Day: February 3, 2018

Other Secrets of the FBI


First, many well-known pundits, including the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and (very recently) Sebastian Gorka (@ 5:03), former deputy assistant to President Trump, have claimed that the FBI failed to place former Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton under oath when they interviewed her, the idea being that because of this she is not subject to prosecution in the same way former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn was.

This is simply incorrect. It is a crime to make even an unsworn false statement to the FBI under 18 USC §1001, the False Statement Act. Oaths are not necessary under this act. Moreover, oaths are not administered by FBI agents. It is doubtful that they even could be. Thus, Mrs. Clinton remains liable under the False Statement Act for any false statements made to the FBI — and not only to the FBI, inasmuch as the statute actually covers statements made to other agencies as well.

For instance, Mrs. Clinton stated to the Inspector General of the State Department that she turned all her government emails over to the Department of State. Yet the FBI found she did not turn over 17,000 of them.

That is not to say that there is not something bizarre at the very least regarding General Flynn’s being prosecuted for violation of the False Statements Act while Mrs. Clinton is not. After all, the underlying activity of Flynn was not only legal, but it was what he should have been doing as the incoming National Security Advisor: he was in contact with a Russian ambassador in order to support U.S. policy — Obama’s policy. Whereas the underlying activity of Mrs. Clinton was  1) her felonious failure to comply with the Federal Records Act, 2) thwart Freedom of Information Act inquiries, and 3) to be at the least grossly negligent regarding the handling of classified material in her possession, also a felony under the Espionage Act. Given recent revelations, this disparity is troubling at best, and at worst — and it probably is the latter — is, given recent revelations, evidence of extreme bias if not corruption.

(As a former law professor and dean I cannot resist adding that I completely agree with Stephen R. Morrison of UND law school that the False Statements Act “relies only on prosecutorial forbearance and discretion to prevent its abuse.” (p. 111) Moreover, in order to prevent abuse, the Act’s purpose should be narrowly construed (and not widely as it was with Flynn). As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated, the Act really was designed to protect agencies of the United States government from becoming “victim[s] of some positive statement which has the tendency and effect of perverting normal and proper governmental activities and functions.” (Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398 at 400). Such an interpretation would have protected Flynn but would still have reached Mrs. Clinton.)

Time to move on to the next “secret.” This one facilitated the faking of an espionage investigation.

The FBI is a topsy-turvy organization. It may be hard to believe, but the shots are called by the people who would appear to be at the bottom of the organizational chart. That is, cases are assigned to regular, field office, agents: it is the case agent, not some “boss,” who decides how to conduct the investigation. This involves the steps taken, the investigative techniques used, and their timing. Thus, investigations are not “driven” from the top down.

Supervisors do have legitimate functions, of course. Primary among them is to assure the investigative techniques used are appropriate, lawful, and authorized. Certain techniques or even simple interviews in some circumstances require approval of officials “higher up” the organizational structure. There is nothing wrong with this: the more sensitive an investigatory technique, the more a dutiful agent would want to have the proposal reviewed.

Therefore, one can say that the investigation of cases in the FBI is decentralized. The FBI is further decentralized because its local offices, called field offices, are all administered as separate units. This is where the case agent is permanently assigned and out of which investigations are conducted.

All of this militates towards an apolitical, unbiased, disposition. The typical FBI field office agent cares little about his “higher ups” at FBIHQ. Such agents have dedicated their careers toward being “witnesses to the truth,” and the field office agent knows that those at FBIHQ are not better agents than he is. Indeed, they typically have less experience, since they opted for management at some point in their careers while the case agent remained an active investigator. Another thing to bear in mind is that FBI agents are both competitive and attuned to their surroundings. Any attempt to interfere, in a biased or corrupt way, with an investigation at a field office would be difficult to do quietly.

But if the FBI’s field offices are apolitical, its headquarters is the exact opposite. Indeed, FBIHQ can be described as being nothing but political. It has been since day one. Even back in 1993 FBIHQ was described as being extremely attuned to the political winds — although in that context it was largely legitimate — to obtain additional funding, to respond to legitimate criticism. (There is a difference between being politically attuned versus being biased.) 

It is clear then, that the field office is where cases are investigated, not at FBIHQ; further, investigations are not top-driven. It is also clear that field offices are largely apolitical whereas FBIHQ is exactly the opposite by nature. This dichotomy of function has made it difficult for political bias to impose itself. To put it more strongly, this framework makes it quite difficult for any group — or cabal — to corrupt an FBI investigation.

It therefore remains quite striking, as some have sought to deny, that the Mrs. Clinton servergate espionage investigation was conducted directly from FBIHQ and therefore outside of the aforesaid usual and normal framework.  

Now, from time to time, some investigations have been so conducted. It may make some sense to have an investigation conducted from FBIHQ; for instance, when an investigation stretches across several field offices (the crash of TWA Flight 800) or if it involves an occurrence outside of the United States (the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen).

But these two investigations — concerning the Cole and TWA 800 — were complex investigations. Yet there was nothing complex per se about the Clinton servergate-espionage investigation. It was such an open-shut affair that even given the massaged and extremely fake FBIHQ-run investigation there was such overwhelming evidence of guilt that Comey had to resort to the most fervid tergiversations in order to evade recommending indictment.

Therefore it is not quite correct to say, “The Mrs. Clinton espionage investigation was fake because it was conducted out of FBIHQ.” It is, however, not at all incorrect to say, “Because the Mrs. Clinton espionage investigation was conducted out of FBIHQ, it was easier to politicize it, to massage it, and indeed to corrupt it.”

The next and last topic involves the investigation of the Trump campaign and administration by a special counsel foisted upon us by that hapless Rod Rosenstein.

Most people do not realize that the FBI’s most important function is that of counterintelligence. It is the FBI and not some other agency which must counter — must fight — the professional intelligence services of other nations operating in and against the United States.

Theoretically, there are two ways to go about doing this. One is to investigate every American. After all, the foreign intelligence officers need to obtain the nation’s secrets or subvert its processes, and it can’t do that without the help, witting or unwitting, of Americans.

But that approach would be, to say the least, un-American.

The other approach is to watch the foreign intelligence officers.

The usual rules do not apply in the spooky world. Foreign intelligence officers need not be suspected of a crime to be investigated. Their phones can be “tapped,” as it were, pursuant to orders not from a regular court, but from the FISA court. Any activities they engage in to influence anything at all would be monitored and even countered.

Most Americans, one would think, understand, in some inchoate manner, that it is always possible that some foreign spook has or may try to harm America. They are not against the idea that this be looked at. This attitude is not incorrect.

