rights to the minimum wage and Guantánamo Bay prison camp.
To critics, Obama is the ultimate "imperial president," willfully violating the Constitution to further his goals, having failed to convince Congress of the merits of his arguments. To others, he is exercising legitimate executive authority in the face of an intransigent Congress and in keeping with the practices of past presidents.
It also leads to the tyranny of the courts. Unelected lawyers with life tenure decide what is and what is not constitutional often with the vaguest references to the Constitution itself. Disregarding what are clearly enunciated rights such as the one to keep and bear arms while finding such nonexistent rights such as the right to dispose of unborn children. The Justices of the Supreme Court have abrogated unto themselves unlimited power to turn our Constitution which was supposed to be written in stone into a living letter written in sand. Or as one Chief justice said, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Or as the website Western Journalism describes it;
Our federal judiciary has become, arguably and disturbingly, an oligarchy. When they rule on the “constitutionality” of an issue, it is assumed to be the final say in whether a vote of Congress or the vote of the people via referendum or initiative is legitimized or annulled. This is not how the Supreme Court and its substrata of appellate courts were intended to operate, nor is it de facto the way it should be.
The federal judiciary, as it has evolved, has unchecked and unlimited power over the nation by either of the other branches–the executive or the legislative–or even the people. Its members are not accountable to the citizenry, since most of their appointments are for life, and they cannot be removed from the bench by a vote of the people they purportedly serve. Their ruminations and the results of their decisions are insular, and they often trump the will of the people with regard to key social issues. Their decisions are presumed to be final, even though they may be at odds with the democratic majority of our citizens.
Herein lies the fundamental problem about the present construct of our federal judiciary as it has evolved since the founding. If, as stated in the 10th Amendment, all “rights and powers” not specifically itemized in the Constitution are held by the people collectively or by the states, what right does a court have to negate the will of the people? As it relates especially to key cultural issues like abortion, public religious displays, and definitions of marriage, should not the final court be the court of public opinion, rather than an oligarchy of judges insulated from, and not accountable to, the citizenry? In most of these cases, state courts have ruled, and appeals are then made to the federal judiciary.
Thomas Jefferson portended this judicial despotism: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.”
These situations exist because Congress abdicates its authority to unelected bureaucrats of the federal nomenclature, it refuses to stand up to the runaway executives and refuses to reign in the Supreme Court.
The first could be accomplished by passing a law rescinding the ability of bureaucracies to issue regulations that have the force of law without congressional approval.
The second could be accomplished as they were with President Nixon, hearings which could lead to impeachment.
And the third is constitutionally provided for in Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 which states, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Congress should exercise its power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts. The Constitution provides that Congress is authorized to establish those federal courts subordinate to the Supreme Court and set forth their jurisdiction. Congress also has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and regulate its activities. Accordingly, Congress should exercise this authority to restrain an activist judiciary.
If Congress would step up and be what we elect them to be We the People could once again become more than just an empty phrase from History in a discarded document that once sought to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. If our representatives will represent us instead of themselves and their cronies we would find that the solutions to our broken institutions are in the Constitution.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens email@example.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
How could any of this fail to end America’s 240 year old experiment in human freedom?
Congressional authority, Dr. Owens, imperial presidency, judicial tyranny, constitution, supreme court, balance of powers, checks and balances.
By Arkadiy Fridman
Citizens Magazine, President
"Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, which one party can gain only at the expense of another."
"We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non-work."
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
The economic prosperity of a country and its citizens’ standard of living are very
dependent on industrial and high tech power. America, Germany, Japan and South Korea
all have basically sound economies and a high standard of living because they have advanced industries with companies that include Boeing, IBM, Apple, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Krups, Sony, Toyota, Toshiba, Honda, Samsung, LG, and many more. These nations have excellent banking and insurance systems as well as stable political systems. They all compete with one another, but face serious competition from China, India and Brazil which have populations that provide cheap labor.
