But any visit from Kim to his patron state of China makes news and raises discussionabout the relationship between China and the United States. In this case, Kim used the Chinese visit to push for another summit with President Donald Trump, hoping that a second round of talks would produce “results that will be welcomed by the international community,” as Chinese state media reported after the meeting between Kim and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Those in the know, though, realize that one giant reason China has “tolerated” its pesky little nuclear-armed neighbor is the chaos North Korea’s nuclear ambitions created across the Pacific Ocean and the leverage that brought in China’s ambitious struggle to supplant the U.S. as the world’s superpower. Unfortunately for Beijing, Trump isn’t afraid to play hardball, so Kim’s visit to China was also meant to get China on board with North Korea’s bid for relief from the “maximum pressure” approach of economic sanctions put in place to keep Kim’s nuclear ambitions in check.
Getting China to buy in to a softening of sanctions would leave the U.S. as the lone hawk in the game, as South Korean President Moon Jae-in told reporters he would work with the international community for a partial easing of sanctions between North and South. Moon acknowledged, however, that the U.S. would still be a valuable ally in keeping “stability and peace” both for the Korean peninsula in particular and the northeastern region of Asia in general.
As the North Korean leader left Xi and climbed aboard his specially built train to return to Pyongyang, we can be sure that China’s leadership had its own message for Kim to pass along to Trump if a second summit, possibly conducted in Vietnam, indeed comes to pass. With a 90-day truce on tariffs reaching its halfway point this week, negotiations aimed at giving the U.S. “more balanced and reciprocal” trade have slowed to a snail’s pace, worrying the markets but — more important for the Chinese — putting pressure on their export-based economy. While nearly 90% of North Korea’s trade is with the Chinese, its paltry economy and population can’t compare to the prosperous American market and can’t begin to keep China’s factories humming.
No one knows how long Kim will refrain from testing his missile program absent a summit with President Trump. Perhaps he’s biding his time knowing Trump faces reelection next year. But it would surprise no one if that testing hiatus ends about the time additional tariffs are put in place on Chinese imports. There’s more than one way for China to assert its strength, and if landing a spacecraft on the far side of the moonweren’t enough, what better than to have a client state threaten your enemy?
Moreover, China needs to keep North Korea on a short leash. Andy Puzder — a onetime Trump choice for secretary of labor — stated his case in The Wall Street Journal, noting that the Chinese economy is teetering on the brink of recession because of Trump’s hardline approach to trade. “Mr. Xi’s speech was intended to reinforce the myth of an invincible Chinese dragon capable of bullying America into submission with its economic clout. The bluster is a sign of economic weakness,” wrote Puzder, adding, “President Trump’s trade strategy has exposed China’s vulnerability, demonstrating the risks of going toe-to-toe with a determined opponent that happens to be your largest customer.”
Regardless of how this meeting of two adversaries of Liberty went, America’s leadership is resolute and its economy is growing. As always, a stronger America is bad news for communists and dictators everywhere. ~The Patriot Post
All Posts (31010)
Another positive development to note is the impact the GOP tax cuts have had on American drug companies. The Wall Street Journal writes, “Recall how U.S. drug makers a few years ago sought to exploit lower rates abroad with corporate inversions. The GOP corporate tax reform, which cut the U.S. rate to 21% from 35% and allowed businesses to repatriate overseas profits tax-free, has given U.S. drug makers more cash to invest. Now they’re acquiring companies to advance innovation rather than engage in tax arbitrage as they did pre-reform.” Allowing drug companies to keep more of their earnings has freed them to invest more capital into drug research and development within the U.S., which in turn is creating better and broader cancer-treatment options for all Americans. Despite the documented flaws of pharmaceutical companies, this is prime example of how capitalism trumps socialism in meeting the needs of a nation across a vast spectrum of individuals.
America’s health care system certainly has its problems, but it’s still the best in the world.
Meanwhile, House Democrats are continuing in their march for a government takeover of the American health care industry. As Investor’s Business Daily reports, “Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pulosi agreed on hearings for ‘Medicare for all,’ which would effectively outlaw all private insurance in favor of a single, government-run plan.” IBD further notes, “The cost to taxpayers for all this ‘free’ health care? More than $32 trillion in the first decade — which is a lowball estimate. … There is no country on earth that has gone this far. Even so-called socialist countries typically rely to some extent on private insurance and out-of-pocket spending to cover a share of the health costs.”
So while there is good news for Americans on new drug developments and the decreasing number of deaths due to cancer, Democrats seem determined to disrupt this progress by insisting on a government-controlled single-payer socialist system that has proven to fail everywhere it has been implemented. ~The Patriot Post
{americanthinker.com} ~ What exactly is a socialist? You could spend all day studying encyclopedias and not settle anything. Using various definitions, you could probably prove that anybody is or isn't a socialist... So let's talk to a socialist. Ignore the verbiage and look inside his head. When someone announces to the world, "I'm a socialist," what is that person thinking? With this focus, everything becomes simpler. Socialists may not be able to claim experience, learning, smarts, or success. But they make up for all that by a boundless certitude about philosophical and political matters. It's as if they, albeit atheists, are guided by a divine vision. What is the central assertion contained in that vision? Here, I believe, is what the self-proclaimed socialist is saying to the rest of us: "You pathetic losers are clearly not qualified to run your own lives. Or if you think you are, you're probably in the grip of dangerous beliefs that need to be discarded. All in all, it would be better if you stayed out of the way and let experts manage your life. That would be I and my cronies." That's it. "I'm a socialist" means "From now on, I'll be in charge, fortunately. You can take a hike."...
As Mark Alexander says, “So let’s review what they consider a ‘manufactured crisis’: ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings. The need to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers is imperative. Thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost. Last month, more than 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States, many being used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs. One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women and children are the biggest victims of the lack of a secure border and broken immigration policies supported by Democrats. Illegal migration puts enormous strains on public resources and drives down jobs and wages, especially for black and Hispanic Americans. More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War — many of those drugs are ‘imported’ from south of the border.”
Don’t believe us? How about an authority on the actual situation on the ground at the border? Despite being fired one day after Trump took office, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama’s Border Patrol chief, Mark Morgan, confirmed that Trump is correct: “I was briefed every single day about the men and women who are risking their lives every day and they’re apprehending murderers, rapists, pedophiles, other violent offenders and gang members. That’s not manufactured; that is real … and it’s still happening today.” Moreover, Morgan continued, “127 Border Patrol agents have died. They didn’t die playing Monopoly. They died … being the front-line defenders of our borders. … I wonder if you asked their families if this is a manufactured crisis?”
In another instance, Morgan argued, “The [wall] issue is political, so we have to be honest about that. The substantive issue is what is important. It doesn’t matter whether it’s called the Secure Fence, Secure Wall, or Secure Barrier Act. The reason it was approved on a bipartisan front is because it was needed. What changed is that at one point it was wanted and needed, and now, because we call it a wall, it’s ‘immoral.’ Really? That’s what we’re talking about now? The size and width of the barrier is the delineation of what is moral or not?”
