Justplainbill's Weblog

September 2, 2016

Trump’s Immigration Policy, Capt John, USN USNA [nc]

Filed under: Illegal Aliens, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:04 pm

DONALD TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION POLICY AS STATED ON AUGUST 31, 2016

Number One: We will build a wall along the Southern Border.

Number Two: End Catch-And-Release

Number Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens.

Number Four: Block Funding For Sanctuary Cities

Number Five: Cancel Unconstitutional Executive Orders & Enforce All Immigration Laws

Number Six: We Are Going To Suspend The Issuance Of Visas To Any Place Where Adequate Screening Cannot Occur

Number Seven: We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported

Number Eight: We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system.

Number Nine: We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet.

Number Ten: We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers

The above listed 10 immigration policies are in support of US Federal Immigration Laws passed by Congress and signed into law by a US President.

Donald Trump is the first Republican Presidential candidate, since Governor Ronald Reagan ran for President, whose policies are aimed at putting 360 million American citizens first, especially the 94 million unemployed American; Mr Trump is not proposing immigration policies that are in the best interest of 20 million Illegal Aliens, and detrimental to 360 million American citizens.

Mr Trump is not in agreement with the Republican leadership in Congress, and the American Chamber of Commerce, who have been working very closely with the Democrat leadership in Congress for 8 years, betraying the best interest of American citizens by intentionally keeping the southern border wide open.

Congressional leaders, by their refusal to seal the wide open southern border, are responsible for permitting the entry of terrorists, drugs, white slavery traffickers, weapons smugglers, hundreds of thousands of Central American children with infectious diseases (TB, whooping cough. measles, mumps, scarlet fever, Zinke virus, etc.), millions of Illegal Aliens from Mexico, and hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East who are simply walking into the US.

For 8 years, Obama has tied the hands of the US Border Patrol and ICE Agents, preventing them from enforcing the US Federal Immigration Laws they were sworn to uphold. Yet for 8 years, the Republican leaders in Congress have not charged Obama’s appointees at DHS with violating US Federal Immigration Laws, or tried to put pressure on them to cease, by employing the power of the purse to put pressure on them.

Mr Trump’s full speech is attached.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Regional Chairman, Veterans 4 Trump Southern California (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

September 1, 2016

Why Hillary Is Never Held Accountable for Her Lies, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 8:03 pm

Why Hillary Is Never Held Accountable for Her Lies
September 1, 2016 12:12 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

The media excuse her mendacity because it serves the progressive cause.
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Everyone rightly catalogues Donald Trump’s fibs, distortions, and exaggerations: his assertions about his net worth, his charitable contributions, his initial supposed opposition to the Iraq War, or his “flexible” positions on illegal immigration. After all, he is flamboyant, right-wing in his present incarnation, and supposedly bends the truth either out of crass narcissism or for petty profiteering. So the watchdog media and popular culture have no problem with ridiculing Trump as a fabricator.

But not so with Hillary Clinton, whose untruths far overshadow Trump’s in both import and frequency, but are so often contextualized, excused, and forgotten because of who she is and the purpose her outright lying supposedly serves.

Lying in America has become not lying when “good” liars advance alternative narratives for noble purposes — part of our long slide into situational ethics and moral relativism.

Every new bad idea in America today can ultimately be traced to the university. And it seems to take only about 30 years for academia’s nihilism to filter through the elite institutions and make its way into popular culture. So it is with our present idea of truth as a mere construct.

In the 1980s and 1990s professors in the liberal arts became enamored of the French-speaking postmodern nihilists — among them notably Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan. They refashioned an old philosophical strain of relativism found as far back as the Greek sophists and Plato’s discussion of the noble lie. They were influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s attacks on absolute morality, and their youth was lived during the age of Joseph Goebbels and Pravda. The utter collapse of France in six weeks in May and June 1940 and the later shame that most of the nation either was passive or actively collaborated with the Nazi occupiers rather than proving brave resistance fighters made the idea of empiricism and truth an especially hard pill to swallow for the postwar French postmodernists.

While this group comprised quite different thinkers, they mostly agreed that reality was socially constructed and arbitrarily defined by the language of those in power.

In fact, “truth” for a postmodernist is supposedly what those who control us say it is, largely in efforts to perpetuate their own race, class, and gender privilege. You can see how thoroughly popular culture has picked up this mostly banal relativist observation and transformed it into “the Truth”—and why today we assume that lying is simply a narrative, not a window into one’s character.

Relativist slogans abound (e.g., “One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”). “Hands up, don’t shoot” was never uttered by Michael Brown, who was not an innocent “gentle giant” but a strong-armed robber who sought to take a policeman’s gun and then charged at the cop. But since his fictitious last utterances should be true, therefore they are and, presto! became the slogan of Black Lives Matter.

In the opposite fashion, there is to be no such thing as Black Lives Matter protestors calling for frying police or killing cops, since negation of the truth serves a far more noble purpose than would confirmation.

Orwell was onto the game far earlier than the French postmodernists. He rightly saw it as a postwar pathway of the Left to assuming and keeping power: What was written on the barn wall on Monday as an absolute commandment was crossed out and replaced on Tuesday, in the fashion that the Soviet Union used to airbrush out sudden enemies of the people from all past pictorial records. Who knew what the party line would be by Wednesday? What frightened Orwell was not so much lying British industrialists or celebrities, but officers of the state who sought to dismiss the idea of the truth itself and justify the dismissal on ideological grounds.

“People’s Republic” after 1946 usually meant that the Communist country in question was never a republic or ratified by a vote of the people. “Sanctuary cities” today have neither the legal right nor the moral weight to offer exemption from federal immigration law. They do not serve any purpose other than self-interested “nullification” of the law in the fashion of 1850s Confederate states that arbitrarily declared federal statutes null and void in their jurisdictions. We know how that construct ended up.

Gender is now defined not by biology, but by culture or suspect patriarchically constructed norms. “Undocumented migrant” replaces “illegal alien” even as those who crossed illegally into the U.S. never had any documents to begin with, were foreign nationals, and were migrants going into the U.S., not mere directionless travelers.

Both Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill are Native Americans because they say they are. To question them on the basis that neither has any proven Indian ancestry is simply to offer a competing narrative, and one driven by racism, not their sort of altruism.

If Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King reconstruct themselves as black Americans, then their “stories” are as legitimate as any others, given their progressive agendas and their antitheses to the white male power structure.

When Hillary falls into her phony black patois to talk down to African-American audiences, in an accidental caricature of a snooty suburbanite trying to seem cool or authentic, she is no more false than she was earlier in her Annie Oakley incarnation of 2008, when she quaffed boilermakers and bowled to appeal to Obama’s despised clingers. All these are mere narrative moments, but disturbing evidence that she cheaply peddles identities for votes.

We claim there is no such thing as “truth,” as assertions gain credulity only by the degree of wealth and influence behind them (white, male, Christian heterosexuals usually are the bogeymen who establish self-interested “standards” of accuracy and fidelity). So fables in service to a progressive cause are not lying, as they would be if in league with reactionary forces.

Barack Obama can make up narratives about under-appreciated Islamic catalysts for the Western Renaissance or Enlightenment in his Cairo Speech because such mythmaking serves a noble cause of stopping “Islamophobia” and thus deserves the artificial currency of “truth.” Obama himself can invent large chunks of his “autobiography” and it is neither a lie nor a fable, given that his principled intent was to enlighten us about the burdens of growing up as the Other.

Lying for a Brian Williams or plagiarism for a Doris Kearns Goodwin or Fareed Zakaria can be passed off as the shoddy work of subordinates, or “misremembering,” or symptomatic of too full a schedule (not egoism, laziness, or efforts at career enhancement), given that all serve the progressive gods.

In 2012 the progressive future of the country hinged on the reelection of Barack Obama, so naturally ensuring that the imploding Middle East was quiet and that al-Qaeda was somnolent demanded a “truth” that an obscure videomaker and Islamophobic bigot had enraged otherwise peace-loving Muslims and incited them to burn down our consulate in Benghazi — an isolated act that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

If that narrative meant that National Security Adviser Susan Rice had to lie five times on Sunday talk shows, or Hillary Clinton had to deceive the families of the Benghazi dead, or Barack Obama’s Justice Department had to jail Nakoula Basseley Nakoula on a trumped-up old probation charge, then the ends of an Obama reelection more than outweighed the unethical means of achieving it. In each case, “conflicting narratives” or the “fog of war” made the idea of one absolute truth absurd. Who is to say whether $400 million in nocturnal cash transfers to the Iranians for hostages is, or is not, “ransom”?

Almost everything Hillary Clinton has said about her current scandals is a lie: No other secretary of state used a personal server; Colin Powell was certainly not her model for lawbreaking; she really did send and receive classified materials that she at the time knew were classified; she did not have lawyers examine all of her personal e-mails that she destroyed; they were not mostly about Chelsea and yoga; she did not accurately inform authorities of the actual number of her personal e-mails; there was no firewall between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation; rich individuals did meet with the secretary of state in a fashion that they would otherwise not have been able to, had they not donated vast amounts of money. And on and on. Again, all lies, but lies that in postmodern culture are merely competing progressive narratives that translate into the vulgar media as “Who is to say what pay-to-play actually is?”

Did anyone care that progressive Hillary long ago lied about her rigged $1,000 cattle-future investment beating 34 trillion to 1 odds to earn her $100,000, or her supposed foray into a combat zone in Serbia? Clinton’s lies, past and present, are fobbed off as either fantasies of right-wing conspiracists, who hope to derail her progressive agenda, or as psychodramas of a struggling progressive couple trying to do good. Either that, or they are minor problems of communication, or were courageous stances taken to advance the cause of the poor, the dispossessed, and the children.

The problem with the Clintons and all postmodern liars goes back to Epimenides’ ancient paradox of the Cretan liar: “All Cretans are liars.” Are we then to believe that the Cretan Epimenides was lying when he insisted that all Cretans (like himself) lie? Were Cretans, then, liars or not? Was Hillary lying when she set up the private server, when she explained away her criminal behavior, or when she insisted she had not lied about her prior lying about lying?

Postmodernist Hillary, however, does believe in absolute truth when it is a matter of checks to the Clinton Foundation not bouncing and aviation fuel being purchased for private jets. Postmodernists do not believe that truth exists for others in the abstract; but for themselves it most certainly does and advantageously so in the concrete.

The danger to democracy is never from the bad liars who patently fabricate for self, but from the sophisticated and progressive good liars who lie that their untruth is truth because it was all made up for us.

Imagine There’s No Border, Victor Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — Tags: , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:51 pm

Imagine There’s No Border
September 1, 2016 12:08 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
A world without boundaries is a fantasy.
By Victor Davis Hanson // City Journal

Borders are in the news as never before. After millions of young, Muslim, and mostly male refugees flooded into the European Union last year from the war-torn Middle East, a popular revolt arose against the so-called Schengen Area agreements, which give free rights of movement within Europe. The concurrent suspension of most E.U. external controls on immigration and asylum rendered the open-borders pact suddenly unworkable. The European masses are not racists, but they now apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the degree that these newcomers arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook—protocols that the E.U. essentially discarded decades ago as intolerant. Europeans are relearning that the continent’s external borders mark off very different approaches to culture and society from what prevails in North Africa or the Middle East.

A similar crisis plays out in the United States, where President Barack Obama has renounced his former opposition to open borders and executive-order amnesties. Since 2012, the U.S. has basically ceased policing its southern border. The populist pushback against the opening of the border with Mexico gave rise to the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump—predicated on the candidate’s promise to build an impenetrable border wall—much as the flood of migrants into Germany fueled opposition to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term “illegal alien” has given way to the nebulous “unlawful immigrant.” This, in turn, has given way to “undocumented immigrant,” “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant”—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.

Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants.

Dreams of a borderless world are not new, however. The biographer and moralist Plutarch claimed in his essay “On Exile” that Socrates had once asserted that he was not just an Athenian but instead “a citizen of the cosmos.” In later European thought, Communist ideas of universal labor solidarity drew heavily on the idea of a world without borders. “Workers of the world, unite!” exhorted Marx and Engels. Wars broke out, in this thinking, only because of needless quarreling over obsolete state boundaries. The solution to this state of endless war, some argued, was to eliminate borders in favor of transnational governance. H. G. Wells’s prewar science-fiction novel The Shape of Things to Come envisioned borders eventually disappearing as elite transnational polymaths enforced enlightened world governance. Such fictions prompt fads in the contemporary real world, though attempts to render borders unimportant—as, in Wells’s time, the League of Nations sought to do—have always failed. Undaunted, the Left continues to cherish the vision of a borderless world as morally superior, a triumph over artificially imposed difference.

Yet the truth is that borders do not create difference—they reflect it. Elites’ continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive.
H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel “The Shape of Things to Come”; envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel “The Shape of Things to Come” envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

Borders—and the fights to keep or change them—are as old as agricultural civilization. In ancient Greece, most wars broke out over border scrubland. The contested upland eschatia offered little profit for farming but possessed enormous symbolic value for a city-state to define where its own culture began and ended. The self-acclaimed “citizen of the cosmos” Socrates nonetheless fought his greatest battle as a parochial Athenian hoplite in the ranks of the phalanx at the Battle of Delium—waged over the contested borderlands between Athens and Thebes. Fifth-century Athenians such as Socrates envisioned Attica as a distinct cultural, political, and linguistic entity, within which its tenets of radical democracy and maritime-based imperialism could function quite differently from the neighboring oligarchical agrarianism at Thebes. Attica in the fourth century BC built a system of border forts to protect its northern boundary.

Throughout history, the trigger points of war have traditionally been such borderlands—the methoria between Argos and Sparta, the Rhine and Danube as the frontiers of Rome, or the Alsace-Lorraine powder keg between France and Germany. These disputes did not always arise, at least at first, as efforts to invade and conquer a neighbor. They were instead mutual expressions of distinct societies that valued clear-cut borders—not just as matters of economic necessity or military security but also as a means of ensuring that one society could go about its unique business without the interference and hectoring of its neighbors.

Advocates for open borders often question the historical legitimacy of such territorial boundaries. For instance, some say that when “Alta” California declared its autonomy from Mexico in 1846, the new border stranded an indigenous Latino population in what would shortly become the 31st of the United States. “We didn’t cross the border,” these revisionists say. “The border crossed us.” In fact, there were probably fewer than 10,000 Spanish-speakers residing in California at the time. Thus, almost no contemporary Californians of Latino descent can trace their state residency back to the mid-nineteenth century. They were not “crossed” by borders. And north–south demarcation, for good or evil, didn’t arbitrarily separate people.

What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs.

The history of borders has been one of constant recalibration, whether dividing up land or unifying it. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 was idealistic not for eliminating borders but for drawing new ones. The old borders, established by imperial powers, supposedly caused World War I; the new ones would better reflect, it was hoped, ethnic and linguistic realities, and thus bring perpetual peace. But the world created at Versailles was blown apart by the Third Reich. German chancellor Adolf Hitler didn’t object to the idea of borders per se; rather, he sought to remake them to encompass all German-speakers—and later so-called Aryans—within one political entity, under his absolute control. Many nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century German intellectuals and artists—among them the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, historian Oswald Spengler, and composer Richard Wagner—agreed that the Roman Empire’s borders marked the boundaries of civilization. Perversely, however, they celebrated their status as the unique “other” that had been kept out of a multiracial Western civilization. Instead, Germany mythologized itself as racially exceptional, precisely because, unlike other Western European nations, it was definable not only by geography or language but also by its supposed racial purity. The fairy-tale origins of the German Volk were traced back before the fifth century AD and predicated on the idea that Germanic tribes for centuries were kept on the northern and eastern sides of the Danube and Rhine Rivers. Thus, in National Socialist ideology, early German, white-skinned, Aryan noble savages paradoxically avoided a mongrelizing and enervating assimilation into the civilized Roman Empire—an outcome dear to the heart of Nazi crackpot racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) and the autodidact Adolf Hitler. World War II was fought to restore the old Eastern European borders that Hitler and Mussolini had erased—but it ended with the creation of entirely new ones, reflecting the power and presence of Soviet continental Communism, enforced by the huge Russian Red Army.

Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a “citizen of the world.” Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside and that the higher the fence goes (“higher and stronger,” the Secret Service promises), the more of a deterrent it will be to would-be trespassers. If Obama’s previous wall was six feet high, the proposed 11 feet should be even better.

In 2011, open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to build a wall around the official mayoral residence. His un-walled neighbors objected, first, that there was no need for such a barricade and, second, that it violated a city ordinance prohibiting residential walls higher than four feet. But Villaraigosa apparently wished to emphasize the difference between his home and others (or between his home and the street itself), or was worried about security, or saw a new wall as iconic of his exalted office.

“You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world,” Secretary of State John Kerry recently enthused to the graduating class at Northeastern University. He didn’t sound envious, though, perhaps because Kerry himself doesn’t live in such a world. If he did, he never would have moved his 76-foot luxury yacht from Boston Harbor across the state border to Rhode Island in order to avoid $500,000 in sales taxes and assorted state and local taxes.

While elites can build walls or switch zip codes to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups—Peggy Noonan described them as the “protected” and the “unprotected”—was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico “an act of love,” his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital and influence to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family—in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg offers another case study. The multibillionaire advocates for a fluid southern border and lax immigration enforcement, but he has also stealthily spent $30 million to buy up four homes surrounding his Palo Alto estate. They form a sort of no-man’s-land defense outside his own Maginot Line fence, presumably designed against hoi polloi who might not share Zuckerberg’s taste or sense of privacy. Zuckerberg’s other estate in San Francisco is prompting neighbors’ complaints because his security team takes up all the best parking spaces. Walls and border security seem dear to the heart of the open-borders multibillionaire—when it’s his wall, his border security.

This self-serving dynamic operates beyond the individual level as well. “Sanctuary cities,” for instance, proclaim amnesty for illegal aliens within their municipal boundaries. But proud as they are of their cities’ disdain for federal immigration law, residents of these liberal jurisdictions wouldn’t approve of other cities nullifying other federal laws. What would San Franciscans say if Salt Lake City declared the Endangered Species Act null and void within its city limits, or if Carson City unilaterally suspended federal background checks and waiting periods for handgun purchases? Moreover, San Francisco and Los Angeles do believe in clearly delineated borders when it comes to their right to maintain a distinct culture, with distinct rules and customs. Their self-righteousness aside, sanctuary cities neither object to the idea of borders nor to their enforcement—only to the notion that protecting the southern U.S. border is predicated on the very same principles.

More broadly, ironies and contradictions abound in the arguments and practices of open-borders advocates. In academia, even modern historians of the ancient world, sensing the mood and direction of larger elite culture, increasingly rewrite the fall of fifth-century AD Rome, not as a disaster of barbarians pouring across the traditional fortified northern borders of the Rhine and Danube—the final limites that for centuries kept out perceived barbarism from classical civilization—but rather as “late antiquity,” an intriguing osmosis of melting borders and cross-fertilization, leading to a more diverse and dynamic intersection of cultures and ideas. Why, then, don’t they cite Vandal treatises on medicine, Visigothic aqueducts, or Hunnish advances in dome construction that contributed to this rich new culture of the sixth or seventh century AD? Because these things never existed.

Academics may now caricature borders, but key to their posturing is either an ignorance of, or an unwillingness to address, why tens of millions of people choose to cross borders in the first place, leaving their homelands, language fluency, or capital—and at great personal risk. The answer is obvious, and it has little to do with natural resources or climate: migration, as it was in Rome during the fifth century AD, or as it was in the 1960s between mainland China and Hong Kong—and is now in the case of North and South Korea—has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations. People walk, climb, swim, and fly across borders, secure in the knowledge that boundaries mark different approaches to human experience, with one side usually perceived as more successful or inviting than the other.

Western rules that promote a greater likelihood of consensual government, personal freedom, religious tolerance, transparency, rationalism, an independent judiciary, free-market capitalism, and the protection of private property combine to offer the individual a level of prosperity, freedom, and personal security rarely enjoyed at home. As a result, most migrants make the necessary travel adjustments to go westward—especially given that Western civilization, uniquely so, has usually defined itself by culture, not race, and thus alone is willing to accept and integrate those of different races who wish to share its protocols.

Many unassimilated Muslims in the West often are confused about borders and assume that they can ignore Western jurisprudence and yet rely on it in extremis. Today’s migrant from Morocco might resent the bare arms of women in France, or the Pakistani new arrival in London might wish to follow sharia law as he knew it in Punjab. But implicit are two unmentionable constants: the migrant most certainly does not wish to return to face sharia law in Morocco or Pakistan. Second, if he had his way, institutionalizing his native culture into that of his newly adopted land, he would eventually flee the results—and once again likely go somewhere else, for the same reasons that he left home in the first place. London Muslims may say that they demand sharia law on matters of religion and sex, but such a posture assumes the unspoken condition that the English legal system remains supreme, and thus, as Muslim minorities, they will not be thrown out of Britain as religious infidels—as Christians are now expelled from the Middle East.

Even the most adamant ethnic chauvinists who want to erase the southern border assume that some sort of border is central to their own racial essence. The National Council of La Raza (“the race”; Latin, radix) is the largest lobbying body for open borders with Mexico. Yet Mexico itself supports the idea of boundaries. Mexico City may harp about alleged racism in the United States directed at its immigrants, but nothing in U.S. immigration law compares with Mexico’s 1974 revision of its “General Law of Population” and its emphasis on migrants not upsetting the racial makeup of Mexico—euphemistically expressed as preserving “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” In sum, Mexican nationals implicitly argue that borders, which unfairly keep them out of the United States, are nonetheless essential to maintaining their own pure raza.

Migration has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations.

Mexico, in general, furiously opposes enforcing the U.S.–Mexican border and, in particular, the proposed Trump wall that would bar unauthorized entry into the U.S.—not on any theory of borders discourse but rather because Mexico enjoys fiscal advantages in exporting its citizens northward, whether in ensuring nearly $30 billion in remittances, creating a powerful lobby of expatriates in the U.S., or finding a safety valve for internal dissent. Note that this view does not hold when it comes to accepting northward migrations of poorer Central Americans. In early 2016, Mexico ramped up its border enforcement with Guatemala, adding more security forces, and rumors even circulated of a plan to erect occasional fences to augment the natural barriers of jungle and rivers. Apparently, Mexican officials view poorer Central Americans as quite distinct from Mexicans—and thus want to ensure that Mexico remains separate from a poorer Guatemala.

When I wrote an article titled “Do We Want Mexifornia?” for City Journal ’s Spring 2002 issue, I neither invented the word “Mexifornia” nor intended it as a pejorative. Instead, I expropriated the celebratory term from Latino activists, both in the academy and in ethnic gangs in California prisons. In Chicano studies departments, the fusion of Mexico and California was envisioned as a desirable and exciting third-way culture. Mexifornia was said to be arising within 200 to 300 miles on either side of an ossified Rio Grande border. Less clearly articulated were Mexifornia’s premises: millions of Latinos and mestizos would create a new ethnic zone, which, for some mysterious reason, would also enjoy universities, sophisticated medical services, nondiscrimination laws, equality between the sexes, modern housing, policing, jobs, commerce, and a judiciary—all of which would make Mexifornia strikingly different from what is currently found in Mexico and Central America.

When Latino youths disrupt a Donald Trump rally, they often wave Mexican flags or flash placards bearing slogans such as “Make America Mexico Again.” But note the emotional paradox: in anger at possible deportation, undocumented aliens nonsensically wave the flag of the country that they most certainly do not wish to return to, while ignoring the flag of the nation in which they adamantly wish to remain. Apparently, demonstrators wish to brand themselves with an ethnic cachet but without sacrificing the advantages that being an American resident has over being a Mexican citizen inside Mexico. If no borders existed between California and Mexico, then migrants in a few decades might head to Oregon, even as they demonstrated in Portland to “Make Oregon into California.”

Removing borders in theory, then, never seems to match expectations in fact, except in those rare occasions when nearly like societies exist side by side. No one objects to a generally open Canadian border because passage across it, numbers-wise, is roughly identical in either direction—and Canadians and Americans share a language and similar traditions and standard of living, along with a roughly identical approach to democracy, jurisprudence, law enforcement, popular culture, and economic practice. By contrast, weakening demarcated borders between diverse peoples has never appealed to the citizens of distinct nations. Take even the most vociferous opponents of a distinguishable and enforceable border, and one will observe a disconnect between what they say and do—given the universal human need to circumscribe, demarcate, and protect one’s perceived private space.

Again, the dissipation of national borders is possible only between quite similar countries, such as Canada and the U.S. or France and Belgium, or on those few occasions when a supranational state or empire can incorporate different peoples by integrating, assimilating, and intermarrying tribes of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities into a common culture—and then, of course, protect them with distinct and defensible external borders. But aside from Rome before the fourth century AD and America of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, few societies have been able to achieve E pluribus unum. Napoleon’s transnational empire didn’t last 20 years. Britain never tried to create a holistic overseas body politic in the way that, after centuries of strife, it had forged the English-speaking United Kingdom. The Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires all fell apart after World War I, in a manner mimicked by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s. Rwanda and Iraq don’t reflect the meaninglessness of borders but the desire of distinct peoples to redraw colonial lines to create more logical borders to reflect current religious, ethnic, and linguistic realities. When Ronald Reagan thundered at the Brandenburg Gate, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” he assumed that by 1987, German-speakers on both sides of the Berlin Wall were more alike than not and in no need of a Soviet-imposed boundary inside Germany. Both sides preferred shared consensual government to Communist authoritarianism. Note that Reagan did not demand that Western nations dismantle their own borders with the Communist bloc.

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” Robert Frost famously wrote, “That wants it down.” True, but the poet concedes in his “Mending Wall” that in the end, he accepts the logic of his crustier neighbor: “He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’ ” From my own experience in farming, two issues—water and boundaries—cause almost all feuds with neighbors. As I write, I’m involved in a border dispute with a new neighbor. He insists that the last row of his almond orchard should be nearer to the property line than is mine. That way, he can use more of my land as common space to turn his equipment than I will use of his land. I wish that I could afford to erect a wall between us.

The end of borders, and the accompanying uncontrolled immigration, will never become a natural condition—any more than sanctuary cities, unless forced by the federal government, will voluntarily allow out-of-state agencies to enter their city limits to deport illegal aliens, or Mexico will institutionalize free entry into its country from similarly Spanish-speaking Central American countries.

Borders are to distinct countries what fences are to neighbors: means of demarcating that something on one side is different from what lies on the other side, a reflection of the singularity of one entity in comparison with another. Borders amplify the innate human desire to own and protect property and physical space, which is impossible to do unless it is seen—and can be so understood—as distinct and separate. Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.

August 30, 2016

Response to Phyllis’ ‘Wow’ pro-Hillary email

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, China, crime control, Foreign Affairs, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Treason — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 9:11 pm

[I got the following email chain of two, one from John responding to Phyllis. I sent John what follows Phyllis’ email to him. Please, think before you vote in November. Keep in mind that not voting is a vote for the other guy.]

John: Lots of famous, incredible/good people experience financial failures as well as other types of failures. I remain unaffiliated as I don’t wholly support any party platform. Indeed, this has been an interesting campaign cycle. Both are bright and either will face new challenges heretofore nuvo. The media have been so provocative. I could covet them with plenty of other pejoratives as well.

All would do well to forget about scrutinizing personal medical, income tax, family and concentrate on defining issues and solutions to problems. This isn’t just a battle for public office. It’s a chance to explore/expose and hopefully create workable solutions to our many problems that we face now and towards perpetuity. Please God, May we the people choose wisely.
John

From: Phyllis Subject: Wow!

Hi–I was surprised to read that Meg Whitmann is now campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Ms. Whitmann called Trump a loutish demagogue. Warrenn Buffett, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Cuban have also endorsed Hillary. John, the man is just too volatile, ignorant of knowledge about the world and dangerous to be President. A man who has declared bankruptcy 6 times? That means that he cheated a lot of people. Frankly, I’ve heard him a few times and found him frightening because he sounds like Hitler.

Justplainbill:

IS your friend, Phyllis, serious???

Hillary is a criminal. She & Bill sold the presidency. She personally ordered the murder of Vincent Foster in the Blue Room at the White House using a corrupt Secret Service Agent (the book is posted on the book list, “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster”).

Bill and Madelaine Albright gave all sorts of secrets and patents and protected business secrets to the Chinese for, as Madelaine Albright was caught on tape when exiting the U.N. saying, that we cannot have a single super-power, so she and Bill were building up China to ‘balance’ the world. Just look at all of those Sino-American scientists charged by the FBI for espionage during the ‘90’s who ‘magically’ had the charges dropped and then never heard from again. All working at Los Alamos, too.

Hillary committed a felony when she destroyed evidence after receiving a subpoena to produce documents. If you know anything about MS Word, what they did to locate those 37,000 emails, was to enter keywords, such as ‘secret,’ ‘top secret,’ &c into the search box, then deleted them all and then over-wrote them, which means that ALL of the missing emails were classified!

She was a complete failure as Secretary of State, ran ‘Fast and Furious’ in cahoots with the racist anti-Semite Eric Holder, had the failed Russian Reboot, no one still knows where she really was during the Benghazi disaster although some sources state that it was supposed to be a kidnapping so that her buddies could exchange an ambassador for Jihadists held at Gitmo.

She has been in contempt of congress more than once.

She has been in continued violation of the Lawyers’ Professional Code of Conduct since being fired from her job as an intern during the Watergate Hearings. She’s been suspended from practice, disbarred and reinstated, failed bar exams finally passing the Arkansas exam.

The list just goes on, and on, and on.

AS to Buffet, he owns the railroads carrying the oil from the Canadian oil fields. That is why he is against the XL Pipeline. The RR has refused to upgrade the tracks, because Buffet knows that the pipeline is a certainty, which is why every 17th train derails and spills tons of oil into the environment, but neither Obama’s OSHA nor his EPA will do anything about it. Buffet makes billions of $ under Obama, and will continue to do so under Clinton as will Cuban and Soros.

Bloomberg is the idiot who has allowed crime back into NYC after Rudy kicked it out; he is also the idiot behind the can’t have 32oz drinks, no sugar, no salt, &c in restaurants.

Mark Cuban is an idiot, and Meg Whitman has probably been promised SCOTUS, after Hillary fills Scalia’s seat with Obama.

As for business bankruptcies, they happen.

According to Hillary, even with the $20,000,000 advance the publishers gave Bill and her for their memoirs, she claimed to be broke coming out of the White House. Anybody who is so stupid as to claim insolvency with $20,000,000 in cash, a guaranteed pension for life of over $1,000,000/yr, guaranteed healthcare, not medicare so $0 premiums, for life, a $14,000,000 estate in Westchester County NY, &c, should not be allowed near the federal budget.

Phyllis should look to the issues, see what Trump is proposing compared to Hillary’s lies and frauds and plans that are guaranteed to not work, like Hillary-Care, Amnesty, The Arab Spring, tax raise for all those making over $125,000 (filing jointly, no less), and how Charity Navigator can’t rate the Clinton Foundation because it is really a money laundering scheme, (give money to the Canadian Clinton Foundation, and they will forward it to the Arkansas Clinton Foundation – a clear violation of the OCC regs [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] as Canada does not require reporting of all transfers of $5,000 or more, which the OCC does).

Trump has been putting forth some good plans and the people that he’s already suggested for his cabinet and SCOTUS show that he’d be a zillion times better as prez than Hillary.

BTW, Phyllis does understand that Hillary supported the Iran-nuke deal, which means that within ten years Tel Aviv will be nuked by a terrorist truck nuke device, driven in from Egypt, doesn’t she? She does understand that about 9% of all Muslims are openly declared Jihadis, which means that under Hillary, there is a good chance that within ten years either she or one of her family will be attacked because they are Jewish and not Muslims, doesn’t she?

Of the just let in 10,000 Syrians, 99,954 are Muslim.

In the last 7 1/2 years, Obama has already let in over over 2,000,000 Muslims from around the world, including 1,000,000 Palestinians. Meaning that there are over 180,000 declared Jihadis in the country just waiting for an opportunity to kill a Jew or Christian, or LGBTQQ, or a woman who shows too much skin or otherwise violates Sha’Ria Law. And, she is aware that NYC Mayor Deblasio has appointed a Sha’Ria judge to the Brooklyn Borough Municipal Court, isn’t she?

