Friday, June 16, 2017

America Will Explode If Anarchists, Liberals and Progressives Are Allowed To Win. Yes, Trump Is Sane. His Detractor's (Franken et al) Are Mostly Unhinged.Happy Father's Day.

Now that Obama is out of office we are finally reading/learning about much of his underhanded/duplicitous ways.

Perhaps one day we will actually learn about his past like that of every other politician who runs for public office. (See 1 and 1a below.)
The mass media are very angry and embarrassed because they completely missed the mood of those who voted for Trump.  The Democrats are also very angry because Hillary did not win and they hate not winning.  In fact, they cannot accept reality..  Finally, The Democrat Party has been captured by the extreme left and socialists like Pocahontas and Bernie and their goal is to rid America of its Constitution and Capitalism.

It has been my experience, liberals and progressives can become petulant, and even dangerous, when they do not get their way because they believe their way is the only way.  They are very self-assured. They do not like their views and beliefs to be challenged. Since they cannot defend them in a reasonable manner they resort to personal attacks and character assassination.

If you trace the effect of their legislative initiatives some has had a positive effect but most has not and the fact that they do not believe anything they want should be denied them and/or even paid for is not only unwise but dangerous.

As for Trump, he may not always be "couth" but he is sane.  Far more so than his detractors starting with the recent "shooter" who toiled in the political vineyards for Bernie and all the other radical misfits in between from those who marched on Wall Street, destroy and set fire to public businesses all the way to Black Lives Matter devotees and now the anti-Trumper bigots.

Many of these people are paid protesters and their protests are organized.  They are behind every campus disruption.  Their funding comes from radicals and those who seek to bring our nation to its knees from within because they profit and gain power from chaos.

They hold very strong views and have the wherewithal to finance anti-social behaviour which furthers their causes.They are true anarchists and seek to shred the very constitutional document that allows and protects their right to engage in their nefarious activities.

Democratic freedom, capitalism and a can do spirit are three of the many reasons why America is the greatest nation on the face of this earth but freedom comes at a price that demands we act collectively in a law abiding rational manner.  The base on which our republic rests is fragile.

We are under attack because Trump wants to undo much of his predecessor's agenda.  He campaigned on a promise to do just that and that is what he is about.  Consequently, impeding him, threatening him , disrupting him, seeking his impeachment are the basic tools the anti-Trump crowd have at their disposal.  Assisting in this effort are a host of liberal/progressive judges who do not interpret the constitution's dictates because, were they to do so, the judicial outcomes would not square with their desires.  This is why who is appointed to the lower federal courts is critical because liberals and progressives know how to court jurisdiction shop..

 If these assorted anarchists, progressives, liberals  are allowed to be successful this nation will explode.  (See 2, 2a  and 2b below.)
On that cheery note let me, again, wish all the father's who read my missives the happiest Of Father's Days.  Off to visit with friends over the weekend at Hilton Head.
1) Israeli envoy: Obama created ‘alternative universe’ to sell Iran nuclear deal

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the US, says the Obama administration created an “alternative universe” to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the American public.
By: Barney Breen-Portnoy, The Algemeiner
An “alternative universe” was created to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the American people, Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer said on Wednesday.
“Two years ago, a propaganda campaign conducted by a master of fiction manufactured moderation and filled echo chambers with nonsense,” Dermer noted, in an apparent reference to Ben Rhodes, who served as former President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.“In this alternative universe, Iran’s path to the bomb has been blocked,” Dermer explained. “In the real world, Iran’s path to the bomb has been paved, because the restrictions the nuclear deal puts in place will be automatically removed in a few years, no matter how Iran behaves. So the clock is ticking. The sands are coming out of that glass and time is literally on their side. You see, Iran won’t need to sneak in or break in to the nuclear club in a few years, they can just walk in.”
The Trump administration and the Israeli government, Dermer continued, now have to cope with the consequences of the July 2015 nuclear agreement.
“America and Israel must stop Iran’s clear path to the bomb,” the ambassador emphasized.
Dermer was speaking at the Endowment for Middle East Truth’s 11th annual Rays of Light in the Darkness Dinner at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, DC. Earlier in his remarks, Dermer said, “Every day, we are treated not just alternative facts about Israel, but to an alternative universe about Israel — an alternative universe of real lies with real consequences.”
“In this alternative universe, the Jews are the occupiers of Judea, the Western Wall is occupied Palestinian territory and the Jewish people have no right to the land that we have lived in for nearly 4,000 years and to a capital that we have faced in prayer for over 2,000 years,” he went on to say. “In this alternative universe, Israel is routinely accused of being a racist apartheid state, despite being the only country in the Middle East where Arabs are free, despite being the only country in history that took blacks out of Africa to freedom and despite being a country that is treating enemies bent on its destruction more compassionately than any other country in history, period. I’ve long joked that maybe the Palestinians are the chosen people, because they have been blessed with Israel as an enemy.”