Finally, Morgan said, “I’m outraged that we haven’t fixed this problem. I’m outraged. Who can say that this is a manufactured crisis? Anyone? … I don’t care who it is — anyone that says this is a manufactured crisis — they are absolutely lying to the American people.” ~The Patriot Post
by sundance
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ In the last 24 hours The Epoch Times has become a conduit for leaked information from inside the joint House congressional committee (Oversight/Judiciary)... that was investigating DOJ and FBI corruption. The joint House committee previously requested approval from the DOJ and FBI for transcripts of all witness testimony to be released. In response, Deputy FBI Director David Bowditch, citing possible interference with the dirty cop-Mueller investigation, refused to release the transcripts. However, it appears someone from within the committee, likely Mark Meadows, following a pattern previously exclusive to John Solomon (The Hill), is now leaking those witness transcripts to The Epoch Times. The leaked transcripts are not being made available; however, articles are being written from those who are reviewing them. The first is an article by Jeff Carlson about the testimony by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. It is a lengthy article and I would urge all who are interested in her testimony to read it: SEE HERE https://www.theepochtimes.com/transcripts-of-lisa-pages-closed-door-testimonies-provide-new-revelations_2763452.html . There is a wealth of new information that fills in many of the gaps from prior research. One of the immediately interesting aspects of the Page testimony goes directly to the issue of why the witness transcripts are not being released, and the inherent risk to the small group inside the DOJ and FBI who were coordinating the scumbag/liar-Clinton and Trump probes... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/11/leaked-transcripts-from-lisa-page-provide-some-stunning-revelations/
scumbag/clown-Schumer promptly accused him of a “temper tantrum,” with Pulosi chiming in that he’s a “petulant president.”
On the contrary, Vice President Mike Pence argued, “He left the room today because Speaker Pulosi said that even if he gave her what she wanted, she would never agree to the border-security priorities that we have on the table.” Trump wants $5.7 billion. House Democrat legislation countered with $0.
Trump also reiterated Wednesday, “I have the absolute right to [declare a] national emergency” to build more of the wall. “My threshold will be if I can’t make a deal with people that are unreasonable.” scumbag/clown-Chuck and Nancy, as he likes to call them, are the definition of unreasonable. Moreover, they are so intractably opposed to anything Trump wants these days that it has — surprise! — a few Republicans in Congress already caving.
After the meeting, Pulosi made emotional appeals about the government workers either furloughed or working without pay. The president “thinks maybe they can just ask their father for more money,” she asserted. “But, they can’t.” It’s true that the situation isn’t easy for government workers and their families. But Trump has declared that all furloughed government workers will receive back pay.
And Pulosi can spare us the crocodile tears and scumbag/clown-Schumer the feigned outrage. To Democrats, this isn’t about furloughed workers or fiscal management, and they certainly care little for the plight of Americans suffering the myriad consequences of illegal immigration. Democrats’ barrier to the wall is about votes and winning elections, plain and simple. ~The Patriot Post
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel
In its “first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys,” the APA asserts, “Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health.” In fact, “traditional masculinity,” which the APA describes as “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression,” is “on the whole harmful” to men and boys.
Using leftist buzzwords such as “macroaggression, patriarchy, and cisgender” — the latter referring to a person whose sexual “identity” happens to match their biological gender — the APA concludes that “traditional masculinity” is a societal problem. Clearly, the APA is guided by the leftist theory that gender is a nonbinary social construct rather than a binary reality based upon biology. But even at that, one particular gender is just the worst.
For example, the APA alleges, “Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology.”
After some backlash, however, the APA attempted to “clarify” its assertion with the following statement: “When we report that some aspects of ‘traditional masculinity’ are potentially harmful, we are referring to a belief system held by a few that associates masculinity with extreme behaviors that harm self and others. It is the extreme stereotypical behaviors — not simply being male or a ‘traditional male’ — that may result in negative outcomes.” But extremes were not the basis for the original APA argument; stereotypes were. So this clarification is actually obfuscation.
The fact remains that maleness or masculinity as well as femaleness or femininity share common, easily recognizable expressions in all cultures and societies across the world. In fact, one of the first things noted when an individual from one cultural group enters another are the natural binary expressions of gender. It is a universal reality based upon the reality of human biology.
National Review’s David French notes an obvious contradiction in the culture’s current “diversity” paradigm, writing, “It is interesting that in a world that otherwise teaches boys and girls to ‘be yourself,’ that rule often applies to everyone but the ‘traditional’ male who has traditional male impulses and characteristics. Then, they’re a problem. Then, they’re often deemed toxic. Combine this reality with a new economy that doesn’t naturally favor physical strength and physical courage to the same extent, and it’s easy to see how men struggle.”
The fact is that true masculinity is designed to complement true femininity. The two are not one and the same, despite the gender-fluid argument the APA now espouses. Nor is “traditional masculinity” harmful to boys. Quite the opposite — they need more of it. ~The Patriot Post
{jewishjournal.com} 1 In third grade, the social studies teacher at the Hebrew day school I attended flipped off the lights and switched on an 8mm projector. Looking back, I suspect he didn’t trust his words to adequately convey what we were about to see.
The newsreel, the kind my parents watched in movie theaters at the end of World War II, showed scenes from the liberation of Auschwitz.
Images from that film stay with me to this day — such as the man with sunken cheeks, bones sticking out under his striped prisoner’s uniform staring blankly into the camera.
I knew that his eyes would haunt me for the rest of my life. I wondered what he might have said if given the chance.
Thirty years later, I stood inside Grand Central Terminal in New York as the nonprofit I founded, StoryCorps, opened its first booth. Its goal was to encourage everyday people to interview a loved one and to celebrate the stories we can find all around us when we take the time to listen. Since that day, more than 500,000 Americans have recorded StoryCorps interviews, each of which will live forever in the Library of Congress.
As we mark the 15th anniversary of StoryCorps, I’m reminded that it’s also the 25th anniversary of another effort to illuminate, honor and preserve the human story: producer-director Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece “Schindler’s List.”
My appreciation for the film and for Spielberg is rooted in his belief that there are few actions more important than reminding people that their lives and stories matter. That they won’t be forgotten. That they are not alone.
I spent the days leading up to Thanksgiving debating whether it was time for my 10-year-old son to watch this film.
My son has been asking me questions about the Holocaust for years, but it’s hard to know when the time is right for your child to have that moment, the one I’d had all those years ago.
So while thinking about “Schindler’s List,” I shared with him a StoryCorps interview. In it, Debbie Fisher asks her father to tell her about Auschwitz. Her father had always downplayed his experiences there as a child, insisting that she not “knock on the door.” But when he was gravely ill in the hospital, she knocked one last time. He said, “I’ll let you in, but if I let you in this room, you will never, ever get out. Do you want to come in?”