I’ve been a Truman Democrat all of my life, accepted the Coward Kennedy as a compromise, and was ashamed of the Cowardly Criminal Carter. I did not vote for Clinton or Obummer. The current GOP is, if one looks at their philosophy and actions, really a reincarnation of the Kennedy administration.

If one wishes to make similies with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, look at Hillary, Bill, and Obama.

August 24, 2016

California and your right to self-defense

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, gun control, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:43 pm

Wherever you stand on the issue of gun control, it is important to be well informed. While it is difficult to say how many registered gun owners there are in Sonoma County we do know that recent sales of firearms to have gone up as more restrictive laws are set to go into effect. It is important to stay informed as to prevent law abiding gun owners from unknowingly breaking new laws. Here are some of the changes in the law.

It is important to mention that these laws are not set in stone 100% as VetoGunmageddon.org is working to obtain enough signatures to veto Gov. Browns new bills and put them on the ballot this November.
SB 880 and AB 1135

Together, these new laws reclassify the definition of “assault weapon” and “fixed magazine” as:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

Practical Impact:

Not much has changed other than the definition of the “Fixed Magazine”. New law defines fixed magazine as requiring the disassembly of the firearm action prior to removal of the magazine. This means that firearms with the features listed above combined with a ‘Bullet Button” is no longer legal for possession or transfer/sale. California has also allowed firearms that have been made illegal per the new bills to be registered as assault weapons and allows you to keep them if owned prior to January 1, 2017. However, once registered, you may not sell it or transfer it within California.

If you currently own one of these firearms or own them before January 1, 2017 than your options are as follows:

A. Register it as an assault weapon with the California Department of Justice. (Method of registration is still to be determined.)
B. Remove the firearm from the State of California.
C. Modify the firearm in a way that restricts removal of the magazine unless the firearm action is open.
D. Modify the firearm so that it does not have the features listed above.
E. Surrendered the firearm law enforcement for destruction.

Questions:

Can I buy the firearm out of state and bring it into California? No, unless the firearm cannot be classified as an assault weapon per the new laws.

Can I later sell my registered assault weapon? No, unless you modify the firearm in a way that it no longer meets the definition of an assault weapon per the new laws and notify the California Department of Justice that the firearm is no longer and assault weapon.

Can I bequest my registered assault weapon to my children when I die? No, once you die, the firearm must be turned in to law enforcement for destruction.

Can I sell my registered assault weapon out of state? Yes, however the legal methods of getting the firearm out of state varies and can potentially be a felony if done incorrectly.

Can I put the registered assault weapon into a trust and pass it down that way? No, California does not recognize Trusts as gun owners.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017

Latest Date to register as an assault weapon: January 1, 2018
AB 1511

New regulations around loaning firearms.

Practical Impact:

Bans loans of longer than 3 days and loans for other than lawful purposes.

Questions:

Can I still handle that gun at the gun shop? Yes

Can I still rent a gun at the range? Yes

Can I loan a gun while I’m personally still present? Yes

Exemptions: May loan to Parents, children, spouses, siblings, grandparents, or grand children so long as no longer than 30 days, and done so infrequently.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017
AB 1695

Created a 10-year firearm prohibition for someone convicted of falsely reporting a lost or stolen firearm.

Practical Impact:

Makes it a crime to falsely report lost or stolen firearms.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017
SB 1235

Places restrictions on the purchase / importation of ammunition in California and would require the attorney general to keep records of purchases and background checks to be conducted prior to purchasing ammunition. This legislation would further require any online ammunition sales to be conducted through a local licensed vendor.

Practical Impact:

You would not be able to purchase ammunition online and have it shipped directly to you. Instead, you would purchase the ammunition online, have it shipped to a licensed dealer in California whom can conduct a background check on you prior to releasing the ammunition to you. It has still not been determined what the process or fees will be nor how long it will take.

Questions:

Am I exempt if I have a C&R License with a COE? – Yes!

Can I buy ammo out of state and bring it in? – No, you are allowed a few small exemptions for hunting and shooting at matches, but can return with no more than 50 rounds .

Does it include reloading components? – Yes, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

Can I sell ammo to my friend? – No, private sales of ammo must go through a licensed dealer.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2018
SB 1446

Banned the simple possession of ammunition feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 cartridges.

Practical Impact:

Prior magazine bans did not ban the possession and now it does. This means all magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds, even magazines that were grandfathered in and owned before January 1, 2001, are now illegal.

Questions:

What are my options if I already legally own magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges? Your options include: 1) Turning in to Law Enforcement / exempt dealer, 2) Sell out of state or to an exempt person / dealer, 3) remove the magazines from California, or 4) modify the magazine permanently so that it may not accept more than 10 cartridges.

What if I am caught with a magazine that has the ability to hold more than 10 cartridges? The penalty is an infraction which will usually carry a fine. The law also authorizes confiscation of the magazine. You should also contact an attorney as there are usually other firearm based charges that may follow.

Is Law Enforcement exempt? Yes, active and retired law enforcement officers are exempt, even for their personal property.

Can I just take apart my magazines of greater than 10 rounds? The law is not clear on when parts become a magazine. However, you should contact an attorney before attempting to disassemble your magazines.

Are there any other exemptions? Yes, If you have a firearm for which you owned a magazine and no 10 round magazine is available, you may keep that high-capacity magazine. However you should contact an attorney to assist in compliance.

Are magazines that look like 30 round magazines but only hold 10 rounds also known as “10/30’s” banned? No, 10/30’s are not affected so long as they are permanently modified to only hold no more than 10 rounds.

Date the law goes into effect: January 1, 2017
AB 857

Requires unique identification for all firearms and uncompleted receiver blanks that are readily able to be converted to a functional firearm.

Practical Impact:

All firearms legally manufactured from 80% blanks as well as all other firearms legally manufactured by unlicensed individuals must have unique identification engraved into the firearm. This means that if you have ever built a firearm from an 80% receiver, it must be engraved with unique identifying information. If this information is not engraved into the firearm by January 1, 2018 than you must request a unique serial number from the California Department of Justice. In order to manufacture a new firearm after January 1, 2018 you must First request a serial number from the California Department of Justice prior to beginning manufacture. This applies to all firearms manufactured after 1968 and is not a handgun. “Firearm” now includes the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver more commonly known as an 80% receiver. Yu may no longer purchase an 80% receiver in California unless done through a Licensed firearms dealer who voluntarily manufactures it by engraving their manufacture information.

Questions:

Can I sell a firearm I manufactured after I have engraved the serial number and other information on it? No.

Do I have to put my name as the manufacturer? Yes, this is a federal requirement when serializing.

What Model is my firearm? You can choose this to be whatever you like!

What serial number can I choose if I serialize before January 1, 2018? You can choose any serial number you like, but it must be in English and must contain numbers.

So what are my options again?

If no serial number is engraved on the firearm prior to January 1, 2018, you must apply to the California Department of Justice for a unique serial number to be engraved. If manufacturing after January 1, 2018 you must request the unique serial number prior to manufacturing the firearm.

If you plan on serializing your own unique information prior to January 1, 2018 you must inconspicuously engrave your first and last name, the city and state in which you manufactured the firearm, the model designation of the firearm, the caliber, as well as a unique serial number.

These new laws are all highly technical and you may suffer severe consequences such as felony charges as well as losing firearm ownership rights for life if convicted. It is highly recommended that you consult an attorney prior to taking any firearm related action.

Categories: Criminal Defense, Murder and you can count on the little toes of your left foot how many criminals follow the law!

August 18, 2016

Mine Worker Pension Fund to be Bailed Out by YOU, [c]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Elections, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 1:59 am

[The following may be found in .pdf at: http://thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/IB4600.pdf . In its original form, the charts are readable and the format is reader friendly. Now, as to why it is here:

As already explained in its proper place in the document, if the UMWA pension fund is bailed out, then more money that that spent on the entire defense budget will be spent bailing out underfunded union pension plans. This will lead to the bailing out of public sector pension plans, like the teachers in all of the states, especially California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. Also the various police, fire, administrative staff, clerks, janitors, and any and all public employees. It means that those states who have voluntarily bankrupted themselves, will be bailed out.

Consider the following:

1. the deals made to fund these pensions was made by the properly elected union leaders, and the managers of the various industries;
2. As in the UMWA situation, consider how the interference of the various government entities, especially the EPA and FDA, have ruined so many businesses that those businesses cannot fund their pensions. Notice how the various regulations ruined the automotive industry and contributed to the failed UAW pension fund and how that contributed to the Clinton/sub-prime HUD meltdown in 2008;
3. consider how this violates constitution article IV ( might be VI, I don’t have a copy to hand ) prohibiting federal government messing with contracts; and,
4. did YOU have anything to do with these various contractual commitments? I did not. Under what legal or moral proposition should we be held to a contract that we were not party to? What is the difference between this and someone who buys a car and gets a lemon? Isn’t that person’s remedy to sue the dealer with whom he had that contract for sale? What legal or moral concept drags me into that problem?

Y’all need to contact your federal legislators and demand that they commit to NOT bailing these people, or any others similarly situated, out!]

ISSUE BRIEF
Why a Coal Miner Pension Bailout Could Open the Door to a
$600 Billion Pension Bailout for All Private Unions
Rachel Greszler
No. 4600 | August 15, 2016
Congress is looking to pass legislation that would
use taxpayer dollars to bail out the overpromised,
underfunded pension plan of the United Mine
Workers of America (UMWA). Such an unprecedented
move would send the message that Congress
will stand behind sending trillions of dollars in overpromised,
underfunded public and private pension
obligations across the country. The federal government
already provides a backstop for failed union
and other private pension plans by insuring them
through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(PBGC). Congress should avoid bailing out select
pension plans at all costs and should instead reform
the PBGC so that it can meet its obligations without
a taxpayer bailout.
Coal Miner Bailout Just Tip of the
Iceberg
The UMWA pension plan is massively underfunded.
It has promised $5.6 billion more in pension
benefits than it will be able to pay.1 Although
the UMWA pension plan is among the worst-funded
pension plans, it represents only one of more than
1,300 multiemployer (union) pension plans across
the U.S. Almost all of these plans have made promises
they cannot keep.
According to the PBGC, a whopping 96 percent of
all multiemployer plans have funding ratios of less
than 60 percent—meaning they have less than 60
percent of the funds necessary to pay promised benefits.
2 In total, multiemployer plans have promised
over $600 billion more than they are estimated to be
able to pay.3
If Congress passes legislation to bail out the
UMWA pension plan with nearly a half a billion dollars
a year, what will stop it from passing legislation
to bail out the other 1,200 plans that have more than
$600 billion in unfunded promises? If Congress
forces taxpayers to bail out private union plans, why
not also private non-union plans that have $760 billion4
in unfunded liabilities, and public plans that
have as much as $4 trillion to $5 trillion5 in unfunded
liabilities?
UMWA Is Not Unique
Some policymakers argue that the UMWA is
unique—that the federal government was somehow
involved in the promises made to UMWA workers
and that the bailout would come from a coal-related
fund. The only thing unique about a UMWA bailout,
however, is that it would mark the first time in history
that Congress would force federal taxpayers to
bail out the unfunded pension promises of private
unions.
The notion that the government was somehow
involved in promises made to mine workers comes
from President Harry Truman’s intervention in
a 1946 coal-mining strike, including the government’s
involvement in an agreement that established
the UMWA health and welfare programs.
While the federal government helped to facilitate
This paper, in its entirety, can be found at
http://report.heritage.org/ib4600
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-4400 | heritage.org
Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views
of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage
of any bill before Congress.
2
ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 4600
August 15, 2016 
the establishment of the UMWA’s health and pension
plans, it was the union and its plan trustees—
not the federal government—that vigorously fought
to pay out benefits to retirees who did not earn
those benefits. And, it was the union and its plan
trustees—not the federal government—that consistently
promised pensions and health care benefits
as part of employees’ total compensation packages
and then failed to collect the funds necessary to pay
those benefits.
The Money Will Come from Taxpayers,
Not Just a Coal Fund
Neither policymakers nor the public should be
fooled by the claim that the $490 million per year
UMWA bailout would be paid by the existing Abandoned
Mine Land (AML) reclamation fund (AML).
The AML fund was established in 1977 exclusively
to cover the clean-up costs of damage caused by coal
mines prior to the federal government’s increased regulation.
6 The proposed UMWA pension bailout would
allow the UMWA to use interest from the AML fund
not only for its unfunded retiree health care costs (as
already allowed), but also for its unfunded pensions.
As Senator Mike Enzi (R–WY) pointed out in a recent
floor speech, this would be akin to allowing the massively
underfunded pension plan of the Central States
trucking union to access the highway trust fund.7
Regardless, it is unlikely that much, if any, of
the $490 million per year in pension bailout costs
would come from the AML fund. In recent years, the
entirety of interest earned on the AML fund, plus
hundreds of millions more in taxpayer dollars, has
gone to the UMWA for its unfunded, yet gold-plated,
retiree health care costs, leaving nothing for a
potential pension bailout. Moreover, the Administration’s
most recent budget included a request for
$363 million in taxpayer funds to “strengthen the
health care and pension funds” of UMWA retirees.8
Clearly, taxpayers—not a coal fund—would be on the
hook for the nearly half-billion dollars a year UMWA
pension bailout.
A Pension Backstop Already Exists
When a multiemployer pension plan runs out of
funds, it turns to the PBGC, which provides financial
assistance to the plan to cover insured benefits
as well as the plan’s expenses. Virtually all private
pension plans are required to purchase PBGC
insurance. The PBGC covers up to $12,870 per year
in pension benefits for a worker with 30 years of
service.9
In 2015, the PBGC paid $103 million to about
54,000 retirees of failed multiemployer pension
plans.10 This pales in comparison, however, to what
the PBGC’s liabilities will be over the coming decade
1. According to the UMWA’s form 5500 filing for the year ended December 2014, the plan has $5.6 billion in “current value” unfunded liabilities,
with assets of $4.165 billion and liabilities of $9.735 billion.
2. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, “Data Book Listing,” Table M-13, Plans, Participants and Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans by
Funding Ratio (2013) Multiemployer Program, http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-data-tables-final.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_
medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery (accessed July 19, 2016).
3. Ibid., Table M-9, Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980–2013) Multiemployer Program.
4. Ibid., Table S-44, Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-2013) Single-Employer Program.
5. Joe Luppino-Esposito, “Promises Made, Promises Broken 2014: Unfunded Liabilities Hit $4.7 trillion,” American Legislative Exchange Council,
November 12, 2014, https://www.alec.org/article/promises-made-promises-broken-2014-unfunded-liabilities-hit-4-7-trillion/
(accessed July 21, 2016).
6. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands: Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act,” May 21, 2015, http://www.osmre.gov/programs/AML.shtm (accessed July 25, 2016).
7. Mike Enzi, “Supporting Pensions with Taxpayer Dollars Is a Slippery Slope,” speech on the Senate floor, July 12, 2016,
http://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=9F7D8774-13DE-4869-B684-7786212FB111
(accessed July 21, 2016).
8. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “The United States Department of the Interior Budget Justification and Performance
Information Fiscal Year 2016,” https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/budget/appropriations/2016/upload/FY2016_OSMRE_
Greenbook.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016).
9. The PBGC’s multiemployer program provides benefits based on a formula including earned benefits and years of service. This translates into
maximum benefits of: $4,290 per year for workers with 10 years of service; $8,580 for workers with 20 years of service; $12,870 for workers
with 30 years of service; and $17,160 for workers with 40 years of service. The levels are not indexed for inflation.
10. PBGC, 2015 Annual Report, http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-annual-report.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016).
3
ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 4600
August 15, 2016 
and beyond as an increasing number of multiemployer
pension plans—including some very large
ones—become insolvent.
Under ordinary circumstances, when the UMWA
plan becomes insolvent sometime within the next
decade, the PBGC would begin making payments to
the plan to cover its insured benefits and expenses.11
If Congress intervenes by bailing out the UMWA
pension plan, its beneficiaries would receive 100 percent
of promised benefits, instead of the lower PBGC
guarantee. And, the UMWA would get off scot-free—
with taxpayers and other coal-mining companies
footing the bill for their unfunded promises.
Meanwhile, other multiemployer plans that
become insolvent and do not receive special-interest
bailouts would first receive cuts down to the PBGC’s
11. The UMWA estimates it will be insolvent in 2025, but more reasonable assumptions project an earlier insolvency.
IB 4600 heritage.org
SOURCES: Author’s calculations based on the UMWA’s pension benefits for a 62-year-old worker who retires in 2016 with 30 years of work
history. Data on UMWA’s pension eligibility are from UMWA Health and Retirement Funds, Pension Eligibility Requirements,
http://www.umwafunds.org/Pension-Survivor-Health/Pages/Eligibility-Requirements.aspx (accessed March 9, 2016). Data on pension benefit
cuts are based on PBGC’s guaranteed level and U.S. Government Accountability O•ce, “Private Pensions: Multiemployer Plans and PBGC Face
Urgent Challenges,” testimony before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, March 5, 2013, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652687.pdf (accessed March 10, 2016).
Mine Worker Bailout Would Unfairly Preserve UMWA Pensions
While Other Pensions Face Massive Cuts
CHART 1
By bailing out the
insolvent UMWA
pension plan, the
full benefit would
remain intact at
$24,246 per year.
However, if another pension
plan that oers similar benefits
becomes insolvent, the PBGC
would take over payments and
benefits would be cut to a
maximum of $12,780 per year.
And if the PBGC itself becomes
insolvent, as is projected to occur
by 2025, pensions paid by the
PBGC would be cut by an
additional 90 percent or more,
leaving only $1,278 per year.
$1,278
$24,246 $24,246
$12,780
UMWA BAILOUT OTHER SIMILAR PENSION PLAN
4
ISSUE BRIEF | NO. 4600
August 15, 2016 
guaranteed level, and then, when the PBGC becomes
insolvent at its estimated date of 2025, benefits
would be cut even further, down to mere pennies on
the dollar in promised benefits.
Congress’s Priority: Reforming the PBGC
Congress has no role in fulfilling the unfunded
promises of private pension plans. It does have a role,
however, in providing private pension insurance
through the PBGC. While the PBGC is a government
entity, it is not taxpayer-financed. It operates with
the premiums that it collects from participating
employers and unions. To prevent taxpayers from
bailing out private pension promises, it must remain
self-financed.
The PBGC is supposed to protect pensioners
from a total loss of promised benefits if their company
or pension plan becomes bankrupt, but its current
financial situation offers little insurance. For
a whole host of reasons, the PBGC’s multiemployer
program is massively underfunded and is projected
to run dry in 2025. Without significant reforms, or
a taxpayer bailout, of the PBGC, its multiemployer
beneficiaries would quickly see their benefits cut by
90 percent or more, leaving those retirees with less
than $100 per month in pension benefits.
Instead of protecting the promises of private
union pension plans, Congress should focus on protecting
the promises it has made through its own
entity, the PBGC. This can be done by ending the
preferential treatment (including funding rules
and assumptions) of multiemployer pension plans;
granting greater authority as well as liability to
plan trustees to encourage proper funding; structuring
the PBGC like a private insurance company,
allowing it to set its own premiums and to charge
variable-rate premiums; allowing the PBGC to take
over failed multiemployer plans as it does failed single-
employer plans; and subjecting multiemployer
pension plans to the same rules as single-employer
pensions.12
—Rachel Greszler is Senior Policy Analyst in
Economics and Entitlements in the Center for Data
Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and
Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.
12. Rachel Greszler, “Bankrupt Pensions and Insolvent Pension Insurance: The Case of Multiemployer Pensions and the PBGC’s Multiemployer
Program,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3029, July 30, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/bankruptpensions-
and-insolvent-pension-insurance-the-case-of-multiemployer-pensions-and-the-pbgcs-multiemployer-program.
$52 billion:
Deficit
in 2015
2000 2005 2010 2015
IB 4600 heritage.org
SOURCE: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Table M–1,
“Net Financial Positions of PBGC’s (1980–2015)
Multiemployer Program,” http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/
2014-data-tables-final.pdf (accessed August 3, 2016).
NET FINANCIAL POSITION OF PBGC’S
MULTIEMPLOYER PROGRAM
The PBGC’s multiemployer
program
provides insurance to
private union pension
plans, but it faces
massive deficits and
will be unable to pay
insured benefits
without significant
reforms.
PBGC’s Multiemployer Program:
Massive and Growing Deficits
CHART 2
 ­ billion
€­ billion
‚­ billion
ƒ­ billion
­

