Day: March 8, 2018

Wells Fargo Lost its Soul When It Quit the Iditarod


In the winter of 1925, a deadly diphtheria epidemic hit the isolated town of Nome, on Alaska’s far northwest coast.  Diphtheria killed entire towns in those days, and some 10,000 people were in real mortal danger.  The antitoxin on hand had long expired, but it was administered anyway to save the life of a young girl.  When it failed, the only doctor in Nome sent out an urgent plea by radio for help.

Fresh antitoxin was found in Anchorage and rushed by rail the 300 miles to Nenana.  From there, over six days in January, twenty dogsled teams carried the serum 674 miles to Nome in temperatures as low as -85 degrees Fahrenheit.  It arrived just in time, and it limited deaths there to just a handful. 

Today, the Alaskan Iditarod – “The Last Great Race on Earth” – commemorates the 1925 race against time and the heroic dogsled teams that accomplished theepic feat.  Begun in 1973, the Iditarod (pronounced eye-DIT-ah-rod) has joined the Kentucky Derby and Indy 500 as one of America’s most iconic racing events.  This is rarified air territory, as quintessentially American as Steve McQueen, the ’57 Chevy, and Route 66.

The world’s best dogs and dogsled mushers now come to Alaska each year to compete at the annual event.  On March 4, sixty-seven sled teams left Willow, Alaska for Nome in the 46th running of the 1,000-mile race.  Sadly missing was Wells Fargo, one of the event’s biggest sponsors, which had supported the Iditarod every year from 1999-2017.  Wells quit the race last year after caving in to pressure from one of the world’s most extreme animal rights groups.

Wells Fargo is the second biggest bank in the United States by assets and the third biggest in the world by market capitalization.  Based in San Francisco, it has operated continuously since 1852, when it first offered banking and overland mail services to the ’49ers who flocked to the California gold rush.  Itself an iconic American brand, Wells has reinforced its corporate image in modern times by playing to America’s pride in its 19th-century western heritage.  Desert landscapes, with rampaging stagecoaches and men riding shotgun, have long been the advertising mainstay of the Wells Fargo identity. 

The last eighteen months have been cataclysmic for the bank.  In late 2016, after opening millions of fake customer accounts, it was fined $100 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and another $85 million by other government entities.  In 2017, it admitted to charging over 800,000 customers for unwanted auto insurance, on top of which it agreed to pay $108 million for charging hidden mortgage fees to American veterans.  New York City cut ties with the bank in May 2017, and in February 2018 – in “one of the strongest federal rebukes to a big bank since the 2007 financial crisis” – the Federal Reserve Board restricted the bank’s growth and replaced four of its board members. 

All of this can be chalked up to weak corporate character and bad corporate governance.  But quitting The Last Great Race transcended that.  When it pulled its support for the Iditarod in May 2017, Wells Fargo lost its soul.  Incredibly, it said it had dropped the Iditarod to “build and enhance relationships with customers and the broader community.”  A Wells Fargo banker confirmed that, telling me at the time that it was because of customer base values. 

Really?

Wells Fargo has its hat on backwards, and I’m not the only one who thinks so.  The bank ranked eleventh on the 2018 list of America’s 20 Most Hated Companies, just after Cigna and just before The Trump Organization.

In its craven exhibition of spinelessness, Wells Fargo caved in to not just anyone.  It caved in to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).  PETA was founded in 1980 by animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk, who was born in Britain and raised in India.  PETA is the world’s largest and most virulently aggressive animal rights organization, and it is also one of the most radical and extreme.  While it doesn’t officially engage in violence, it formally supports domestic terror groups like the Animal Liberation Front. 

When Wells Fargo abandoned the Iditarod, it reduced the purse from $750,000 to $500,000.   But The Last Great Race isn’t all about money, and don’t expect Alaskans to dwell on it – they have a lot more character than the company that quit the field.  As the sled dog teams work their way toward Nome, and Wells Fargo licks its corporate wounds, it’s worth contemplating how a bank could fall so precipitously to Earth.  Maybe it’s character, and maybe it’s the karma of a company that lost its soul.

Jeff Goodson, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer, has worked with industry, government, academia, and the private sector on project development, execution, and troubleshooting for more than four decades.

Image: Frank Kovalchek via Wikimedia Commons.

In the winter of 1925, a deadly diphtheria epidemic hit the isolated town of Nome, on Alaska’s far northwest coast.  Diphtheria killed entire towns in those days, and some 10,000 people were in real mortal danger.  The antitoxin on hand had long expired, but it was administered anyway to save the life of a young girl.  When it failed, the only doctor in Nome sent out an urgent plea by radio for help.

Fresh antitoxin was found in Anchorage and rushed by rail the 300 miles to Nenana.  From there, over six days in January, twenty dogsled teams carried the serum 674 miles to Nome in temperatures as low as -85 degrees Fahrenheit.  It arrived just in time, and it limited deaths there to just a handful. 

Today, the Alaskan Iditarod – “The Last Great Race on Earth” – commemorates the 1925 race against time and the heroic dogsled teams that accomplished theepic feat.  Begun in 1973, the Iditarod (pronounced eye-DIT-ah-rod) has joined the Kentucky Derby and Indy 500 as one of America’s most iconic racing events.  This is rarified air territory, as quintessentially American as Steve McQueen, the ’57 Chevy, and Route 66.

The world’s best dogs and dogsled mushers now come to Alaska each year to compete at the annual event.  On March 4, sixty-seven sled teams left Willow, Alaska for Nome in the 46th running of the 1,000-mile race.  Sadly missing was Wells Fargo, one of the event’s biggest sponsors, which had supported the Iditarod every year from 1999-2017.  Wells quit the race last year after caving in to pressure from one of the world’s most extreme animal rights groups.

Wells Fargo is the second biggest bank in the United States by assets and the third biggest in the world by market capitalization.  Based in San Francisco, it has operated continuously since 1852, when it first offered banking and overland mail services to the ’49ers who flocked to the California gold rush.  Itself an iconic American brand, Wells has reinforced its corporate image in modern times by playing to America’s pride in its 19th-century western heritage.  Desert landscapes, with rampaging stagecoaches and men riding shotgun, have long been the advertising mainstay of the Wells Fargo identity. 

The last eighteen months have been cataclysmic for the bank.  In late 2016, after opening millions of fake customer accounts, it was fined $100 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and another $85 million by other government entities.  In 2017, it admitted to charging over 800,000 customers for unwanted auto insurance, on top of which it agreed to pay $108 million for charging hidden mortgage fees to American veterans.  New York City cut ties with the bank in May 2017, and in February 2018 – in “one of the strongest federal rebukes to a big bank since the 2007 financial crisis” – the Federal Reserve Board restricted the bank’s growth and replaced four of its board members. 

All of this can be chalked up to weak corporate character and bad corporate governance.  But quitting The Last Great Race transcended that.  When it pulled its support for the Iditarod in May 2017, Wells Fargo lost its soul.  Incredibly, it said it had dropped the Iditarod to “build and enhance relationships with customers and the broader community.”  A Wells Fargo banker confirmed that, telling me at the time that it was because of customer base values. 

Really?

Wells Fargo has its hat on backwards, and I’m not the only one who thinks so.  The bank ranked eleventh on the 2018 list of America’s 20 Most Hated Companies, just after Cigna and just before The Trump Organization.

In its craven exhibition of spinelessness, Wells Fargo caved in to not just anyone.  It caved in to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).  PETA was founded in 1980 by animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk, who was born in Britain and raised in India.  PETA is the world’s largest and most virulently aggressive animal rights organization, and it is also one of the most radical and extreme.  While it doesn’t officially engage in violence, it formally supports domestic terror groups like the Animal Liberation Front. 