Given these realities, what must America do to remain the greatest country in the world?
First, must begin by electing public officials who are truly advocates of the free market system. We need this fundamental economic principle at every level of government and the voters must make sure that their elected officials stay true to their campaign promises of creating a pro-free market environment with a business friendly tax system.
Second, we must address the shortcomings of this nation’s education system. Our colleges and universities are dangerously unbalanced with an abundance of progressive economists. Since these are the institutions that produce our future economic leaders, we must see to it that students are exposed to a balance of economic theories and philosophies by increasing the number of conservative economists in our institutions of higher education.
Our young people, the next generation of leaders, must understand how a free market works. They must know that much of America’s greatness comes from the strength of its middle class. It is the same corporations labeled as evil by many that provide the jobs enabling Americans to enjoy a middle class lifestyle. Government jobs are not the answer. Ironically, the more “evil” corporations we have, the more Americans will be employed in positions that support a middle class lifestyle. Of course, corporations don’t have a monopoly on job creation. Collectively America’s small businesses (typically under1,500 employees, but including the local dry cleaners with seven employees and corner fruit and vegetable store with three employees) are America’s largest employer. While these smaller businesses do provide some middle class jobs, many of their positions pay sub-middle class wages. However, they are an important part of a free market − providing much needed goods and services − and function as an entry point for workers who will advance as they obtain experience and become part of the middle class.
Third, government unions must realize that it is to their members’ advantage to have a country with a balanced budget. Their demands must be rational and consistent with economic reality. Deficit spending will lead to the devaluation of our dollar and propel our great nation in the direction of becoming a third world county. Private unions need to understand that the businesses employing their members must be fiscally healthy for all their members to keep their jobs. Small businesses and corporations can only function so long with red ink on their balance sheet before payroll size is negatively impacted.
Bail outs might appear to provide a quick fix, but they are the wrong way to go. Taking money from one group of people (hard workers) and giving it to another group does not address the fundamental problem and creates a scenario that cannot be supported by this nation. It will bring about the collapse of both our economic and political systems.
If we follow these principles the question of how to motivate companies to return to America will be moot. Our economic environment will be sufficiently fertile that they will want to be here to grow their businesses, and as their businesses grow so do the number of middle class jobs.
By Dr. Robert Owens
I was raised by people who believed in “My country right or wrong.” I was taught that America never started a war and never lost a war. Reading Burry My Heart at Wounded Knee and an honest appraisal of the War of 1812 disabused me of those two notions. While the jingoist attitude of blind acceptance and unreflective loyalty and unquestioning support for a sacred homeland are not descriptive of my life I am devoted to the enlightenment ideas enshrined in the Constitution.
I am a vocal proponent of the nation founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I am a proud supporter of the federal republic founded in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
I am an avowed non-interventionist capitalist who believes passionately in individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity. I was a Republican all my life, working my first campaign ringing door bells for Nixon in 1960, supporting Goldwater, Reagan for Governor and then for president in 1976, 1980, and 84.
George H.W. Bush with his compassionate conservatism and new world order turned me off. Bob “It’s my Turn” Dole discouraged me and after the Contract with America Congress veered off the rails and started pushing bigger government and crony capitalism I quit the party and became an independent. George the Second pushed me over the edge. I could no longer consider myself a Conservative because there was nothing left to conserve, so I began to style myself as a radical who believes in a return to limited government, individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic opportunity.
The Clinton interlude between the Bush bookends and the Obama nation I have viewed as akin to the Vichy regime in France during WW II. They were and are mere figureheads for the multinational corporations and international organizations to which they surrendered our independence doing their best to institutionalize the Corporate State.
I have long believed and advocated for the following policies.