After a few days, my wife and I decided it wasn’t the right time to let our son in the room.
But late one night recently, I sat down and screened the film alone. As I watched Amon Goeth stand on his balcony and casually pick off Jews with his rifle, I was transported back to my third-grade classroom.
I thought about the word Untermenschen — subhuman — which the Nazis used to call Jews, blacks, the disabled — anyone who posed a threat to an Aryan “master race.” I thought about how they branded people in concentration camps with numbers, not names.
Which is to say: They didn’t think of them as human beings at all.
This is why, 25 years after its debut, “Schindler’s List” matters more than ever.
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once said, “Words create worlds.” He would remind his children that the Holocaust didn’t start with the gas chambers. It began with words. With Hitler putting calculated, dehumanizing speech out into the ether.
In the United States today, words of loathing and disgust directed at fellow human beings — whether they be asylum seekers or those we disagree with across political divides — are in the air as they have never been in my lifetime. Something dangerous and toxic has been unleashed in this country and it demands our attention.
Let’s be clear. Are we in 1930s Germany? No.
Are we treating one another in ways that could lead us further down an extremely perilous path? Unfortunately, yes.
With StoryCorps’ new initiative, One Small Step, we are, for the first time, putting strangers across the political divides together in StoryCorps booths, not to talk about politics, but to be reminded of the fact that we are all living, breathing human beings. We hope to convince our countrymen that it is our patriotic duty to recognize the humanity in people who we may have regarded as “the other.”
So far, One Small Step has been working in all the ways StoryCorps hoped it would. Looking another human being in the eyes and asking, “Who are you?” “What lessons have you learned in life?” “How would you like to be remembered?” reminds us that listening is an act of love. Coming face to face with the stories of strangers we may have feared — or even hated —reminds us of our shared humanity.
History has taught us what can happen when we forget those inviolable truths. History also has shown what can happen when the world hears the voices of the most vulnerable among us, as they did a quarter of a century ago in Spielberg’s film. Numbers became names.
Soon after the release of “Schindler’s List,” Spielberg created the Shoah Foundation to ensure that the voices and memories of all Holocaust survivors could whisper in our ears forever; that their words would help to create a different world, where we listen to one another, where we recognize that what’s at stake are individual human lives, not statistics.
That’s the world I want my son to grow up in.
I await the day when my son watches “Schindler’s List.” He’ll knock when he’s ready to come in the room.
And just as Debbie’s father did for her, I’ll open that door, and sit right there beside him.
{americanthinker.com} ~ More information is supporting the theory that the current big Justice Department "investigations" are actually functioning as big cover-up operations... dirty cop-Robert Mueller's team is effectively hiding key evidence related to serious crimes committed by government officials. dirty cop-Mueller has nearly complete control over what the public or any investigator can see. He has control over what witnesses can talk about. This means that the Huber and Horowitz investigations exist to make you think something is being investigated when it is not. That is why Representatives Doug Collins, Mark Meadows, and Jim Jordan sent a letter to Huber, the U.S. attorney, this week that essentially exposes the fraud. The letter begins, "We write to request an update on the progress of your review of irregularities involved with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) actions during 2016 and 2017." The letter then points to facts that indicate that there has been no real investigation. None of the many key witnesses has been interviewed. Huber refused to testify at a recent congressional hearing about the scumbag/liar-Clinton Foundation. The letter then asks for information in four areas where Huber cannot reply without further demonstrating that this is a fake investigation. There is also mounting evidence that hiding facts is common in deep state political crusades. A recent column by Marty Watters and Lee Cary exposes dirty cop-Mueller's long history of improperly hiding evidence. The column begins, "During his twelve-year reign as FBI Director, dirty cop-Robert Mueller not only protected his criminal friends by silencing those who could expose their bad acts, he projected his friends' crimes onto others."...
by Michelle Malkin
{townhall.com} ~ Profligate politicians have never met a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project they didn't like -- except when it comes to President Donald Trump's border wall.
Think about it.
Boston's Big Dig black hole, the nation's most expensive highway project, burned through $25 billion and was plagued by deadly engineering incompetence, endless cost overruns, leaks, lawsuits and debt.
California's high-speed rail boondoggle is a $100 billion bullet train to nowhere. Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown promised a 2020 completion date for the miracle transportation system. The latest estimates predict it won't open until at least 2033, and the costs keep rising.
Seattle's ill-fated Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement topped out at $4 billion in local, state and federal funds for a two-mile bored road tunnel that will finally open next month -- nearly four years behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.
What the Big Dig, bullet train boondoggle and Seattle squander all have in common is that political elites, lobbyists and corporate heavy-hitters trampled over grassroots citizen opposition to get their way. Too many government construction projects are built because these publicly subsidized gravy trains reward campaign donors, powerful public employee unions and assorted control freaks in the urban planning and transportation sectors.
Another glaring example? Across the country, voters have repeatedly rejected billion-dollar sports stadium and arena subsidies over the past 30 years -- only to be sabotaged by bipartisan alliances overruling the will of the people. I used to run a watchdog website called "Porkwatch" filled with so many field-of-schemes case studies that I couldn't keep track of them anymore.
Then there are all the tax-funded highways, bridges, museums and other edifices glorifying Beltway swamp creatures. The infamous Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia steered billions of federal dollars back to his home state, where more than 50 government buildings bear his or his wife's name -- not to mention an eponymous telescope, multiple libraries and "lifelong learning centers," wellness centers, industrial parks, community centers, gardens, interchanges, highways, expressways, bridges, locks and a dam. A bas-relief sculpture of the alpha porker greets visitors at the Byrd dam, deemed unnecessary by locals.
Not to be outdone, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell has his own park; former Democratic Sen. John Dingell has his own transit center; the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg has his own rail station; tax cheat Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel has his own tax-funded "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" at the City College of New York; and the recently retired power broker Democratic Sen. Harry dinky-Reid sponsored billions of dollars in egotistical earmarks, including several million for a "research and technology park" named after him.
Was there a swell of grassroots support for all these vanity projects? Was there overwhelming demand for the 10,000th long and windy road named after some blowhard incumbent hack?
Wouldn't it be refreshing, for once, for the federal government to prioritize infrastructure that serves the national interest over special interests? And how about dedicating and consecrating this project in the memory of the thousands of Americans and law-abiding immigrants who have sacrificed their lives for our security? We've already got Adopt-a-Highway sponsors. Why not an Adopt-a-Wall program?
Open borders academics and media propagandists keep lecturing that Americans don't want a wall. Yet, more than 325,000 citizens have raised $19.5 million in 22 days to fund the border that the Beltway obstinately refuses to fund.
President Trump's defining battle against the Beltway to fortify our borders -- by concrete, steel, increased manpower, electronic surveillance, all of it -- isn't just about fulfilling a campaign promise. The wall is a necessary monument to sovereignty in a nation clogged with billions of dollars of worthless political monuments to Me, Me, Me.
by Cal Thomas
{townhall.com} ~ The Irish government is proposing rebates to a carbon tax it recently imposed to households that comply with what it considers "low-carbon lifestyles." The rebate, according to Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, might be in the form of a check, an increase in welfare benefits or a tax credit for people who live the way the government thinks they should.