When Wells Fargo abandoned the Iditarod, it reduced the purse from $750,000 to $500,000.   But The Last Great Race isn’t all about money, and don’t expect Alaskans to dwell on it – they have a lot more character than the company that quit the field.  As the sled dog teams work their way toward Nome, and Wells Fargo licks its corporate wounds, it’s worth contemplating how a bank could fall so precipitously to Earth.  Maybe it’s character, and maybe it’s the karma of a company that lost its soul.

Jeff Goodson, a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer, has worked with industry, government, academia, and the private sector on project development, execution, and troubleshooting for more than four decades.

Image: Frank Kovalchek via Wikimedia Commons.



Source link

Should She Have Been Able to Buy a Gun?


In January of 2017, a severely mentally ill woman was able to buy a gun, legally.  She had no record – nothing on a background check would have raised a red flag.  She told her ex-husband she’d bought it, and he inferred why.  He managed to get it away from her…that time.  Sometime between February 2017 and April 4, 2017, she acquired another gun, legally.  On April 4, she left her counselor’s office, having just been recommended to check herself into inpatient rehab for depression; drove to a location close to her ex’s house; and shot herself through the mouth.

That woman was my little sister.

She became, at that moment, a gun death statistic.  A useful tool in the arsenal of deception the left uses to gin up the numbers for “gun violence.”

Statistically speaking, suicide by gun, by women, is extremely rare.  Most women choose overdose or poison.  My sister decided on a much more certain outcome.

Should she have been able to buy a gun?  She was 43, highly educated with three degrees (English, chemistry, art, in that order), but, using none of those, she became a successful yoga studio owner.  She had a good life, but also a history of depression and substance abuse.  She had previously done stints in rehab for alcohol and pills, as well as depression.  She was medicated for depression.  None of it helped her in the long run.

Should she have been able to buy a gun?  No.

But she was able to buy not one, but two guns over the course of three months.  HIPAA laws meant that no one could report her mental state.  The counselor who saw her, literally minutes before her suicide, was not able to detain her for installment into inpatient therapy.  She was smart enough not to indicate an immediate threat to herself or others.  She was told to check into rehab for depression but allowed to leave, as if she were exiting a pleasant lunch.  She was a lost cause as far as the law is concerned.  What if her mental state had been homicidal rather than suicidal?  Thankfully, we will never know.

I miss my sister – her beautiful face, her perky personality, her kindness and consideration for others.  But she is gone.  Would different rules or laws have saved her?  In the end, I don’t think so; she would have found another way.  This is relevant, because someone intent on causing death, his own or others’, will find a way.  Look at the knife crime statistics alone, and it becomes obvious that guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem.  Mental illness is the problem.

So should the mentally ill be prevented from buying guns?  Our knee-jerk reaction is usually a resounding yes, but should it be?

No.

The definition of mental illness in the United States is broad and deep.  It is a multi-billion-dollar industry and can cover anything from temporary sadness to true brain disturbance.  The pharmaceutical profiteers don’t really want to solve the problem; they want to make money.  As a result, the definitions of mental illness keep expanding.  If I, having just lost my sister to suicide, had gone to a counselor and asked for help dealing with the grief, would I have been flagged as mentally ill?  I would say no, but surely there are people who would disagree.  They would immediately point to the fact that my sister had committed suicide and use her action to say that, inherently, I too might be a risk.  Whether a risk to myself or others would be irrelevant.

Should I then be prevented from purchasing a gun?  No.

Ours is a terribly over-medicated society, with exaggerated definitions of mental illness.  At the same time, monsters like the Parkland shooter are unquestionably mentally ill and should most definitely not have access to guns.  But the shooter bought his guns just as legally as did my sister.  We need to find a middle ground, but I do not know how we even begin to have the conversation when all the left can do is scream, “Confiscate all guns from everyone!”

Systemic failures in our mental health and legal systems allowed the Parkland monster to do what he did, just as they enabled my sister access to the gun with which she ended her life.  We need to address the failures in both the mental health and the legal systems if we want even a fleeting chance at solving the problems of the mentally ill and preventing massacres like Parkland.

One other thing.  My sister was not just an accomplished and successful woman.  She was also a leftist.  Her best friend attended the Women’s March against Trump on January 21, 2017.  Reading through some of her diaries, which came into my possession after her death, shows that she rebelled against the conventional upbringing she was privileged to enjoy.  Our parents were Democrats but lived conservatively.  On Election Day 2016, our father voted for Donald J. Trump (our mother was unable to vote but wanted to vote Trump.)  How much did that leftist orientation, and association, affect her levels of depression?  We cannot know, but I think it had a large impact.  She was unable to realize happiness because she had at some point decided to join the left and be perpetually aggrieved.  How much did leftist indoctrination in the school systems mold her, or the Florida shooter?

We need to have much stricter definitions of mental illness – a rigorous system of checks and balances designed to seek, identify, and separate the truly disturbed from the only somewhat troubled.  A blanket definition of mental illness will never be sufficient to distinguish between the dangerous (to themselves or others) and the benign.  HIPAA laws and willfully ignorant programs like the Broward County “PROMISE” system needs to be overhauled or abandoned completely.  The truly mentally ill need help, but our systems tie our hands unnecessarily.  There should never be another Parkland.  My sister should never have been able to buy a gun.  But for as long as our current systems remain, both were, and are, inevitable.

Confiscating guns, restricting gun purchases by age, et cetera will not work.  It will only punish law-abiding and stable people.  Looking closely at how we define and handle mental illness would be a giant step in the right direction.  Looking closely at how we handle the mentally ill within the legal system would be a giant step in the right direction.  Do we have the courage to do it?

Image: Michael Dorausch via Flickr.

In January of 2017, a severely mentally ill woman was able to buy a gun, legally.  She had no record – nothing on a background check would have raised a red flag.  She told her ex-husband she’d bought it, and he inferred why.  He managed to get it away from her…that time.  Sometime between February 2017 and April 4, 2017, she acquired another gun, legally.  On April 4, she left her counselor’s office, having just been recommended to check herself into inpatient rehab for depression; drove to a location close to her ex’s house; and shot herself through the mouth.

That woman was my little sister.

She became, at that moment, a gun death statistic.  A useful tool in the arsenal of deception the left uses to gin up the numbers for “gun violence.”

Statistically speaking, suicide by gun, by women, is extremely rare.  Most women choose overdose or poison.  My sister decided on a much more certain outcome.

Should she have been able to buy a gun?  She was 43, highly educated with three degrees (English, chemistry, art, in that order), but, using none of those, she became a successful yoga studio owner.  She had a good life, but also a history of depression and substance abuse.  She had previously done stints in rehab for alcohol and pills, as well as depression.  She was medicated for depression.  None of it helped her in the long run.

Should she have been able to buy a gun?  No.

But she was able to buy not one, but two guns over the course of three months.  HIPAA laws meant that no one could report her mental state.  The counselor who saw her, literally minutes before her suicide, was not able to detain her for installment into inpatient therapy.  She was smart enough not to indicate an immediate threat to herself or others.  She was told to check into rehab for depression but allowed to leave, as if she were exiting a pleasant lunch.  She was a lost cause as far as the law is concerned.  What if her mental state had been homicidal rather than suicidal?  Thankfully, we will never know.

I miss my sister – her beautiful face, her perky personality, her kindness and consideration for others.  But she is gone.  Would different rules or laws have saved her?  In the end, I don’t think so; she would have found another way.  This is relevant, because someone intent on causing death, his own or others’, will find a way.  Look at the knife crime statistics alone, and it becomes obvious that guns, in and of themselves, are not the problem.  Mental illness is the problem.