1a)As I see it, this ex-president and his OFA organization is fermenting insurrection against our government and its Constitution.  A very dangerous course of action reminiscent of past episodes in our country’s history.  Recall the Shay’s Rebellion of 1786 and Whiskey’s Rebellion of 1794 and the consequences.  The ex-president shows his disregard for the rule of law and his desire to bring down the Republic.   
 Even organizing school children is happening- 100 students on a class trip to the nation's a Capital refused to have their picture taken with Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and physically walked out! 

 I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called "Organizing for Action" - (OFA).

 OFA - 30,000 strong working to disrupt everything that our current president is trying to do.  This goes against our Democracy, it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing.  It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago.  If this is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run.  What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?  If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

 It is explained below.  Do your part:  read it and at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against.  We are losing our country and we are so compliant.  We are becoming a "PERFECT TARGET" for our enemy!  Article from the New York Post - If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country?  We are about to find out in America!

 The ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep.  He has moved many of his administration's top dogs over to an organization called Organizing for Action (OFA).  OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for "progressive" change.  Issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.  OFA members were propped up by the ex-president's message from the shadows:  "Organizing is the building block of everything great we've accomplished.  Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities - and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines.  Commit to this work in 2016 and beyond."

OFA's website says it obtained its "digital" assets from the ex-president's re-election effort and that he inspired the movement.  In short, it's the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic - AMERICA

Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president "will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House."  Sperry writes that the ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the incoming administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide.  OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate OFA has 32,525 volunteers nationwide.  The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office near the White House.

Think about how this works - for example:  Trump issues an immigration executive order; OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; violence follows - all emanating from the ex-president's signal that he is heartened by the protests.

If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.

2) A doctor's opinion of President Trump's sanit
FollowingPresidentTrump’s Thursday announcement that the USA would withdraw from the Paris accord, aformer CBS anchor (now with AXS TV) slammed the President with a series of ad hominem  attacks, that ended with strong suggestions that that the President had some serious psychological issues. 
Many others have made the same assertion.  
What do psychiatrists think ?   In the paragraphs below, Dr. Keith Abelow provides his opinions on this subject.  
Remarks by Dr. Keith Abelow, Psychiatrist

Let me issue the standard disclaimer of psychiatrists 
who discuss the mental health of public figures: I have 
not personally examined President Trump.