Some believe that if implemented, the rebate could reduce tensions seen in many parts of Europe, but especially in France, where the "yellow vest" movement that began as a protest against President Emmanuel Macron's big tax increase on gasoline, since rescinded, made a gallon of petrol among the most expensive in Europe with the tax accounting for more than half the cost. I'm doubtful. People don't like their governments forcing them to accept a lesser lifestyle because of an ideology some believe has yet to be definitively proved, while the elites continue to live as they like.
So strong is the faith of the climate change cult that McDonald's, the world's largest purchaser of beef, is considering "meat alternatives" because of alleged environmental damage from traditional farming methods, according to a story in the Financial Times.
In the United States, Chuck Todd, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," resembled the media in totalitarian countries when he announced that henceforth he would not give air time to climate change deniers. Todd says that's because climate change is "settled science." The many legitimate scientists with knowledge and experience in climate who disagree are to be isolated in an ideological gulag for not toeing the party line.
Roy Spencer is a meteorologist, a research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. Writing for the Global Warming Policy Forum, a London-based think tank, Spencer says "2018 marked the second straight year when global temperatures declined and that last year was the sixth warmest year globally since El Nino peaked in February, 2016."
Plastics may soon eclipse climate change as the latest "crisis" only government can solve. Here, as well as in other parts of Europe and the U.S., there's a war on plastic straws. Starbucks plans to stop using plastic straws in all its restaurants, the proposed ban going into effect by 2020. They'll still use plastic lids, though, because the lids, supposedly, are widely recyclable. This illustrates the stupidity behind many of these tree huggers. It's all about feeling good and "making a difference," not about truth.
Forty House Democrats and at least three prominent Senate Democrats are backing a "Green New Deal" touted by Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-NY), a freshman member of Congress. It would, reports The Washington Examiner, "eliminate virtually all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy."
In a recent appearance on Fox News Channel, Marc Morano, the creator of climatedepot.org, said of the New Green Deal: "We're going to treat now carbon dioxide a trace essential gas -- humans inhale oxygen and we exhale CO2 -- as somehow akin to the Nazi party and World War II initiative, which is what they are claiming. The Democrats and climate activists want a mobilization like World War II."
As the Irish Times writes, recent projections by Ireland's Economic and Social Justice Institute found that the carbon tax would have to increase substantially -- from 100 euros per person annually to 1,500 euros if the country is to meet legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Let's see how that will go down with the Irish, who have only recently begun to emerge from a long economic recession.
by John Dempsey
{/townhall.com} ~ Political parties do not matter when it comes to the practicality and functionality of border walls. Democrats say that walls do not work and even some Republicans echo that sentiment. I do not care if a Republican - most likely like former Ohio Governor John Kasich – says that a physical barrier is not necessary. They are politicians worried about public opinion for the next election. Talk to a Border Patrol agent, sheriff deputy or police officer in a border county and you will get the truth about the need for a wall.
This week President Trump appeared with National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd at the White House press briefing room. Judd spoke about the effectiveness of a wall and the need for it and has experience on the border making him a valid voice of reason. Judd spoke with the men and women who patrol the southern border. He has been told how a wall would help prevent thousands of illegal crossings annually. Illegal aliens would not have free reign to cross as easily, preventing and deterring unlawful entry.
Leon Wilmont is sheriff in Yuma County, Arizona. He said that he cannot speak for others, but in his experience walls work in curbing illegal immigration. Wlimont said from 2005-2009 there was a 91percent drop in service calls and arrests related to illegals.
As recently as 2005, the Democratic Party was in favor of a border wall. Now, they have completely switched to an anti-wall stance. They have taken national security and safety and turned it into a political fight.
The government shutdown rests directly on the shoulders of House Speaker Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag/clown-Schumer (D-NY). The White House has sent invitations and offered a compromise but they refuse to make any concessions.
When dealing with the Left, one must understand their mentality. They are wanting to completely change the voting demographics of the United States. Their fight is not about compassion for others who come to America. If this was the case, they would be against illegal immigration and would not encourage amnesty. The Democratic Party is trying to get as many people who will vote for them as possible into the country and make them legal citizens.
As soon as Democrats make an issue political, be aware. The same thing applies to global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling environmental issues this week.
All that matters to Democrats is power and complete control. That is it. Nothing else. After the election of Trump, they see the Rust Belt disappearing. The black approval rate has been as high as 36 percent. They need new potential voters.
On the other hand, law enforcement and Border Patrol officials took an oath to uphold the laws of the country. They see firsthand what works and what does not. Seriously, how can Democrats claim to know about border security from Washington D.C in their buildings that have armed guards? Who takes them seriously on this topic? The left really does not know what they are talking about. Their fight is new voters, and that is why the wall is “immoral.”
If you want to know the truth, talk to a CBP agent. Forget what the “pundits” who are full of talking points and political motivation have to say on news networks. It should be a clue when certain news channels will not have anyone Border Patrol or border county officials on to speak. On the rare occasion that they do, the interviews are tense and short.
That is because the mainstream media has an agenda. Yes, Border Patrol has an agenda, a lawful one. They have sworn to uphold the laws of the country, not change them to advance their political desires.
Do not let politicians tell you what the southern border needs. Truly, unless they have spoken to the LEO’s on the border, they are clueless. If the politician agrees with Border Patrol, you can assume they are well-informed and educated on the subject. Otherwise, the squawking opposition is for political gain.
On January 12th, 2019, Republican Politician Barry Donadio released a powerful pro-American statement on his official Facebook page.
“I support our democratically elected President Donald Trump. I support the construction of the wall along the entire border of Mexico. I support this for the protection of the people of the United States. My 1st priority is the people of the United States before anyone else. I support the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and the performance of their duties. I support all United States Law Enforcement Agencies. I support our Armed Forces members and their families that have sacrificed so much. I support the United States flag and the displaying of it. I support, protect and defend the United States Constitution and all of its amendments. I support that all men and women are created equal under the auspices of our constitution. I support, protect and defend the great people of a great nation, the United States of America.”
Barry Donadio
Jan 12th, 2019
{sultanknish.blogspot.com} ~ In 2016, a poll showed Trump beating scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton 66% to 22% among Orthodox Jews. This wasn’t as unusual as it sounds. In New York City, Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods light up as islands in a lefty sea.
Romney won over 90% of the vote in some Orthodox Jewish areas.
Traditional religious beliefs are associated with conservative politics among Jews the same way that they are among Christians. 60% of Jews who attended weekly religious services disapproved of scumbag/liar-nObama while those who didn’t, mostly supported him. Why do American Jews lean much more to the left? Because only 11% of American Jews attend weekly synagogue services. Well below the 40% national average.
Only 34% of American Jews are certain that they believe in G-d. What do they believe in? When asked what it means to be Jewish, 56% mentioned social justice, 42% comedy and only 19% percent mentioned anything involving religion. Meanwhile 63% of Israeli Jews believe “completely” in G-d.
Last year, Trump’s approval rating among Orthodox Jews was at 71%. The American Jewish Committee’s Survey wrote the results up glumly as “We have seen the future, and it looks Orthodox".
Establishment Jewish groups, which suddenly woke up and realized that the majority of Jewish children in New York City were Orthodox Jews, are preparing to fight that future. If those children are allowed to grow up Orthodox, the end of the Jewish Left will have arrived. And so they came after the children.
The New York State Department of Education now threatens to shut down Jewish schools and report parents who refuse to send their children to leftist government schools to child protection authorities. As in the Soviet Union, giving a child a Jewish education would be treated as evidence of child abuse. The government would be able to abduct children for the crime of receiving a Jewish education.
The new "Indian Residential Schools" had arrived.
Jewish schools aren’t the only targets of this discriminatory campaign by the educational establishment. Catholic schools have also come under attack with the Archdiocese of New York posting an editorial that declares, “Leviathan has now focused its attention on religious schools here in New York, with the clear intention of either forcing them to submit to its authority or face destruction.”
The public face of the campaign against Jewish schools is YAFFED or Young Advocates for Fair Education. Its members claim to be the products of Orthodox Jewish schools whose poor education left them so unprepared for the real world that all they were able to do was launch an extremely effective statewide campaign whose press releases and talking points are quoted verbatim in every single media outlet.
As in March for Our Lives, young faces are used to hide the agendas of the old lefties behind the curtain.
While Naftuli Moster, YAFFED’s executive director, plays its equivalent of David Hogg, speaking to media outlets and appearing at forums to discuss the incredible intellectual disadvantage that the same educational system that produced generations of visionary thinkers and geniuses burdened him with, Hannah Rothstein, a not remotely “young” Baruch College prof, serves as its president.
Hannah Rothstein also serves on the board of Footsteps, an organization working to secularize Orthodox Jews and transition them to an irreligious lifestyle. She’s a Trump critic and an scumbag/liar-nObama supporter.
She has also donated to Barack scumbag/liar-nObama, Nancy Pulosi, scumbag-Al Franken, socialist-Beto O’Rourke and scumbag-Cory Booker. Her repeated out of state donations, some through ActBlue, show a woman passionate about the Left. And the growing Orthodox Jewish population poses a threat to everything that Rothstein has been funding.
Moster, YAFFED’s public face, is also a Footsteps graduate. Pesach Eisen, a Yaffed member who testified in its cause, is a Footsteps member and a fellow with the radical leftist Jews for Racial & Economic Justice which denies the existence of lefty anti-Semitism even as it defends leftist anti-Semites. Eisen demonstrates how Footsteps and YAFFED act as arms of the broader anti-Jewish Left.
And Moster has, in turn, defended the anti-Semitic Women’s March.
Anita Altman serves on the Board of Directors of YAFFED and her bio boasts of helping numerous Footsteps clients. In 2014, she had signed an angry letter, declaring, “AIPAC speaks for Israel’s hard-line government and its right-wing supporters, and for them alone; it does not speak for us.” The signatories included a range of anti-Israel activists, supporters of BDS and defenders of anti-Semitic terrorism.
Altman has also signed a letter backing anti-Semitic Farrakhan supporter Linda Sarsour.
Altman is, unsurprisingly, no fan of religious Jews. In a bizarre interview, which repeatedly warns of a "khasidic takeover", she complained that there is "fear" when "it comes to government dealing with these fundamentalist communities." Then she compared Orthodox Jews to Iran.
That’s the medieval bigotry behind YAFFED and the war on Orthodox Jewish schools.
YAFFED’s bid is all about lefties using the government to deal with “fundamentalists” under the guise of helping the few formerly Orthodox members of Footsteps being used as fronts for the hateful operation.
Altman isn’t the only anti-Israel activist in YAFFED. Its communications director, Abigail Beatty, also allegedly works for the anti-Israel NIF, an organization notorious for its funding of leftist and BDS group.
YAFFED claims to advocate for “the rights of Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox children”. But it appears to be another face of Footsteps: an organization advocating against the traditional religious practices of Orthodox Judaism.
The people behind YAFFED have the right to advocate for discriminatory policies targeting the Orthodox Jewish community, in order to force Jewish parents to take their children out of Jewish schools.
They have the right to do so in the name of their radical leftist politics and hatred of religion.
But they have no right to masquerade as an organization fighting for the rights of the very people they are persecuting. Instead of highlighting these obvious connections, the media has chosen to act as the echo chamber for YAFFED while denying the Jewish communities targeted by Altman and her ilk, a voice.
Anonymous stories and bots have been used to manufacture a group of Orthodox Jewish parents and children who are “suffering” in the Jewish school system, but oddly, choose not to leave it.
These astroturf tactics are being used to justify discrimination and harassment of a religious community.
It’s about more than just the bigotry of Anita Altman, obsessed with recreating Philip Roth’s Eli the Fanatic. Behind the fresh young faces, there are elderly veterans of the lefty political establishment, many with backgrounds in education and academia, who see religious Jewish education as a threat.
An economic threat and also a political threat.
In a letter to a Democrat councilmember, David Bloomfield, claimed that the war on Jewish schools would enable their students to “vote outside the confines of their deterministic communities”.
Bloomfield has written a number of articles and appeared at Yaffed forums attempting to pressure the government into cracking down on Jewish schools.
At stake are two very different visions of education and the future.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently visited Orthodox Jewish schools and touted them as models of school choice. There is no word in the English language that the Left hates more than “choice”.
The education lobby has gone to war against charter schools. And Orthodox Jewish schools are seen as even worse than charter schools. They don’t bow to the teachers’ unions. The money their parents spend on education doesn’t end up in the pockets of union bosses and their Democrat political allies.
The Orthodox Jewish community has helped drive the expansion of voucher programs. And school choice is an existential threat to the educational establishment and the political power of the Left.
Orthodox Jewish communities have fueled support for school choice not only in New York, but in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, endangering presidential elections.
Something had to be done about those pesky Jews. Now something is being done.
The Left’s vision of the educational system is Footsteps and Yaffed writ large, a machine for destroying communities, undermining their traditions, and crushing parental authority so that academics can reinvent the children in their own cultural and political image. That’s what happened to American Jews.
Now the same people who a century ago turned a generation of immigrants from believers in G-d to believers in social justice see another Jewish demographic threat and want to do it all over again.
On Sabbath, hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews will read the story of how an ancient Egyptian leader grew disgusted with rising Jewish demographics. "Behold, the numbers of the children of Israel are too many," he tells his political allies. "Come, let us deal cunningly with them, lest they multiply."
On Fifth Avenue, the establishment pharaohs, whose faith is not in Isis or Hathor, but in progressive social justice, look at the children in Jewish schools across New York City and bitterly echo his words.
As National Review’s Jim Geraghty reminds us, there are thousands upon thousands of important federal employees who are still putting in hours despite being furloughed. It’s they who are keeping broad disruption at bay. But that task becomes harder the longer the shutdown continues.
Says Geraghty: “You’re seeing some conservatives argue that the American government is functioning fine during the shutdown, demonstrating that the ‘nonessential’ workers are genuinely unneeded and that this proves that there’s no real need to bring the shutdown to an end. This is a pretty poorly informed reaction. Some of the most important duties of the federal government are continuing to function because hundreds of thousands of federal employees are working without pay and hoping that they get paid for their labor once the shutdown ends.”
Consider the number of furloughed or soon-to-be-furloughed workers from these various departments:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 55,000
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 16,000
Citizenship and Immigration Services: 17,000
Federal Emergency Management Agency: 15,000
U.S. Coast Guard: 42,000
Transportation and Security Administration: 55,000
Department of Justice: 36,000
Federal Bureau of Prisons: 35,000
Drug Enforcement Agency: 7,600
U.S. Marshals Service: 4,600
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: 4,200
There are other considerations as well. As Geraghty goes on to note, “Zookeepers are still taking care of the animals … without pay. About 95 percent of NASA’s employees aren’t going to work — just the folks who have to show up and keep NASA people and property safe. … Whether or not you like the Department of Housing and Urban Development, if we’re going to have public housing, we probably should have safety inspections. Those are suspended until further notice. Some contract workers in federal buildings such as custodians and security officers are effectively laid off until the government reopens.”
“Just about any institution can temporarily get by with the minimal staff,” Geraghty adds, “but after a while the duties pile up and become unmanageable — whether it’s a waitress trying to serve too many tables, supermarkets with one cash register open, or public bathrooms with only one stall working.” In other words, shutdowns — and workers — are subjected to a compound effect.
None of this should be confused with why we have a government shutdown, which is a completely separate issue. But we can both criticize Big Government while at the same time sympathize with diligent workers who are affected. Some lawmakers have suggested furloughing their own salaries during government shutdowns. That’s not a bad idea — they surely deserve the money less than these thousands of workers who make our way of living safe and secure. ~The Patriot Post
Does American superiority in space matter? Think of it this way: The capabilities that enable us to put a Joint Direct Attack Munition within 30 feet of some ISIS thugs, know the positions of friendly troops, or keep an eye on the activities of Russia near the border with Ukraine come from satellites in orbit. In essence, America has dominated the “high ground” of space for close to 60 years.
Or, to put it bluntly, before there was ever a hint of a Space Force, we had already militarized space. There may be many who will claim we shouldn’t militarize space, but when space is where communications, reconnaissance, and navigation systems are, then it’s already become a military theater. That’s the reality of the situation. And as was the case with air power, eventually space assets will start shooting at each other.
After Operation Desert Storm, America’s dominance in space was noted by Russia and China. They began working to catch up. They got a lot of help in that regard thanks to the penny-wise and pound-foolish “peace dividend” that came after the fall of the Soviet Union. America, to a large extent, rested on the laurels of winning the Cold War.
More importantly, China is developing hypersonic weapons and is also trying to make a play for space. In 2007, China destroyed a failed weather satellite — a sign that they had the capability to contest American access to space. How did the Chinese catch up? Well, it turns out that America was busy dealing with radical Islamic terrorism and has been since 2001. It still is today, as indicated by the recent airstrike that took out one of the jihadis behind the 2000 attack on USS Cole (another was killed in a 2002 drone strike, and a third was captured and interrogated).
When 9/11 happened, there was the need to prepare for the military campaign, not just against al-Qaida and its affiliates, but also the state sponsors of terrorism like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. This drew a lot of attention for the next decade, and as such, other priorities slipped — and that was with George W. Bush in office. The military — and America’s edge in space — took more hits from his successor.
Even before Osama bin Laden was terminated, Barack scumbag/liar-nObama was already starting to hit the defense budget with a number of cuts, including what turned out to be a premature halt of F-22 production, and the early retirement of USS Enterprise (CVN 65). He also chopped the planned space shuttle replacement.
President Donald Trump, though, has begun to take space seriously. He not only has been pushing for the creation of a Space Force, he is also taking other steps to restore American primacy in space. A primacy that could very well make the difference between winning and losing a war.
Among the plans are the assembly of a permanent presence around the moon, as a way station for journeys to Mars. A return of manned missions to the moon, and journeys elsewhere in the solar system are also on the agenda. These not only will give us a chance to learn more about the other planets, but the technological improvements will have benefits that take surprising turns. Such technological leaps can also have military applications, adding to America’s qualitative edge over China.
It is obvious we will need it, because China has taken advantage of the end of the Cold War to make its own qualitative improvements. Twenty years ago, the bulk of the People’s Liberation Army Navy was in a large number of Luda-class destroyers, Jianghu-class frigates, and Romeo-class diesel-electric submarines, vessels that were relatively low-technology, albeit numerous. Today, though, that navy has the Type 55 and Type 52 destroyers and the Jiangkai-class frigates. As for submarines, the bulk of China’s force are modern Kilo-class submarines — backed by a small force of advanced nuclear attack submarines.
With China’s rise, and the return of an aggressive Russia, America may wind up feeling thankful for the Trump administration’s push to make America’s advantage in space large again. It won’t just benefit our military, but it could also make life on earth much easier.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/60405?mailing_id=4003&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4003&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body ABC News reports that the bill “would require background checks on the sale of any firearm and expand existing background checks to cover anyone attempting to buy firearms online, commercially or at gun shows, while providing exceptions for law enforcement and the transfer of guns between friends and family members.”
The obviously problem here is that almost all legal gun purchases are already subject to background checks and the supposed gun-show loophole has been demonstrated to be largely a myth. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of criminals obtain their firearms illegally, and we’re left wondering how this new legislation would prevent any actual crimes. The fact is it doesn’t. On the contrary, it’s simply political theater. ~The Patriot Post
scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton used misogyny as one of many excuses to explain how she blew an election she was given more than a 90% probability of winning by major pollsters (a logical assumption considering her massive advantages in fundraising, experience, media support, and political networks), only to be defeated by a reality-TV star/real-estate mogul with no political experience and a lot of baggage with women. Prognosticators failed to grasp that, to many Americans, scumbag/liar-Hillary is an untrustworthy and a deeply unlikeable human being.
Sen. Elizabeth dinky-Warren’s recent announcement of her 2020 presidential candidacy was met with a resounding yawn and questions about her likability, which some insist is sexist because male politicians supposedly are not subjected to the same question (a claim eviscerated by The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto). Yet there are many women in politics whose likability is not questioned, so it seems the question only comes up with women (and men) who aren’t generally liked.
Which brings us to a question: Are women in America truly oppressed? The data doesn’t reflect such a claim.