So should the mentally ill be prevented from buying guns?  Our knee-jerk reaction is usually a resounding yes, but should it be?

No.

The definition of mental illness in the United States is broad and deep.  It is a multi-billion-dollar industry and can cover anything from temporary sadness to true brain disturbance.  The pharmaceutical profiteers don’t really want to solve the problem; they want to make money.  As a result, the definitions of mental illness keep expanding.  If I, having just lost my sister to suicide, had gone to a counselor and asked for help dealing with the grief, would I have been flagged as mentally ill?  I would say no, but surely there are people who would disagree.  They would immediately point to the fact that my sister had committed suicide and use her action to say that, inherently, I too might be a risk.  Whether a risk to myself or others would be irrelevant.

Should I then be prevented from purchasing a gun?  No.

Ours is a terribly over-medicated society, with exaggerated definitions of mental illness.  At the same time, monsters like the Parkland shooter are unquestionably mentally ill and should most definitely not have access to guns.  But the shooter bought his guns just as legally as did my sister.  We need to find a middle ground, but I do not know how we even begin to have the conversation when all the left can do is scream, “Confiscate all guns from everyone!”

Systemic failures in our mental health and legal systems allowed the Parkland monster to do what he did, just as they enabled my sister access to the gun with which she ended her life.  We need to address the failures in both the mental health and the legal systems if we want even a fleeting chance at solving the problems of the mentally ill and preventing massacres like Parkland.

One other thing.  My sister was not just an accomplished and successful woman.  She was also a leftist.  Her best friend attended the Women’s March against Trump on January 21, 2017.  Reading through some of her diaries, which came into my possession after her death, shows that she rebelled against the conventional upbringing she was privileged to enjoy.  Our parents were Democrats but lived conservatively.  On Election Day 2016, our father voted for Donald J. Trump (our mother was unable to vote but wanted to vote Trump.)  How much did that leftist orientation, and association, affect her levels of depression?  We cannot know, but I think it had a large impact.  She was unable to realize happiness because she had at some point decided to join the left and be perpetually aggrieved.  How much did leftist indoctrination in the school systems mold her, or the Florida shooter?

We need to have much stricter definitions of mental illness – a rigorous system of checks and balances designed to seek, identify, and separate the truly disturbed from the only somewhat troubled.  A blanket definition of mental illness will never be sufficient to distinguish between the dangerous (to themselves or others) and the benign.  HIPAA laws and willfully ignorant programs like the Broward County “PROMISE” system needs to be overhauled or abandoned completely.  The truly mentally ill need help, but our systems tie our hands unnecessarily.  There should never be another Parkland.  My sister should never have been able to buy a gun.  But for as long as our current systems remain, both were, and are, inevitable.

Confiscating guns, restricting gun purchases by age, et cetera will not work.  It will only punish law-abiding and stable people.  Looking closely at how we define and handle mental illness would be a giant step in the right direction.  Looking closely at how we handle the mentally ill within the legal system would be a giant step in the right direction.  Do we have the courage to do it?

Image: Michael Dorausch via Flickr.



Source link

Why Trump Is So Hated by Leftists


My brother expressed his disgust watching an animated TV show trashing Trump, titled Our Cartoon President.  Incredibly, leftists have hijacked the airwaves and everywhere people gather to exploit as platforms to spread their vitriolic, insane hatred for Trump.  Outrageously, TV coverage of the Olympics included leftist hatred for the Trump administration.

Despite the shocking discovery that leftist policies probably played a role in the deaths of 17 kids in the Florida school shooting, leftists continue puppet-mastering students to blame Trump.

Even Sunday worship has been hijacked by leftists to trash Trump.  My brother asked the pastor of his all black church to please stop including a lie-filled Democrat-talking-points rant about Trump in his sermons.

Leftist disrespect and venomous hatred for President Trump is unprecedented, over the top, and boldly spewed 24/7.  I wondered, why?

I reached out to prominent conservatives and Republicans for their thoughts.

VICTORIA JACKSON

I think Trump is hated by the left because his ideology, his words and actions, are the exact opposite of the left’s ideology. He is not a “globalist,” but loves America, our homeland; he knows that we can’t continue being the world’s number-one giver if we are not safe and successful ourselves.  He knows that capitalism, not communism, will feed the poor; capitalism makes everyone richer, while communism makes everyone equally poor.  He knows that free enterprise and less government regulation will provide jobs and boost our economy, not socialist handouts and overregulation.


He knows that less unemployment and getting out of debt will save our nation much more than wasting time and money on things like the scientifically unproven climate change hoax and its hidden goal of controlling the masses.  He believes in individual freedom and responsibility, not government control.  He’s not a secularist (new word for atheist, according to Julia Sweeney’s TED talk), but a defender of religious liberty, including Christianity.  He is protective of Americans and not protective of our enemies, some of whom sneak into our midst through unenforced immigration law.


He thinks all lives matter, not just black lives; he respects the police, firefighters, and military instead of fanning the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals flames of violent civil unrest and class and racial warfare.  He is not a saint, and he doesn’t pretend to be.  He believes in free speech, not political correctness.  The left is confused; leftists don’t know how to respond to a politician who speaks from the heart, not from talking points.  The left hates Trump because the Tea Party loves him.

JUDSON PHILLIPS

Trump is hated the same way and for the same reason President Reagan was hated.  He is a fighter, and he is moving a conservative agenda forward.  The left did not like George W. Bush, but they did not hate him the way they hate Trump, because Trump believes in fighting and winning.

MYCHAL MASSIE

Why are the reprobates in both parties so averse to helping President Trump stabilize and protect what little of a future we have left?  What is it that both political parties find so repulsive about protecting American citizens?


The answer is fairly easy to state, and more complex to explain in intricate detail.  Ergo, I will simplify the explanation as much as possible.  They are fighting President Trump because he is a threat to their “one-world government.”


President Trump’s victory in America has spawned a new generation of pro-nationalist leaders who refuse to be ruled by a heteronomous government that is handpicked in a wine- and cheese-filled room located in a hotel at some posh island retreat.  Bush had great dreams for a North American-style European Union by implementing NAFTA, full amnesty, and open borders.


While we were marginally successful in stopping Bush, Obama destroyed any chance of making it happen because of his contemptible arrogance and his hedonistic wife, who viewed the American taxpayers as her American Express Card.


Notwithstanding, the bones of North America becoming the Western-type E.U. were still in place, and both parties knew that it was only a matter of time until they succeeded.


But then “Along Came Donald J. Trump.”  Once again, the arrogance of the ruling elite thought We the People could be bullied and intimidated into doing as we were told.  But this time, their schemes and machinations did not work because we saw in President Trump a man we could trust.  And the power elite will never forgive President Trump nor will they forgive We the People for electing him.

 

JOE MILLER

As I explained in the run-up to the 2016 election here and here, I’ve always believed that Donald Trump is the Real Deal.  That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he does or says.  But there’s little question that the president is his own man.  And that drives the Establishment crazy.  The oligarchs want someone they can control.  They rely on leveraged politicos to do their evil bidding, but Trump has given them no such foothold.  So they use their Establishment-controlled media to foment hate against him.  This fake news jihad is effective but will not stop Trump.

LARRY PRATT

He fights!

NINA MAY

Trump is hated not only by the left, but by the RINOs for the exact same reason: they can’t control him.  They can’t intimidate or shame him as they do everyone else, and probably the most poignant and profound is that he believes in something greater than himself, than the state, than politics…and that is God. 