August 11, 2016

Dick Morris’ bio of Hillary Clinton [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Bail-out, Climatology, Econonics, Education, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, gun control, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Putin, Racism, Religion, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:10 pm

Dick Morris is a nationally recognized political campaign adviser, analyst and author. He was the senior political adviser to Bill Clinton before and after his occupation of the White House. He was campaign manager of Clinton’s 1996 re-election, and the architect of his successful “triangulation” rhetorical ruse. Clinton’s communications director George Stephanopoulos said of Morris, “No single person had more power over [Bill Clinton].”

This week, in a message entitled “What Bill Left Out, Morris corrected the record regarding Clinton’s glowing remarks about Hillary Clinton, her personal attributes and professional achievements. Morris’s insights into the Clintons are priceless.

What follows is a transcript of Morris’s comments:

“Bill Clinton talked at length about Hillary’s idealistic work in college and law school, but he omits that she was defending the Black Panthers who killed security guards; they were on trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial while she was in law school to find evidence that could be grounds for reversal in the event they were convicted.

“That summer she went to work for the True-Haft (SP) law firm in CA, headed by True Haft who is the head of the CA Communist Party and that’s when she got involved with Saul Alinsky, who became something of a mentor for the rest of her life.

“Then Bill says that she went off to Massachusetts and he went to Arkansas, and eventually Hillary followed her heart to join him in Arkansas. He omits that she went to work for the Watergate Committee and was fired from that job for taking home evidence and hiding documents that they needed in the impeachment inquiry. Then she took the DC Bar exam and flunked it. She went to Arkansas because that is the only bar exam she could pass.

“He talked about how in the 1970’s she took all kinds of pro-bono cases to defend women and children. In her memoirs, she cites one which was a custody case and that’s it. In fact, in 1975 she represented a guy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and got him off by claiming the girl had had fantasies of sex with an older man. In 1980 she gave an interview about it and she joked that she knew the guy was guilty but got him off anyway.

“Then Bill discusses Hillary’s legal career at the Rose Law firm. He doesn’t mention that she made partner when he was elected governor and was only hired when he got elected as attorney general.

“He makes as if it was a public service job — it wasn’t. Her main job was to get state business, and she got tens-of-millions of dollars of state business, then hid her participation and the fees by taking an extra share of non-state business to compensate for the fees on state business that she brought in. Her other job was to call the state banking commissioner any time one of her banks got into trouble to get them off.

“Bill speaks at length how Hillary was a mother, juggling career and family, taking Chelsea to soccer games and stuff — that’s nonsense. Hillary was a mother but Chelsea in the Arkansas governor’s mansion had a staff of nannies and agents to drive her around and people to be with her, and Hillary didn’t have to bother with any of that. All of that was paid for by the state.

“He says she became the warrior in chief over the family finances and that was true, and the result is she learned how to steal.

“She accepted a $100,000 bribe from the poultry industry in return for Bill going easy on regulating them, despite new standards. Jim Blair, the poultry lobbyist, gave her $1,000 to invest in the Futures Market and lined up seven to eight other investors and their winnings were all deposited into Hillary’s account. She made $100,000 in a year and she was out. That essentially was a bribe.

”[She did] a phony real-estate deal for Jim McDougal and the Madison Bank to deceive the federal regulators by pretending someone else was buying the property. She was called before a grand jury in 1995 about that but, conveniently, the billing records were lost, couldn’t be found and there wasn’t proof that she worked on it.

“Bill talks about her work on the health care task force but doesn’t say the reason it didn’t pass was the task force was discredited because the meetings were all held in secret. A federal judge forced them open and fined the task force several hundred thousand dollars because of their secrecy.

“He says that after the health care bill failed in 1994, Hillary went to work on adopting each piece of it piecemeal — mainly health insurance for children.

“That is completely the opposite of the truth. The fact is when that bill failed, I called Hillary and I suggested that she support a proposal by Republican Bob Dole that we cover children, and she said, ‘We can’t just cover one part of this. You have to change everything or change nothing.’ Then in 1997 when I repeated that advice to Bill Clinton, we worked together to pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I found a lot of the money for that in the tobacco settlement that my friend Dick Scruggs was negotiating.

“Then Bill extols her record in the U.S. Senate. In fact, she did practically nothing. There were seven or eight bills that she introduced that passed; almost all of which were symbolic — renaming a courthouse, congratulating a high school team on winning the championship. There was only one vaguely substantive bill, and that had a lot of co-sponsors of whom Hillary was just one.

“Then he goes to her record in the State Department and manages to tell that story without mentioning the word Benghazi, without mentioning her secret emails, without mentioning he was getting tens of millions — $220 million in speaking fees in return for favorable actions by the State Department.

“Also totally lacking in the speech was anything about the war on terror — terror is a word you don’t hear at the Democratic Convention.

“Bill says that Hillary passed tough sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. The opposite is true.

“Every time a tough sanction bill was introduced by Senators Menendez or Kirk, Hillary would send Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman to Capital Hill to testify against it and urge it not to pass, and it was over Hillary’s objections that those sanctions were put into place.

”[Liberal columnist] Maureen Dowd called the speech by Bill Clinton “air brushed.”

“It was a hell of a lot more than that — it was fiction.

(Also see Morris’s comments after Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech. “Its strategy and message will be interdicted by reality at every turn. … She basically has no message. … Her entire campaign is, ‘I’m a woman and I am running against Donald Trump. … She began her speech by saying let’s compromise and work together. Is there any woman in the world less likely to compromise?”)

August 4, 2016

Muslim Refugee Resettlement in the U.S.A. – reference links at end

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Iran, Islam, Media Check, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:46 pm

WHERE MUSLIM REFUGEES RESETTLED IN YOUR TOWN IN 2015 and they are all on Welfare!

STATE AND CITY REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT 2015
AK Anchorage 125
AL Mobile 125
AR Springdale 10
AZ Glendale 895
AZ Phoenix 1,459
AZ Tucson 935
CA Anaheim 175
CA Fullerton 10
CA Garden Grove 150
CA Glendale 1,420
CA Los Angeles 490
CA Los Gatos 144
CA Modesto 250
CA Oakland 615
CA Sacramento 1,276
CA San Bernardino 65
CA San Diego 3,103
CA San Francisco 5
CA San Jose 142
CA Turlock 120
CA Walnut Creek 90
CO Colorado Springs 138
CO Denver 1,690
CO Greeley 150
CT Bridgeport 100
CT Hartford 285
CT New Haven 205
DC Washington 15
DE Wilmington 5
FL Clearwater 200
FL Delray Beach 95
FL Doral 160
FL Jacksonville 895
FL Miami 1,056
FL Miami Springs 133
FL Naples 115
FL North Port 30
FL Orlando 360
FL Palm Springs 150
FL Pensacola 20
FL Plantation 75
FL Riviera Beach 50
FL Tallahassee 50
FL Tampa 660
GA Atlanta 2,100
GA Savannah 100
GA Stone Mountain 685
HI Honolulu 15
IA Cedar Rapids 55
IA Des Moines 585
ID Boise 720
ID Twin Falls 300
IL Aurora 190
IL Chicago 1,595
IL Moline 200
IL Rockford 300
IL Wheaton 2,660
IN Fort Wayne 200
IN Indianapolis 1,285
KS Garden City 80
KS Kansas City 200
KS Wichita 510
KY Bowling Green 310
KY Lexington 410
KY Louisville 990
KY Owensboro 135
LA Baton Rouge 125
LA Lafayette 30
LA Metairie 185
MA Boston 300
MA Framingham 8
MA Jamaica Plain 100
MA Lowell 275
MA South Boston 260
MA Springfield 230
MA Waltham 10
MA West Springfield 340
MA Worcester 443
MD Baltimore 775
MD GlenBurnie 150
MD Rockville 39
MD Silver Spring 845
ME Portland 350
MI Ann Arbor 80
MI Battle Creek 140
MI Clinton Township 650
MI Dearborn 640
MI Grand Rapids 740
MI Lansing 617
MI Troy 1,215
MN Minneapolis 730
MN Richfield 340
MN Rochester 130
MN Saint Paul 695
MN St. Cloud 215
MO Columbia 140
MO Kansas City 540
MO Saint Louis 725
MO Springfield 75
MS Biloxi 5
MS Jackson 20
NC Charlotte 655
NC Durham 380
NC Greensboro 385
NC High Point 405
NC New Bern 165
NC Raleigh 475
NC Wilmington 80
ND Bismarck 45
ND Fargo 270
ND Grand Forks 90
NE Lincoln 335
NE Omaha 990
NH Concord 245
NH Manchester 445
NJ Camden 100
NJ East Orange 6
NJ Elizabeth 300
NJ Jersey City 506
NM Albuquerque 220
NV Las Vegas 640
NY Albany 360
NY Amityville 20
NY Binghamton 40
NY Brooklyn 55
NY Buffalo 1,442
NY New York 240
NY Rochester 643
NY Syracuse 1,030
NY Utica 410
OH Akron 575
OH Cincinnati 140
OH Cleveland 510
OH Cleveland Heights 190
OH Columbus 1,300
OH Dayton 210
OH Toledo 40
OK Oklahoma City 170
OK Tulsa 395
OR Portland 995
PA Allentown 95
PA Erie 625
PA Harrisburg 200
PA Lancaster 480
PA Philadelphia 750
PA Pittsburgh 470
PA Roslyn 20
PA Scranton 150
PR San Juan 5
RI Providence 210
SC Columbia 160
SC Spartanburg 220
SD Huron 90
SD Sioux Falls 490
TN Chattanooga 85
TN Knoxville 190
TN Memphis 200
TN Nashville 1,225
TX Abilene 200
TX Amarillo 442
TX Austin 930
TX Corpus Christi 5
TX Dallas 1,765
TX El Paso 35
TX Fort Worth 1,503
TX Houston 2,605
TX San Antonio 750
UT Salt Lake City 1,126
VA Arlington 500
VA Charlottesville 250
VA Falls Church 450
VA Fredericksburg 120
VA Harrisonburg 140
VA Newport News 300
VA Richmond 243
VA Roanoke 177
VT Colchester 325
WA Kent 985
WA Richland 230
WA Seattle 714
WA Spokane 510
WA Tacoma 276
WA Vancouver 127
WI Green Bay 20
WI Madison 90
WI Milwaukee 890
WI Oshkosh 135
WI Sheboygan 35
WV Charleston 50
TOTALS 76,972

References:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/20/8-facts-about-the-us-program-to-resettle-syrian-refugees

U.S. cities ‘secretly selected’ for importing Muslims


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/01/syrian-refugees-resettled-36-states-catx-mi/
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

July 19, 2016

The White Side of the Story of Blacks, Pat Buchanan [nc]

Filed under: Historical context, Law Enforcement, Racism — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:12 pm

The White Side of the Story of Blacks
This is the reason CNN has dropped Buchanan.
It’s like Newt G. said, “You’re not supposed to bring up uncomfortable facts.” (verified on Buchanan’s website)
Finally, It is Said Publicly.
I have never seen the white side explained better!

Pat Buchanan had the guts to say it, and it is about time!

BUCHANAN TO OBAMA:
By Patrick J. Buchanan

You say we need to have a conversation about race in America .

Fair enough.

But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation.

White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard.
And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks.

It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christianity, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated their time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

What more opportunity is it that the White people need to give to help the Blacks?

If the poor white got this much opportunity there would be no poor white or lower class of white trash people!!

The main problem why black people are not progressing is the, “They owe me factor!!”
Get it in your head!

NOBODY OWES YOU ANYTHING!

Obama talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks. Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids?

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ?

Is it really white America ‘s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence.

Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Obama aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, and that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena . And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

I am not racist, I am not violent, I am just not silent anymore.