Now, let me put to rest the concerns of Sen. Al Franken 
and political commentators John Oliver and Andrew 
Sullivan and anyone else who publicly or privately has 
questioned the President’s sanity:  Donald Trump is 
stone cold sane.
When a man acquires billions of dollars through complex real estate transactions, invests in many countries, goes on to phenomenal success in television and turns his name into a worldwide brand, it is very unlikely that he is mentally unstable.
When the same man obviously enjoys the love and respect of his children and his wife, who seem to rely on him for support and guidance, it is extraordinarily unlikely that he is mentally unstable.
When the same man walks into the political arena and deftly defeats 16 Republican opponents and then the Democratic heir-apparent to a two-term President’s administration, the odds of that man being mentally unstable become vanishingly thin.
And when that very same man attracts to his team the kind of intellect and gravitas represented (to name just a few) by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general and commander of the U.S. Central Command, he cannot be mentally deranged. Period. 
It is a statistical impossibility.
Those who assert otherwise are political opportunists, or fools, or both (and I am thinking here, in particular, of Sen. Franken).
President Trump is the first human being to win this nation’s highest office without having held any other political office or serving as a general. Most political pundits thought his quest was pure folly. 
Most journalists assessed his chances as zero. So who was laboring under quasi-delusional thinking ? 
Answer :   Not Donald J. Trump.Anecdotally, by the way, I have never had one bad Trump experience. Not one. I own several of his ties — all of them of the highest quality. I have stayed in his hotels and never had a single complaint (and I am a born complainer).  I have eaten in his New York restaurant — flawless service, excellent food. I own an apartment at Trump Place in Manhattan. Impeccable design, sturdy construction, fabulous amenities. 
A mentally unstable man would be unlikely to deliver superior products across multiple industries, don’t you think?
If you’re still worried about the mental stability of the President, note this: The stock market doesn’t like insta-bility. 
Investors, en masse, can take the measure of a man pretty darn well. The stock market has hit record high after record high since Trump’s election, and if you think that’s an accident, or that investors have all been fooled, it’s time to start wondering about your own capacity for rational thought.
I should note that nothing I am saying should besmirch the reputations of men like President Abraham Lincoln or Sir Winston Churchill, both of whom are said to have fought the ravages of major depression or bipolar disorder. One was instrumental in ridding America of slavery. The other was instrumental in saving the world from tyranny.
Mahatma Gandhi, by the way, also reportedly suffered from depression.  Psychiatric illness does not, a priori, disqualify a person from rendering extraordinary service to mankind.
Mind you, neither Lincoln nor Churchill nor Gandhi led a nation after becoming a business sensation and television star. That trifecta defines one man :  President  Donald  J. Trump.
Now, think about those who are rabble-rousing about the President’s mental status. 
Take Sen. Al Franken.  He’s all worried about the President allegedly overestimating the crowd size at his inauguration. But Franken is allied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who asserted she is Native American, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
And they’re calling Trump’s sanity into question ?   Really, you can’t make up this stuff.
Dr. Keith Ablow, Psychiatrist

2a) Liberalism: Believers Need Not Apply
Progressives have triumphed spectacularly over faith and tradition. Now they are targeting conscience itself.
By Sohrab Ahmari

Does liberalism have any room left for Christians and other believers? The question has been posed countless times, and each time liberals answer more decisively than the previous: No.

On Thursday Britain’s Liberal Democrats delivered that message to their leader, Tim Farron, forcing him to resign over his mildly conservative views on homosexuality and abortion. The Lib Dems supposedly carry the torch of 19th-century classical liberalism, though more recently it’s been difficult to distinguish them from any progressive party, anywhere.

Not least when it comes to gender-and-sexuality orthodoxy. The media and many in his own party have hounded Mr. Farron for years because he deviated—gently, almost imperceptibly—from that orthodoxy. A working-class evangelical Christian, Mr. Farron imagined that his liberal opinions on other big issues like climate change and the European Union would protect him. He was wrong.

Soon after he took the party reins in 2015, Mr. Farron was asked whether, as a Christian, he considers homosexuality a sin. The Lib Dem leader gave the quintessential Christian reply: “We’re all sinners.” But it wasn’t enough. The question would resurface amid the election campaign this spring.

During a TV interview on April 18, he was pressed four times, and four times he demurred. Quiescence wasn’t enough.

Pressure mounted, and the next day Mr. Farron relented. No, he clarified in remarks at the House of Commons, homosexuality isn’t a sin. That still wasn’t enough. The latter-day Gletkins and Ivanovs needed to be sure that Mr. Farron believed this in his heart of hearts, not merely as a matter of public confession. If he didn’t think homosexuality a sin, asked a BBC interviewer a few days later, why had it taken him so long to say so? Mr. Farron was reduced to spouting gibberish.

Then the Guardian newspaper unearthed a 2007 interview, in which he had suggested that “abortion is wrong” but also cautioned Christian activists that an immediate outright ban would be impracticable. Confronted with his own words on the campaign trail, Mr. Farron pleaded that he’d never advocated abortion restrictions. It wasn’t enough.

In his resignation statement, Mr. Farron wrote: “To be a political leader, especially of a progressive liberal party in 2017, and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible.” He added: “I seem to have been the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in.”

The concept he was grasping for is conscience.