And indeed the Special Counsel’s unpredicated investigation is maintained by this attitude. It holds on to its last shreds of legitimacy only by means of it. Yet it rests upon a perversion of the usual FBI counterintelligence mandate. We as a people do not investigate each other just on the odd chance that someone somewhere is guilty of something. That would be a witch hunt.

The author is a former FBI agent, awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During these last few days, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been the center of attention as perhaps never before. As this is being written, a memo may be released pertaining to the FBI that may prove to be the most scandalous of all time.

This article seeks not to reveal classified or formerly classified material, but to impart a better understanding of recent events relating to the FBI. Some of the topics covered are secrets in the sense that many people who should know better have fixed ideas that are wrong about the FBI. Other topics are simply not known to the general public. In both cases a better understanding of these topics will allow for a better and more-informed general discussion concerning all matters pertaining to that institution.

First, many well-known pundits, including the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and (very recently) Sebastian Gorka (@ 5:03), former deputy assistant to President Trump, have claimed that the FBI failed to place former Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton under oath when they interviewed her, the idea being that because of this she is not subject to prosecution in the same way former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn was.

This is simply incorrect. It is a crime to make even an unsworn false statement to the FBI under 18 USC §1001, the False Statement Act. Oaths are not necessary under this act. Moreover, oaths are not administered by FBI agents. It is doubtful that they even could be. Thus, Mrs. Clinton remains liable under the False Statement Act for any false statements made to the FBI — and not only to the FBI, inasmuch as the statute actually covers statements made to other agencies as well.

For instance, Mrs. Clinton stated to the Inspector General of the State Department that she turned all her government emails over to the Department of State. Yet the FBI found she did not turn over 17,000 of them.

That is not to say that there is not something bizarre at the very least regarding General Flynn’s being prosecuted for violation of the False Statements Act while Mrs. Clinton is not. After all, the underlying activity of Flynn was not only legal, but it was what he should have been doing as the incoming National Security Advisor: he was in contact with a Russian ambassador in order to support U.S. policy — Obama’s policy. Whereas the underlying activity of Mrs. Clinton was  1) her felonious failure to comply with the Federal Records Act, 2) thwart Freedom of Information Act inquiries, and 3) to be at the least grossly negligent regarding the handling of classified material in her possession, also a felony under the Espionage Act. Given recent revelations, this disparity is troubling at best, and at worst — and it probably is the latter — is, given recent revelations, evidence of extreme bias if not corruption.

(As a former law professor and dean I cannot resist adding that I completely agree with Stephen R. Morrison of UND law school that the False Statements Act “relies only on prosecutorial forbearance and discretion to prevent its abuse.” (p. 111) Moreover, in order to prevent abuse, the Act’s purpose should be narrowly construed (and not widely as it was with Flynn). As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated, the Act really was designed to protect agencies of the United States government from becoming “victim[s] of some positive statement which has the tendency and effect of perverting normal and proper governmental activities and functions.” (Brogan v. U.S., 522 U.S. 398 at 400). Such an interpretation would have protected Flynn but would still have reached Mrs. Clinton.)

Time to move on to the next “secret.” This one facilitated the faking of an espionage investigation.

The FBI is a topsy-turvy organization. It may be hard to believe, but the shots are called by the people who would appear to be at the bottom of the organizational chart. That is, cases are assigned to regular, field office, agents: it is the case agent, not some “boss,” who decides how to conduct the investigation. This involves the steps taken, the investigative techniques used, and their timing. Thus, investigations are not “driven” from the top down.

Supervisors do have legitimate functions, of course. Primary among them is to assure the investigative techniques used are appropriate, lawful, and authorized. Certain techniques or even simple interviews in some circumstances require approval of officials “higher up” the organizational structure. There is nothing wrong with this: the more sensitive an investigatory technique, the more a dutiful agent would want to have the proposal reviewed.

Therefore, one can say that the investigation of cases in the FBI is decentralized. The FBI is further decentralized because its local offices, called field offices, are all administered as separate units. This is where the case agent is permanently assigned and out of which investigations are conducted.

All of this militates towards an apolitical, unbiased, disposition. The typical FBI field office agent cares little about his “higher ups” at FBIHQ. Such agents have dedicated their careers toward being “witnesses to the truth,” and the field office agent knows that those at FBIHQ are not better agents than he is. Indeed, they typically have less experience, since they opted for management at some point in their careers while the case agent remained an active investigator. Another thing to bear in mind is that FBI agents are both competitive and attuned to their surroundings. Any attempt to interfere, in a biased or corrupt way, with an investigation at a field office would be difficult to do quietly.

But if the FBI’s field offices are apolitical, its headquarters is the exact opposite. Indeed, FBIHQ can be described as being nothing but political. It has been since day one. Even back in 1993 FBIHQ was described as being extremely attuned to the political winds — although in that context it was largely legitimate — to obtain additional funding, to respond to legitimate criticism. (There is a difference between being politically attuned versus being biased.) 

It is clear then, that the field office is where cases are investigated, not at FBIHQ; further, investigations are not top-driven. It is also clear that field offices are largely apolitical whereas FBIHQ is exactly the opposite by nature. This dichotomy of function has made it difficult for political bias to impose itself. To put it more strongly, this framework makes it quite difficult for any group — or cabal — to corrupt an FBI investigation.

It therefore remains quite striking, as some have sought to deny, that the Mrs. Clinton servergate espionage investigation was conducted directly from FBIHQ and therefore outside of the aforesaid usual and normal framework.  

Now, from time to time, some investigations have been so conducted. It may make some sense to have an investigation conducted from FBIHQ; for instance, when an investigation stretches across several field offices (the crash of TWA Flight 800) or if it involves an occurrence outside of the United States (the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen).

But these two investigations — concerning the Cole and TWA 800 — were complex investigations. Yet there was nothing complex per se about the Clinton servergate-espionage investigation. It was such an open-shut affair that even given the massaged and extremely fake FBIHQ-run investigation there was such overwhelming evidence of guilt that Comey had to resort to the most fervid tergiversations in order to evade recommending indictment.

Therefore it is not quite correct to say, “The Mrs. Clinton espionage investigation was fake because it was conducted out of FBIHQ.” It is, however, not at all incorrect to say, “Because the Mrs. Clinton espionage investigation was conducted out of FBIHQ, it was easier to politicize it, to massage it, and indeed to corrupt it.”