Moratoriums on all immigration until those who are already here are assimilated. Initiate policies which will induce those who are here illegally to self-deport. These policies would include a cut off of public assistance and an E-verify law with teeth meaning significant fines for people who employ illegals and incarceration for those who have multiple offenses. In foreign policy, resigning as the policeman of the world by ending our far-flung system of bases in more than a hundred countries, leaving Europe and Korea to defend themselves, bringing our troops home, securing the border and our defenses with the strongest military in the world and stop intervening in places that are not in our national interest.
Yes, I know that these proposals will be called racist, xenophobic and anti-American by the open borders clique; however, to quote Ronaldus Magnus, “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” They will also be opposed by the neo-con hawks as isolationist. I stand with Ron Paul when he says, “The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.”
Yes, I know tariffs will make prices rise for many goods. However, I also know that we need to rebuild our industrial base if we are to remain an independent nation capable of providing jobs for our people that support a middleclass lifestyle and a nation that can provide for its own defense. Yes, I know that a non-interventionist resignation from being the policeman of the world is portrayed as a retreat and as abdicating our leadership of the world. I call it jettisoning the empire to save the republic.
These positions have been heretical within the globalist interventionist neo-con Republican Party of Bush, McCain, Krauthammer, and the National Review. However, today is a new day and perhaps there is a chance to right the Ship of State and resurrect the greatest experiment in human freedom in History before we plunge into the dustbin of History as another centralized collectivist utopia that will inevitably end up a dystopian nightmare.
Now we face a choice of historic proportions. Do we want Hillary “The Nail in Our Coffin” Clinton to complete the transfer of American sovereignty to international globalist cabals such as the WTO and the UN? Or are we willing to vote for the first candidate since Reagan with the courage to even say, “America First”?
I am still an independent. I will not rejoin the Republican Party unless and until it has been purged of its globalist leadership. However, I have waited my entire life to hear a politician say what The Donald said in his speech of June 28, 2016 “Declaring America's Economic Independence.” In this speech he outlines a program I can endorse 100%.
Mr. Trump said in that speech,
This wave of globalization has wiped out our middle class.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can turn it all around - and we can turn it around fast.
But if we're going to deliver real change, we're going to have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation being pushed by powerful corporations, media elites, and political dynasties.
The people who rigged the system for their benefit will do anything - and say anything - to keep things exactly as they are.
The people who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge nothing will ever change.
The inner cities will remain poor.
The factories will remain closed.
The borders will remain open.
The special interests will remain firmly in control.
Hillary Clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare America into thinking small - and they want to scare the American people out of voting for a better future.
My campaign has the opposite message.
I want you to imagine how much better your life can be if we start believing in America again.
I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who've led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster one after another.
This is the message I have been waiting for all my life. This message is clear and direct. Trump often speaks off the top of his head. He speaks his mind and often says things which offend the politically correct media and by extension those who slavishly believe and follow the Progressive’s multi-mouthed Pravda. However this speech was scripted. He used a teleprompter to deliver it and its text has been released as an official campaign document.
I know that in the divided America of the 21st century many who have followed the History of the Future for years will be angry with what I have to say next. Some may be surprised and some may be disappointed. However I have to do what I believe is the best for my country. Therefore, I have decided to endorse and support Donald Trump. Some may say you can’t believe what he says. A man I greatly respect says, “All politicians lie. The good ones do it convincingly.” That may be true.
Just as Eve did not sin because she believed the serpent and just as if you donate to a charity that you honestly believe will do good and they waste the money that is not your responsibility that is on them. I believe Donald Trump. I believe he honestly wants to make America great again, and I am 100% for that.
While I encourage everyone to read the entire speech or listen to it on YouTube and it is too long to include verbatim in this article I want to end by sharing his trade program for rebuilding America.
A Trump Administration will change our failed trade policy - quickly
Here are 7 steps I would pursue right away to bring back our jobs.
One: I am going to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has not yet been ratified.
Two: I'm going to appoint the toughest and smartest trade negotiators to fight on behalf of American workers.
Three: I'm going to direct the Secretary of Commerce to identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm our workers. I will then direct all appropriate agencies to use every tool under American and international law to end these abuses.
Four: I'm going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don't mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal.
Five: I am going to instruct my Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator. Any country that devalues their currency in order to take advantage of the United States will be met with sharply
Six: I am going to instruct the U.S. Trade Representative to bring trade cases against China, both in this country and at the WTO. China's unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO, and I intend to enforce those rules.
Seven: If China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs consistent with Section 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
President Reagan deployed similar trade measures when motorcycle and semiconductor imports threatened U.S. industry. His tariff on Japanese motorcycles was 45% and his tariff to shield America’s semiconductor industry was 100%.
Hillary Clinton, and her campaign of fear, will try to spread the lie that these actions will start a trade war. She has it completely backwards.
Hillary Clinton unleashed a trade war against the American worker when she supported one terrible trade deal after another – from NAFTA to China to South Korea.
A Trump Administration will end that war by getting a fair deal for the American people.
The era of economic surrender will finally be over.
A new era of prosperity will finally begin.
America will be independent once more.
Under a Trump Presidency, the American worker will finally have a President who will protect them and fight for them.
We will stand up to trade cheating anywhere and everywhere it threatens an American job.
We will make America the best place in the world to start a business, hire workers, and open a factory.
This includes massive tax reform to lift the crushing burdens on American workers and businesses.
We will also get rid of wasteful rules and regulations which are destroying our job creation capacity.
Many people think that these regulations are an even greater impediment than the fact that we are one of the highest taxed nations in the world.
We are also going to fully capture America’s tremendous energy capacity. This will create vast profits for our workers and begin reducing our deficit. Hillary Clinton wants to shut down energy production and shut down the mines.
A Trump Administration will also ensure that we start using American steel for American infrastructure.
Just like the American steel from Pennsylvania that built the Empire State building.
It will be American steel that will fortify American's crumbling bridges.
It will be American steel that sends our skyscrapers soaring into the sky.
It will be American steel that rebuilds our inner cities.
It will be American hands that remake this country, and it will be American energy - mined from American resources - that powers this country.
It will be American workers who are hired to do the job.
We are going to put American-produced steel back into the backbone of our country. This alone will create massive numbers of jobs.
On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, we are going to put America First again.
We are going to make America wealthy again.
We are going to reject Hillary Clinton's politics of fear, futility, and incompetence.
We are going to embrace the possibilities of change.
It is time to believe in the future.
It is time to believe in each other.
It is time to Believe In America.
This Is How We Are Going To Make America Great Again – For All Americans.
We Are Going To Make America Great Again For Everyone – Greater Than Ever Before.
I don’t know about anyone else but that is a program I can believe in and one that I believe will lead to a rebirth of the American economy.
Hopefully I won’t end up living out the words spoken by a character in a book I wrote many years ago who when asked why he supported a disreputable candidate running for president who was a plain-speaking non-politician and the richest man in the world said, “I know he’s a liar but I like what he says.”
So far I like what he says.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
I have waited my entire life to hear a politician say what The Donald said in his speech of 6-28-16
Donald Trump, Dr. Robert Owens, the Donald, TPP, NAFTA, World Trade Organization, WTO, America First
By Dr. Robert Owens
Recently I spent some time with a person I respect highly, who is very intelligent, and who has thought about and reached conclusions concerning America’s Constitution. This person, who is representative of many others, believes that a document written hundreds of years ago is meaningless in today’s America. He cited the fact that many of the Framers were slave owners, they could not have imagined a nation of hundreds of millions, they could not foresee the technologically rich environment we call home, or the diverse population that now constitutes the body politic.
None of the things cited above can be refuted because they are all true.
First of all, what is a constitution? A constitution organizes, distributes and regulates the power of the state. A constitution sets out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens.
So, why do we have a written Constitution, and does this written Constitution still matter?
When the American Revolutionaries broke free from Great Britain they wanted to build their new nation on a solid foundation. They most assuredly did not want what they had just rebelled against, a monarchy or an unlimited government.
Did the British have a constitution? In the Eighteenth Century just as it is now Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works. Britain’s lack of a ‘written’ constitution can be explained by its history.
In other countries, many of whom have experienced revolution or regime change, it has been necessary to start from scratch or begin from first principles, constructing new state institutions and defining in detail their relations with each other and their citizens. By contrast, the British Constitution has evolved over a long period of time, reflecting the relative stability of the British polity.
It has never been thought necessary to consolidate the basic building blocks of this order in Britain. What Britain has instead is an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to refer to Britain’s constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one.
The British Constitution can be summed up in eight words: What the monarch in Parliament enacts is law. This means that Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution.
This is the ultimate lawmaking power vested in a democratically elected Parliament to create or abolish any law. Other core principles of the British Constitution are often thought to include the rule of law, the separation of government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the existence of a unitary state, meaning ultimate power is held by ‘the center’ – the sovereign Westminster Parliament. In other words there is neither check upon nor balance to the power of the government. The entire shape, form, and substance of the government can change at any time by a simple majority vote of Parliament. To sum up: the British Constitution is a living document.
This is what caused the revolution. If you look at the list of particulars that are in the overlooked or forgotten part of the Declaration of Independence you see that many of these individual charges against the Monarch as the representation of the government are changes made by arbitrary and unilateral acts of Parliament.
• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time (sic) exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
• He has endeavoured (sic) to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
• For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring (sic) Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
• For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever
• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat (sic) the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured (sic) to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
The colonists tried to follow the procedures as they knew them to find relief within the system. But they were ignored and baffled as the system kept changing. They describe their experience dealing with the shifting sands of their revered living document in the following words.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish (sic) brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
It was because of this failed effort to deal with a system that has no solid structure, a system that can change at the will of a simple majority that the Framers were determined to set our new nation on the solid rock of a written constitution. What did the Founders and Framers have to say?
George Washington said, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
James Madison said, “Can it be of less consequence that the meaning of a Constitution should be fixed and known, than a meaning of a law should be so?”
This is what we were founded upon and this is the philosophical underpinning for the originalist view of the constitution as championed by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
What do the leading lights of the living document side of the argument have to say?
Woodrow Wilson said, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”
FDR said, “The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.”
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “The words of the Constitution … are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if indeed they do not compel him, to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life.”
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall said, “I cannot accept this invitation [to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution], for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention … To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start.”
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the end result of more than a century of Progressive constitutional stretching. “If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless.”
Or to put it another way the Progressive’s living document has gone a long way to changing the Constitution from something carved in stone to a mirage written in the sand. So why do we have a written constitution? In my opinion we need a written constitution so that the government cannot change the social contract with the wave of its hand or the passage of thousand page bills no one even reads.
So why do we have a written constitution?
To keep demagogues and tyrants from arbitrarily changing the rules by which we live. If you think this has worked see my book The Constitution Failed. As a professor of Political Science and as the Director of one of the largest Political Science Departments at any university I have long advocated that the study of the Constitution should be moved from Political Science to History because it has become merely an historical document and now has little to do with how our country is administered by the political class.
Does it still matter? Only if the citizens of this nation have the fortitude to rise up and demand that it matters.
Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens email@example.com
Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
When the American Revolutionaries broke free from Great Britain they wanted to build their new nation on a solid foundation.
Living document, Dr. Robert Owens, the Constitution, original intent, originalist view, Antonin Scalia, progressive agenda, socialist agenda, Obama’s agenda
Give a voice to the citizens of Staten Island and Brooklyn in the pursuit of better government. Foster an environment for members and elected officials to become better acquainted through dialogue and fellowship.
Contact Us 718 691-5891
2010 - 2017