Mr. Farron’s politics recall the liberalism of Gladstone, Chesterton and Isaiah Berlin, which treated conscience as king. Today’s liberalism has triumphed so spectacularly over the claims of faith and tradition that it has nothing left to conquer but the individual conscience. This is why modern liberals are so unmagnanimous in victory.
It isn’t enough to emancipate transgender people—you, rabbi, must adhere to strict pronoun guidelines and feel in your soul that Chelsea Manning was always a “she.” It isn’t enough to legalize abortion—you, Tim Farron, must like it.

Liberals welcome believers insofar as religion can be deployed in service of liberal causes, to be sure. But any expression of theological or moral judgmentis met with hostility.

Witness, across the Atlantic, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s tirade against Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. During a Senate confirmation hearing last week, the Vermont socialist grilled Mr. Vought about his contention, in a blog post published last year, that Muslims “do not know God, because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Mr. Vought’s was a particularly stark summary of the basic Christian teaching that faith in the God-Man is essential to salvation. Plenty of Americans might disagree with the substance, phrasing or both. But Mr. Sanders went further, arguing that Mr. Vought’s views were “Islamophobic” and “hateful” and therefore disqualifying.
Set aside the senator’s riding roughshod over the Constitution, which prohibits religious tests for office. What was most depressing about his outburst was the bleak vision of civic life behind it.

To wit, Mr. Sanders implied that a devout Christian can’t hold fast to his faith’s most demanding claims and at the same time exercise public authority with decency and honor. If you disagree with someone’s theology, in other words, it must mean you hate him. Yet at its best the West has stood for the opposite principle: that people can build and share a democratic public square across and even through such differences.

That principle is decaying across much of the West, and authoritarian adversaries like Vladimir Putin are no doubt trying to accelerate its demise. But it wasn’t Mr. Putin who made Western politics so inhospitable to large segments of society—and to conscience.

Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial writer in London.
Appeared in the June 16, 2017, print edition as 'Believers Need Not Apply.' 
Cross-posted from Asia Times.
The distinguished political scientist Angelo Codevilla coined the ominous term “cold civil war” to describe America’s precarious condition, adding, “Statesmanship’s first task is to prevent it from turning hot.” The attempted massacre June this week June 14 of Republican Congressmen and their staff by a deranged partisan of Sen. Bernie Sanders turned up the heat a notch, but it would be mistaken to attribute much importance to this dreadful outburst of left-wing rage. The augury of American fracture will not be street violence, but a constitutional crisis implicating virtually the whole of America’s governing caste. The shock troops in the cold civil war are not gunmen but lawyers.
A considerable portion of America’s permanent bureaucracy, including elements of its intelligence community, is engaged in an illegal and unconstitutional mutiny against the elected commander-in-chief, President Donald Trump. Most of the Democratic Party and a fair sampling of the Republican Establishment wants to force Trump out of office, and to this end undertook an entrapment scheme to entice the president and his staff into actions which might be construed after the fact as obstruction of justice. By means yet undisclosed, the mutineers forced Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn from office and now seek to bring down the president for allegedly obstructing an investigation of Gen. Flynn that arose in the first place from the entrapment scheme.

 One of the Republican Party’s most distinguished statesmen recently told a closed gathering that a “cold coup” is underway against the president. I do not know and have not sought to learn the substance of the allegations; Gen. Flynn has no choice as a matter of self-preservation but to hold his peace and presently cannot defend himself in public.
By no coincidence is Gen. Flynn the central character in this scenario. As I wrote in February, the CIA really is out to get him:

Flynn’s Defense Intelligence Agency produced a now-notorious 2012 report warning that chaos in Syria’s civil war enabled the rise of a new Caliphate movement, namely ISIS. For full background, see  Brad Hoff’s July 2016 essay in Foreign Policy Journal: Flynn humiliated the bungling CIA and exposed the incompetence and deception of the Obama administration, and got fired for it. If anyone doubts the depth of CIA incompetence in Syria, I recommend an account that appeared this month in the London  Financial Times.