The next and last topic involves the investigation of the Trump campaign and administration by a special counsel foisted upon us by that hapless Rod Rosenstein.

Most people do not realize that the FBI’s most important function is that of counterintelligence. It is the FBI and not some other agency which must counter — must fight — the professional intelligence services of other nations operating in and against the United States.

Theoretically, there are two ways to go about doing this. One is to investigate every American. After all, the foreign intelligence officers need to obtain the nation’s secrets or subvert its processes, and it can’t do that without the help, witting or unwitting, of Americans.

But that approach would be, to say the least, un-American.

The other approach is to watch the foreign intelligence officers.

The usual rules do not apply in the spooky world. Foreign intelligence officers need not be suspected of a crime to be investigated. Their phones can be “tapped,” as it were, pursuant to orders not from a regular court, but from the FISA court. Any activities they engage in to influence anything at all would be monitored and even countered.

Most Americans, one would think, understand, in some inchoate manner, that it is always possible that some foreign spook has or may try to harm America. They are not against the idea that this be looked at. This attitude is not incorrect.

And indeed the Special Counsel’s unpredicated investigation is maintained by this attitude. It holds on to its last shreds of legitimacy only by means of it. Yet it rests upon a perversion of the usual FBI counterintelligence mandate. We as a people do not investigate each other just on the odd chance that someone somewhere is guilty of something. That would be a witch hunt.

The author is a former FBI agent, awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Source link

Things Your Professor Didn’t Tell You About Climate Change


Davos 2018 is gone, but not forgotten. This year’s World Economic Forum provided yet another opportunity for those who believe in apocalyptic climate change to harangue us about the evils of greenhouse gases amid warnings the world will end in 2050 or 2100 or one of these days when it gets warm enough. Most striking is the annual spectacle of the world’s wealthy and privileged disembarking from their fuel-gulping private jets and limousines or emerging from luxury hotel suites, to proclaim the world must cut back on the use of fossil fuels, or to question why the world’s common people do not feel as deeply or passionately about climate change as they do.

Other than a propensity for believing everything they are told, why are these people so agitated?

If you look at climate change predictions, almost all of them are bad. Critics refer to these views collectively as climate alarmism. Alarmists believe the Earth’s climate is warming because greenhouse gases are being added to the atmosphere through human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. They claim unless the buildup of greenhouse gases is stopped, global temperatures will begin to rise exponentially, which will have terrible consequences, such as major flora and fauna extinctions, coastal inundation caused by melting ice caps, heatwaves, drought, famine, economic collapse, war, and the potential for human extinction.

The basis for many of these predictions are the reports issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One of the functions of the IPCC is to model the Earth’s climate to predict changes in global temperature. Although the Earth is warming a bit, their models always seem to be more enthusiastic about warming than the Earth appears to be. In fact, a recent study from the UK suggests climate models factor in too much warming.

In science, if a hypothesis is proposed and predictions based on that hypothesis happen as predicted, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If not, the hypothesis is rejected. Not so with global warming. When global temperatures fail to meet the IPCC’s model predictions, they simply move the prediction date out into the future, all the while making it clear the global warming apocalypse is still coming.

Speaking of ominous, in 2006 former vice-president and climate change activist Al Gore claimed:

Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases in the next ten years, the world will reach a point of no return.

I doubt that point was reached a few weeks ago when I shoveled a surprise blanket of frozen climate change off my driveway. Fortunately, this and many of Gore’s other ominous climate predictions, have not come true.

So, what do we really know?

First, we know the percentage of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are approximately 45% higher now than they were 150 years ago, likely caused by the burning of fossil fuels during the twentieth century and recent industrialization in Asia.

Even though the present warming trend may be linked to rising amounts of CO2, this is an unproven hypothesis, not settled science. Scientists are still arguing over surface temperature data, including the way it is collected, adjusted, and interpreted; whether CO2 is affecting global temperatures as much as believed; and if water vapor, which humans have no control over, really dominates the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Incidentally, the news about carbon dioxide is not all bad. An international study found plant life thriving worldwide thanks to higher CO2 levels.

We know the Sun has a larger effect on the Earth’s climate than anything else. Small changes in solar insolation due to variations in the Sun’s energy output or cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit, known as the Milankovitch Cycles, can make a big difference in the surface temperature. Yes, greenhouse gasses, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, and many other things can affect the climate, but the Sun is still the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

We live in an ice age. Over the last 450,000 years the ‘normal’ average global temperature has been approximately 5 degrees Centigrade cooler than it is today. During that time our climate cycled between long cool periods, known as glacials, which can last 50,000-100,000 years, and shorter warm periods called interglacials, which usually last between 10,000-20,000 years. During glacial periods glaciers and continental ice sheets develop and grow. During interglacial periods, like the one we are experiencing now, the Earth warms and sea level rises as most of the ice melts.

We know, due to the above-mentioned factors and other natural climate oscillations, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the 11-year Sunspot Cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and perhaps the De Vries Solar Cycle, the world’s climate continually changes. This means the present warming trend could be a natural climate oscillation unrelated to CO2 or possibly a combination of both.

One of those oscillations occurred between 1940 and 1977 as the Earth went through a minor cooling trend, possibly linked to the PDO. This prompted a global cooling scare as scientists feared we were sliding into another glacial period.

We are fairly certain the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is today, perhaps as recently as 950 -1250 AD during the Medieval Warm Period, or 5000-8000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, or during the Eemian Interglacial Period around 130,000-125,000 years ago.

We are also certain sea level was higher in the past than it is today. In their 2014 Climate Report the IPCC claims:

Maximum global mean sea level during the last interglacial period (129,000 to 116,000 years ago) was, for several thousand years, at least 5 m higher than present.

So, if the Earth was naturally warmer in the past and sea level was higher, both without extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, doesn’t this cast doubt on the CO2 apocalypse?

One item of concern is sea level, which has risen a bit over eight inches since 1880. Alarmists point out roughly ten percent of the world’s population live near the ocean at elevations of ten meters or less, and they present this information as if sea level rise is an imminent threat.

The present accepted rate of sea-level rise is about the thickness of two pennies stacked one on top of the other, around 3 millimeters per year. At this rate, sea level would rise barely 9 inches by 2100, meaning New York City, average elevation 10 meters, would be flooded in a little over 3,000 years. The point is this is a slow-motion process and something we can deal with.

To sum up, there are plenty of reasons to doubt human activities are the sole cause of climate change. If you are feeling anxious or guilty because of alarmist predictions, relax. The climate will continue to warm and cool and it is a good bet Mother Nature will be the one in the driver’s seat. If you still want to be an eco-warrior, recycle, plant a tree, and try to be energy efficient. It is good for the planet.

Davos 2018 is gone, but not forgotten. This year’s World Economic Forum provided yet another opportunity for those who believe in apocalyptic climate change to harangue us about the evils of greenhouse gases amid warnings the world will end in 2050 or 2100 or one of these days when it gets warm enough. Most striking is the annual spectacle of the world’s wealthy and privileged disembarking from their fuel-gulping private jets and limousines or emerging from luxury hotel suites, to proclaim the world must cut back on the use of fossil fuels, or to question why the world’s common people do not feel as deeply or passionately about climate change as they do.

Other than a propensity for believing everything they are told, why are these people so agitated?

If you look at climate change predictions, almost all of them are bad. Critics refer to these views collectively as climate alarmism. Alarmists believe the Earth’s climate is warming because greenhouse gases are being added to the atmosphere through human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. They claim unless the buildup of greenhouse gases is stopped, global temperatures will begin to rise exponentially, which will have terrible consequences, such as major flora and fauna extinctions, coastal inundation caused by melting ice caps, heatwaves, drought, famine, economic collapse, war, and the potential for human extinction.

The basis for many of these predictions are the reports issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One of the functions of the IPCC is to model the Earth’s climate to predict changes in global temperature. Although the Earth is warming a bit, their models always seem to be more enthusiastic about warming than the Earth appears to be. In fact, a recent study from the UK suggests climate models factor in too much warming.

In science, if a hypothesis is proposed and predictions based on that hypothesis happen as predicted, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If not, the hypothesis is rejected. Not so with global warming. When global temperatures fail to meet the IPCC’s model predictions, they simply move the prediction date out into the future, all the while making it clear the global warming apocalypse is still coming.

Speaking of ominous, in 2006 former vice-president and climate change activist Al Gore claimed:

Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases in the next ten years, the world will reach a point of no return.

I doubt that point was reached a few weeks ago when I shoveled a surprise blanket of frozen climate change off my driveway. Fortunately, this and many of Gore’s other ominous climate predictions, have not come true.

So, what do we really know?

First, we know the percentage of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are approximately 45% higher now than they were 150 years ago, likely caused by the burning of fossil fuels during the twentieth century and recent industrialization in Asia.

Even though the present warming trend may be linked to rising amounts of CO2, this is an unproven hypothesis, not settled science. Scientists are still arguing over surface temperature data, including the way it is collected, adjusted, and interpreted; whether CO2 is affecting global temperatures as much as believed; and if water vapor, which humans have no control over, really dominates the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Incidentally, the news about carbon dioxide is not all bad. An international study found plant life thriving worldwide thanks to higher CO2 levels.

We know the Sun has a larger effect on the Earth’s climate than anything else. Small changes in solar insolation due to variations in the Sun’s energy output or cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit, known as the Milankovitch Cycles, can make a big difference in the surface temperature. Yes, greenhouse gasses, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, and many other things can affect the climate, but the Sun is still the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

We live in an ice age. Over the last 450,000 years the ‘normal’ average global temperature has been approximately 5 degrees Centigrade cooler than it is today. During that time our climate cycled between long cool periods, known as glacials, which can last 50,000-100,000 years, and shorter warm periods called interglacials, which usually last between 10,000-20,000 years. During glacial periods glaciers and continental ice sheets develop and grow. During interglacial periods, like the one we are experiencing now, the Earth warms and sea level rises as most of the ice melts.

We know, due to the above-mentioned factors and other natural climate oscillations, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the 11-year Sunspot Cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and perhaps the De Vries Solar Cycle, the world’s climate continually changes. This means the present warming trend could be a natural climate oscillation unrelated to CO2 or possibly a combination of both.

One of those oscillations occurred between 1940 and 1977 as the Earth went through a minor cooling trend, possibly linked to the PDO. This prompted a global cooling scare as scientists feared we were sliding into another glacial period.

We are fairly certain the Earth has been warmer in the past than it is today, perhaps as recently as 950 -1250 AD during the Medieval Warm Period, or 5000-8000 years ago during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, or during the Eemian Interglacial Period around 130,000-125,000 years ago.

We are also certain sea level was higher in the past than it is today. In their 2014 Climate Report the IPCC claims:

Maximum global mean sea level during the last interglacial period (129,000 to 116,000 years ago) was, for several thousand years, at least 5 m higher than present.

So, if the Earth was naturally warmer in the past and sea level was higher, both without extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, doesn’t this cast doubt on the CO2 apocalypse?

One item of concern is sea level, which has risen a bit over eight inches since 1880. Alarmists point out roughly ten percent of the world’s population live near the ocean at elevations of ten meters or less, and they present this information as if sea level rise is an imminent threat.

The present accepted rate of sea-level rise is about the thickness of two pennies stacked one on top of the other, around 3 millimeters per year. At this rate, sea level would rise barely 9 inches by 2100, meaning New York City, average elevation 10 meters, would be flooded in a little over 3,000 years. The point is this is a slow-motion process and something we can deal with.

To sum up, there are plenty of reasons to doubt human activities are the sole cause of climate change. If you are feeling anxious or guilty because of alarmist predictions, relax. The climate will continue to warm and cool and it is a good bet Mother Nature will be the one in the driver’s seat. If you still want to be an eco-warrior, recycle, plant a tree, and try to be energy efficient. It is good for the planet.



Source link

Adolescent Jack-booted thugs vs. 'Dead White Guys'


The progressive infotech barons at Twitter, Google, and Facebook have seized the moral high ground and taken it upon themselves to “save” the world from exposure to free expression by those on the political right through the use of censorship and manipulation. This attempt by the left to control speech is not new, as the entertainment/media complex has been engaged in a similar process for decades. That group includes a growing list of leftists who are currently being exposed with allegations of sexual misconduct, rape, and even pedophilia. One must inquire how is it that the most progressive, tolerant, and fair-minded people on the planet in the universe could be capable of such intolerant and/or wicked behavior?

If we’re to accept the narrative of the left (and let’s face it, the left controls the narrative), it creates the image that the political right is the home of racism, sexism, greed, and every other societal ill that one can dream up. Alternatively, on the political left, we’re led to believe there exists only kindness, acceptance, fairness, equality of outcome, and all else that resides within their imagined realm of rainbows and unicorns.

But what is the actual difference between left-wing and right-wing and why does it matter? The only consistent definition I find is that on the far right there is zero government control — anarchy — and on the far left there is 100% government control — totalitarianism. Sure, groups like Antifa and BLM may utilize anarchy, but they’re just a proxy for the left as their goal is to smash our existing republic and bring about total government control from the ashes.

The reason it matters is because while the political spectrum is clearly variable, the one constant in the equation is human nature. This means that while progressives would claim otherwise, throughout the entirety of the political spectrum exists the potential for all the good and simultaneously all the bad that human nature is capable of (Just imagine a Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner having total control over an agency formed for the protection of young aspiring actresses).

With that said, what could a group of right-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes accomplish at the helm of a representative republic such as the United States? No matter what the adolescent jack-booted thugs say, these right-wingers wouldn’t have the power to extinguish peoples’ liberty en masse. They would need to openly bypass the Constitution to move forward with whatever evil agenda they had in mind. In other words, they would need to become left-wingers to do so.

Alternatively, what could a group of left-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes do to the people if in control of our government? Fortunately, the “dead white guys” of yesteryear fully understood that power tends to attract the worst elements of human nature, hence, our right-of-center republic with a well-defined main purpose of protecting the inalienable rights of the people. This makes the adolescent jack-booted thug’s aspirations much more difficult. The freedom to conduct voluntary transactions within a free market, protected by the rule of law may be imperfect and sometimes progresses much slower (see Hollywood) than so-called progressives would prefer, but it’s still the best option available to humanity as Milton Friedman often argued.

But progressives and adolescent jack-booted thugs alike loathe the Constitution for its lack of positive rights among other reasons and have pushed the U.S. further and further to the left after having gained a strong foothold in media, academia, Hollywood, government, and now the info-tech world.

Again, you get all the good with all the bad and every time progressives have forced the pendulum leftward in the U.S., the results have enabled oppressions such as the Sedition Act of 1918; Jim Crow laws; the internment of Japanese; the targeting of conservatives by the IRS under Obama and most recently: the cover up of Hillary’s email and Uranium One scandals and attempted coup on the Trump presidency by the previous administration and its current holdovers.

Sure, there are racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes on both sides of the political isle — because of human nature. To be clear: atrocities committed by individuals who happen to be right-wing will always be unacceptable within a civil society, but the key is that their actions would be inconsequential on a societal scale under the protections of our right-of-center republic. On the other hand, the very same left-wing “progressive” promises have been tried repeatedly and consequentially, during the 20th century alone, more than 100 million people perished under Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and others.

So, why do progressives direct all this hatred, fear and lies toward those on the right side of the political spectrum? It’s about the fear of losing control (think money-skimming, cronyism and power) and a hatred for an individualism that allows the freedom to ignore the “suggestions” of really, really, smart progressives.

Fortunately, adolescent jack-booted thugs must still operate within a voluntary marketplace and have no dictatorial power beyond their fancy boardrooms. Piss off enough customers and they will seek alternatives, which is why fully mature jack-booted thugs require total government control over the masses. That control is only derived from the left side of the political spectrum and needs to be prevented at all costs as those “dead white guys” figured out more than two centuries ago.

Scott blogs at www.politiseeds.com

The progressive infotech barons at Twitter, Google, and Facebook have seized the moral high ground and taken it upon themselves to “save” the world from exposure to free expression by those on the political right through the use of censorship and manipulation. This attempt by the left to control speech is not new, as the entertainment/media complex has been engaged in a similar process for decades. That group includes a growing list of leftists who are currently being exposed with allegations of sexual misconduct, rape, and even pedophilia. One must inquire how is it that the most progressive, tolerant, and fair-minded people on the planet in the universe could be capable of such intolerant and/or wicked behavior?

If we’re to accept the narrative of the left (and let’s face it, the left controls the narrative), it creates the image that the political right is the home of racism, sexism, greed, and every other societal ill that one can dream up. Alternatively, on the political left, we’re led to believe there exists only kindness, acceptance, fairness, equality of outcome, and all else that resides within their imagined realm of rainbows and unicorns.

But what is the actual difference between left-wing and right-wing and why does it matter? The only consistent definition I find is that on the far right there is zero government control — anarchy — and on the far left there is 100% government control — totalitarianism. Sure, groups like Antifa and BLM may utilize anarchy, but they’re just a proxy for the left as their goal is to smash our existing republic and bring about total government control from the ashes.

The reason it matters is because while the political spectrum is clearly variable, the one constant in the equation is human nature. This means that while progressives would claim otherwise, throughout the entirety of the political spectrum exists the potential for all the good and simultaneously all the bad that human nature is capable of (Just imagine a Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner having total control over an agency formed for the protection of young aspiring actresses).

With that said, what could a group of right-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes accomplish at the helm of a representative republic such as the United States? No matter what the adolescent jack-booted thugs say, these right-wingers wouldn’t have the power to extinguish peoples’ liberty en masse. They would need to openly bypass the Constitution to move forward with whatever evil agenda they had in mind. In other words, they would need to become left-wingers to do so.

Alternatively, what could a group of left-wing racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes do to the people if in control of our government? Fortunately, the “dead white guys” of yesteryear fully understood that power tends to attract the worst elements of human nature, hence, our right-of-center republic with a well-defined main purpose of protecting the inalienable rights of the people. This makes the adolescent jack-booted thug’s aspirations much more difficult. The freedom to conduct voluntary transactions within a free market, protected by the rule of law may be imperfect and sometimes progresses much slower (see Hollywood) than so-called progressives would prefer, but it’s still the best option available to humanity as Milton Friedman often argued.

But progressives and adolescent jack-booted thugs alike loathe the Constitution for its lack of positive rights among other reasons and have pushed the U.S. further and further to the left after having gained a strong foothold in media, academia, Hollywood, government, and now the info-tech world.

Again, you get all the good with all the bad and every time progressives have forced the pendulum leftward in the U.S., the results have enabled oppressions such as the Sedition Act of 1918; Jim Crow laws; the internment of Japanese; the targeting of conservatives by the IRS under Obama and most recently: the cover up of Hillary’s email and Uranium One scandals and attempted coup on the Trump presidency by the previous administration and its current holdovers.

Sure, there are racist-homophobic-bigoted-sexist-xenophobes on both sides of the political isle — because of human nature. To be clear: atrocities committed by individuals who happen to be right-wing will always be unacceptable within a civil society, but the key is that their actions would be inconsequential on a societal scale under the protections of our right-of-center republic. On the other hand, the very same left-wing “progressive” promises have been tried repeatedly and consequentially, during the 20th century alone, more than 100 million people perished under Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and others.

So, why do progressives direct all this hatred, fear and lies toward those on the right side of the political spectrum? It’s about the fear of losing control (think money-skimming, cronyism and power) and a hatred for an individualism that allows the freedom to ignore the “suggestions” of really, really, smart progressives.

Fortunately, adolescent jack-booted thugs must still operate within a voluntary marketplace and have no dictatorial power beyond their fancy boardrooms. Piss off enough customers and they will seek alternatives, which is why fully mature jack-booted thugs require total government control over the masses. That control is only derived from the left side of the political spectrum and needs to be prevented at all costs as those “dead white guys” figured out more than two centuries ago.

Scott blogs at www.politiseeds.com



Source link

Sadly, Another Black History Month


I am a 69-year-old proud American who happens to be black. The American Left (Democrats, Hollywood, and fake news media) exploit Black History Month as an opportunity to further their lie that America is eternally racist and a hellhole for blacks. BHM should feature the truth that America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it; regardless of race, color, creed or gender. Blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population. Therefore, black millionaires and billionaires like Oprah, Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Kaepernick, and countless others confirm my point; white America made these blacks extremely wealthy.

And yet, sadly, most millennial blacks believe the Left’s lie that their opportunities for success are limited. They believe white cops murder black men on sight. They believe white America is obsessed with conceiving dirty tricks to keep blacks down.

It is interesting that the American Left, which includes the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, despises and seeks to destroy successful blacks who bear witness to the greatness of America. I am talking about blacks like the world-renowned retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Without lowered standards or special concessions due to their skin-color, these blacks achieved success the old fashion way. They earned it.

Imagine driving down a dusty country road on a spring day in the 1950s. You see a dirty little black boy in a field picking cotton. Only in America could that black boy grow up to become one of the most powerful men in the world, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You will never see the American Left using Justice Thomas’ remarkable American story during BHM to inspire black youths. Leftists only feature blacks whom they claim achieved success despite America’s rabid racism or sexism.

American Left strives to convince all Americans that they are victims of either Christians, conservatives, Republicans, the rich or straight white men. Individuality and self-reliance are as repulsive to Leftists as the cross is to Dracula. The Leftist dream is for all Americans to be dependent upon and thereby controlled by big tyrannical government. Leftists want government to force their agenda items down our throats that would never be approved by voters.

A glaring example of Leftists not really giving a rat’s derriere about blacks is the Congressional Black Caucus’ response to Trump announcing in his SOTU that black unemployment is at a record low. Wouldn’t that good news be cause for applause from people who supposedly represent blacks? And yet, the CBC sat stone-faced, refusing to applaud with others in the capital hall. It was stomach turning to see Leftist operative CBC members wearing their little African cloths draped over their shoulders. These cloths are supposed to show CBC members’ super commitment to black Americans. These people (CBC members) are shameless traitors to their fellow black Americans. 

Despite Trump reaching out and implementing policies helpful to blacks, the evil CBC is hellbent on deceiving black Americans into believing their lie that Trump is racist. One of my brothers is an outspoken black Christian conservative Republican. In his mostly black community and church, my brother boldly challenges blacks to tell him one thing Trump has said or done to prove Trump is racist. They cannot. Like Sheeple, blacks in my brother’s church and community believe Trump is racist solely because Democrats, Hollywood, and fake news media have told them Trump is racist.

Democrats must keep blacks believing America is a hellhole for blacks; believing their lie that Trump and all conservatives/Republicans are racist. Democrats must keep their lie alive that blacks’ only hope is to continue monolith voting for Democrats. The problem is blacks’ brain-dead loyalty to Democrats has reaped direr consequences. Blacks murder each other in record numbers in cities controlled by Democrats for decades. Blacks are engaged in self-genocide due to disproportionately high numbers of abortions. High numbers of fatherless household, epidemic numbers of blacks joining gangs, school dropouts, black on black crime, incarcerations, and poverty.

Democrats are insidious enablers; nurturing problems in black communities by lowering cultural, moral, and intellectual standards for us in the name of compassion. After all, according to Leftists, we black folks ain’t too bright. Democrats relieve blacks of any accountability or responsibility for their failure or success; claiming our fate rest solely in the hands of white America. Notice how Democrats/Leftists are always advocating lowering the bar and giving us free stuff; addicting us to government freebies.

I am appalled by the Democrats’ bigotry of lowered expectations regarding my fellow black Americans. As a black man I can say this. Our problem is not whitey persecuting us. Our problems are rooted in blacks allowing their loyalty to Democrats to morally bankrupt our communities. It was amazing seeing many black clergy abandoning the Bible’s view of same-sex marriage because Obama was for same-sex marriage.

If Leftists were honest, they would really call BHM their “America Still Sucks for Blacks Month”. Every February, Leftists use BHM to guilt-trip a new generation of whites and convince blacks to continue sleeping with their enemies by voting for Democrats.

Blacks like me who love their country and realize the obvious blessing of being born an American are excoriated by Leftists. Leftists call us Uncle Toms suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

But here is the truth.

American is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it. To my fellow blacks, reject the American Lefts’ daily-you-are-a-victim excrement. Pursue your American dream via education, hard work, and right choices. Pure and simple.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth

http://LloydMarcus.com

I am a 69-year-old proud American who happens to be black. The American Left (Democrats, Hollywood, and fake news media) exploit Black History Month as an opportunity to further their lie that America is eternally racist and a hellhole for blacks. BHM should feature the truth that America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it; regardless of race, color, creed or gender. Blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population. Therefore, black millionaires and billionaires like Oprah, Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Kaepernick, and countless others confirm my point; white America made these blacks extremely wealthy.

And yet, sadly, most millennial blacks believe the Left’s lie that their opportunities for success are limited. They believe white cops murder black men on sight. They believe white America is obsessed with conceiving dirty tricks to keep blacks down.

It is interesting that the American Left, which includes the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, despises and seeks to destroy successful blacks who bear witness to the greatness of America. I am talking about blacks like the world-renowned retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Without lowered standards or special concessions due to their skin-color, these blacks achieved success the old fashion way. They earned it.

Imagine driving down a dusty country road on a spring day in the 1950s. You see a dirty little black boy in a field picking cotton. Only in America could that black boy grow up to become one of the most powerful men in the world, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You will never see the American Left using Justice Thomas’ remarkable American story during BHM to inspire black youths. Leftists only feature blacks whom they claim achieved success despite America’s rabid racism or sexism.