They hate that because they serve a fallen savior who battles against the truth on a daily basis while Trump champions the truth.

I wish to thank these great patriots for their insightful input.  Here’s why I believe that Trump is so hated by leftists.

Leftist hatred for Trump is rooted in their mission to undermine all things wholesome, godly, and good for America.  Everything leftists do, in essence, gives the God of Christianity the middle finger.  It is not coincidental that leftists hijack Christian symbols and institutions for their anti-God agenda.

For example: The rainbow was God’s promise to Noah to never again let floodwaters destroy all life.  Homosexuals hijacked God’s rainbow to symbolize behavior God calls an abomination. 

God created marriage as a holy union between one man and one woman.

Despite civil unions readily available to them, homosexuals successfully broke down marriage, resulting in every conceivable deviant configuration to eventually be legally declared marriage.

Trump in the White House is a miracle.  Despite leftists’ 24-7 efforts to stop and destroy him, President Trump has remarkably implemented 64% of his Make-America-Great-Again agenda.  Fasten your seat belts, leftists: Trump has only just begun.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com

My brother expressed his disgust watching an animated TV show trashing Trump, titled Our Cartoon President.  Incredibly, leftists have hijacked the airwaves and everywhere people gather to exploit as platforms to spread their vitriolic, insane hatred for Trump.  Outrageously, TV coverage of the Olympics included leftist hatred for the Trump administration.

Despite the shocking discovery that leftist policies probably played a role in the deaths of 17 kids in the Florida school shooting, leftists continue puppet-mastering students to blame Trump.

Even Sunday worship has been hijacked by leftists to trash Trump.  My brother asked the pastor of his all black church to please stop including a lie-filled Democrat-talking-points rant about Trump in his sermons.

Leftist disrespect and venomous hatred for President Trump is unprecedented, over the top, and boldly spewed 24/7.  I wondered, why?

I reached out to prominent conservatives and Republicans for their thoughts.

VICTORIA JACKSON

I think Trump is hated by the left because his ideology, his words and actions, are the exact opposite of the left’s ideology. He is not a “globalist,” but loves America, our homeland; he knows that we can’t continue being the world’s number-one giver if we are not safe and successful ourselves.  He knows that capitalism, not communism, will feed the poor; capitalism makes everyone richer, while communism makes everyone equally poor.  He knows that free enterprise and less government regulation will provide jobs and boost our economy, not socialist handouts and overregulation.


He knows that less unemployment and getting out of debt will save our nation much more than wasting time and money on things like the scientifically unproven climate change hoax and its hidden goal of controlling the masses.  He believes in individual freedom and responsibility, not government control.  He’s not a secularist (new word for atheist, according to Julia Sweeney’s TED talk), but a defender of religious liberty, including Christianity.  He is protective of Americans and not protective of our enemies, some of whom sneak into our midst through unenforced immigration law.


He thinks all lives matter, not just black lives; he respects the police, firefighters, and military instead of fanning the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals flames of violent civil unrest and class and racial warfare.  He is not a saint, and he doesn’t pretend to be.  He believes in free speech, not political correctness.  The left is confused; leftists don’t know how to respond to a politician who speaks from the heart, not from talking points.  The left hates Trump because the Tea Party loves him.

JUDSON PHILLIPS

Trump is hated the same way and for the same reason President Reagan was hated.  He is a fighter, and he is moving a conservative agenda forward.  The left did not like George W. Bush, but they did not hate him the way they hate Trump, because Trump believes in fighting and winning.

MYCHAL MASSIE

Why are the reprobates in both parties so averse to helping President Trump stabilize and protect what little of a future we have left?  What is it that both political parties find so repulsive about protecting American citizens?


The answer is fairly easy to state, and more complex to explain in intricate detail.  Ergo, I will simplify the explanation as much as possible.  They are fighting President Trump because he is a threat to their “one-world government.”


President Trump’s victory in America has spawned a new generation of pro-nationalist leaders who refuse to be ruled by a heteronomous government that is handpicked in a wine- and cheese-filled room located in a hotel at some posh island retreat.  Bush had great dreams for a North American-style European Union by implementing NAFTA, full amnesty, and open borders.


While we were marginally successful in stopping Bush, Obama destroyed any chance of making it happen because of his contemptible arrogance and his hedonistic wife, who viewed the American taxpayers as her American Express Card.


Notwithstanding, the bones of North America becoming the Western-type E.U. were still in place, and both parties knew that it was only a matter of time until they succeeded.


But then “Along Came Donald J. Trump.”  Once again, the arrogance of the ruling elite thought We the People could be bullied and intimidated into doing as we were told.  But this time, their schemes and machinations did not work because we saw in President Trump a man we could trust.  And the power elite will never forgive President Trump nor will they forgive We the People for electing him.

 

JOE MILLER

As I explained in the run-up to the 2016 election here and here, I’ve always believed that Donald Trump is the Real Deal.  That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he does or says.  But there’s little question that the president is his own man.  And that drives the Establishment crazy.  The oligarchs want someone they can control.  They rely on leveraged politicos to do their evil bidding, but Trump has given them no such foothold.  So they use their Establishment-controlled media to foment hate against him.  This fake news jihad is effective but will not stop Trump.

LARRY PRATT

He fights!

NINA MAY

Trump is hated not only by the left, but by the RINOs for the exact same reason: they can’t control him.  They can’t intimidate or shame him as they do everyone else, and probably the most poignant and profound is that he believes in something greater than himself, than the state, than politics…and that is God. 


They hate that because they serve a fallen savior who battles against the truth on a daily basis while Trump champions the truth.

I wish to thank these great patriots for their insightful input.  Here’s why I believe that Trump is so hated by leftists.

Leftist hatred for Trump is rooted in their mission to undermine all things wholesome, godly, and good for America.  Everything leftists do, in essence, gives the God of Christianity the middle finger.  It is not coincidental that leftists hijack Christian symbols and institutions for their anti-God agenda.

For example: The rainbow was God’s promise to Noah to never again let floodwaters destroy all life.  Homosexuals hijacked God’s rainbow to symbolize behavior God calls an abomination. 

God created marriage as a holy union between one man and one woman.

Despite civil unions readily available to them, homosexuals successfully broke down marriage, resulting in every conceivable deviant configuration to eventually be legally declared marriage.

Trump in the White House is a miracle.  Despite leftists’ 24-7 efforts to stop and destroy him, President Trump has remarkably implemented 64% of his Make-America-Great-Again agenda.  Fasten your seat belts, leftists: Trump has only just begun.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth
http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

Tell the Truth on Tariffs!


So much huff and puff surrounds Trump’s tariff talk, I thought it time to inject a little perspective into this heated (and often misinformed) debate.

Senator Ben Sasse was on Newsradio 1110 KFAB in Omaha, Nebraska the morning of March 7, issuing declarative statements regarding tariffs in general and Trump’s proposals in particular, that aren’t quite supported by facts.

While totally free trade is an ideal and a goal, it is impossible to accomplish without becoming wholly interdependent on other nations.  There will always be another country capable of driving your domestic industry into the dirt on some product or another, as no one nation can be the most efficient and best producer of everything that nation requires.

Because some industries cannot be outsourcedwithout risk to national security – even to friendly nations – trade representatives have always balanced imports and exports of these products through the use of taxation (tariffs) to both protect the viability of their domestic industries and to ensure a place for their own exports in the economies of other nations.

While a simplistic explanation, it covers the basic function of tariffs.  Throughout history, administrations and regimes have misused tariffs, sparking “trade wars.”  And it is true that these disruptions have proven costly to both sides, but to say “no one wins in a trade war” is patently false.  The stronger hand will prevail, although not always unscathed.

Now, on to Sen. Sasse’s increasingly unhinged rhetoric on tariffs.

It is duplicitous to argue against tariffs from a free trade standpoint when the very industry you are claiming will be decimated (agriculture) is hip-deep in tariffs of its own, not to mention a host of “internal tariffs” we call subsidies.

As an ag state senator, Sasse is obligated to represent his constituent’s interests, and it is true that ag exports are likely first targets of retaliation, but I believe that his strident opposition has more than a little to do with his personal animus toward Trump, a man he sees as an interloper who has taken the highest office in the land without having paid the requisite dues.  Ben Sasse is rightly ranked quite high on the list of prominent NeverTrump Republicans.

Regardless of the deep, dank harborings of the good senator from Nebraska, his arguments crumble when viewed in the harsh light of reality.  Namely, the United States is no stranger to tariffs.

According to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), we impose a 20% tariff on dairy products from other nations.  The same for most vegetables, too.  Asparagus and sweet corn are held in even higher esteem, enjoying tariff protections of 21.3% each.

Apricots, cantaloupe, and dates have tariffs of nearly 30% (29.8), while canned tuna rests loftily on a tariff redoubt of 35%.  Peanuts (both unshelled and shelled) boast tariffs of 131.8% and 163.3%, respectively.

I could go on and on.  The USITC lists more than 12,000 tariffs on imports to America covering the mundane to the arcane.  Live foxes, anyone?  You’ll pay 4.8% more for an imported live fox than a domestic one, to satisfy the tariff on them (h/t Business Insider).

The point is, tariffs are both tool and negotiating point, often used to position and frame the agreements that balance international imports and exports.  They can be wholly protectionist, like our 350% tariff on imported tobacco, or merely annoying, like the above mentioned assessment on live foxes.

In any case, for a sitting U.S. senator to shout “protectionist!” from a free trade rooftop is less than genuine when the roof sits upon a house tariffs helped build.

Whether the proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum are wise or foolish is a subject for debate, but that debate must be governed by an adherence to truth, not indulgent hyperbole.

As the president has so often declared, our trade negotiations have been a spare step above abysmal for quite a long time.  We are routinely bullied by nations who need access to our markets and investment far more than we need their imports or their markets.

Wisely, President Trump has chosen to realign our priorities for trade in the same fashion he has advocated for immigration: America First.

Our positions in NAFTA, the now abandoned TPP, and numerous other catch-all trade agreements seem to have been negotiated by people with an inferiority complex, or the political belief that we owe the world an apology for being a superpower.

To permit nations to “pick our pockets” through lopsided trade agreements, as the President describes it, is a policy that belongs on the same trash heap where the idea of high taxes and government spending as drivers of economic growth now reside. 

Fair trade is not always free trade – not because one side is ruthlessly taking advantage of the other, but because neither side is static in a dynamic world economy.

Simply put, prudent trade agreements and wise applications of both tariffs and subsidies are the dual outriggers of our economic canoe, maintaining balance in rough seas.

As an advocate of free(er) trade, I prefer to see our industries compete without restriction or crutch, but I’m also cognizant of the barriers to true competition thrown up by others, on far shores, beyond our control.

Senator Sasse is not the only guilty party to be found in this rolling fog bank of obfuscating claims and pretensions of novelty now being assigned to Trump’s proposed tariffs.  Numerous Republicans of the Never Trump variety are acting as if tariffs are musty anachronisms of the 19th century with no utility in the 21st.

Even my own personal hero, Mark Levin, is stridently opposed to Trump’s tariffs.  However, unlike Sen. Sasse and others, he argues from a position of transparency, addressing the specifics of the proposal rather than relying on breast-beating and fear-mongering, as if the mere sight of a tariff poses a mortal danger to the body politic.

In other words, he is debating the merits, which is always the wisest course.  I wish our esteemed senator would do the same.

The author writes from Omaha, Neb. and welcomes visitors to his website www.dailyherring.com.

So much huff and puff surrounds Trump’s tariff talk, I thought it time to inject a little perspective into this heated (and often misinformed) debate.

Senator Ben Sasse was on Newsradio 1110 KFAB in Omaha, Nebraska the morning of March 7, issuing declarative statements regarding tariffs in general and Trump’s proposals in particular, that aren’t quite supported by facts.

While totally free trade is an ideal and a goal, it is impossible to accomplish without becoming wholly interdependent on other nations.  There will always be another country capable of driving your domestic industry into the dirt on some product or another, as no one nation can be the most efficient and best producer of everything that nation requires.

Because some industries cannot be outsourcedwithout risk to national security – even to friendly nations – trade representatives have always balanced imports and exports of these products through the use of taxation (tariffs) to both protect the viability of their domestic industries and to ensure a place for their own exports in the economies of other nations.

While a simplistic explanation, it covers the basic function of tariffs.  Throughout history, administrations and regimes have misused tariffs, sparking “trade wars.”  And it is true that these disruptions have proven costly to both sides, but to say “no one wins in a trade war” is patently false.  The stronger hand will prevail, although not always unscathed.

Now, on to Sen. Sasse’s increasingly unhinged rhetoric on tariffs.

It is duplicitous to argue against tariffs from a free trade standpoint when the very industry you are claiming will be decimated (agriculture) is hip-deep in tariffs of its own, not to mention a host of “internal tariffs” we call subsidies.

As an ag state senator, Sasse is obligated to represent his constituent’s interests, and it is true that ag exports are likely first targets of retaliation, but I believe that his strident opposition has more than a little to do with his personal animus toward Trump, a man he sees as an interloper who has taken the highest office in the land without having paid the requisite dues.  Ben Sasse is rightly ranked quite high on the list of prominent NeverTrump Republicans.

Regardless of the deep, dank harborings of the good senator from Nebraska, his arguments crumble when viewed in the harsh light of reality.  Namely, the United States is no stranger to tariffs.

According to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), we impose a 20% tariff on dairy products from other nations.  The same for most vegetables, too.  Asparagus and sweet corn are held in even higher esteem, enjoying tariff protections of 21.3% each.

Apricots, cantaloupe, and dates have tariffs of nearly 30% (29.8), while canned tuna rests loftily on a tariff redoubt of 35%.  Peanuts (both unshelled and shelled) boast tariffs of 131.8% and 163.3%, respectively.

I could go on and on.  The USITC lists more than 12,000 tariffs on imports to America covering the mundane to the arcane.  Live foxes, anyone?  You’ll pay 4.8% more for an imported live fox than a domestic one, to satisfy the tariff on them (h/t Business Insider).

The point is, tariffs are both tool and negotiating point, often used to position and frame the agreements that balance international imports and exports.  They can be wholly protectionist, like our 350% tariff on imported tobacco, or merely annoying, like the above mentioned assessment on live foxes.

In any case, for a sitting U.S. senator to shout “protectionist!” from a free trade rooftop is less than genuine when the roof sits upon a house tariffs helped build.

Whether the proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum are wise or foolish is a subject for debate, but that debate must be governed by an adherence to truth, not indulgent hyperbole.

As the president has so often declared, our trade negotiations have been a spare step above abysmal for quite a long time.  We are routinely bullied by nations who need access to our markets and investment far more than we need their imports or their markets.

Wisely, President Trump has chosen to realign our priorities for trade in the same fashion he has advocated for immigration: America First.

Our positions in NAFTA, the now abandoned TPP, and numerous other catch-all trade agreements seem to have been negotiated by people with an inferiority complex, or the political belief that we owe the world an apology for being a superpower.