In GOD we trust!

June 30, 2016

Freedom and Obligation, Clarence Thomas SCOTUS Associate Justice [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Education, Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:39 pm

Support Imprimis

Freedom and Obligation–2016 Commencement Address
June 2016 • Volume 45, Number 5/6 • Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court
________________________________________
Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Born in Pinpoint, Georgia, he is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. Prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, he served as an assistant attorney general of Missouri, an attorney with the Monsanto Company, a legislative assistant to U.S. Senator John Danforth, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education, chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2007, he published My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir.
________________________________________
• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Print
• E-mail
• Download Issue

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 14, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s 164th Commencement ceremony.

President Arnn, members of the board of trustees, assembled faculty, families and friends, and, most important, members of the Hillsdale College Class of 2016, I am both honored and grateful to participate in these commencement exercises. It has been some years since my wife Virginia and I have been to Hillsdale together. Of course we have known Dr. and Mrs. Arnn for many, many years, and we have been quite close to Hillsdale throughout his tenure. We admire the work that is being done here to educate young men and women—one of whom, Hillsdale graduate David Morrell, a wonderful young man, served as one of my law clerks a few years back.

This has been a most difficult term at the Court. The difficulty is underscored by the sudden and tragic passing of my colleague and friend, Justice Antonin Scalia. I think it is fitting to say a few words about him. Many will focus on his intellect and his legal prowess. I do not demur on either count. But there is so much more than that. When I think of Justice Scalia, I think of the good man who I could instinctively trust during my first days on the Court. He was, in the tradition of the South of my youth, a man of his word, a man of character. Over the almost 25 years that we were together on the Court, I think we made it a better place for each other. I know that he did for me. He was kind to me when it mattered most. He is, and will be, sorely missed.

As the years since I attended college edge toward a half century, I feel a bit out of place talking with college students or recent graduates. So much has changed since I left college in 1971. Things that were considered firm have long since lost their vitality, and much that seemed inconceivable is now firmly or universally established. Hallmarks of my youth, such as patriotism and religion, seem more like outliers, if not afterthoughts. So in a sense, I feel woefully out of place speaking at commencement ceremonies. My words will perhaps seem somewhat vintage in character rather than current or up-to-date. In that context, I admit to being unapologetically Catholic, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically a constitutionalist.
In my youth, we had a small farm. I am convinced that the time I spent there had much to do with my firm resolve never to farm again. Work seemed to spring eternal, like the weeds that consumed so much of our time and efforts. One of the messages constantly conveyed in those days was our obligation to take care of the land and to use it to produce food for ourselves and for others. If there was to be independence, self-sufficiency, or freedom, then we first had to understand, accept, and discharge our responsibilities. The latter were the necessary (but not always sufficient) antecedents or precursors of the former. The only guarantee was that if you did not discharge your responsibilities, there could be no independence, no self-sufficiency, and no freedom.

In a broader context, we were obligated in our neighborhood to be good neighbors so that the neighborhood would thrive. Whether there was to be a clean, thriving neighborhood was directly connected to our efforts. So there was always, to our way of thinking, a connection between the things we valued most and our personal obligations or efforts. There could be no freedom without each of us discharging our responsibilities. When we heard the words duty, honor, and country, no more needed to be said. But that is a bygone era. Today, we rarely hear of our personal responsibilities in discussions of broad notions such as freedom or liberty. It is as though freedom and liberty exist wholly independent of anything we do, as if they are predestined.

Related to this, our era is one in which different treatment or different outcomes are inherently suspect. It is all too commonly thought that we all deserve the same reward or the same status, notwithstanding the differences in our efforts or in our abilities. This is why we hear so often about what is deserved or who is entitled. By this way of thinking, the student who treats spring break like a seven-day bacchanalia is entitled to the same success as the conscientious classmate who works and studies while he plays. And isn’t this same sense of entitlement often applied today to freedom?

At the end of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked what the gathering had accomplished. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.” Nearly a century later, in a two-minute speech at Gettysburg, President Lincoln spoke similarly. It is for the current generation, he said,

“to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
So many who have gone before us have done precisely that, dedicating their lives to preserving and enhancing our nation both in war and in peace, taking care that those who have given the last full measure of devotion have not done so in vain.”

Being at Hillsdale College, it is appropriate that we should reflect briefly on our ancestors’ understanding of what was to be earned and preserved. America’s Founders and many successive generations believed in natural rights. To establish a government based on the consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, they gave up only that portion of their rights necessary to create a limited government of the kind needed to secure all of their rights. The Founders then structured that government so that it could not jeopardize the liberty that flowed from natural rights. Even though this liberty is inherent, it is not guaranteed. Indeed, the founding documents of our country are an assertion of this liberty against the King of England—arguably the most powerful man in the world at the time—at the risk of the Founders’ lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Over the lifespan of our great country, many occasions have arisen that required this liberty, and the form of government that ensures it, to be defended if it was to survive.

At the risk of understating what is necessary to preserve liberty and our form of government, I think more and more that it depends on good citizens discharging their daily duties and obligations. Here I resist what seems to be the formulaic or standard fare at commencement exercises—a broad complaint about societal injustice and an exhortation to the young graduates to go out and solve the problem and change the world. Having been a young graduate myself, I think it is hard enough to solve your own problems, which can sometimes seem to defy solution. And in addressing your own obligations and responsibilities in the right way, you actually do an important part on behalf of liberty and free government.

Throughout my youth, even as the contradiction of segregation persisted, we revered the ideals of our great nation. We knew, of course, that our country was flawed, as are all human institutions. But we also knew that our best hope lay in the ideal of liberty. I watched with anguish as so many of the older people in my life groped and stumbled through the darkness of near or total illiteracy. Yet they desperately wanted to learn and gain knowledge, and they understood implicitly how important it was to enjoy the fullness of American citizenship. They had spent an aggregation of lifetimes standing on the edge of the dual citizenship that is at the heart of the 14th Amendment.

During the Second World War, they were willing to fight for the right to die on foreign soil to defend their country, even as their patriotic love went unreciprocated. They returned from that horrific war with dignity to face the indignity of discrimination. Yet the desire persisted to push our nation to live up to its ideals.

I often wondered why my grandparents remained such model citizens, even when our country’s failures were so obvious. In the arrogance of my early adult life, I challenged my grandfather and doubted America’s ideals. He bluntly asked: “So, where else would you live?” Though not a lettered man, he knew that our constitutional ideals remained our best hope, and that we should work to achieve them rather than undermine them. “Son,” he said, “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” That is, don’t discard what is precious along with what is tainted.

Today, when it seems that grievance rather than responsibility is the main means of elevation, my grandfather’s beliefs may sound odd or discordant. But he and others like him at the time resolved to conduct themselves in a way consistent with America’s ideals. They were law-abiding, hardworking, and disciplined. They discharged their responsibilities to their families and neighbors as best they could. They taught us that despite unfair treatment, we were to be good citizens and good people. If we were to have a functioning neighborhood, we first had to be good neighbors. If we were to have a good city, state, and country, we first had to be good citizens. The same went for our school and our church. We were to keep in mind the corporal works of mercy and the great commandment: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Being wronged by others did not justify reciprocal conduct. Right was right, and two wrongs did not make a right. What we wanted to do did not define what was right—nor, I might add, did our capacious litany of wants define liberty. Rather, what was right defined what we were required to do and what we were permitted to do. It defined our duties and our responsibilities. Whether those duties meant cutting our neighbor’s lawn, visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, or going off to war as my brother did, we were to discharge them honorably.

Shortly before his death in 1983, I sought my grandfather’s advice about how to weather the first wave of harsh criticism directed at me, which I admit had somewhat unnerved me. His re-sponse was simple: “Son, you have to stand up for what you believe in.” To him, that was my obligation, my duty. Perhaps it is at times like that—when you lack strength and courage—that the clarity of our obligation supplies both: duty, honor, country.
As I admitted at the outset, I am of a different time. I knew no one, for example, who was surprised at President Kennedy’s famous exhortation in his 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” That sentiment was as common as saying the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthem, as pervasive as shopping at Army-Navy surplus stores. Today there is much more focus on our rights and on what we are owed, and much less on our obligations and duties—unless, of course, it is about our duty to submit to some new proposed policy.

My grandfather often reminded us that if we didn’t work, we didn’t eat, and that if we didn’t plant, we couldn’t harvest. There is always a relationship between responsibilities and benefits. In agrarian societies, that is more obvious. As society becomes more complex and specialized, it is more difficult to discern. But it is equally true. If you continue to run up charges on your credit card, at some point you reach your credit limit. If you continue to make withdrawals from your savings account, you eventually deplete your funds. Likewise, if we continue to consume the benefits of a free society without replenishing or nourishing that society, we will eventually deplete that as well. If we are content to let others do the work of replenishing and defending liberty while we consume the benefits, we will someday run out of other people’s willingness to sacrifice—or even out of courageous people willing to make the sacrifice.
But this is Hillsdale College, which is like a shining city on a hill. This College, in the words of your mission statement, “considers itself a trustee of a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.” The very existence of Hillsdale connotes independence, because Hillsdale, like America, was founded on the idea that liberty is an antecedent of government, not a benefit from government.

Let me offer you, this year’s graduates, a few brief suggestions about making your deposits in the account of liberty. Today is just the end of the beginning of your young lives, and the beginning, the commencement of the rest of your lives. There is much more to come, and it will not be with the guiding hands of your parents—indeed, they may someday need your hand to guide them. Some of you will most assuredly be called upon to do very hard things to preserve liberty. All of you will be called upon to provide a firm foundation of citizenship by carrying out your obligations in the way so many preceding generations have done. You are to be the example to others that those generations have been to us. And in being that example, what you do will matter far more than what you say.

As the years have moved swiftly by, I have often reflected on the important citizenship lessons of my life. For the most part, it was the unplanned array of small things. There was the kind gesture from a neighbor. There was my grandmother dividing our dinner because someone showed up unannounced. There was the stranger stopping to help us get our crops out of the field before a big storm. There were the nuns who believed in us and lived in our neighborhood. There was the librarian who brought books to Mass so that I would not be without reading on the farm. Small gestures such as these become large lessons about how to live our lives. We watched and learned what it means to be a good person, a good neighbor, a good citizen. Who will be watching you? And what will you be teaching them?

After this commencement ceremony ends, I implore you to take a few minutes to thank those who made it possible for you to come this far—your parents, your teachers, your pastor. These are the people who have shown you how to sacrifice for those you love, even when that sacrifice is not always appreciated. As you go through life, try to be a person whose actions teach others how to be better people and better citizens. Reach out to the shy person who is not so popular. Stand up for others when they’re being treated unfairly. Take the time to listen to the friend who’s having a difficult time. Do not hide your faith and your beliefs under a bushel basket, especially in this world that seems to have gone mad with political correctness. Treat others the way you would like to be treated if you stood in their shoes.

These small lessons become the unplanned syllabus for learning citizenship, and your efforts to live them will help to form the fabric of a civil society and a free and prosperous nation where inherent equality and liberty are inviolable. You are men and women of Hillsdale College, a school that has stood fast on its principles and its traditions at great sacrifice. If you don’t lead by example, who will?

I have every faith that you will be a beacon of light for others to follow, like “a city on a hill [that] cannot be hidden.” May God bless each of you now and throughout your lives, and may God bless America.

June 17, 2016

Open Response to Secession Conditions query

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Education, Elections, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Military, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Racism, Religion, self-defense, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:01 pm

[The initial question posed was, how soon do I think that the conditions for revolution/secession be met? I responded with mid-to-late 2018 that the conditions listed by Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence 1776” will be met. The problem of actual secession and the saving of America, depends on the following:]

I think that the conditions that Jefferson listed in the 1776 Declaration of Independence will be met that soon. Whether or not the Red States will do anything at that time, I doubt. Too many disengaged sheeple. Over 1/3 of the population is drinking koolaid and supporting the Obamaites and Clintonites. The rich, who started and supported the 1776 secession, have protected and insulated themselves from the federal government.

The NRA has less than 5 million members. That membership is less than the number of people who subscribe to Playboy magazine, who is about to stop having pictures of nude women in it as the photos are limiting its appeal. Counting the illegals, there are over 330,000,000 people in the U.S. Nobody knows how well armed the illegal’s gangs are, but every major city 6 pm news has a crime report that includes them – look how many deaths in black ‘hoods that go unsolved, in K.C. I think that it is over 87%.

For all the sale of firearms, I see no interest in secession, just self-defense and the beginnings of a reform movement, the Tea Party having been suppressed. Federal government, by virtue of technology, is able to locate and destroy the seeds of serious dissent, note Ruby Ridge in Waco TX and how astoundingly excessive the FBI reacted, and this during the Clinton Administration and good economic times.

Veterans with combat skills, ie The American Legion and the VFW, are in groups run by NCO’s, officers having no interest in us or our organizations where they aren’t worshipped by us, have been co-opted by the feds and congressmen promising, but certainly not delivering, VA benefits, healthcare, financial support &c. Notice how even the VA Home Loan program created the FHA, HARP, &c. Note the VA scandals and how they’ve grown since the first limitation of healthcare to Viet Nam Vets in the 1970’s by Carter and Carter’s blanket amnesty to draft dodgers, of whom one was Bill Clinton thereby erasing his felony and allowing him access to the Oval Office.

So, conditions listed by Jefferson should be met, regardless of who wins the 2016 election, in mid to late 2018. Secession will actually depend upon the collapse of the economy into a complete global depression, coupled to Jihadist terrorism. Secession will, in my opinion, be the least violent and bloody of the alternatives if it happens before the riots.

New Orleans, Baltimore & Ferguson (and look at the futbol hooliganism riots in the E.U. as to their respect for law and order and how poor their controls are – and they are exacerbated by the Muslim “immigrants”) are the indicators on how bloody the Black Sub-Culture will make things, the actions at Mizzou by the sexist & racist students and the Black Lives Matter reaction to the Orlando terrorist murders of LGBT, the unconstitutional importation of millions of Muslims, and the rich being completely insulated from it all by virtue of their private militias and gated communities – just look at how the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia &c. have fallen into militia/gated anarchy – have created anarchy and economic chaos. Yellen continuing the no rate hike and jobs being continuing to be sent to China. Also, look at the riots around Trump Events, the attacks on Free Speech, and the attacks on Due Process especially as Due Process applies to the Second Amendment and firearms access.

Areas mentioned had/have survived because the U.S., the E.U., and the U.N., have sent trillions in aid to them. If the U.S. fails, and the E.U. will fail with the British Exit which is probable with next week’s vote, the global economy fails, and the entire current global support net fails. Look at some of the “News You’re Not Getting Elsewhere” posts to see how chaotic things are getting. What reason does Indonesia have to purchase Leopard MBT’s (Main Battle Tanks)? Whom are they going to use them against?

It will be bloody without secession. Secession, as written and posted on the blog, avoids the bloody revolution. Secession keeps all of our Christian-Protestant American values intact. It will force the Blue States to reform before the violence trigger is pulled, which in turn will force Europe to reform before it collapses completely, thus, Christian values will survive long enough to withstand the Muslim onslaught.

Otherwise, 5/6’s of the World’s population will be destroyed and/or enslaved. Mankind will fall into a Dark Ages from which it will not return. The probability of incurable diseases blossoming and destroying the remaining 1/6 is over 50% as shown by the presenting at Emergency Rooms in Europe of Muslims with TB, Syphillis, Gonorhea, polio, HIV/aids, &c. I posted a report by Britain’s National Health Service on Muslim presentiment and burden on the NHS.

If you’ve some idea of what to do other than scream at our elected elite to secede, I’m probably on board, so let me know.

I assume that YOU have a copy of the Declaration of Independence 1776, and can quickly read the conditions that Jefferson lists. And, can you really see the likes of Joe and Dennis actually coming out and facing the Federales? It’s you and me, the American Legion and the VFW, and maybe the NRA.

BTW I think that I included a copy of the 1860 Declaration of Independence in Albany Plan, if not, you should have gotten copies of Freehling’s “Secession” and “Nullification”. “Secession” not only has a copy of the 1860 but a collection of newspaper editorials similar to The Federalist Papers. Also, there may be a copy in “The South was Right” which I know that you have.

Also, get and read Thomas Sowell’s 1995 “The Vision of the Anointed”. He’s a brother Marine, Korea War Vet, and his viewpoint is similar to ours and worth reading for the info and for his conclusions and solutions. With the death of James Q. Wilson a few years ago, he’s the premier conservative philosopher alive.

[Checking in on Nov 17, 2020 – how prophetic was I?]

May 20, 2016

Income Distribution

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Political Commentary — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 8:27 pm

[I have been recommending books on various subjects for over 30 years, now. I do this because I often find myself in disagreement with those who think that they are entitled, or because as an attorney, I am advocating a position or cause for which I have been hired to argue. This blog has as its first posting, an essay on the climate change hoax. Elsewhere are two postings on petrochemicals primarily because over 95% if everything around us has or requires a distilled petrochemical in its making or as an integral component. Plastic, tar, asphalt, paint, electricity, aspirin, clothing, &c., all require some form of petrochemical as a component either directly or in its manufacturing process. Hillary, Barry, and Bernie notwithstanding, try living without it all.

There are several posts on economics. A point not made in them is that of John Maynard Keynes’ biography. Keynes’ data source is the XIXth Century. His basis does not include the common use of electricity and, in fact, predates The Great Depression and commonplace birth control. His theories have all been debunked by the likes of Hazlett, Hayek, Freidman, von Mises, et al.

There are several more original posts mixed in with those by others whom I think it worth your time to read and contemplate. The conclusions are mine, but the source material led me to those conclusions.

My point in this prologue, is that there is a post of a recommended reading list. I have not updated it since its posting, but it is still valid and from which most of my work originates. Leffler’s works on petrochemicals, Solomon’s on climate change, Hayek & von Mises on economics, Sun Tzu on war & business, Foote’s on The War of 1861, and so many others.

A book not on the list, but which I have been recommending for years, is Thomas Sowell’s, Ph. D., “The Vision of the Anointed; Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”. I have posted excerpts on the blog, and now choose to add another. Barry, Hillary, and Bernie at the top of the heap are screaming about income inequality and how unequal it is. I now accent Dr. Sowell’s opinion by quoting from his above noted work, pp 211-213.

I cannot strongly enough recommend his works.

Posted 20 May 2016

BTW, today’s TWSJ p 11 has an op-ed on minimum wage which falls right into this discussion.]

“INCOME DISTRIBUTION”

Despite a voluminous and fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that income is not distributed: It is earned. People paying each other for goods and services generate income. While many people’s entire income comes from a salary paid to them by a given employer, many others collect individual fees for everything from shoe shines to surgery, and it is the sum total of these innumerable fees which constitutes their income. Other income is distributed from a central point as social security checks, welfare payments, unemployment compensation, and the like. But that is not how most people get most income.

To say that “wealth is so unfairly distributed in America,” as Ronald Dworkin does,43 is grossly misleading when most wealth in the United States is not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it, and spend it.

If one believes that income and wealth should not originate as they do now, but instead should be distributed as largess from some central point, then that argument should be made openly, plainly, and honestly. But to talk as if we currently have a certain distribution result A which should be changed to distribution result B is to misstate the issue and disguise a radical institutional change as a simple adjustment of preferences. The word “distribution” can of course be used in more than one sense. In a purely statistical sense, we can speak of the “distribution” of heights in the population, without believing someone in Washington decides how tall we should all be and then mails out these heights to different individuals. What we cannot do, either logically or morally, is to shift back and forth between these two very different conceptions of distribution. Newspapers are distributed in one sense – they are sent out from a printing plant to scattered sites to be sold to readers – but heights are distributed only in the other sense.

Those who criticize the existing “distribution” of income in the United States are criticizing the statistical results of systemic processes. They are usually not even discussing the economic fate of actual flesh-and-blood human beings, for the economic positions of given individuals vary greatly within a relatively few years. What is really being said is that numbers don’t look right to the anointed – and that this is what matters, that all the myriad purposes of the millions of human beings who are transacting with one another in the marketplace must be subordinated to the goal of presenting a certain statistical plateau to anointed observers.

To question the “fairness” or other index of validity of the existing statistics growing out of voluntary economic transactions is to question whether those who spent their own money to buy what they wanted from other people have a right to do so. To say that a shoe shine boy earns “too little” or a surgeon “too much” is to say that third parties should have the right to preempt the decisions of those who have elected to spend their money on shoe shines or surgery. To say that “society” should decide how much it values various goods and services is to say that individual decisions on these matters should be superseded by collective decisions made by political surrogates. But to say this openly would require some persuasive reasons why collective decisions are better than individual decisions and why third parties are better judges than those who are making their own trade-offs at their own expense.

Again, no one would seriously entertain such an arrogant and presumptuous goal, if presented openly, plainly, and honestly. They may, however, be led in that direction if the anointed are able to slip undetected back and forth between one definition of “distribution” and another, as the exigencies of the argument require.

[“The Vision of the Anointed”, Sowell, Thomas Ph. D., © 1995 Basic Books ISBN-13: 978-0-465-08995-6 pp 211-213]

May 19, 2016

Nine Quotes from Ludwig von Mises [nc]

Filed under: Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Elections, Historical context, Political Commentary, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:27 pm

04/15/2016Tho Bishop

In honor of tax day, a look at the best quotes from Ludwig von Mises on taxation:

1. “Some experts have declared that it is necessary to tax the people until it hurts. I disagree with these sadists.”
Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation

2. “If the present tax rates had been in effect from the beginning of our century, many who are millionaires today would live under more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man.”
Source: Planning for Freedom

3. “Taxing profits is tantamount to taxing success.
Source: Planning for Freedom

4. “Estate taxes of the height they have already attained for the upper brackets are no longer to be qualified as taxes. They are measures of expropriation.”
Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation ​

5. “Progressive taxation of income and profits means that precisely those parts of the income which people would have saved and invested are taxed away.”
Source: Economic Policy

6. “The metamorphosis of taxes into weapons of destruction is the mark of present-day public finance.”
Source: Human Action

7. “Taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend.”
Source: Human Action

8. “[T]he system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation of the successful capitalists and entrepreneurs.”
Source: Human Action

9. “Nothing is more calculated to make a demagogue popular than a constantly reiterated demand for heavy taxes on the rich. Capital levies and high income taxes on the larger incomes are extraordinarily popular with the masses, who do not have to pay them.”
Source: Human Action

May 16, 2016

Imprimis Apr 2016 V45#4 The Danger of “Black Lives Matter” [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, Econonics, Education, Elections, gun control, Historical context, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:49 pm

Imprimis
OVER 3,400,000 READERS MONTHLY
April 2016 • Volume 45, Number 4
A PUBLICATION OF HILLSDALE COLLEGE
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.,
as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
For almost
two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has
convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police
officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered
riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to
eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presi
–
dential task force on policing.
Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a
pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still
The Danger of the “Black Lives
Matter” Movement
Heather Mac Donald
A u t h o r,
The War on Cops
HEATHER MAC DONALD
is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and a contributing editor of
City Journal
. She earned a B.A.
from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University,
and a J. D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers
and journals, including
The Wall Street Journal
,
The New York Times
,
The New Criterion
, and
Public Interest
, and is the author of three books,
including
Are Cops Racist?
and
The War on Cops: How The New Attack
on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe
(for t hc om i ng Ju ne 2 016).
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 1
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
2
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
venerated as a martyr. And now police offi
–
cers are backing off of proactive policing in
the face of the relentless venom directed at
them on the street and in the media. As a
result, violent crime is on the rise.
The need is urgent, therefore, to
examine the Black Lives Matter move
–
ment’s central thesis—that police pose
the greatest threat to young black men. I
propose two counter hypotheses: first,
that there is no government agency more
dedicated to the idea that black lives
matter than the police; and second, that
we have been talking obsessively about
alleged police racism over the last 20
years in order to avoid talking about a far
larger problem—black-on-black crime.
Let’s be clear at the outset: police
have an indefeasible obligation to treat
everyone with courtesy and respect, and
to act within the confines of the law. Too
often, officers develop a hardened, obnox
–
ious attitude. It is also true that being
stopped when you are innocent of any
wrongdoing is infuriating, humiliating,
and sometimes ter
–
rifying. And needless
to say, every unjusti
–
fied police shooting
of an unarmed civil
–
ian is a stomach-
churning tragedy.
Given the his
–
tory of racism in this
country and the com
–
plicity of the police
in that history, police
shootings of black
men are particularly
and understandably
fraught. That history
informs how many
people view the police.
But however intoler
–
able and inexcusable
every act of police
brutality is, and while
we need to make sure
that the police are
properly trained in
the Constitution and
in courtesy, there is a
larger reality behind
the issue of policing, crime, and race that
remains a taboo topic. The problem of
black-on-black crime is an uncomfortable
truth, but unless we acknowledge it, we
won’t get very far in understanding pat
–
terns of policing.
* * *
Every year, approximately 6,000
blacks are murdered. This is a number
greater than white and Hispanic homi
–
cide victims combined, even though
blacks are only 13 percent of the national
population. Blacks are killed at six times
the rate of whites and Hispanics com
–
bined. In Los Angeles, blacks between
the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30
times the national mean. Who is killing
them? Not the police, and not white civil
–
ians, but other blacks. The astronomical
black death-by-homicide rate is a func
–
tion of the black crime rate. Black males
between the ages of 14 and 17 commit
homicide at ten times the rate of white
and Hispanic male
teens combined. Blacks
of all ages commit
homicide at eight times
the rate of whites and
Hispanics combined,
and at eleven times the
rate of whites alone.
The police could
end all lethal uses
of force tomorrow
and it would have at
most a trivial effect
on the black death-
by-homicide rate.
The nation’s police
killed 987 civilians
in 2015, according to
a database compiled
by
The Washington
Post
. Whites were 50
percent—or 493—of
those victims, and
blacks were 26 per
–
cent—or 258. Most of
those victims of police
shootings, white and
black, were armed or
− ́
Imprimis
(im-pri-mis),
[Latin]: in the f irst place
EDITOR
Douglas A. Jeffrey
DEPUTY EDITORS
Matthew D. Bell
Timothy W. Caspar
COPY EDITOR
Monica VanDerWeide
ART DIRECTOR
Arthur Donley
MARKETING DIRECTOR
William Gray
PRODUCTION MANAGER
Lucinda Grimm
CIRCULATION MANAGER
Wanda Oxenger
S TAFF A SSIS TANT S
Robin Curtis
Kim Ellsworth
Kathy Smith
Mary Jo Von Ewegen
Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College
The opinions expressed in
Imprimis
are not
necessarily the views of Hillsdale College.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
hereby granted, provided the following credit
line is used: “Reprinted by permission from
Imprimis
, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST.
ISSN 0277-8432
Imprimis
trademark registered in U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office #1563325.
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 2
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
3
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
otherwise threatening the officer with
potentially lethal force.
The black violent crime rate would
actually predict that
more
than 26 per
–
cent of police victims would be black.
Officer use of force will occur where the
police interact most often with violent
criminals, armed suspects, and those
resisting arrest, and that is in black neigh
–
borhoods. In America’s 75 largest coun
–
ties in 2009, for example, blacks consti
–
tuted 62 percent of all robbery defendants,
57 percent of all murder defendants, 45
percent of all assault defendants—but
only 15 percent of the population.
Moreover, 40 percent of all cop kill
–
ers have been black over the last decade.
And a larger proportion of white and
Hispanic homicide deaths are a result
of police killings than black homicide
deaths—but don’t expect to hear that
from the media or from the political
enablers of the Black Lives Matter move
–
ment. Twelve percent of all white and
Hispanic homicide victims are killed
by police officers, compared to four
percent of all black homicide victims.
If we’re going to have a “Lives Matter”
anti-police movement, it would be
more appropriately named “White and
Hispanic Lives Matter.”
Standard anti-cop ideology, whether
emanating from the ACLU or the acad
–
emy, holds that law enforcement actions
are racist if they don’t mirror popula
–
tion data. New York City illustrates why
that expectation is so misguided. Blacks
make up 23 percent of New York City’s
population, but they commit 75 percent
of all shootings, 70 percent of all robber
–
ies, and 66 percent of all violent crime,
according to victims and witnesses. Add
Hispanic shootings and you account for
98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the
city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s
population, but they commit fewer than
two percent of all shootings, four per
–
cent of all robberies, and five percent of
all violent crime. These disparities mean
that virtually every time the police
in New York are called out on a gun
run—meaning that someone has just
been shot—they are being summoned
to minority neighborhoods looking for
minority suspects.
Officers hope against hope that they
will receive descriptions of white shoot
–
ing suspects, but it almost never hap
–
pens. This incidence of crime means
that innocent black men have a much
higher chance than innocent white men
of being stopped by the police because
they match the description of a suspect.
This is not something the police choose.
It is a reality forced on them by the
facts of crime.
The geographic disparities are also
huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the
per capita shooting rate is 81 times
higher than in nearby Bay Ridge,
Brooklyn—the first neighborhood pre
–
dominantly black, the second neighbor
–
hood predominantly white and Asian.
As a result, police presence and use of
proactive tactics are much higher in
Brownsville than in Bay Ridge. Every
time there is a shooting, the police will
f lood the area looking to make stops
in order to avert a retaliatory shooting.
They are in Brownsville not because of
racism, but because they want to provide
protection to its many law-abiding resi
–
dents who deserve safety.
* * *
Who are some of the victims of
elevated urban crime? On March 11,
2015, as protesters were once again
converging on the Ferguson police head
–
quarters demanding the resignation of
the entire department, a six-year-old
boy named Marcus Johnson was killed
a few miles away in a St. Louis park, the
victim of a drive-by shooting. No one
protested his killing. Al Sharpton did
not demand a federal investigation. Few
people outside of his immediate com
–
munity know his name.
Ten children under the age of ten
were killed in Baltimore last year. In
Cleveland, three children five and
younger were killed in September.
A seven-year-old boy was killed in
Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend
by a bullet intended for his father. In
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 3
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
4
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
ALL-INCLUSIVE—
CALL TODAY FOR MORE INFORMATION!
(877) 242-6397 | hillsdalecollegecruise.com
Vancouver | Juneau | Hoonah | Hubbard Glacier
Skagway | Sitka | Ketchikan | Nanaimo
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Larry P. Arnn
Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College
President, Hillsdale College
Author,
Author,
Churchill’s Trial
Churchill’s Trial
Michael Walsh
Michael Walsh
Contributor, National Review Online
Contributor, National Review Online
Author,
Author,
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
John Steele Gordon
John Steele Gordon
Contributor,
Contributor,
Commentary
Commentary
Author,
Author,
Washington’s Monument
Washington’s Monument
David P. Goldman
David P. Goldman
Columnist,
Columnist,
Asia Times
Asia Times
Author,
Author,
How Civilizations Die
How Civilizations Die
Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson
Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College
Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College
Author,
Author,
The Savior Generals
The Savior Generals
Aboard the Crystal Serenity
ALL-INCLUSIVE!
HILLSDALE COLLEGE CRUISE
ALASKA
VANCOUVER ROUNDTRIP
JULY 27-
AUGUST 6, 2016
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 4
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
5
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
November, a nine-year-old in Chicago
was lured into an alley and killed by
his father’s gang enemies; the father
refused to cooperate with the police. In
August, a nine-year-old girl was doing
her homework on her mother’s bed in
Ferguson when a bullet fired into the
house killed her. In Cincinnati in July, a
four-year-old girl was shot in the head
and a six-year-old girl was left paralyzed
and partially blind from two separate
drive-by shootings. This mindless
violence seems almost to be regarded
as normal, given the lack of attention
it receives from the same people who
would be out in droves if any of these
had been police shootings. As horrific
as such stories are, crime rates were
much higher 20 years ago. In New York
City in 1990, for example, there were
2,245 homicides. In 2014 there were
333—a decrease of 85 percent. The drop
in New York’s crime rate is the steepest
in the nation, but crime has fallen at
a historic rate nationwide as well—by
about 40 percent—since the early 1990s.
The greatest beneficiaries of these
declining rates have been minorities.
Over 10,000 minority males alive today
in New York would be dead if the city’s
homicide rate had remained at its early
1990s level.
* * *
What is behind this historic crime
drop? A policing revolution that began
in New York and spread nationally, and
that is now being threatened. Starting
in 1994, the top brass of the NYPD
embraced the then-radical idea that the
police can actually prevent crime, not
just respond to it. They started gather
–
ing and analyzing crime data on a daily
and then hourly basis. They looked
for patterns, and strategized on tactics
to try to quell crime outbreaks as they
were emerging. Equally important, they
held commanders accountable for crime
in their jurisdictions. Department
leaders started meeting weekly with
precinct commanders to grill them on
crime patterns on their watch. These
weekly accountability sessions came to
be known as Compstat. They were
ruthless, high tension affairs. If a com
–
mander was not fully informed about
every local crime outbreak and ready
with a strategy to combat it, his career
was in jeopardy.
Compstat created a sense of urgency
about fighting crime that has never left
the NYPD. For decades, the rap against
the police was that they ignored crime
in minority neighborhoods. Compstat
keeps New York commanders focused
like a laser beam on where people are
being victimized most, and that is in
minority communities. Compstat spread
nationwide. Departments across the
country now send officers to emerging
crime hot spots to try to interrupt crimi
–
nal behavior before it happens.
In terms of economic stimulus alone,
no other government program has come
close to the success of data-driven polic
–
ing. In New York City, businesses that
had shunned previously drug-infested
areas now set up shop there, offering res
–
idents a choice in shopping and creating
a demand for workers. Senior citizens
felt safe to go to the store or to the post
office to pick up their Social Security
checks. Children could ride their bikes
on city sidewalks without their moth
–
ers worrying that they would be shot.
But the crime victories of the last two
decades, and the moral support on
which law and order depends, are now
in jeopardy thanks to the falsehoods of
the Black Lives Matter movement.
Police operating in inner-city neigh
–
borhoods now find themselves routinely
surrounded by cursing, jeering crowds
when they make a pedestrian stop or try
to arrest a suspect. Sometimes bottles
and rocks are thrown. Bystanders stick
cell phones in the officers’ faces, dar
–
ing them to proceed with their duties.
Officers are worried about becoming
the next racist cop of the week and pos
–
sibly losing their livelihood thanks to an
incomplete cell phone video that inevita
–
bly fails to show the antecedents to their
use of force. Officer use of force is never
pretty, but the public is clueless about
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 5
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
6
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
how hard it is to subdue a suspect who is
determined to resist arrest.
As a result of the anti-cop campaign
of the last two years and the resulting
push-back in the streets, officers in
urban areas are cutting back on precisely
the kind of policing that led to the crime
decline of the 1990s and 2000s. Arrests
and summons are down, particularly
for low-level offenses. Police officers
continue to rush to 911 calls when there
is already a victim. But when it comes
to making discretionary stops—such as
getting out of their cars and question
–
ing people hanging out on drug corners
at 1:00 a.m.—many cops worry that
doing so could put their careers on the
line. Police officers are, after all, human.
When they are repeatedly called racist
for stopping and questioning suspicious
individuals in high-crime areas, they
will perform less of those stops. That is
not only understandable—in a sense, it
is how things
should
work. Policing is
political. If a powerful political block
has denied the legitimacy of assertive
policing, we will get less of it.
On the other hand, the people
demanding that the police back off are
by no means representative of the entire
black community. Go to any police-
neighborhood meeting in Harlem, the
South Bronx, or South Central Los
Angeles, and you will invariably hear
variants of the following: “We want the
dealers off the corner.” “You arrest them
and they’re back the next day.” “There
are kids hanging out on my stoop. Why
can’t you arrest them for loitering?”
“I smell weed in my hallway. Can’t you
do something?” I met an elderly cancer
amputee in the Mount Hope section of
the Bronx who was terrified to go to her
lobby mailbox because of the young
men trespassing there and selling drugs.
The only time she felt safe was when the
police were there. “Please, Jesus,” she said
to me, “send more police!” The irony is
that the police cannot respond to these
heartfelt requests for order without gen
–
erating the racially disproportionate sta
–
tistics that will be used against them in
an ACLU or Justice Department lawsuit.
* * *
Unfortunately, when officers back
off in high crime neighborhoods, crime
shoots through the roof. Our country is
in the midst of the first sustained violent
crime spike in two decades. Murders
rose nearly 17 percent in the nation’s 50
largest cities in 2015, and it was in cities
with large black populations where the
violence increased the most. Baltimore’s
per capita homicide rate last year was the
highest in its history. Milwaukee had its
deadliest year in a decade, with a 72 per
–
cent increase in homicides. Homicides in
Cleveland increased 90 percent over the
previous year. Murders rose 83 percent
in Nashville, 54 percent in Washington,
D.C., and 61 percent in Minneapolis. In
Chicago, where pedestrian stops are
down by 90 percent, shootings were up
80 percent through March 2016.
I first identified the increase in vio
–
lent crime in May 2015 and dubbed it
“the Ferguson effect.” My diagnosis set
off a firestorm of controversy on the
HILLSDALE
HILLSDALE
COLLEGE
COLLEGE
offers free, not-for-credit,
offers free, not-for-credit,
online courses taught by its faculty. In addition to
online courses taught by its faculty. In addition to
weekly lectures, these courses feature readings,
weekly lectures, these courses feature readings,
quizzes, and discussion groups. Those who complete
quizzes, and discussion groups. Those who complete
them successfully receive certificates of completion.
them successfully receive certificates of completion.
To sign up for new and archived courses,
visit
onlin
e.hillsdal
e.ed
u
.
Hillsdale College
Online Learning
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 6
4/22/16 11:14 AM

March 17, 2016

ALL HANDS: Imprimis Feb 2016 V 45 #2

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, crime control, Econonics, Education, Elections, Energy Talk, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, Treason, US Constitution, Valerie Jarrett — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:41 pm

ALL HANDS: IMPRIMIS Feb 2016 Vol 45 #2

Hillsdale College, 33 E College St., Hillsdale MI 49292

Islam – Facts or Dreams, Andrew C. McCarthy J.D.

1. Imprimis is paid for by donations to the Imprimis program so it is free to you. We donate at http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis , you can too;
2. For decades I have written on this particular subject. In the February issue, a federal prosecutor writes his legal findings.

Y’all should get a free subscription.

Y’all should read this particular issue, then poke through the blog for supporting articles.

If you are a woman, or related to a woman, this is a MUST READ for you and her and them.

February 9, 2016

Violations of the Radical Islamic Watch List, by Capt John, USN, [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, crime control, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Media Check, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:47 pm

Obama Ordered DHS to Eliminate Hundreds of Records of Radical Islamic Terrorists on The Watch List–Violating the National Security of the US

By Capt Joseph R. John, on February 9, 2016

The below listed article explains how the occupant of the Oval Office has been presiding over a conspiracy for 7 years to eliminate hundreds of terrorists from the DHS Terrorist Watch List, endangering the National Security of the United States. That action has been responsible in large measure for the loss of life of some American citizens on the below listed list, especially those in San Bernardino. In 2009, Obama ordered his appointees at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Radical Islamist Terrorist groups from the important federal database of suspected Radical Islamic Terrorists and from the DHS Watch List,

Foreign Radical Islamic Terrorists have effectively been given civil rights by the Obama administration, and for 7 years they have been involved in killing American citizens listed below. By that action, American citizens civil liberties have been effectively abridged by Obama’s Executive Orders in violation of US Federal Immigration Laws. The Obama administration has been Shariah-compliant at all costs for the last 7 years, those actions have been engineered by Muslim appointees in the Obama administration. The Obama administration number one priority for the last 7 years has been to protect Islam and not to use that name to designate terrorists who call themselves Islamic Terrorists, even when it has resulted in the below listed deaths of hundreds of Americans.

Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society and others. The stealth Jihad in the information battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of blasphemy laws under the Shariah, and Obama ordered that counter-terror training materials that I once had access to in the Library at the FBI Academy on weekends and evenings, when I was going thru my training at the FBI Academy, an invaluable treasure of reference material on Radical Islamic Terrorists that he has had eliminated, in order to avoid all reference to Islam and Jihad.

Under Islamic law, which Obama and his many untold numbers of Muslim appointees in the federal government abide by, without exception, they abide by prohibition of all criticize of Islam. New trainees at the FBI Academy, in the CIA, and in the US Armed Forces Intelligence Agencies have been intentionally prevented from having access to reference material formerly used in training about Radical Islamic Terrorists by Obama, especially with regard to Jihad and Islam. Obama has prevented them from having access to the background material I once had access to, in order to learn about the inherent danger to the National Security of the United States and of the true goals of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society (they are all support organizations of the very dangerous Muslim Brotherhood).

Just like the Muslim Brotherhood created Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Q’ieda, ISIS, the Taliban and hundreds of hundreds of other Radical Islamic Terrorist groups throughout the world, it created the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society. For the last 7 years, Obama eliminated all the negative reference material on the Muslim Brotherhood from all Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, all Intelligence Agencies, and the US Armed Forces data bases, and the true stealth goals of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society. Although it took many years to develop that background information Obama intentionally tried to prevent those agencies from learning and training their personnel about the inherent dangers those organizations pose to the National Security Interest of the United States.

The “Coup de Grace” is that Obama has made it very dangerous for the continued employment or for promotion to higher positions of responsibility, in Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, DHS, the CIA, the US State Department, the Immigration Agencies, ICE, the US Border Patrol, and for members of US Armed Forces to accuse Muslim organizations, Imams of Muslim Mosques, or the Resettlement of Muslim Refugees as being responsible or complicit in threatening the National Security Interests of United States. For 7 years, it has not been “Politically Correct” to criticize Muslims or Muslim organizations—every federal employee had been effectively dumbed down (the below listed article will refer to that).

The “Political Correctness” with regard to Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks has been so egregious, that Major Hassan Nidal who was a disciple of the Al Q’ieda Terrorist, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and who on November 5, 2009 gunned down and killed 13 US Soldiers, and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling at the top of his lungs “Allah Akbar”, for 6 years that terrorist act by a Radical Islamic Terrorist was referred to by the Obama administration as “work place violence” was perpetuated by weak kneed US Army Generals, in order to be “Politically Correct.” Finally after 6 years of pressure from Congress, that act is now referred to as a Radical Islamic Terrorist act, and the 45 victims have been awarded with Purple Heart Medals

In 2007, CAIR was named, along with 245 others, by US Federal Prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding case involving the Holy Land Foundation which in 2009 caused the FBI to cease working with CAIR. On August 7, 2007, an FBI Agent testified at the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that CAIR was “listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee”, that it had received money from the HLF. In 2008, the FBI discontinued its long-standing relationship with CAIR. FBI Officials said the decision followed the conviction of the HLF Directors for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, revelations that Nihal Awad (the co-founder of CAIR) had participated in planning meetings with HLF, and CAIR’s failure to provide details of its ties to Hamas. During a 2008 retrial of the HLF case, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns labeled CAIR “a front group for Hamas.” In January 2009, the FBI’s DC Headquarter’s Office instructed all FBI Field Offices to cut ties with CAIR, as the ban extended into the Obama administration. In November 2014 CAIR was listed as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates; that was followed by Egypt also listing CAIR as a terrorist organization. Many Muslim members in the Obama administration are members of CAIR.

Obama has demonstrated for the last 4 years, that he had absolutely no intention of allowing the FBI to interview the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees coming into the United States thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program, in order to exclude refugees with ties to ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists from entering the United States. For the last 4 years, the US Armed Forces have witnessed the growth of ISIS to a force of over 50,000 Radical Islamic Terrorists prosecuting brutal genocide against hundreds of thousands Syrian and Assyrian Christians with ISIS Terrorist operations expanding to work in 17 countries including operations in the United States, while Obama has demonstrated he has absolutely no intention of defeating ISIS—his dangerous Rules Of Engagement (ROE) have prevented the 10 US Air Force Sorties/day from dropping 80% of their ordnance, but he has deployed 50 Special Operation personnel to prosecute an attack against 50,000 ISIS Terrorists.

For 7 years Obama has been enabled by the leaders of both political parties in Congress, who bear a great deal of the responsibility for allowing Obama to keep the wide open southern border porous, and for allowing the continued entrance of tens of thousands of Illegal Aliens, Mexican drug dealers, Convicted Mexican Criminals, Central America children with infectious diseases who are bringing in mosquitos with the Zika Virus entering without being quarantined, and hundreds of Radical Islamic Terrorist who have been killing American citizens as listed below.

The Obama administration has vigorously eliminated any semblance of what was once America’s borders. Obama has issued Illegal Policy Directives telling Border Patrol Agents to no longer detain Central American children along with their foreign adults chaperons, Illegal Executive Orders cancelling 50% of Aerial Surveillance Flights to monitor illegal border crossings, has violated US Federal Immigration Laws, and has consistently violated the US Constitution. Those intentional actions have been designed to neuter the efforts of ICE Agents, US Border Patrol Agents, FBI Agents, and other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from effectively enforcing US Federal Immigration Laws and preventing the entry of Radical Islamic Terrorists from entering the United States.

The political leaders on both sides of the isles of Congress, and even candidates for the presidency claim to be intent on closing the wide open southern border and fixing the broken US Immigration System- yet, for the most part, their “solutions” are not sincere solutions at all, and may, indeed, exacerbate the problems—there is only one step that will work to stop the flow of Muslim Refugees from entering the US and being resettled in 180 US cities across the US, without informing local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and elected officials as to where they are being resettled. That step is to allow the FBI to interview the Muslim Refugees to determine if they have terrorist ties, before they are granted entry.

At the same time, while having the FBI interviewing thousands of Muslim Refugees to determine if they have terrorist ties, the Congress must finally employ the funds previously authorized to build a wall across the wide open southern border, to actually build the wall after 7 years, in order to keep heroin & drug dealers, Illegal Aliens, Central American children with infective diseases who are bringing in mosquitos with the Zika Virus who are never quarantined in violation of US Federal Immigration Quarantine Laws, Mexican Convicted Criminals, and Radical Islamic Terrorists from entering the United States—nothing else will ever work!!!

Below is a partial list of Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists who have perpetrated

Terrorist Attacks against American citizens—the partial list is truly unbelievable, and the Obama administration has done its best to cover up every one of those terrorist attacks for 7 years—part of a continuing criminal conspiracy that is damaging the National Security Interest of the United States!!!

The United States is under attack from coast to coast in places like Sacramento, Houston, Philadelphia, San Bernardino, Times Square, Moore, Detroit, Boise, Little Rock, Fort Hood Texas, Portland-ME, Chattanooga, Garland, Boston, Portland-OR, Minneapolis, Merced, Missouri, Kentucky, New York, Illinois, Washington-DC, Oklahoma, and many more cities too numerous to list here.

The left of center liberal media establishment is working hand in glove with Obama, to covering up the fact that there have been 72 Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, that 82 ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist plots have been broken up by the FBI, resulting in the arrests of over 180 ISIS Muslim Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists by the FBI across the United States, so that Americans citizens will not pressure Congress to pass the Terrorist Refugee Infiltration Prevention Act. We encourage all American citizens to put pressure on their Congressmen to pass the Act, and to get the Republican Leaders in Congress to finally do something after 7 years to protect American citizens and their children.

The below “partial list” of the Muslim Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists who have participated in Jihad killings and attacks against the American citizens since Obama took office—are only listed, because the complete numbers of Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks are just too many, to all be listed here.

There are now over 900 open cases on potential ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists in all 50 states being prosecuted by the FBI, those terrorist are a percentage of the 900,000 Muslim Refugees Obama forced fed into 180 cities resettling them throughout the US thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program while ignoring FBI warnings that they cannot vet them to determine if they have terrorist ties. Now we find out that Obama had his appointees at DHS scrub clean the data base of hundreds of Radical Islamic Terrorist suspects they maintained records on—that was a conspiracy that damaged the national Security of the United States:

• On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting jihadi organizations.
• In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
• In Philadelphia, PA, a jihadi opened fire on a cop on January 8, 2016. He fired 13 shots and hit the police officer three times, grievously wounding the man.
• On January 11, 2016, Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions said the number of people implicated in radical Islamic terrorist plots in the U.S. has jumped to 113.
• On January 16, 2016, Mohamed Elmi, 31, and Mohamed Salad, 29, both of Calgary,
Canada, were arrested after they invaded the doorway of a neighborhood bar and grievously wounded a 38-year old stranger.
• On May 3, 2015 an attack with gunfire was carried by two Radical Islamic Terrorists followers of ISIS at the entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, TX featuring cartoon images of Mohammad—both were shot and killed by a police officer. Just prior to the attack one of the gunmen posted “May Allah accept us as Mujahedeen”—he wrote both pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
• An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received US citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on the US soil (June 2015).
• An immigrant from Sudan, who applied and received US citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage Jihad on its behalf after having been recruited on line(June 2015).
• In November 17, 2015 A Uzbek Muslim refugee in Boise, ID was convicted of plotting to bomb US military bases.
• On August 14, 2015 three Somali Muslims, Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31, Abil Teshome, 23, brutally beat and murdered Freddy Akoa, 49 a Christian in Portland, ME. The attack allegedly took place over the span of several hours, in which Akoa suffered cuts and bruises all over his body, a lacerated liver and 22 rib fractures. However, according to the autopsy, Akoa died as a result of blows to his head.
• Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered five US Armed Forces (1 Navy and 4 Marines) in Chattanooga, TN in July 2015. Mohammad was an immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, who carried out the Islamist attack that killed the 5 military personnel in Chattanooga.
• The Somali refugee who recruited the San Bernardino killers also recruited the jihadist who attacked the Garland, TX “Draw Mohammad” contest in May 2015, fled the United States.
• An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received US citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travel to Syria (May 2015)
• An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to rob a gun store to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.” (April 2015)
• Six Somalian Muslim refugees were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for attempting to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS.
• Five Muslim refugees (same family) were arrested in Missouri, Illinois and New York for sending arms and cash to ISIS.
• Five Somali Muslim refugees were charged in July 2014 with fundraising for jihadi groups in Africa.
• On December 14, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, born to a Muslim African American family, executed two NYC police officers as they sat in their patrol car. Brinsley is reported to have approached the two officers as they were sitting in their patrol car in the notorious crime ridden Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, New York and began firing rounds into the vehicle before fleeing on foot to the closest subway station where he later committed suicide.
• Two Bosnian Muslim refugee in Portland, Oregon was arrested in November 21, 2014 for trying to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
• On November 4, 2015 Faisal Mohammad who had a black ISIS flag in his possessions and a terrorist manifesto, stabbed 4 of his fellow student at U C Merced; police had to shoot him to stop his stabbing spree
• In San Bernardino in December 2015 two Middle East Radical Islamic Terrorist who said they were ISIS, attackers (immigrants) killed 14 civilians and wounded 21 others, were recruited to their jihad by a Muslim Somali refugee who has now moved to Syria, but continues to recruit Jihadist in America using social media.
• A refugee from Uzbekistan was convicted of providing material support and money to a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the Department of Justice, he also procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil. (August 2015)
• An immigrant from Albania, who applied for and received Lawful Permanent Resident status, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for giving over $1,000 to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, and for attempting to join a radical jihadist insurgent group in Pakistan. (August 2015)
• An immigrant from Egypt, who subsequently was granted U.S. citizenship, was charged with providing, and conspiring to provide, material support to ISIS, for aiding and abetting a New York college student in receiving terrorist training from ISIS, and conspiring to receive such training. (August 2015)
• A second Immigrant from India, who is married to a US citizen, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide thousands of dollars to Al Q’ieda in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to assist them in their global Jihad, and on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (November 2015)
• A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
• An immigrant from Pakistan, who entered the United States on a fiancé visa thru Canada, and subsequently became a Lawful Permanent Resident, along with her husband, killed 14 people at a Christmas Party in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015 , and wounded 22 others, in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
• A Somali-American was arrested after encouraging several friends to leave the United States and join ISIS, and giving one individual over $200 for their passport application. (December 2015)
• The son of Pakistani immigrants, along with his Pakistan bride, murdered 14 coworkers, and wounded two dozen, in that same terrorist attack. His Pakistani-born father has since been placed on the no-fly list (December 2015).
• A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five others, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
• An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
• An immigrant from Saudi Arabia, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, swore allegiance to ISIS and pledged to explode a propane tank bomb on U.S. soil. (April 2015).
• An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and to provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015).
• A Uzbek man in Brooklyn encouraged other Uzbeki nationals to wage jihad on behalf of ISIS, and raised $1,600 for the terror organization. (April 2015)
• An immigrant from Bangladesh, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States. (June 2014)
• In September 30, 2014, Alton Nolan, a proponent of Sharia and suspect Radical Islamic Terrorist, beheaded an employee of Vaughan Foods, and was prevented from beheading a second employee in Moor, Oklahoma.
• An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Q’ieda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.” (September 2014)
• A Somali immigrant with lawful permanent resident status, along with four other Somali nationals, is charged with leading an al-Shabaab fundraising conspiracy in the United States, with monthly payments directed to the Somali terrorist organization. (July 2014)
• A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house. (April 2014)
• The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; those brothers and their family were Muslim refugees. -The Boston Bombers were granted political asylum and were thus deemed legitimate refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship. (April 2013)
• A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (December 2013)
• On February 18, 2012, two Radical Islamic Terrorists from Pakistan, who later applied for and received US Citizenship, were apprehended trying to detonate a bomb in New York City
• In September 15, 2012, Amine El Khalifi, and al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorist plotted to do a suicide bombing of the US Capital.
• In 2011 Mohammad Alfatlawi a proponent of Sharia Law was charged with the “Honor Killing” of his wife and daughter in Detroit, Michigan.
• In May 4, 2010 Faisal Shahzad conducted a terrorist car bombing plot in Times Square that failed.
• On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, who had gone to Yemen in 2007 and stayed for about 16 months, open fire on a Little Rock, Arkansas US Armed Forces Recruiting Office in a drive by shooting with a rifle, against a group of US Army Soldiers standing in front of the Recruiting Office. He killed Private William Long and wounded Private Quinton Ezeagwula.
• On November 5, 2009, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs—Obama insisted it was simply “Work Place Violence” and not a Radical Islamic terrorist attack by a disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Prior to the shooting, in his previous assignment as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center his colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and anti-American comments—but because they were cowered by the Obama’s administration’s warnings and perceived threats to their military standing, that they better be “politically correct’ and not disparage such anti-American comments—nothing was done to drum that Radical Islamic Terrorist out of the US Armed Forces
• In December 2009, the bombing terror plot to kill 290 innocent passengers on a flight from the Netherland to Detroit the Nigerian Radical Islamic Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutlallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.
• Two Al Qaeda members who had killed American soldiers in Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2009 – and, both were refugees!

Please read the below listed article where Obama has erased the identification of hundreds Radical Islamic Terrorist from the DHS data base and watch list so Federal Law Enforcement Officers can no longer locate them or monitor their terrorists activities.
Copyright 2016, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USN(Ret)
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OBAMA DHS SCRUBS RECORDS OF HUNDREDS OF MUSLIM TERRORISTS
PAMELA GELLER
Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

Not only did the Obama administration scrub counter-terror programs of jihad and Islam, now we find out that his administration scrubbed the records of Muslim terrorists. If the enemedia were not aligned with the jihad force, this would be front-page news across the nation.

An agent of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, for 15 years, Philip Haney, reported Friday that after the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up a crowded passenger jet over Detroit, “President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to ‘connect the dots.’ He said, ‘This was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.’”

Haney revealed: “Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material – the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.”

What Haney discloses is truly shocking: “Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to ‘connect dots.’ Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.”

Who gave the order to scrub the records of Muslims with ties to terror groups?

These new shocking revelations come fresh on the heels of whistleblower testimony in the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, revealing that the Obama administration shut down investigations into jihadists in America (and quite possible the San Bernardino shooters) at the request of the Department of State and the DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. Haney noted: “They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?”

How is this not impeachable? When did foreign terrorists get civil rights?

Haney described how he began investigating scores of individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat..

I have reported on this infiltration for years. I reported on it extensively in my book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.” Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society and others. The stealth jihad in the information battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of blasphemy laws under the Shariah, as Obama ordered that counter-terror training materials must avoid all reference to Islam and jihad. Under Islamic law, it is prohibited to criticize Islam.

The Obama administration is Shariah-compliant at all costs. Its number one priority is to protect Islam, even when it puts American lives at risk. The cold-blooded slaughter of Americans in the homeland by Muslims has not tempered Obama’s Shariah enthusiasm. On the contrary, Garland, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UCMED, San Bernardino, etc., have accelerated it.

My civil liberties and your civil liberties are being abridged in accordance with the blasphemy laws under Shariah. My organization is engaged in 15 different free-speech lawsuits against various cities. Our free-speech lawsuit against Boston is heading to the Supreme Court, because even though truthful, our ads violate the laws of Shariah (“do not criticize Islam”). We are being forced to adhere to Shariah mores, but jihad murderers are given sanctuary and protection – to slaughter Americans.

The moral, or in this case the immoral, of the story is this: Jihad terror works.

Re: The Economist, Vol 418 No 8975 Feb 6-12, 2016 Ref: pp 9+10, How to manage the migrant crisis

Filed under: Business, crime control, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, self-defense, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:35 pm

Re: The Economist, Vol 418 No 8975 Feb 6-12, 2016
Ref: pp 9+10, How to manage the migrant crisis

To compare the Vietnamese Boat People exodus to the Muslim Euro Hajiri is an absurdity that only The Kool-Aid Drinking Left may accept as reality.
The Vietnamese Boat people were fleeing “re-education camps” where the death toll exceeded 90%. They were fleeing deadly, religious prosecution of the kind Xi Ping and ISIS are bloodily, wreaking upon innocents daily – human rights be damned. They were fleeing unlawful private property confiscation and social genocide.
The Vietnamese Boat people were mostly Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, and a small proportion were Hindi. The Vietnamese Boat People brought a strong work ethic, family values, and their intact families, a respect for personal liberty, and generally a respectful regard for women, with them. By and large, The Vietnamese Boat People were the educated and liberal element of their people. They were the doctors, lawyers, large and small business people, bankers, the middle class, and the professional blue-collar class.
Their core values and beliefs were and still are the exact same as those of us here in Kansas City.
The millions of Muslim “migrants” are over 80% men of military age, unskilled, illiterate in their own language, and primarily uneducated and uneducable. They have little or no interest in working or contributing and most importantly, assimilating – only dominating and enforcing Dhimmitude.
There are over 110 verses in the Qu’ Ran of hate and racial despite. Neither the word nor concept of love is Qu’ Ranic. There are verses that explicitly state that the murdering of non-believer innocents is a positive virtue, 8:12-15 is a good, clear example. It specifically calls believers to behead, behand, and befoot non-believers. Another specifically states that Christians and Jews are a believer’s sworn enemies.
The rapes and assaults in Germany and Sweden were foreshadowed by the Paris Terrorist Attack, the knife murdering of that Coldstream Guard Afghan Veteran in London, the “no-go zones” throughout the Eurozone, the number of Mosques in Detroit Michigan U.S.A., 9/11, the first World Trade Center assault in 1993, Iran’s act of war in its invasion of U.S. Territory (our embassy 1979) and the taking of diplomats as prisoners of war, and in Marseille and Nice in France, and throughout the geography of Western Civilization. In addition, in Thomas Jefferson’s administration with the Barbary Pirates & Preble’s Boys – and they weren’t pirates, they were each and every one of them declaring war and requiring tribute.
For a “news” magazine located in London, UK, a center of anti-Semitism, to talk about assimilation in the liberal terms that you use, I direct your attention to history:
For over 1,000 years, you have still not fully assimilated the Normans with the Angles and Saxons;
For over 900 years, you have still not assimilated the Irish, even with the suppressive practices in Ulster;
For over 600 years, you have still not assimilated the Welsh, even with intermarriage, is not Cardiff DMV the most humiliating posting for a British Civil Servant?
For over 500 years, you have still not assimilated the Scots, who continue to seek independence;
You are still anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, and Jews are afraid to put out celebratory lights and icons during Yom Kippur and Chanukah for fear of vandalism and arson;
Over 230 years ago you mistreated your American colonies with such contempt, disregard and disdain, review how you treated the great Benjamin Franklin Ph.D., when you placed him in ‘the pit’, that Englishmen, entitled to the English Bill of Rights of 1695, felt so abused that they fought the Revolutionary War of 1776.
Does not Castille have a separatist movement? What of Gandhi’s India and Churchill’s South Africa, did you assimilate in these places? & how many other historical examples of your folly are there?
Here, in The New World, when the Incans, Peruvians, and Aztec failed to require assimilation of the Spanish, what happened to them?
Is there not a separatist movement in Quebec?
What happened to the Passamaquoddy, the Navajo, the Comanche, the Mohican, the Mohawk, the Chappaqua, the Chippaqua, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the Apache, the Nez Perce, the Seminole, and on and on and on, when they did not require the newcomers, your “refugee/migrants” of their time and place, to assimilate into the home culture?
Did not the Roman Legions rape a Saxon Queen, and then move north to dominate the land, up to building Hadrian’s Wall? What of that assimilation, eh?
Your smug, Euro-Liberal, ignorant Trans-Nationalism, is a morbid threat to the freedoms listed in Bagehot’s Constitution, The 1695 English Bill of Rights, my Missouri Constitution, and my 1787 U.S. Constitution.
To paraphrase the great Sir Winston Churchill, this is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning, Western Civilization is ending.

In respectful disagreement with you, I am

justplainbill

January 19, 2016

Ann Corcoran video on Hijra [c]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Education, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, Treason, US Constitution, Valerie Jarrett — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:49 pm

[secession – and, y’all wonder why the Texas governor wants a constitutional convention. FYI the U.S. constitution is NOT subordinate to the U.N. charter, as much as Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Sanders, Pelosi &c claim.]

January 14, 2016

Bracken on Iran/Riverine Intercept [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Iran, Islam, Media Check, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, naval assault ships, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, Treason, US Constitution, Valerie Jarrett — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:57 pm

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/bracken-on-iran/

Bracken On Iran

Posted on January 13, 2016 | 59 Comments

Via comments at American Thinker:

I rarely pull out my dusty old trident, but in this case, here goes. I was a Navy SEAL officer in the 1980s, and this kind of operation (transiting small boats in foreign waters) was our bread and butter. Today, these boats both not only had radar, but multiple GPS devices, including chart plotters that place your boat’s icon right on the chart. The claim by Iran that the USN boats “strayed into Iranian waters” is complete bull$#it.

For an open-water transit between nations, the course is studied and planned in advance by the leaders of the Riverine Squadron, with specific attention given to staying wide and clear of any hostile nation’s claimed territorial waters. The boats are given a complete mechanical check before departure, and they have sufficient fuel to accomplish their mission plus extra. If, for some unexplainable and rare circumstance one boat broke down, the other would tow it, that’s why two boats go on these trips and not one! It’s called “self-rescue” and it’s SOP.

This entire situation is in my area of expertise. I can state with complete confidence that both Iran and our own State Department are lying. The boats did not enter Iranian waters. They were overtaken in international waters by Iranian patrol boats that were so superior in both speed and firepower that it became a “hands up!” situation, with automatic cannons in the 40mm to 76mm range pointed at them point-blank. Surrender, hands up, or be blown out of the water. I assume that the Iranians had an English speaker on a loudspeaker to make the demand. This takedown was no accident or coincidence, it was a planned slap across America’s face.

Just watch. The released sailors will be ordered not to say a word about the incident, and the Iranians will have taken every GPS device, chart-plotter etc off the boats, so that we will not be able to prove where our boats were taken.

The “strayed into Iranian waters” story being put out by Iran and our groveling and appeasing State Dept. is utter and complete BS from one end to the other.

January 5, 2016

America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, Dan Greenfield [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, equalizers, gun control, handguns, Historical context, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:13 pm

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Monday, January 04, 2016
America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 11 Comments

America’s mass shooting capital isn’t somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It’s in Obama’s own hometown.

Chicago is America’s mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.

2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they’re all run by the party of gun control which somehow can’t seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.

The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country’s murder capital.

These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.

Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.

But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.

Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.

New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

(A version of this article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine.)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.