American Left strives to convince all Americans that they are victims of either Christians, conservatives, Republicans, the rich or straight white men. Individuality and self-reliance are as repulsive to Leftists as the cross is to Dracula. The Leftist dream is for all Americans to be dependent upon and thereby controlled by big tyrannical government. Leftists want government to force their agenda items down our throats that would never be approved by voters.

A glaring example of Leftists not really giving a rat’s derriere about blacks is the Congressional Black Caucus’ response to Trump announcing in his SOTU that black unemployment is at a record low. Wouldn’t that good news be cause for applause from people who supposedly represent blacks? And yet, the CBC sat stone-faced, refusing to applaud with others in the capital hall. It was stomach turning to see Leftist operative CBC members wearing their little African cloths draped over their shoulders. These cloths are supposed to show CBC members’ super commitment to black Americans. These people (CBC members) are shameless traitors to their fellow black Americans. 

Despite Trump reaching out and implementing policies helpful to blacks, the evil CBC is hellbent on deceiving black Americans into believing their lie that Trump is racist. One of my brothers is an outspoken black Christian conservative Republican. In his mostly black community and church, my brother boldly challenges blacks to tell him one thing Trump has said or done to prove Trump is racist. They cannot. Like Sheeple, blacks in my brother’s church and community believe Trump is racist solely because Democrats, Hollywood, and fake news media have told them Trump is racist.

Democrats must keep blacks believing America is a hellhole for blacks; believing their lie that Trump and all conservatives/Republicans are racist. Democrats must keep their lie alive that blacks’ only hope is to continue monolith voting for Democrats. The problem is blacks’ brain-dead loyalty to Democrats has reaped direr consequences. Blacks murder each other in record numbers in cities controlled by Democrats for decades. Blacks are engaged in self-genocide due to disproportionately high numbers of abortions. High numbers of fatherless household, epidemic numbers of blacks joining gangs, school dropouts, black on black crime, incarcerations, and poverty.

Democrats are insidious enablers; nurturing problems in black communities by lowering cultural, moral, and intellectual standards for us in the name of compassion. After all, according to Leftists, we black folks ain’t too bright. Democrats relieve blacks of any accountability or responsibility for their failure or success; claiming our fate rest solely in the hands of white America. Notice how Democrats/Leftists are always advocating lowering the bar and giving us free stuff; addicting us to government freebies.

I am appalled by the Democrats’ bigotry of lowered expectations regarding my fellow black Americans. As a black man I can say this. Our problem is not whitey persecuting us. Our problems are rooted in blacks allowing their loyalty to Democrats to morally bankrupt our communities. It was amazing seeing many black clergy abandoning the Bible’s view of same-sex marriage because Obama was for same-sex marriage.

If Leftists were honest, they would really call BHM their “America Still Sucks for Blacks Month”. Every February, Leftists use BHM to guilt-trip a new generation of whites and convince blacks to continue sleeping with their enemies by voting for Democrats.

Blacks like me who love their country and realize the obvious blessing of being born an American are excoriated by Leftists. Leftists call us Uncle Toms suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

But here is the truth.

American is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it. To my fellow blacks, reject the American Lefts’ daily-you-are-a-victim excrement. Pursue your American dream via education, hard work, and right choices. Pure and simple.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth

http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

Paraphrasing Cato: The Democratic Party Must Be Destroyed


Prior to the Third Punic War against Carthage in the 2nd Century BC, Cato the Elder was said to have ended all his speeches in the Roman senate by saying, “Carthage must be destroyed.” Notice, Cato did not say ‘defeated’ but ‘destroyed.’ What do you suppose motivated this distinguish statesman to take such an extreme position? It was that in the Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC), Rome came close to losing to the Carthaginians. In that war, Rome suffered a number of severe battlefield defeats at the hands of Hannibal’s army, most notable being the Battle of Cannae, the worse Roman defeat in history. To Cato, Carthage, although defeated in the Second Punic War, was still a threat to the Republic of Rome. 

Let’s move ahead in time. Today we see the depravity and anti-Americanism that is prevalent in today’s Democratic Party is literally putting our constitutional republic at risk. Do you think that’s an exaggeration? Let’s take a look.

On social issues, the Democrats are the leading force of moral decay in America. They are the champion of such perverse things as unrestricted abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, racial strife, and a God-hating form of radical secularism. They corrupt every institution in the U.S. with these ‘novel’ concepts from our schools to the military and everything in between. The one thing these initiatives all have in common is that they rot out the foundation of the Republic and undermine the family.

When it comes to economic matters, Democratic policies suffocate growth through regulations, high taxes, and crony capitalism. In the party’s view, personal self-sufficiency, independence, and holding a traditional family together are sins, while dependency on government is a virtue. Judging by their behavior, the only growth the Democrats applaud and work towards is growth in government, growth in the welfare rolls, and growth in the influx of Third-World immigrants into the country.

Immigration deserves a special comment. As is often correctly said, demographics is destiny. Look at the quantity and quality of the type of immigration that the Democrats push for. To the Democrats whose creed is ‘diversity is strength,’ America will be worthy only when its composition mirrors that of the United Nations. If such a suicidal attitude prevails, then the United States as we know it is gone. Do the Democrats care? If they do, it is only that the transformation isn’t happening fast enough.

As for the rule of law, the Democrats have no respect for it save for those instances where it might serve their purpose. And this lawless attitude is not reserved merely for Democratic politicians but extends to the would-be philosopher kings the Democrats want as judges. A man like the late Anthony Scalia who interprets the law as it is written (as is prescribed in the Constitution), is an anathema to Democrats. Judges like Scalia limit unconstitutional behavior. Democrats, on the other hand, want judges who turn the written law into loosey-goosey tools to remake the country according to their whims. When it comes to the corruption of legislating from the bench, the Democrats have been highly successful, due to an always complicit media and far too often a complacent Republican Party.  

In past presidential races since the 1980s, the only election results Democrats accepted as legitimate are the elections they win. To the Democrats, the presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump were illegitimate. And the Democrats acted accordingly to the detriment of the country. This erodes the foundation of our electoral process which bodes ill for the nation.

And what we are seeing today is an unprecedented example of Democrat lawlessness. Their operatives at high levels in the FBI, the Justice Department, and some intelligence agencies actually worked to derail the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and then continued to try to overturn the election results after he won. This is a staggering development that is now being exposed. 

Since the takeover of the Democrat Party by the McGovernites in the early 1970s, the Democrats have steadily drifted from the liberalism of Harry Truman and JFK to the dark leftwing darkness of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and the rest. When in power, the Democrats are oppressors. Think of the abuses of the IRS, the EPA, and the FBI. When out of power, Democrats are energized as hateful antagonists to anyone who disagrees with them. You object to open borders, you’re a racist. You criticize Hillary Clinton, you’re a sexist. You think marriage should be only between man and a woman, you’re a hate-filled homophobe. You believe in the God of the Bible, you’re a fanatic akin to Muslim terrorists. It has even gotten to the point that if you’re white, you’re a closet racist… at best. 

The right way to view the Democrats is that they are the running dogs of the Left. And so there’s no mistake of what I mean, a ‘running dog’ is a literal translation from Chinese to mean lackey or lapdog, an unprincipled person who helps or flatters a person more powerful, often evil. In Chinese, no idiomatic expression is more demeaning than the term ‘running dogs.’

Given the state of the Democratic Party, wouldn’t be nice if Republican candidates ended their speeches and echoed Cato by saying, “The Democratic Party must be destroyed?” Of course, it is not necessary to actually say such a thing… but the sentiment that “The Democratic Party must be destroyed” should be etched in the heart and mind of any Republican seeking office. Republicans who strive to ‘work with’ Democrats on an ongoing basis are on a fool’s errant. They clearly do not understand the nature of their enemy they’re dealing with.  

In closing, note that Rome won the Third Punic War and totally destroyed Carthage. So there’s hope. Good gracious almighty, some might say, what would the country do without a second party? Let the Republican party split in two. Or let a new party arise like the GOP did in the 1850s. In any event, the only parties of national scope that should be tolerated are ones devoted to the Constitution and the rule of law. 

Prior to the Third Punic War against Carthage in the 2nd Century BC, Cato the Elder was said to have ended all his speeches in the Roman senate by saying, “Carthage must be destroyed.” Notice, Cato did not say ‘defeated’ but ‘destroyed.’ What do you suppose motivated this distinguish statesman to take such an extreme position? It was that in the Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC), Rome came close to losing to the Carthaginians. In that war, Rome suffered a number of severe battlefield defeats at the hands of Hannibal’s army, most notable being the Battle of Cannae, the worse Roman defeat in history. To Cato, Carthage, although defeated in the Second Punic War, was still a threat to the Republic of Rome. 

Let’s move ahead in time. Today we see the depravity and anti-Americanism that is prevalent in today’s Democratic Party is literally putting our constitutional republic at risk. Do you think that’s an exaggeration? Let’s take a look.

On social issues, the Democrats are the leading force of moral decay in America. They are the champion of such perverse things as unrestricted abortion, homosexual marriage, transgenderism, racial strife, and a God-hating form of radical secularism. They corrupt every institution in the U.S. with these ‘novel’ concepts from our schools to the military and everything in between. The one thing these initiatives all have in common is that they rot out the foundation of the Republic and undermine the family.

When it comes to economic matters, Democratic policies suffocate growth through regulations, high taxes, and crony capitalism. In the party’s view, personal self-sufficiency, independence, and holding a traditional family together are sins, while dependency on government is a virtue. Judging by their behavior, the only growth the Democrats applaud and work towards is growth in government, growth in the welfare rolls, and growth in the influx of Third-World immigrants into the country.

Immigration deserves a special comment. As is often correctly said, demographics is destiny. Look at the quantity and quality of the type of immigration that the Democrats push for. To the Democrats whose creed is ‘diversity is strength,’ America will be worthy only when its composition mirrors that of the United Nations. If such a suicidal attitude prevails, then the United States as we know it is gone. Do the Democrats care? If they do, it is only that the transformation isn’t happening fast enough.

As for the rule of law, the Democrats have no respect for it save for those instances where it might serve their purpose. And this lawless attitude is not reserved merely for Democratic politicians but extends to the would-be philosopher kings the Democrats want as judges. A man like the late Anthony Scalia who interprets the law as it is written (as is prescribed in the Constitution), is an anathema to Democrats. Judges like Scalia limit unconstitutional behavior. Democrats, on the other hand, want judges who turn the written law into loosey-goosey tools to remake the country according to their whims. When it comes to the corruption of legislating from the bench, the Democrats have been highly successful, due to an always complicit media and far too often a complacent Republican Party.  

In past presidential races since the 1980s, the only election results Democrats accepted as legitimate are the elections they win. To the Democrats, the presidencies of George W. Bush and Donald Trump were illegitimate. And the Democrats acted accordingly to the detriment of the country. This erodes the foundation of our electoral process which bodes ill for the nation.

And what we are seeing today is an unprecedented example of Democrat lawlessness. Their operatives at high levels in the FBI, the Justice Department, and some intelligence agencies actually worked to derail the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and then continued to try to overturn the election results after he won. This is a staggering development that is now being exposed. 

Since the takeover of the Democrat Party by the McGovernites in the early 1970s, the Democrats have steadily drifted from the liberalism of Harry Truman and JFK to the dark leftwing darkness of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and the rest. When in power, the Democrats are oppressors. Think of the abuses of the IRS, the EPA, and the FBI. When out of power, Democrats are energized as hateful antagonists to anyone who disagrees with them. You object to open borders, you’re a racist. You criticize Hillary Clinton, you’re a sexist. You think marriage should be only between man and a woman, you’re a hate-filled homophobe. You believe in the God of the Bible, you’re a fanatic akin to Muslim terrorists. It has even gotten to the point that if you’re white, you’re a closet racist… at best. 

The right way to view the Democrats is that they are the running dogs of the Left. And so there’s no mistake of what I mean, a ‘running dog’ is a literal translation from Chinese to mean lackey or lapdog, an unprincipled person who helps or flatters a person more powerful, often evil. In Chinese, no idiomatic expression is more demeaning than the term ‘running dogs.’

Given the state of the Democratic Party, wouldn’t be nice if Republican candidates ended their speeches and echoed Cato by saying, “The Democratic Party must be destroyed?” Of course, it is not necessary to actually say such a thing… but the sentiment that “The Democratic Party must be destroyed” should be etched in the heart and mind of any Republican seeking office. Republicans who strive to ‘work with’ Democrats on an ongoing basis are on a fool’s errant. They clearly do not understand the nature of their enemy they’re dealing with.  

In closing, note that Rome won the Third Punic War and totally destroyed Carthage. So there’s hope. Good gracious almighty, some might say, what would the country do without a second party? Let the Republican party split in two. Or let a new party arise like the GOP did in the 1850s. In any event, the only parties of national scope that should be tolerated are ones devoted to the Constitution and the rule of law. 



Source link