To permit nations to “pick our pockets” through lopsided trade agreements, as the President describes it, is a policy that belongs on the same trash heap where the idea of high taxes and government spending as drivers of economic growth now reside. 

Fair trade is not always free trade – not because one side is ruthlessly taking advantage of the other, but because neither side is static in a dynamic world economy.

Simply put, prudent trade agreements and wise applications of both tariffs and subsidies are the dual outriggers of our economic canoe, maintaining balance in rough seas.

As an advocate of free(er) trade, I prefer to see our industries compete without restriction or crutch, but I’m also cognizant of the barriers to true competition thrown up by others, on far shores, beyond our control.

Senator Sasse is not the only guilty party to be found in this rolling fog bank of obfuscating claims and pretensions of novelty now being assigned to Trump’s proposed tariffs.  Numerous Republicans of the Never Trump variety are acting as if tariffs are musty anachronisms of the 19th century with no utility in the 21st.

Even my own personal hero, Mark Levin, is stridently opposed to Trump’s tariffs.  However, unlike Sen. Sasse and others, he argues from a position of transparency, addressing the specifics of the proposal rather than relying on breast-beating and fear-mongering, as if the mere sight of a tariff poses a mortal danger to the body politic.

In other words, he is debating the merits, which is always the wisest course.  I wish our esteemed senator would do the same.

The author writes from Omaha, Neb. and welcomes visitors to his website www.dailyherring.com.



Source link

Too Kind to the Media


He who indulges hope will always be disappointed.  So said Dr. Johnson in one of his many apothegms.

The sudden departure of Ms. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, was indeed a disappointment.  It’s not that Hicks, who has been close to Trump since her days at the president’s real estate company, close enough that she earned the nickname “the Trump whisperer,” had any talent for political communication.  She was one of the few constants in Trump’s inner circle, a non-ideological assistant to a president who doesn’t need any help making his thoughts known.

Hope’s departure leaves yet another hole to fill in a White House slowly hemorrhaging talent.  Trump seems dissatisfied with every major player around him: he constantly rails on Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the press; national security adviser H.R. McMaster is rumored to be on his way out; Chief of Staff John Kelly is engaged in a quiet war with the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump; and secretary of state Rex Tillerson is none too liked within the Oval Office.

The loss of Hope does present an opportunity.  If you’re like me, you’ve grown tired of the amateur hour antics spilling out of the West Wing onto Pennsylvania Avenue.  You’re tired of the media greedily grasping onto any morsel of gossip to report, framing the Trump administration as one big backstabbing drama.  You want a return to order, to normalcy.  And, above all, you want a modicum of professionalism.

Trump should hire a cool, calm, and competent communications director.  But at this point, it’s clear that such a thing isn’t coming.  Trump is Trump.  He’s always going to be Trump.  At 71 years, his habits are more established than a glacier-carved moraine in the Midwest.  The tweets, the gaffes, the misstatements, the policy reversals – they’re now par for the course.

But if order is irreparable, perhaps something productive could still be gained.  For all his expertise in constructing beautiful buildings, Trump is a wrecking ball.  His blunt-force style is useful for tearing things down.  And what better to demolish than the president’s number-one enemy?

I talk of the media and their crazed crusade to chase Trump out of office.  For too long, the White House communications office has played too nice with its main foil: the media.  It’s been the school nerd, endlessly pounded into the schoolyard pavement by a bunch of know-nothing bullies with a sense of importance so inflated, it would make the Goodyear blimp shrivel up in embarrassment.

There’s no need for this pusillanimity. The D.C. press corps is the most despicable group of preening, self-obsessed, pharisaical nitwits ever not to sit in the jury box during a Salem witch trial.  Puritanical in demeanor, hypocritical in nature, dense in understanding, these malevolent scribblers are an offense to everything good and true in this world.  They deserve to be treated as the rotten souls they are.

Granted, some journalists remain fair-minded – Jake Tapper and Maggie Haberman come to mind.  But most are more focused on blasting off pithy takes on Twitter than doing any actual hard-nosed reporting.

Here are a few suggestions for how the next White House communications director should deal with the press.

First things first: end the dreaded White House press briefing.  This exercise in administrative masochism accomplishes nothing.  It only provides a forum for grandstanding, where blackguards like CNN’s Jim Acosta try to run up the “gotcha” score in the name of civic duty.  The briefings are cheap theater, where exchanges are all tilted toward creating viral social media clips.  Deny glamour-seeking journalists their daily pageant of jackassery and restore some dignity to the White House.

Second, turn Twitter’s verification system into a banishment list.  Cease all individual communication with anyone bearing a blue check mark next to his Twitter handle.  And for Heaven’s sake, stop responding to press inquiries over the platform.  Journalists have a home field advantage on Twitter – except, that is, when they take on Trump himself.

And lastly, why not write an order to lock one or two muckrakers up from time to time?  Trump would gleefully sign it.  Jailing journalists is a fine American tradition.  All the great presidents have done it, from Adams to Lincoln to Wilson.  Certainly an example could be set by throwing the next journo who publishes Democrat-provided classified information behind bars.

The last proposal is meant in Swiftian jest.  The free press remains one of our best institutions.  But the rabid hatred many members of the press have for Trump is nonpareil.  “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” former president Jimmy Carter recently told the New York Times.

When the soft-spoken Carter is defending Trump, you know something’s wrong.  The media’s penchant for publishing false, unsubstantiated stories has gotten out of hand.  The eagerness with which professional reporters breathlessly praise the poise of a murderous dictator’s sister over their very own vice president reveals a deep animus toward the current administration.

Hicks was too kind to a press that’s more than eager to sacrifice the duly elected leader of the country on the altar of online page views.  The one-sided arrangement can’t sustain itself.  The media’s credibility is slowly burning out, along with our shared set of common truths we use to make sense of things.

Enough with hopeful niceties – we need reprisal and ridicule in large amounts.  Overly anxious journalists are begging for a swift kick in the pants.  The next White House communications director should be able to give it to them, good and hard.

He who indulges hope will always be disappointed.  So said Dr. Johnson in one of his many apothegms.

The sudden departure of Ms. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, was indeed a disappointment.  It’s not that Hicks, who has been close to Trump since her days at the president’s real estate company, close enough that she earned the nickname “the Trump whisperer,” had any talent for political communication.  She was one of the few constants in Trump’s inner circle, a non-ideological assistant to a president who doesn’t need any help making his thoughts known.

Hope’s departure leaves yet another hole to fill in a White House slowly hemorrhaging talent.  Trump seems dissatisfied with every major player around him: he constantly rails on Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the press; national security adviser H.R. McMaster is rumored to be on his way out; Chief of Staff John Kelly is engaged in a quiet war with the president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump; and secretary of state Rex Tillerson is none too liked within the Oval Office.

The loss of Hope does present an opportunity.  If you’re like me, you’ve grown tired of the amateur hour antics spilling out of the West Wing onto Pennsylvania Avenue.  You’re tired of the media greedily grasping onto any morsel of gossip to report, framing the Trump administration as one big backstabbing drama.  You want a return to order, to normalcy.  And, above all, you want a modicum of professionalism.

Trump should hire a cool, calm, and competent communications director.  But at this point, it’s clear that such a thing isn’t coming.  Trump is Trump.  He’s always going to be Trump.  At 71 years, his habits are more established than a glacier-carved moraine in the Midwest.  The tweets, the gaffes, the misstatements, the policy reversals – they’re now par for the course.