The mainstream media makes no effort to disguise its hatred for Trump and insinuates in countless ways that the president fired former FBI director James Comey in order to protect Gen. Flynn from a legitimate investigation. I do not believe this to be the case; I think it more likely that Comey showed insufficient zeal in uncovering the pattern of press leaks and other sabotage which the mutineers employed against the president. Faced with a mutiny fed by illegal actions (leaking classified information is a felony that carries a 10-year prison sentence), the president requires a pit bull for a counterintelligence chief. Comey, who in 2005 earned $6 million as general counsel for the giant defense contractor Lockheed Martin, is more of a Pomeranian.
In cinematic terms, the investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections is what Alfred Hitchcock called "the McGuffin," namely the object that the spies are searching for. The plot revolves around it, explained the celebrated director, but as to what it specifically is, “The audience don’t care.” If it is proven that Russian cyber-spies hacked the email account of Democratic National Committee Chairman John Podesta and handed embarrassing information to Wikileaks, we will know that Russia has done what all intelligence agencies have done for centuries: Leak embarrassing political information to the press.
Western intelligence services leak information about Putin’s alleged personal fortune and personal life and skullduggery to the media, as well as information about the dodgy connections of Chinese officials and their offspring to business. Podesta and his gang at the DNC used unethical and perhaps illegal means to sandbag the campaign of Sen. Sanders, leaks about which embarrassed Hillary Clinton. Sen. Sanders, knowing on which side his bread is buttered, declined to make an issue of the sandbagging, allowing Trump’s enemies to transform what should have been an investigation of corruption in the Democratic Party into a fairy-tale about Russian spies stealing an American election with implied collusion by the Trump campaign.
The Trump-Russia collusion story is nonsense, as its disseminators know better than anyone else. The object of the exercise is not to support the innuendo, but to launch an investigation which can provoke the White House into responses that might be construed as illegal. The intelligence leaks involved in framing the story alone are probably sufficient grounds to put several dozen senior officials in federal prison for double-digit terms. That consideration gauges the scale of the problem: the mutineers have committed multiple felonies, and their downside should the mutiny go wrong is not ignominious retirement but hard time at Leavenworth.
For the moment, the mutineers have the momentum. The Trump administration continues to run on a skeleton staff, with the vast majority of key positions still unoccupied. If my surmise is correct, it was unable to persuade the director of the FBI, the nation’s chief watchdog, to undertake vigorous countermeasures against the mutiny, for example, a comprehensive screening of electronic communications by the reporters who received leaks of classified materials. Most mainstream journalists consider Trump a threat to a desirable social order and are not squeamish about the means they might employ to undermine him. And there are any number of former Obama appointees, for example, former US Attorney for New York’s Southern District Preet Bharara, prepared to convict the president in the media. Bharara claimed earlier this month that “there’s absolutely evidence to begin a case” for obstruction of justice against Trump, although he allowed that as a private citizen he had no access to the evidence.
The White House and in particular the National Security Council meanwhile remain riddled with Obama Administration holdovers, forcing Trump to rely on a close circle of trusted advisers. That limits the president’s ability to reach out for allies against the mutineers.
The installation of former FBI director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to chase the Russian McGuffin also constrains the counterintelligence operations of the White House. If senior intelligence officials claim to be engaged in counterintelligence investigations against Russian interference in US elections, is it obstruction of justice to investigate their illegal contacts with the media?
The mutineers also can count on the support of Establishment worthies like Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), for whom Trump’s election was an intolerable humiliation. Trump ran against the Bush wing of the Republican Party as much as he ran against the Democrats. The Never Trump Republicans are complicit in the destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and the Sudan, and would have wrecked Egypt had Gen. al-Sisi not overthrown a Muslim Brotherhood government that the Establishment Republicans helped incubate.
The President’s free-wheeling style, more suited to the management of a family business than the Executive Branch, makes minor missteps more likely. Minor missteps are dangerous when a desperate and determined enemy is ready to exploit them.
Trump’s one great advantage in all of this is that he has done nothing wrong. He did not obstruct justice because there is no crime. The mutineers’ only hope is to provoke him to take actions which might be construed as obstruction of justice in an investigation with no crime and no victim. Still, it is a moment of great danger for the American Republic. The mutiny has burned its bridges on the beach, and its perpetrators will risk everything to make it succeed. Whatever the outcome, the legitimacy of a political system designed to be litigious and oppositional will be called into question, and the polarization of American opinion will become more rather than less extreme.

No comments: