Day: January 27, 2018

The Russians and Washington Political Theater


The ongoing, long-running drama in political theater in the U.S. Congress depicting the story and fantasies of alleged relations and collusion between the presidential campaign team of Donald Trump and unnamed Russians bids fair to outlast any commercial offering on New York’s Broadway.

The Congressional drama has everything: 50,000 missing text messages sent between two FBI agents, one the deputy head of counterintelligence and the other a lawyer, the two physically involved and both politically hostile to Trump, inexplicable problems and technical glitches with official mobile phones and software, puzzling softening of language by an FBI director, an alleged “secret society” with a political agenda within the FBI, a critical dossier written by a former British spy and funded by the opposition party, and talk of “extensive conspiracies with the Kremlin.”

With little exaggeration, the Washington farce appears to be the counterpart of the British comedy The Play that Goes Wrong, with its unceasing mishaps, doors sticking, props falling, characters missing cues, or forgetting their lines.

We spectators wonder who the hero or the villain of the Washington drama will turn out to be at the revelation at the denouement of the drama. One candidate conspicuous for backing into the limelight is Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative for California, 28th District. He has played an ardent role as top Democrat in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence since March 2017. In this Winter’s Tale he resembles a modern-day “snapper up of unconsidered trifles.”

Rep. Schiff speaks with assurance that he possesses he truth. On December 10, 2017 he assured the rest of the drama’s cast that “The Russians offered help, the (Trump) campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help, and the President made full use of that help.” The dialogue of this rather extravagant statement is less akin to normal parliamentary discussion than to Alice in Wonderland — “Sentence first — verdict afterword,” or to the self-assurance of the amusing and bumbling French detective, Inspector Jacques Clouseau, the eccentric character played by Peter Sellers.

Irrespective of the arguments made by participants in the Congressional drama, one factor needs further development. On January 22, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions responded to the issue of the 50,000 missing text messages. No stone will be left unturned to confirm why they are not available. “We will,” he said, “use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source.”

Everyone inside and outside Washington will agree on the driving force of technology in search of the truth as for economic growth. No one doubts the resourcefulness of American business and technology, as every purchaser of the Apple iPhone X and iPads appreciates, and anticipates with the arrival of voice-activated speaker HomePod.

But it is worth considering the power and effectiveness of Russian technology in the Congressional drama of alleged attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, any collusion between unnamed Russians and members of the Trump campaign team, charges of obstruction of justice, and the significance of undisclosed meetings, later remembered in tranquility, especially those meetings with the former Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, to the U.S.

This pause for thought is occasioned by the publication of two studies recently issued by academic and responsible organizations, one by the 2018 Bloomberg Innovation Index and the other by Cornell University’s Insead Business School and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The 2018 Bloomberg Index, based on seven criteria, including research and development spending, patent activity, and concentration of high-tech public companies, outlines the ranking of the worlds’ most innovative countries. For the first time in the history of the Index the U.S. has dropped out of the top ten countries. Those countries in order are South Korea, Sweden, Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Finland, Denmark, France, and Israel. It is relevant for the Washington inquiry into collusion between Russia and the Trump team that the U.S., which had been ninth in 2017, is now number 11, while Russia, the supposed architect of an extensive conspiracy, is ranked number 25.

These declines in ranking of innovative development in the U.S. and Russia suggest a decline in scientific education and in the proportion of science and engineering graduates in the labor force, and the need for more government funding for research and technological initiatives.

The second report that may be helpful in assessing Washington activity is the 2017 Global Innovation Index, issued by the joint group, Cornell University’s Insead business school and the World Intellectual Property Organization. The 2017 Index, which focuses on innovation in agriculture and food systems, has different rankings from Bloomberg. It places Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the U.S. and the UK as the most innovative countries, and shows a rise in other countries. India is an emerging innovation center in Asia, and nine of the countries are in the Sub-Saharan region. Russia is not listed in the 25 countries surveyed.

Ranking of countries obviously changes from year to year, depending on various factors: the amount of government research and development budgets; advances in industrial and agricultural technologies and innovations; breakthroughs in areas such as genetics and nano- and biotechnologies; progress in information technology; the use of sensors, drones, robots, and even virtual reality; the impact of globalization; multilateral trade agreements; the amount of protectionism; and political sensitivities that affect economic behavior.

We can therefore expect changes in the ranking of the U.S. and Russia from the innovative and development perspective. But at present, caution is desirable in assessing the innovative capacities of Russia.

Evidently, Russia has been involved in the U.S. as elsewhere in financial deals, in property, and business enterprises, purchases of sports teams, money laundering, and attempts to overcome the Magnitsky Act, the 2012 law that bars Russian officials suspected of human rights abuses from entering the U.S.

It is also clear that Russia is playing a questionable and undesirable role in the civil war in Syria and may be held at least partly accountable for a chemical weapon attack in that war. Yet what is surprising, and relevant to the drama in D.C., are the reports on the relatively low level of innovation in Russia. The beginning of wisdom for congressional members eagerly searching to find collusion in the 2016 presidential election is to consider whether they have given Russia too much credit for its technological advances.

The ongoing, long-running drama in political theater in the U.S. Congress depicting the story and fantasies of alleged relations and collusion between the presidential campaign team of Donald Trump and unnamed Russians bids fair to outlast any commercial offering on New York’s Broadway.

The Congressional drama has everything: 50,000 missing text messages sent between two FBI agents, one the deputy head of counterintelligence and the other a lawyer, the two physically involved and both politically hostile to Trump, inexplicable problems and technical glitches with official mobile phones and software, puzzling softening of language by an FBI director, an alleged “secret society” with a political agenda within the FBI, a critical dossier written by a former British spy and funded by the opposition party, and talk of “extensive conspiracies with the Kremlin.”

With little exaggeration, the Washington farce appears to be the counterpart of the British comedy The Play that Goes Wrong, with its unceasing mishaps, doors sticking, props falling, characters missing cues, or forgetting their lines.

We spectators wonder who the hero or the villain of the Washington drama will turn out to be at the revelation at the denouement of the drama. One candidate conspicuous for backing into the limelight is Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative for California, 28th District. He has played an ardent role as top Democrat in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence since March 2017. In this Winter’s Tale he resembles a modern-day “snapper up of unconsidered trifles.”

Rep. Schiff speaks with assurance that he possesses he truth. On December 10, 2017 he assured the rest of the drama’s cast that “The Russians offered help, the (Trump) campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help, and the President made full use of that help.” The dialogue of this rather extravagant statement is less akin to normal parliamentary discussion than to Alice in Wonderland — “Sentence first — verdict afterword,” or to the self-assurance of the amusing and bumbling French detective, Inspector Jacques Clouseau, the eccentric character played by Peter Sellers.

Irrespective of the arguments made by participants in the Congressional drama, one factor needs further development. On January 22, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions responded to the issue of the 50,000 missing text messages. No stone will be left unturned to confirm why they are not available. “We will,” he said, “use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source.”

Everyone inside and outside Washington will agree on the driving force of technology in search of the truth as for economic growth. No one doubts the resourcefulness of American business and technology, as every purchaser of the Apple iPhone X and iPads appreciates, and anticipates with the arrival of voice-activated speaker HomePod.

But it is worth considering the power and effectiveness of Russian technology in the Congressional drama of alleged attempts by Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, any collusion between unnamed Russians and members of the Trump campaign team, charges of obstruction of justice, and the significance of undisclosed meetings, later remembered in tranquility, especially those meetings with the former Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, to the U.S.

This pause for thought is occasioned by the publication of two studies recently issued by academic and responsible organizations, one by the 2018 Bloomberg Innovation Index and the other by Cornell University’s Insead Business School and the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The 2018 Bloomberg Index, based on seven criteria, including research and development spending, patent activity, and concentration of high-tech public companies, outlines the ranking of the worlds’ most innovative countries. For the first time in the history of the Index the U.S. has dropped out of the top ten countries. Those countries in order are South Korea, Sweden, Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Finland, Denmark, France, and Israel. It is relevant for the Washington inquiry into collusion between Russia and the Trump team that the U.S., which had been ninth in 2017, is now number 11, while Russia, the supposed architect of an extensive conspiracy, is ranked number 25.

These declines in ranking of innovative development in the U.S. and Russia suggest a decline in scientific education and in the proportion of science and engineering graduates in the labor force, and the need for more government funding for research and technological initiatives.

The second report that may be helpful in assessing Washington activity is the 2017 Global Innovation Index, issued by the joint group, Cornell University’s Insead business school and the World Intellectual Property Organization. The 2017 Index, which focuses on innovation in agriculture and food systems, has different rankings from Bloomberg. It places Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, the U.S. and the UK as the most innovative countries, and shows a rise in other countries. India is an emerging innovation center in Asia, and nine of the countries are in the Sub-Saharan region. Russia is not listed in the 25 countries surveyed.

Ranking of countries obviously changes from year to year, depending on various factors: the amount of government research and development budgets; advances in industrial and agricultural technologies and innovations; breakthroughs in areas such as genetics and nano- and biotechnologies; progress in information technology; the use of sensors, drones, robots, and even virtual reality; the impact of globalization; multilateral trade agreements; the amount of protectionism; and political sensitivities that affect economic behavior.

We can therefore expect changes in the ranking of the U.S. and Russia from the innovative and development perspective. But at present, caution is desirable in assessing the innovative capacities of Russia.

Evidently, Russia has been involved in the U.S. as elsewhere in financial deals, in property, and business enterprises, purchases of sports teams, money laundering, and attempts to overcome the Magnitsky Act, the 2012 law that bars Russian officials suspected of human rights abuses from entering the U.S.

It is also clear that Russia is playing a questionable and undesirable role in the civil war in Syria and may be held at least partly accountable for a chemical weapon attack in that war. Yet what is surprising, and relevant to the drama in D.C., are the reports on the relatively low level of innovation in Russia. The beginning of wisdom for congressional members eagerly searching to find collusion in the 2016 presidential election is to consider whether they have given Russia too much credit for its technological advances.



Source link

Investigate Obama’s and Kerry’s Unlawful Deals with Iran


Two years ago, as then-secretary of State John Kerry was boasting in Davos about Obama’s deal with Iran,  he acknowledged that some of the $150 billion given to the mullahs in Tehran “will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.” He was right. We don’t know how much money went to fund Iran’s global terrorist activities. And we know even less about the billions in untraceable cash that was supposedly delivered to the mullahs or the recipients of that cash. How about investigating that? There should be ample evidence to prove Kerry and his boss President Obama have willfully engaged in terrorist financing and money laundering. That is unless the pertinent emails and documents related to the payments to Iran had been lost or destroyed.

After the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was implemented on January 16, 2016,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wished to lift all sanctions on Iran, kept complaining that “On paper the United States allows foreign banks to deal with Iran, but in practice they create Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran.” As much as the Obama administration wanted to comply, it needed congressional support to do that. Thus, the Obama administration decided to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering laws to help Iran’s economy.

Between March, 2012 and January, 2016, when the U.S. lifted the sanctions, Iranian banks had no access to the Belgium-based SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system. During that time, according to a European oil trader, “Nobody could pay the Iranians via normal lines, not even in euros.” Yet, Iran has received billions of dollars in sanctions relief as incentives to attend negotiations with the United States and others in Geneva. In August, 2012, following a major earthquake in Iran, the Obama administration issued a 45-day general license allowing “registered NGOs to send up to $300,000 to for humanitarian relief and reconstruction activities. And what assurances were there to ensure the money got to the right hands? At that time, Treasury’s spokesman John Sullivan declared, “The license specifically forbids any dealings with entities on the OFAC SDN list such as the IRGC. There is also a mandated report to the Treasury and State Departments, so we can make sure the money does not end up in the wrong hands,” he said. However, he was not asked, and he did not give any information on how the cash was transferred to Iran.  

In early 2013, the Obama administration began transferring goods to and from Afghanistan through the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas, instead of shipping the goods through Pakistan. The administration decided to ignore the sanctions and chose the Iranian port. U.S. payments enabled the Iranians to open another port on the Gulf of Oman at Chabahar to further facilitate transshipment through Iran. How were payments made? In cash? In what currencies? If not, how did Iran access the U.S. payments? Were those payments sent in secrecy bundled cash of non-U.S. currencies on chartered flights, under cover of darkness as the administration did on January 17, 2016, with the $400 million in ransom it paid the mullahs to release American hostages? 

At the same time that the Obama administration was denying the cash ransom delivery to Iran, it also claimed: “The reason that we had to give the cash is precisely because we were so strict in maintaining sanctions, and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money, due to the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions.” The U.S. has strict federal Anti-Money Laundering laws, requiring “banks and certain other financial institutions, which tend to have extra-territorial effect, through requirements for U.S. banks to control their relationships with correspondent and shell banks to prevent money laundering.” 

Therefore, the Obama administration instructed Treasury to find “the mechanism” through which untraceable cash could be delivered to the Iranian terrorist regime. They have willfully circumvented the U.S. and international sanctions, as well as the anti-money laundering laws, to deliver, at least, an additional $1.3 billion “settlement” to Iran through offshore clearinghouses. Was this a new arrangement or the first the public heard about such an arrangement? 

What we already know is enough to cause major concerns. But will we ever find out how much money was given to the mullahs? Probably not. 

Two years ago, as then-secretary of State John Kerry was boasting in Davos about Obama’s deal with Iran,  he acknowledged that some of the $150 billion given to the mullahs in Tehran “will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.” He was right. We don’t know how much money went to fund Iran’s global terrorist activities. And we know even less about the billions in untraceable cash that was supposedly delivered to the mullahs or the recipients of that cash. How about investigating that? There should be ample evidence to prove Kerry and his boss President Obama have willfully engaged in terrorist financing and money laundering. That is unless the pertinent emails and documents related to the payments to Iran had been lost or destroyed.

After the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was implemented on January 16, 2016,  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wished to lift all sanctions on Iran, kept complaining that “On paper the United States allows foreign banks to deal with Iran, but in practice they create Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran.” As much as the Obama administration wanted to comply, it needed congressional support to do that. Thus, the Obama administration decided to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering laws to help Iran’s economy.

Between March, 2012 and January, 2016, when the U.S. lifted the sanctions, Iranian banks had no access to the Belgium-based SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) system. During that time, according to a European oil trader, “Nobody could pay the Iranians via normal lines, not even in euros.” Yet, Iran has received billions of dollars in sanctions relief as incentives to attend negotiations with the United States and others in Geneva. In August, 2012, following a major earthquake in Iran, the Obama administration issued a 45-day general license allowing “registered NGOs to send up to $300,000 to for humanitarian relief and reconstruction activities. And what assurances were there to ensure the money got to the right hands? At that time, Treasury’s spokesman John Sullivan declared, “The license specifically forbids any dealings with entities on the OFAC SDN list such as the IRGC. There is also a mandated report to the Treasury and State Departments, so we can make sure the money does not end up in the wrong hands,” he said. However, he was not asked, and he did not give any information on how the cash was transferred to Iran.  

In early 2013, the Obama administration began transferring goods to and from Afghanistan through the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas, instead of shipping the goods through Pakistan. The administration decided to ignore the sanctions and chose the Iranian port. U.S. payments enabled the Iranians to open another port on the Gulf of Oman at Chabahar to further facilitate transshipment through Iran. How were payments made? In cash? In what currencies? If not, how did Iran access the U.S. payments? Were those payments sent in secrecy bundled cash of non-U.S. currencies on chartered flights, under cover of darkness as the administration did on January 17, 2016, with the $400 million in ransom it paid the mullahs to release American hostages? 

At the same time that the Obama administration was denying the cash ransom delivery to Iran, it also claimed: “The reason that we had to give the cash is precisely because we were so strict in maintaining sanctions, and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and we could not wire the money, due to the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions.” The U.S. has strict federal Anti-Money Laundering laws, requiring “banks and certain other financial institutions, which tend to have extra-territorial effect, through requirements for U.S. banks to control their relationships with correspondent and shell banks to prevent money laundering.” 

Therefore, the Obama administration instructed Treasury to find “the mechanism” through which untraceable cash could be delivered to the Iranian terrorist regime. They have willfully circumvented the U.S. and international sanctions, as well as the anti-money laundering laws, to deliver, at least, an additional $1.3 billion “settlement” to Iran through offshore clearinghouses. Was this a new arrangement or the first the public heard about such an arrangement? 

What we already know is enough to cause major concerns. But will we ever find out how much money was given to the mullahs? Probably not. 



Source link

A Phrase to Retire in 2018: 'Mainstream Media'


As President Trump announced his 2017 “Fake News Awards,” phrases and terms popularized over the years, such as “liberal media”; “mainstream media”; and, more recently, “fake news,” were bandied about by those on both the left and the right (especially from that extra-froth frother from the mouth Jim Acosta of CNN). 

With a new political year underway, my sincere hope is that pundits and Americans retire these labels.

The mainstream media?  Most major legacy American media, particularly newspapers and cable television news networks, are Pravda-esque publicists and cover-uppers for the Democratic Party.  As evidenced by how red the 2016 election map was, Democrat policies and politics certainly are not mainstream.

The liberal media? The original American liberals were our heroic Founders; do MSNBC, The Washington Post, and Media Matters for America really conjure up the wisdom and genius of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin?

A more fitting descriptor is the DMIC: Democrat Media Industrial Complex.  Identifying legacy media as the DMIC puts names and faces to the complex and brands the DMIC as working tirelessly at the behest of the Democratic Party.  It is a complex that runs deep and wide, with tentacles spread across every medium of communications and information flow, from tech Masters of the Universe to print to Hollywood, such as Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, and Viacom, which crafts “news” narratives the same way it crafts screenplays.  (This is the part where Democrats scream, “But Fox News!”)

The DMIC, like the Democrats whom they serve oh, so sycophantically, care rarely for opposing viewpoints. It cares rarely to spend more than a mere few minutes, if any minutes at all, on negative Democrat news stories.  The DMIC, especially the tech Masters of the Universe, are shockingly nonchalant in the glee they take in suppressing speech that runs counter to the Democratic Party’s talking points.

The DMIC’s grip on their fervently devout audience and consumer base is so airtight that I suspect that Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, would gushingly marvel at just how effective the DMIC are in mass-controlling their sheeple followers.  As WikiLeaks confirmed for all the world to see in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, the real colluders and co-conspirators were DMIC organization after organization.  Never forget Rule Number 1 of propaganda: accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of.  (Saul Alinsky, the Lucifer-admiring author of Rules for Radicals, had his own version of this, called “the issue is never the issue.”  No wonder President Obama and Hillary Clinton worshiped Alinsky.)

As I detail in my upcoming book, 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat, self-victimization is the new celebrity status.  Has President Trump been, at times, unfair to the DMIC?  Absolutely.  Have the DMIC been unfair to the president?  Duh.  Good parents teach their children that life ain’t always fair, but the unfairness toward the president isn’t what’s alarming; it’s that the DMIC, ever the victimized damsel in distress (or, in the case of The New York Times, the Gray Lady in distress), believe their own press that they’re “objective” and “truth-seekers.”  They embark on a daily crusade, with an evangelical zeal, to take down a legitimately elected president because they’re unhappy with the outcome of the election, and because they know what’s best for America.  Frightening, if you ask me.

The American’s public distrust in once-trusted media companies is irreparable. The DMIC has always been a default, convenient excuse for Republicans after election losses, and too many Republicans still don’t understand that the DMIC are not interested in the noble pursuit of The Truth.

How the DMIC covered the 2016 presidential election should be dissected and made compulsory coursework in journalism schools all across the U.S.  The problem with my suggestion is that esteemed schools of journalism are infested with deans and professors who are grooming the next generation of DMICers.

Had the DMIC done their duties based on the age-old agreed upon journalistic principles of “who, what, when, where, and why,” and had they talked to a diversity of voters who cannot afford forty-dollar vegan lunches, they would have discovered that millions upon millions of President Trump voters supported his candidacy because it was the most effective modern-day remonstrance against the irreparably leftist Democratic Party and the establishment “Et Tu, Brute” Republicans.  This truth about the president’s candidacy was obvious to me.  Perhaps it was also obvious to the DMIC, and they chose to lie by withholding this crucial detail.  The DMIC, clever as they were, knew they could not make even most Hillary Clinton voters like her; rather, they spent countless words and hours trying to make Americans hate and fear and loathe Trump, and they wrapped it up in a bow by predicting a Clinton landslide with over 90% certainty.

Rather than do their job ethically and fairly, however, by asking questions, the DMIC impugned those supporters’ integrity.  They mocked our intelligence and our patriotism.  The DMIC never even made an effort to hide their disdain, likening us to white supremacists who bring our bazookas to the local Aryan Nation book club reading of Mein Kampf.

The reality manufactured by the unethical DMIC, with an unfathomable reliance on anonymous sources, hearsay, feelings, and emotion, is wholly devoid of logic.  The fact that the DMIC are in a perpetual state of self-righteous victimhood  further underscores just how detached they are from this strange place we non-Democrats inhabit called the “real world.”

Is a free press important?  Actually, it’s beyond important.  But the DMIC confuse constitutional importance with its own self-importance and has lost that war with independent-minded Americans.

As President Trump announced his 2017 “Fake News Awards,” phrases and terms popularized over the years, such as “liberal media”; “mainstream media”; and, more recently, “fake news,” were bandied about by those on both the left and the right (especially from that extra-froth frother from the mouth Jim Acosta of CNN). 

With a new political year underway, my sincere hope is that pundits and Americans retire these labels.

The mainstream media?  Most major legacy American media, particularly newspapers and cable television news networks, are Pravda-esque publicists and cover-uppers for the Democratic Party.  As evidenced by how red the 2016 election map was, Democrat policies and politics certainly are not mainstream.

The liberal media? The original American liberals were our heroic Founders; do MSNBC, The Washington Post, and Media Matters for America really conjure up the wisdom and genius of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin?

A more fitting descriptor is the DMIC: Democrat Media Industrial Complex.  Identifying legacy media as the DMIC puts names and faces to the complex and brands the DMIC as working tirelessly at the behest of the Democratic Party.  It is a complex that runs deep and wide, with tentacles spread across every medium of communications and information flow, from tech Masters of the Universe to print to Hollywood, such as Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, and Viacom, which crafts “news” narratives the same way it crafts screenplays.  (This is the part where Democrats scream, “But Fox News!”)

The DMIC, like the Democrats whom they serve oh, so sycophantically, care rarely for opposing viewpoints. It cares rarely to spend more than a mere few minutes, if any minutes at all, on negative Democrat news stories.  The DMIC, especially the tech Masters of the Universe, are shockingly nonchalant in the glee they take in suppressing speech that runs counter to the Democratic Party’s talking points.

The DMIC’s grip on their fervently devout audience and consumer base is so airtight that I suspect that Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of propaganda, would gushingly marvel at just how effective the DMIC are in mass-controlling their sheeple followers.  As WikiLeaks confirmed for all the world to see in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, the real colluders and co-conspirators were DMIC organization after organization.  Never forget Rule Number 1 of propaganda: accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of.  (Saul Alinsky, the Lucifer-admiring author of Rules for Radicals, had his own version of this, called “the issue is never the issue.”  No wonder President Obama and Hillary Clinton worshiped Alinsky.)

As I detail in my upcoming book, 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat, self-victimization is the new celebrity status.  Has President Trump been, at times, unfair to the DMIC?  Absolutely.  Have the DMIC been unfair to the president?  Duh.  Good parents teach their children that life ain’t always fair, but the unfairness toward the president isn’t what’s alarming; it’s that the DMIC, ever the victimized damsel in distress (or, in the case of The New York Times, the Gray Lady in distress), believe their own press that they’re “objective” and “truth-seekers.”  They embark on a daily crusade, with an evangelical zeal, to take down a legitimately elected president because they’re unhappy with the outcome of the election, and because they know what’s best for America.  Frightening, if you ask me.

The American’s public distrust in once-trusted media companies is irreparable. The DMIC has always been a default, convenient excuse for Republicans after election losses, and too many Republicans still don’t understand that the DMIC are not interested in the noble pursuit of The Truth.

How the DMIC covered the 2016 presidential election should be dissected and made compulsory coursework in journalism schools all across the U.S.  The problem with my suggestion is that esteemed schools of journalism are infested with deans and professors who are grooming the next generation of DMICers.

Had the DMIC done their duties based on the age-old agreed upon journalistic principles of “who, what, when, where, and why,” and had they talked to a diversity of voters who cannot afford forty-dollar vegan lunches, they would have discovered that millions upon millions of President Trump voters supported his candidacy because it was the most effective modern-day remonstrance against the irreparably leftist Democratic Party and the establishment “Et Tu, Brute” Republicans.  This truth about the president’s candidacy was obvious to me.  Perhaps it was also obvious to the DMIC, and they chose to lie by withholding this crucial detail.  The DMIC, clever as they were, knew they could not make even most Hillary Clinton voters like her; rather, they spent countless words and hours trying to make Americans hate and fear and loathe Trump, and they wrapped it up in a bow by predicting a Clinton landslide with over 90% certainty.

Rather than do their job ethically and fairly, however, by asking questions, the DMIC impugned those supporters’ integrity.  They mocked our intelligence and our patriotism.  The DMIC never even made an effort to hide their disdain, likening us to white supremacists who bring our bazookas to the local Aryan Nation book club reading of Mein Kampf.

The reality manufactured by the unethical DMIC, with an unfathomable reliance on anonymous sources, hearsay, feelings, and emotion, is wholly devoid of logic.  The fact that the DMIC are in a perpetual state of self-righteous victimhood  further underscores just how detached they are from this strange place we non-Democrats inhabit called the “real world.”

Is a free press important?  Actually, it’s beyond important.  But the DMIC confuse constitutional importance with its own self-importance and has lost that war with independent-minded Americans.



Source link

Three Ways to Stop the DACA Nightmare


The “dreamer” debate is raging as the nation contemplates what to do with the 800,000 young people who came to America illegally as children alone or with parents or relatives.  

Of course, this debate was foreseen. The Obama administration broke the immigration rules with its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in which young people who arrived in America illegally with their parents might apply to stay in America upon reaching age 15 for two-year renewable periods.

The program does not offer any legal status or path to citizenship. It merely allows young people to live in America without actually being Americans.

This legal limbo logically led to the present scenario. There are now hundreds of thousands of young adults living for years as Americans clamoring for amnesty so that they might be transformed from de facto residents into future citizens.  

Falsely framing the debate as one over the welfare of the children, liberals have turned these adolescents and young adults into pawns in a political game. The issue is now dividing the nation into those who want to offer the DACA recipients Christian compassion and those who insist upon the rule of law.

What needs to be done now and in the future is to take away all the conditions that led to the DACA debacle. The causes of the dreamer nightmare must be addressed and kept from ever happening again.   

Empty the Debate of Sentimental Content

There are three ways to curtail the DACA nightmare.

First, as in all legal matters, minors must be represented by their lawful parents or legal guardians, not put on a separate path. DACA encourages the separation of the teenager from their illegal parents. It necessarily breaks up families, by giving a deferment to one but not the other. The real face of DACA is that it works against children, not for them. It provides legal security to neither parent nor child.    

By following an immigration policy that keeps minors as they should be, under a guardian, the debate will be emptied of the fuzzy sentimental content of false compassion for “children” that makes rational debate possible.

Remove the Umbrella of Time

The second thing to be addressed is the umbrella of time. Part of the problem with the DACA nightmare is that it shelters the “dreamers” with two-year renewable deferments that keeps them out of the reach of the law. This legal limbo provides a shield for them to establish deep roots in a society of which they are not legally a part. They accustom themselves to American culture, schools and language under the DACA umbrella going through the cruel illusion they are becoming Americans without actually doing so.  

This umbrella must be withdrawn to take away the element of time that tends to normalize irregular situations and create illusions. Immigration policy toward minors or young adults should be clear, quick, and unambiguous to allow them to plan their future. It cannot cruelly linger on and on like the DACA executive order that forces minors to live without definition under a Damocles’ sword. 

Never Reward the Breaking of the Law

Finally, the third thing that must be done to end the Dreamer nightmare is never to reward those who break the law either directly or indirectly. Respect for the law is one of the foundations of a civilized political order. When the rule of law is disregarded, as in the case of parents who enter illegally with their children, it is a matter that affects the common good. Children are taught no good lessons when they see the illegal acts of their parents rewarded with benefits.    

Thus, any measure taken by Congress needs to consider that breaking the law cannot be rewarded. The government cannot treat those children illegally brought into the country in the same manner as those who came in legally. Any alternatives offered to those under DACA should not allow them to cut in front of the line of those minors and young adults who have followed all the proper procedures legally seeking residence and citizenship.

It is also proper regarding law to penalize those who break it. New legislation might consider opening residency avenues while significantly delaying possible citizenship opportunities to qualified DACA recipients (who were never promised citizenship) or require special vetting to ensure fairness in dealing with all immigrants.

Providing Better Alternatives

By depriving future immigration legislation of its emotional content, rational debate can proceed unimpeded. Likewise, clear and timely treatment of immigrants is essential to guarantee fairness and planning for the future. Above all, the respect for the law must be maintained. It is this very respect that attracts so many immigrants to America. It would be a great injustice to use the very immigration system itself to undermine that rule of law under which so many long to live.

The DACA debate bitterly divides the nation because it presents false options. The DACA nightmare can be avoided by rejecting its false premises. Americans must dream of better alternatives outside the DACA box and under the rule of law.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

The “dreamer” debate is raging as the nation contemplates what to do with the 800,000 young people who came to America illegally as children alone or with parents or relatives.  

Of course, this debate was foreseen. The Obama administration broke the immigration rules with its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, in which young people who arrived in America illegally with their parents might apply to stay in America upon reaching age 15 for two-year renewable periods.

The program does not offer any legal status or path to citizenship. It merely allows young people to live in America without actually being Americans.

This legal limbo logically led to the present scenario. There are now hundreds of thousands of young adults living for years as Americans clamoring for amnesty so that they might be transformed from de facto residents into future citizens.  

Falsely framing the debate as one over the welfare of the children, liberals have turned these adolescents and young adults into pawns in a political game. The issue is now dividing the nation into those who want to offer the DACA recipients Christian compassion and those who insist upon the rule of law.

What needs to be done now and in the future is to take away all the conditions that led to the DACA debacle. The causes of the dreamer nightmare must be addressed and kept from ever happening again.   

Empty the Debate of Sentimental Content

There are three ways to curtail the DACA nightmare.

First, as in all legal matters, minors must be represented by their lawful parents or legal guardians, not put on a separate path. DACA encourages the separation of the teenager from their illegal parents. It necessarily breaks up families, by giving a deferment to one but not the other. The real face of DACA is that it works against children, not for them. It provides legal security to neither parent nor child.    

By following an immigration policy that keeps minors as they should be, under a guardian, the debate will be emptied of the fuzzy sentimental content of false compassion for “children” that makes rational debate possible.

Remove the Umbrella of Time

The second thing to be addressed is the umbrella of time. Part of the problem with the DACA nightmare is that it shelters the “dreamers” with two-year renewable deferments that keeps them out of the reach of the law. This legal limbo provides a shield for them to establish deep roots in a society of which they are not legally a part. They accustom themselves to American culture, schools and language under the DACA umbrella going through the cruel illusion they are becoming Americans without actually doing so.  

This umbrella must be withdrawn to take away the element of time that tends to normalize irregular situations and create illusions. Immigration policy toward minors or young adults should be clear, quick, and unambiguous to allow them to plan their future. It cannot cruelly linger on and on like the DACA executive order that forces minors to live without definition under a Damocles’ sword. 

Never Reward the Breaking of the Law

Finally, the third thing that must be done to end the Dreamer nightmare is never to reward those who break the law either directly or indirectly. Respect for the law is one of the foundations of a civilized political order. When the rule of law is disregarded, as in the case of parents who enter illegally with their children, it is a matter that affects the common good. Children are taught no good lessons when they see the illegal acts of their parents rewarded with benefits.    

Thus, any measure taken by Congress needs to consider that breaking the law cannot be rewarded. The government cannot treat those children illegally brought into the country in the same manner as those who came in legally. Any alternatives offered to those under DACA should not allow them to cut in front of the line of those minors and young adults who have followed all the proper procedures legally seeking residence and citizenship.

It is also proper regarding law to penalize those who break it. New legislation might consider opening residency avenues while significantly delaying possible citizenship opportunities to qualified DACA recipients (who were never promised citizenship) or require special vetting to ensure fairness in dealing with all immigrants.

Providing Better Alternatives

By depriving future immigration legislation of its emotional content, rational debate can proceed unimpeded. Likewise, clear and timely treatment of immigrants is essential to guarantee fairness and planning for the future. Above all, the respect for the law must be maintained. It is this very respect that attracts so many immigrants to America. It would be a great injustice to use the very immigration system itself to undermine that rule of law under which so many long to live.

The DACA debate bitterly divides the nation because it presents false options. The DACA nightmare can be avoided by rejecting its false premises. Americans must dream of better alternatives outside the DACA box and under the rule of law.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.



Source link