In the latest labor report, which showed an increase on 312,000 new jobs, it is women who are the primary beneficiaries. The workforce participation rate for women aged 25-34 is at a multi-year high, with the number of women 20+ years old who have jobs increasing by 1.6 million in the last year alone — out of 2.6 million total jobs gained. The rising number of employed women no doubt accounts for the fact that nearly twice as many single women as single men own a home.
Women also earned more doctoral degrees than men in 2017, for the ninth straight year, and there are nearly 40% more women than men in grad school. Furthermore, in major metropolitan areas, single women without children are out-earning their male counterparts by nearly 10%.
In fact, the so-called pay gap between men and women is almost entirely due to career choices (men tend to gravitate toward hard sciences and dangerous work, whereas women tend toward less dangerous, less lucrative fields like education, social work, arts, etc.) and number of hours worked.
Not only are women in America not oppressed, but the surprising (at least to those buying the PC narrative) findings of another recent study show men now face greater discrimination than women. The study — which considered such factors as “men receiving harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more occupational deaths than women” — found that in many Western nations (where feminists claim to be most oppressed), including the United States, policies and cultural norms now actually favor women.
Interestingly, the Census Bureau recently published an analysis on the social impact of the relative prosperity of men and women, and how it is reflected in our cultural norms. In married households where the woman earned more than her husband, the woman underrepresented her earnings by an average of 1.5%, and men overrepresented their earnings by 2.9%. The census researchers concluded, “It was more socially desirable for men to earn more — so whether fudging the numbers was a conscious or unconscious choice, these social norms affected their answers.” And while it would be easy to claim this as yet another example of the oppressive heteronormative patriarchy pushing its agenda, the truth isn’t quite so simplistic.
Though feminists claim to want equality between the sexes, when asked if being able to support a family financially was necessary to consider a man a good husband, 71% of women said yes, while only 32% of those same women said a woman being able to support a family financially was necessary to be considered a good wife. Women are also less likely to marry, and more likely to divorce, a man who is unemployed or underemployed.
All of this just shows that the relationships between men and women are very complicated, with countless variables — some biologically hard-wired, some cultural — and for both to prosper and be happy, we should acknowledge and even celebrate our complementary differences, rather than treat each other as enemies. ~The Patriot Post
Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this article, and share it everywhere!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Have you noticed how ramped up liberals are getting about trying to impeach President Trump? It’s all the rage in liberal circles.
From Nancy Pelosi to Chuck Schumer, the elected elite of liberals are all talking about it. They’re salivating over the idea. Drooling…slobbering and nearly peeing themselves at the very thought of impeachment.
It’s nothing new.
Liberals have wanted to impeach every Republican president in the past 40 or so years…but this is different. This time, they’re actually circling like sharks, and they think there’s blood in the water.
Why all the excess fervor now? They know there’s no real chance of it…liberals don’t control the Senate, and without 2/3 of the Senate, they can’t impeach anybody.
So…why now…why all the hype and baring of teeth now?
The answer is simple…three words…
It appears Capitol Hill Democrats are firm in protecting ‘criminal’ illegal immigrants. Why?
Do Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Chuck Schumer, and other Capitol Hill Democrats have a personal financial gain in a reason for protecting drug dealers, murderers, and other criminals?
You must remember. Just a few years ago almost all Capitol Hill Democrats supported a fence at the southern border separating USA/Mexico. – Oscar Y. Harward
“It reviewed the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens in federal or state prisons and local jails who “entered the country illegally.” Those illegal aliens were arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.”
{americanthinker.com} ~ There is a famous quote from George Orwell's 1984:
- Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.
Let's start with a common innocuous lie.
- The story of Granada is all about the Islamic Moors. In year 711, these North African Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar and quickly conquered the entire Iberian Peninsula, eventually converting most of its habitants. Throughout the Middle Ages, for over seven hundred years, Spain was a predominantly Muslim society, living under Muslim rule.
1. The Muslims did not conquer all of the Iberian Peninsula. The northern coast of Spain (Asturias, Cantabria, Galicia, the Basque country) never really fell. The Moors tried to collect taxes – and some blonde virgins – which almost immediately resulted in revolts. By 739, Pelayo had secured an independent state in the north.
2. The Spanish, in the main, never converted. They were treated as dhimmis; the population, for the most part, remained Christian
3. The Muslim rulers were usually a small minority elite.
4. And 700 years of Muslim rule? There was a slow but steady erosion of Muslim rule throughout the whole period. By 1236, Cordoba had fallen into Christian hands, and two thirds of the peninsula was Christian. Granada became a vassal state of the Christian north and was tolerated only become of the tribute it paid. The Moors were totally driven out of Portugal by 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve.
The sanitized version of Muslim Spain's history ignores the second wave of Muslim rule, the Almohad takeover of the Muslim areas (in the south only) during the 12th century. The Almohads were the 12th-century equivalent of ISIS. They tried to forced urbanized Jews and Christians to convert, but their rule was brief. Many Christians and Jews fled to the Christian north. Christian military advances made the Almohad caliphate unstable. In the 13th century, the Nasrids took over.
A lot of this false history is the result of the Black Legend: an exaggeration of the crimes of the Inquisition. Europe's Protestants and Jews understandably had an animus for Catholic Spain and allowed their own myopic views to gloss over the very real crimes of Islam. The result is the idiocy we have today, where Muslim rule is often called the Golden Age of Spain.
Far from it! It was a brutal tyranny, which oppressed the Christian majority. Whatever the faults of Catholicism, the dark history of Muslim rule should not be sanitized.
The next lie – the one that may start a world war – is that Mohammed made a night journey to the Haram al-Sharif (the farthest mosque) in Jerusalem.
The problem is, there was no mosque in Jerusalem during Mohammed's life. He died five years before Islam entered into Jerusalem. How could Mohammed have visited a mosque that did not exist?
This lie is peddled on the media as justification for Arab riots whenever some Jews want to walk on the Temple Mount. Whether one agrees with Israeli practices or not, there is no doubt that Jews built a temple on that mount. And there is equally no doubt that Mohammed never visited the place.
Worse yet, there is evidence that early Islam may have been centered in Petra in Jordan. Mecca was not an important city in the 7th century. All of Muslim history may be a total fabrication, and Mohammed, who may not have actually existed, is certainly not be the Mohammed of history. In fact, it is beginning to look as if Islam was invented for political purposes.
Another lie, born of ignorance, is that the American revolution was merely a tax revolt. The idea is to minimize our history down to financial considerations: dialectical materialism.
But anyone familiar with the Currency Act and the Intolerable Acts knows full well that more was at stake. Many of the colonials were descended from people whose ancestors had suffered under British law and how it had reduced large sections of Ireland and some parts of Scotland to abject poverty. They were determined not to become New World vassals.
But if one wants to minimize the treasure that is our Constitution, then reduce American history to tax law.