But if order is irreparable, perhaps something productive could still be gained.  For all his expertise in constructing beautiful buildings, Trump is a wrecking ball.  His blunt-force style is useful for tearing things down.  And what better to demolish than the president’s number-one enemy?

I talk of the media and their crazed crusade to chase Trump out of office.  For too long, the White House communications office has played too nice with its main foil: the media.  It’s been the school nerd, endlessly pounded into the schoolyard pavement by a bunch of know-nothing bullies with a sense of importance so inflated, it would make the Goodyear blimp shrivel up in embarrassment.

There’s no need for this pusillanimity. The D.C. press corps is the most despicable group of preening, self-obsessed, pharisaical nitwits ever not to sit in the jury box during a Salem witch trial.  Puritanical in demeanor, hypocritical in nature, dense in understanding, these malevolent scribblers are an offense to everything good and true in this world.  They deserve to be treated as the rotten souls they are.

Granted, some journalists remain fair-minded – Jake Tapper and Maggie Haberman come to mind.  But most are more focused on blasting off pithy takes on Twitter than doing any actual hard-nosed reporting.

Here are a few suggestions for how the next White House communications director should deal with the press.

First things first: end the dreaded White House press briefing.  This exercise in administrative masochism accomplishes nothing.  It only provides a forum for grandstanding, where blackguards like CNN’s Jim Acosta try to run up the “gotcha” score in the name of civic duty.  The briefings are cheap theater, where exchanges are all tilted toward creating viral social media clips.  Deny glamour-seeking journalists their daily pageant of jackassery and restore some dignity to the White House.

Second, turn Twitter’s verification system into a banishment list.  Cease all individual communication with anyone bearing a blue check mark next to his Twitter handle.  And for Heaven’s sake, stop responding to press inquiries over the platform.  Journalists have a home field advantage on Twitter – except, that is, when they take on Trump himself.

And lastly, why not write an order to lock one or two muckrakers up from time to time?  Trump would gleefully sign it.  Jailing journalists is a fine American tradition.  All the great presidents have done it, from Adams to Lincoln to Wilson.  Certainly an example could be set by throwing the next journo who publishes Democrat-provided classified information behind bars.

The last proposal is meant in Swiftian jest.  The free press remains one of our best institutions.  But the rabid hatred many members of the press have for Trump is nonpareil.  “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” former president Jimmy Carter recently told the New York Times.

When the soft-spoken Carter is defending Trump, you know something’s wrong.  The media’s penchant for publishing false, unsubstantiated stories has gotten out of hand.  The eagerness with which professional reporters breathlessly praise the poise of a murderous dictator’s sister over their very own vice president reveals a deep animus toward the current administration.

Hicks was too kind to a press that’s more than eager to sacrifice the duly elected leader of the country on the altar of online page views.  The one-sided arrangement can’t sustain itself.  The media’s credibility is slowly burning out, along with our shared set of common truths we use to make sense of things.

Enough with hopeful niceties – we need reprisal and ridicule in large amounts.  Overly anxious journalists are begging for a swift kick in the pants.  The next White House communications director should be able to give it to them, good and hard.



Source link

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Should Be Prosecuted


Realizing that in the era of crime monitor Jeff Sessions, who plays attorney general on TV, no crime by a public official gets prosecuted for anything, one can only hope that for the safety of the people of Oakland that its mayor, one Libby Schaaf, is arrested and prosecuted for harboring criminal illegal aliens in her city.

Mayor Schaaf recently acted as the functional equivalent of a gang lookout, shouting “ICE!” upon learning of a raid on criminal illegal aliens in her city.

Acting ICE director Thomas Homan told Fox News Wednesday morning that the organization will still enforce the law, despite Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s warning of the Northern California ICE operation.

“I’ll say this to the mayor and every other politician that wants to vilify the men and women of ICE: We’re not going away, we’re going to keep enforcing the law,” Homan said.

Schaaf issued an alert last Saturday after she learned of impending immigration raids set to take place Sunday.

“Earlier today, I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to conduct an operation in the Bay Area, including Oakland, starting as soon as within the next 24 hours,” she said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle on Saturday. “As Mayor of Oakland, I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them.”

Does she means the way Kate Steinle was protected by the sister sanctuary city of San Francisco, gunned down by s criminal illegal alien that has been deported  multiple times? The Justice Department says it is looking into filing charges  of harboring criminal fugitives and obstructing justice against Mayor Schaaf

The White House said Thursday that the Justice Department is looking into whether the Oakland mayor can face federal charges after she warned illegal immigrants of an impending enforcement sweep.


Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also called Mayor Libby Schaaf’s warning “outrageous,” as White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly rose to the defense of immigration agents and other Homeland Security employees, saying they are being unfairly tarred.


“You take the face shots every single day from people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about,” Mr. Kelly said at a 15th anniversary celebration of the Homeland Security Department, which he used to head.

It was the ICE agents conducting the raid who were protecting the citizens of Oakland, not Mayor Schaaf. Rather than a random sweep of convenience stores and the like, immigration enforcement critics charge happens, the ICE raid was targeted and effective:

ICE began arresting people one day after Schaaf’s warning message as part of a “targeted immigration enforcement operations,” according to Fox News. Around half of the illegal immigrants arrested have past criminal history, including assault and weapons charges as well as other violent crimes.


One of the illegal immigrants arrested in the sweep is a well known gang member who has served over 15 years of prison time and has been deported by ICE four times. Armando Nuñez-Salgado, 38, from Mexico, was arrested Sunday.

So explain to us again, Mayor Schaaf, how you are protecting the residents of Oakland by harboring criminal fugitives like Armando Nuñez-Salgado? She should be reminded, as a defendant in a court of law, that the laws of the United States give the President control of immigration policy and the Constitution gives the President, not sanctimonious mayors, control of foreign policy and border security.

Title 8 U.S.C. 1324 makes it quite explicit that harboring and concealing from detection illegal aliens is a felony, whether committed by individuals or sanctuary city officials:

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Sanctuary city mayors are in clear violation of federal statute so for anyone to argue that withholding federal funds from those violating federal law is unconstitutional is, again, nonsense.

Sanctuary city officials could very well be prosecuted for breaking the law and recklessly endangering their citizens by harboring and shielding from scrutiny illegal aliens among whose number may include assorted Islamic State agents, sympathizers and potential lone wolf recruits, along with assorted criminals, like the one charged with the murder of Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They are accomplices in crime.

That is the suggestion of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal made the case on recently on Boston Herald Radio:

“Absolutely, I would hold them as an accomplice. Make them criminally culpable,” the Republican presidential candidate said when asked if he’d arrest mayors of sanctuary cities. “I’d also make them civilly liable so that families, victim’s families, could sue. Especially if the prosecutor isn’t taking action or the mayor’s not changing their ways, I’d allow the families to go to court as well to recover damages.”

Kate Steinle is not an isolated case. On Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015, Jamiel Shaw Sr. testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee  on how his son, Jamiel Shaw, Jr., was killed by an illegal alien in 2008 harbored by the sanctuary city of Los Angeles

Shaw was a Los Angeles high school star dreaming of a good life ahead when he was gunned down on March 2, 2008, while walking home. He was picked at random, police said, possibly as part of a gang loyalty test for the illegal alien who shot him.


Charged with the crime was Pedro Espinoza, who’d been released just hours earlier from Los Angeles County Jail where he spent four months for brandishing a firearm and resisting arrest. Espinoza is an illegal alien.

Shaw Sr. warned of the consequences of sanctuary cities harboring criminal illegal aliens and not deporting them, of not enforcing existing immigration laws, and of open borders:

“My son, Jamiel Shaw II, was murdered while walking on his own street, three houses down from his home. An illegal alien on his first gun charge was visiting a neighbor when my son was coming home,” Shaw testified. “He shot my son in the stomach and then in the head, killing him.”


Shaw then asked an obvious question: “Do black lives really matter? Or does it matter only if you are shot by a white person or white policeman?”

If any of the felons alerted by Mayor Schaaf harms, rapes, or kills one of her constituents, she should be charged with aiding and abetting. Many commentators, mostly on the left, but including talking heads on Fox News like Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera, claim that illegal aliens commit crimes at a rate lower than American citizens. That is debatable, but they miss the point entirely which is that the crime rate for illegal aliens should be zero since none of them should be here in the first place. American citizens like Kathryn Steinle and Jamiel Shaw Jr. should be alive today.

The son of Donald Rosenberg would also be alive today if he hadn’t been run into while riding his motorcycle by an illegal alien who had made an illegal left turn in 2010, then ran over him three times as he tried to flee the scene. Rosenberg, who describes himself as a “lifelong, very liberal Democrat” calculated that his son was among 3,000 Americans killed by illegal aliens in car crashes in 2010. In a letter quoted by the Washington Times that he wrote to President Obama, Rosenberg said:

“My son and all of the others are considered collateral damage in the quest for votes and campaign contributions,” he wrote. “Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.”

Indeed, it is not, and the question asked by many families like, the Shaws, the Steinle’s and the Rosenbergs is — wasn’t America supposed to be our sanctuary?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 

Realizing that in the era of crime monitor Jeff Sessions, who plays attorney general on TV, no crime by a public official gets prosecuted for anything, one can only hope that for the safety of the people of Oakland that its mayor, one Libby Schaaf, is arrested and prosecuted for harboring criminal illegal aliens in her city.

Mayor Schaaf recently acted as the functional equivalent of a gang lookout, shouting “ICE!” upon learning of a raid on criminal illegal aliens in her city.

Acting ICE director Thomas Homan told Fox News Wednesday morning that the organization will still enforce the law, despite Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s warning of the Northern California ICE operation.

“I’ll say this to the mayor and every other politician that wants to vilify the men and women of ICE: We’re not going away, we’re going to keep enforcing the law,” Homan said.

Schaaf issued an alert last Saturday after she learned of impending immigration raids set to take place Sunday.

“Earlier today, I learned from multiple credible sources that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to conduct an operation in the Bay Area, including Oakland, starting as soon as within the next 24 hours,” she said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle on Saturday. “As Mayor of Oakland, I am sharing this information publicly not to panic our residents but to protect them.”

Does she means the way Kate Steinle was protected by the sister sanctuary city of San Francisco, gunned down by s criminal illegal alien that has been deported  multiple times? The Justice Department says it is looking into filing charges  of harboring criminal fugitives and obstructing justice against Mayor Schaaf

The White House said Thursday that the Justice Department is looking into whether the Oakland mayor can face federal charges after she warned illegal immigrants of an impending enforcement sweep.


Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also called Mayor Libby Schaaf’s warning “outrageous,” as White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly rose to the defense of immigration agents and other Homeland Security employees, saying they are being unfairly tarred.


“You take the face shots every single day from people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about,” Mr. Kelly said at a 15th anniversary celebration of the Homeland Security Department, which he used to head.

It was the ICE agents conducting the raid who were protecting the citizens of Oakland, not Mayor Schaaf. Rather than a random sweep of convenience stores and the like, immigration enforcement critics charge happens, the ICE raid was targeted and effective:

ICE began arresting people one day after Schaaf’s warning message as part of a “targeted immigration enforcement operations,” according to Fox News. Around half of the illegal immigrants arrested have past criminal history, including assault and weapons charges as well as other violent crimes.


One of the illegal immigrants arrested in the sweep is a well known gang member who has served over 15 years of prison time and has been deported by ICE four times. Armando Nuñez-Salgado, 38, from Mexico, was arrested Sunday.

So explain to us again, Mayor Schaaf, how you are protecting the residents of Oakland by harboring criminal fugitives like Armando Nuñez-Salgado? She should be reminded, as a defendant in a court of law, that the laws of the United States give the President control of immigration policy and the Constitution gives the President, not sanctimonious mayors, control of foreign policy and border security.

Title 8 U.S.C. 1324 makes it quite explicit that harboring and concealing from detection illegal aliens is a felony, whether committed by individuals or sanctuary city officials:

Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

Sanctuary city mayors are in clear violation of federal statute so for anyone to argue that withholding federal funds from those violating federal law is unconstitutional is, again, nonsense.

Sanctuary city officials could very well be prosecuted for breaking the law and recklessly endangering their citizens by harboring and shielding from scrutiny illegal aliens among whose number may include assorted Islamic State agents, sympathizers and potential lone wolf recruits, along with assorted criminals, like the one charged with the murder of Kate Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They are accomplices in crime.

That is the suggestion of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Jindal made the case on recently on Boston Herald Radio:

“Absolutely, I would hold them as an accomplice. Make them criminally culpable,” the Republican presidential candidate said when asked if he’d arrest mayors of sanctuary cities. “I’d also make them civilly liable so that families, victim’s families, could sue. Especially if the prosecutor isn’t taking action or the mayor’s not changing their ways, I’d allow the families to go to court as well to recover damages.”

Kate Steinle is not an isolated case. On Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2015, Jamiel Shaw Sr. testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee  on how his son, Jamiel Shaw, Jr., was killed by an illegal alien in 2008 harbored by the sanctuary city of Los Angeles

Shaw was a Los Angeles high school star dreaming of a good life ahead when he was gunned down on March 2, 2008, while walking home. He was picked at random, police said, possibly as part of a gang loyalty test for the illegal alien who shot him.


Charged with the crime was Pedro Espinoza, who’d been released just hours earlier from Los Angeles County Jail where he spent four months for brandishing a firearm and resisting arrest. Espinoza is an illegal alien.

Shaw Sr. warned of the consequences of sanctuary cities harboring criminal illegal aliens and not deporting them, of not enforcing existing immigration laws, and of open borders:

“My son, Jamiel Shaw II, was murdered while walking on his own street, three houses down from his home. An illegal alien on his first gun charge was visiting a neighbor when my son was coming home,” Shaw testified. “He shot my son in the stomach and then in the head, killing him.”


Shaw then asked an obvious question: “Do black lives really matter? Or does it matter only if you are shot by a white person or white policeman?”

If any of the felons alerted by Mayor Schaaf harms, rapes, or kills one of her constituents, she should be charged with aiding and abetting. Many commentators, mostly on the left, but including talking heads on Fox News like Juan Williams and Geraldo Rivera, claim that illegal aliens commit crimes at a rate lower than American citizens. That is debatable, but they miss the point entirely which is that the crime rate for illegal aliens should be zero since none of them should be here in the first place. American citizens like Kathryn Steinle and Jamiel Shaw Jr. should be alive today.

The son of Donald Rosenberg would also be alive today if he hadn’t been run into while riding his motorcycle by an illegal alien who had made an illegal left turn in 2010, then ran over him three times as he tried to flee the scene. Rosenberg, who describes himself as a “lifelong, very liberal Democrat” calculated that his son was among 3,000 Americans killed by illegal aliens in car crashes in 2010. In a letter quoted by the Washington Times that he wrote to President Obama, Rosenberg said:

“My son and all of the others are considered collateral damage in the quest for votes and campaign contributions,” he wrote. “Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.”

Indeed, it is not, and the question asked by many families like, the Shaws, the Steinle’s and the Rosenbergs is — wasn’t America supposed to be our sanctuary?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 



Source link