Unfortunately, the right can also falsify history. Many of those who are sympathetic to the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy had downplayed that many of the states' articles of secession mentioned slavery as a primary cause for the rebellion.
The reason for this is that in the early 20th-century a number of major historians and social groups introduced a romantic view of the Confederacy into their histories.
- The United Daughters of the Confederacy were once a powerful force in public education across the South, right down to rewriting history: slaves were happy, y'all.
And then there is the history that I was taught about President Wilson as a kid. He was a great reformer, who wanted world peace. It turns out that he was a globalist and – yes, the left is right on this – a Southern racist, who resegregated the federal government and set back civil rights for decades.
In high school Spanish class, lo those many decades ago, I was taught about American "aggression" during the Mexican-American War.
The problem is:
1. Many Spanish Californios and Spanish Tejanos were already upset with the tyrannical government in Mexico City. Had the U.S. not intervened, the British or French would have.
2. There were far more U.S. citizens in the Southwest at that time than Mexicans. Mexico lost the territory because it had barely settled it and then ticked off the locals.
Again, I am not saying the U.S. government is 100% innocent, but true history gets rid of a lot of grievances by undercutting much of the premises for those grievances.
Some other quick history that infuriates me:
A. Those who call the French Latins – in reality the vast majority of the French are descended from Celtic tribes. In the north, German Frankish and Viking Nordic elements were mixed in. To be sure, there is an Italian element in the southeast and a Basque element in the southwest, but most of France was historically Celtic. The Romans may have imposed a Latin tongue, but the French are Celts.
B. The use of the term "West Bank" – Judea and Samaria has been the historical term for three millennia. The West Bank is a recent political term at best, meant to deny a Jewish history. I am tired of how both sides want to deny the other side's existence.
C. The Crusades were Western aggression – Actually, the Crusades were a response to centuries of Islamic aggression. Unfortunately, the Crusaders lost in the East.
D. The neglect of Islamic tyranny – The reason the New World was discovered is because a vicious Islam had cut off the Silk Road to the East. Europeans had to strike out in boats, the one technological advantage they had over the Muslims – hence the Portuguese circumnavigation of Africa and Spain's subsidy of Columbus.
I once had a history teacher in college tell us that people are motivated by not truth, but rather what they believe is the truth. He was right.
“There are objectives that we want to accomplish that condition the withdrawal,” Bolton said Sunday. The U.S. withdrawal from northeastern Syria will occur, Bolton added, “in a way that makes sure that ISIS is defeated and is not able to revive itself and to become a threat again; and to make sure that the defense of Israel and our other friends in the region is absolutely assured; and to take care of those who fought with us against ISIS and other terrorist groups.”
That does sound quite a bit different from Trump’s declaration last month: “After historic victories against ISIS, it’s time to bring our great young people home! We have won against ISIS.” At the same time, Trump’s declaration wasn’t based on a timeline but results. “We won’t be finally pulled out until ISIS is gone,” Trump said Sunday. We suppose there’s a difference between defeated and gone. And he tweeted Monday, “No different from my original statements, we will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary!”
Results are what Bolton pointed to as well. Indeed, he explained, “Timetables or the timing of the withdrawal occurs as a result of the fulfillment of the conditions and the establishment of the circumstances that we want to see. It’s not the establishment of an arbitrary point for the withdrawal to take place as President scumbag/liar-nObama did in the Afghan situation. … The timetable flows from the policy decisions that we need to implement.”
No doubt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had some feedback about a total U.S. pullout, as did our Kurdish allies, whom our Turkish “allies” wish to wipe out.
So what it comes down to is that, once again, Trump used overstatements and hyperbole because he wanted to make a splash and bring attention to an issue, and then he (and White House officials) walked that back to a more reasonable position that, arguably, Trump had always aimed for. In this case, House Democrats were/are going to pull a Vietnam on Syria — snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory by defunding the efforts and then blaming the president. Trump’s gambit backed Dems into publicly supporting continuing efforts in Syria, which he can then point to when they don’t want to fund it.
This seems to be a good example of taking Trump seriously but not literally.
The Resurgent’s Steve Berman aptly sums it up: “The reality is that Syria is a mess — a Gordian knot of alliances, long-simmering feuds, ancient hatreds, and horrific violence. It’s a place where nobody is truly your friend, and everyone is potentially your enemy, and this goes triple for the United States. Trump’s instincts to get out of Syria are not entirely wrong. … But our quick departure also has consequences that hurt American interests. There’s no good answer.” ~The Patriot Post
.
The evidence is nauseating. For example, DeSimone notes that in the U.S., heart disease and cancer are ranked number one and two respectively in leading causes of death, each taking well above half a million lives annually. But sitting in third place is something unbeknownst to most people. Sadly, recent research by Johns Hopkins found that medical errors produce a quarter-million deaths each year, although other research suggests 440,000 annual deaths. Yet even these guesstimates could be dwarfed under a Medicare for All scheme. As DeSimone writes:
Our current health care system is based on a fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement model that rewards doctors for providing more treatments than necessary because payment is dependent on the quantity, not quality, of care. … Unnecessary tests and treatments have accounted for $200 billion annually and have been found to actually harm patients. That’s because the FFS system is volume-based, not necessarily value-based. Therefore, any increases in the volume of care equal increases in medical errors. … If Medicare for All covered all 325 million Americans — which include the nearly 30 million uninsured Americans and the 41 million more with inadequate health insurance — it would be the most disastrous third-party payer ever, once cost was not a primary factor. Including fatal medical errors and the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from longer wait times — already exhibited by VA health care — this could presumably make Medicare for All the single biggest factor to the leading cause of death in the US.
Clearly, Medicare for All provides no health-care cure, doing nothing is harmful too. That’s why American Enterprise Institute resident fellow James C. Capretta argues, “To Keep Medicare for All at Bay, Offer a Better Alternative.” He rightly observes, “It may not be enough just to be against government-run health care if the public perceives the alternative as inadequate, and, currently, there is widespread agreement that the status quo is inadequate. The provision of medical care remains far too costly. Waste is rampant. Administrative costs are high. The system is fragmented and uncoordinated, the paperwork is maddening, and the quality of care provided to patients is uneven. The persistence of these problems over many years is a major reason why the U.S. has been on a steady march toward greater government control of the health system, even without a full embrace of a nationalized plan.”
Capretta adds: “Opponents of Medicare for All shouldn’t try to defend the dysfunctional status quo. Instead, they should advance reforms that would make the system work better for patients, and bundle them as the alternative to Medicare for All. The last two years have demonstrated how difficult this challenge will be for Republicans.” Indeed it has. However, capitulating is a recipe for even greater disaster. As Capretta concludes, “Making the case for market-driven health care to a skeptical public is a tough assignment, but there is no real alternative to trying. At some the point, if the market is never tried, the public will get fed up with the waste and dysfunction, and Medicare for All will look like the only answer.” Conservatives mustn’t let that happen. Unify, and stay on message. ~The Patriot Post