Thursday, June 15, 2017

Stoned Again? Should We Continue Birthright Program? America's Second Civil War. Has Democrat Party, Driven By Hate, Actually Lost It's Collective MInd /Moorings?


and amazing:


https://www.youtube.com/embed/ doN4t5NKW-k

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stoned again? (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Should we continue our birthright policy?  You decide. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Are we experiencing America's  Second Civil War? (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++
There is no question there is a concerted and co-ordinated attack on The Republican Party, Trump  and those on college campuses who happen to have different views from youthful fascists and liberal professors who have taken over many of our colleges.

After tonight's ball game is history I expect the Democrats, mass media will be back to their hysterical behaviour and attributing every "phobic" to their enemies in the Republican Party and Caesar Assassination Play will continue. The Democrats are out of control!

Furthermore, can Mueller be trusted?  Time will tell.  I am increasingly concerned he will prove an unmitigated disaster not only for Trump but for our nation. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) Oliver Stone's Response to Being Laughed at for Defending Putin: Blame the Jews
By Alan Dershowitz

  • The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews must be its cause. This is the exact canard peddled by Stone — and is extremely dangerous if unrebutted. I challenge my old friend (and co-producer of Reversal of Fortune – the film based on my book) to debate me on the following proposition: Did Israel do more to influence the 2016 election than Russia?
When film director Oliver Stone could not come up with a plausible response to Stephen Colbert's tough questions about why he gave a pass to Vladimir Putin for trying to influence the American presidential election, Stone resorted to an age-old bigotry: blame the Jews – or, in its current incarnation, shift the blame to the nation state of the Jewish people, Israel. Colbert was interviewing Stone about his new documentary, “The Putin Interviews” – a film comprised of conversations he had with the Russian president over the past two years. The exchange regarding Israel did not make it to air but was relayed to the New York Post's Page Six by a source who was in the audience.
When pressed by Colbert about his apparent fondness of the Russian dictator, Stone replied: “Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia.” He then said again, “Why don't you ask me about that?” Colbert responded: “I'll ask you about that when you make a documentary about Israel!”
If Stone's absurd response were not reflective of a growing anti-Semitism by the intolerant hard left (of which Stone is a charter member) it would be laughable. Indeed, Stone resorted to the “socialism of fools” (which is what German Social Democrat, August Bebel, coined anti-Semitism) precisely to save face because he was being mockingly laughed off stage by Colbert's audience for giving Colbert ridiculous answers. Some of Stone's bizarre pronouncements included:
“I'm amazed at his [Putin's] calmness, his courtesy…he never really said anything bad about anybody. He's been through a lot. He's been insulted and abused.” Stone also expressed his “respect” for Putin's leadership. But no answer was more ridiculous than his bigoted claim that Israel did more to try to influence the election than Russia.
Oliver Stone (Image source: Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)
We know for certain that Russia (and that means Putin) desperately wanted Hillary Clinton to lose. We know that their surrogates timed leaks to cause maximum damage to her campaign. All of our intelligence agencies, in a rare show of unanimity, concluded that Russia went to great lengths to try to defeat Clinton.
What did Israel do? Stone hasn't said. He just let the blood libel hang out there for other bigots, so they could say, “See, we knew the Jews were behind this; they always are.” There was an old Polish expression that said: if there is a bad outcome, the Jews must be behind it. Indeed, throughout history the last recourse of desperate bigots has been 'blame the Jews.' The modern version – pervasive among the hard left– is blame their nation-state, Israel.
The reason Stone did not provide any proof of his anti-Semitic accusation is because there is none. It simply is not true. Israel did not try to influence this election. The Israeli government took no position and its leaders were probably divided, as were its citizens, concerning the desired outcome. Prime Minister Netanyahu, for his part, remained neutral, emphatically stating before the election that he was “happy to work with whoever gets elected.”
Moreover, American Jews voted overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton. To be sure, some, such as Sheldon Adelson, contributed to Trump, but others, including many strong supporters of Israel, contributed heavily to Clinton. I would not be surprised if even in the face of Adelson's huge contributions, more money from Jewish sources was contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, but no one keeps track of such matters.
It is important to note that this is not an isolated incident. Stone's bigotry towards Jews and their nation state is well documented. He has said that, “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than [to] the Jewish people.”
And then argued that this fact is largely unknown because of “the Jewish domination of the media…there's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington.” He continued to say: “Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”
Moreover, Stone has also stated that, “Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history” and expressed affection for Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, whom he called “a great leader.”
Clearly, there was no legitimate reason for Stone to bring up Israel in the context of a dialogue regarding Russia's interference in the U.S. presidential election. By ducking questions about Putin and Russia, and then bizarrely accusing Israel of wrongdoing, Stone engaged in an old trope: blaming Jews – or the nation state of the Jewish people –for far reaching domestic political issues in foreign countries. By morphing the discussion about Putin's untoward history of suppressing the press, killing political opponents, and engaging in cyber attacks against the U.S., into a polemic against Israel, Stone displayed his own bias.
The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews must be its cause. This is the exact canard peddled by Stone — and is extremely dangerous if unrebutted. I challenge my old friend (and co producer of Reversal of Fortune – the film based on my book) to debate me on the following proposition: did Israel do more to influence the 2016 election than Russia? If he agrees, he will once again be laughed off the stage.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
2)This one is important and asks the question why is America so far behind?

FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF ALL THE DEVELOPED NATIONS OF THE WORLD THAT OFFER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE NEWBORN BABIES OF TOURISTS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS:

1. United States.  That's right, ONLY ONE.  Every other modern developed nation in the world has gotten rid of birthright citizenship policies. Yet, most of U.S. news media and politicians the last two weeks have ridiculed the comments by some other politicians that it is time for the U.S. to put an end to birthright citizenship for tourists and 'illegal aliens.'

-  NO OTHER COUNTRIES (ZERO-NONE-ZILCH), the U.S. 'Stands alone.'  There used to be all kinds of developed countries that gave away their citizenship as freely as we do in the U.S. but one by one they all have recognized the folly, recklessness, lunacy, stupidity of that policy.

-  SOME MODERN COUNTRIES THAT RECENTLY ENDED THEIR BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP POLICY:   Canada was the last non-U.S. Holdout.  Illegal aliens stopped getting citizenship for their newborn babies in 2009.  Australia's birthright citizenship requirements are much more stringent than those of H.R. 1868 and took effect in 2007.

-  New Zealand repealed in 2006.

-  Ireland repealed in 2005.

-  France repealed in 1993.

-  India repealed in 1987.

-  United Kingdom repealed in 1983.

-  Portugal  repealed in 1981.

The United States is the 'laughing stock' of the modern world.  Only the U.S. values its citizenship 'so lowly' as to distribute it promiscuously to the off-spring of foreign citizens visiting Disney World on tourist visas and to foreign citizens who have violated their promises on their visitor, work and student visas who stay illegally in the country, as well as to those who sneak across our borders.

It's not just Mexico and South America who are sending illegals across our borders. Currently, the CBP (Customs Border Protection) reports that of those apprehended illegally crossing the border, China is number one.

Wake up America!  END BIRTHRIGHT FOR TOURIST, FOREIGN CITIZENS AND ESPECIALLY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Illegal aliens from China, India, Russia, the Middle East, and a host of other nations are flooding the United States.  Ironically, most often these 'illegals' and/or their offspring are given positions at the front of the line for Government jobs, contracts and assistance.  Look around you!   We are giving away our culture, and economic and fiscal strength because our borders are not secure and we bestow citizenship irresponsibly.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Civil War?
by DENNIS PRAGER 

We’re in a fight over basic values. It is time that our society acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its Second Civil War. 

In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically, and politically today than they were during the Civil War. For that reason, just as the Great War came to be known as the First World War once there was a Second World War, the Civil War will become known as the First Civil War when more Americans come to regard the current battle as the Second Civil War. 

This Second Civil War, fortunately, differs in one other critically important way: It has thus far been largely non-violent. But given the increasing left-wing violence such as riots, the violent taking over of college presidents’ offices, and the illegal occupation of state capitols, non-violence is not guaranteed to be a permanent characteristic of the Second Civil War. 

There are those on both the left and the right who call for American “unity.” But these calls are either na├»ve or disingenuous. Unity was possible between the Right and liberals, but not between the Right and the Left. Liberalism – which was anti-Left, pro-American, and deeply committed to the Judeo-Christian foundations of America, regarded the melting pot as the American ideal, fought for free speech for its opponents, regarded Western civilization as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement, and viewed the celebration of racial identity as racism – is now affirmed almost exclusively on the right and among a handful of people who don’t call themselves conservative. 

The Left, however, is opposed to every one of those core principles of liberalism. Like the Left in every other country, the Left in America sees America as essentially a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, war-mongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation. 

Just as in Western Europe, the Left in America seeks to erase America’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The melting pot is regarded as nothing more than an anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic meme. The Left suppresses free speech, wherever possible, for those who oppose it, labeling all non-Left speech “hate speech.” To cite only one example, if you think Shakespeare was the greatest playwright, or Bach the greatest composer, you are a proponent of Dead White European Males and therefore racist. 

Without any important value held in common, how can there be unity between Left and non-Left? Obviously, there cannot. There will be unity only when the Left vanquishes the Right or the Right vanquishes the Left. Using the First Civil War analogy, American unity was achieved only after the South was vanquished and slavery abolished. 

How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism – there is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America’s core values in contempt – supposed to unite with “educators” who instruct elementary-school teachers to cease calling their students “boys and girls” because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don’t require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English? With those who regard virtually every war America fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its black minority that the greatest problems afflicting black Americans are all caused by white racism, “white privilege,” and “systemic racism”? With those who think that the nuclear-family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term “Islamic terrorist” is an expression of religious bigotry? This is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives, and the Right have to defeat the American Left. 

The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools – from elementary schools to high schools to the universities – and indoctrinate America’s young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news media; and how it has taken over the entertainment media. 

The conservative side has lost on every one of these fronts because it has rarely fought back with anything near the ferocity with which the Left fights. Name a Republican politician who has run against the Left, as opposed to running solely against his or her Democratic opponent. And nearly all American conservatives, people who are proud of America and affirm its basic tenets, readily send their children to schools that indoctrinate their children against everything the parents hold precious. A mere handful protest when their child’s teacher ceases calling their son a boy or their daughter a girl, or makes “slave owner” the defining characteristic of the Founding Fathers. 

With the defeat of the Left in the last presidential election, the defeat of the Left in two-thirds of the gubernatorial elections and in a majority of House and Senate elections, this is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives, and the Right have to defeat the American Left. But it will not happen until these groups understand that we are fighting for the survival of America no less than the Union troops were in the First Civil War. —

 Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com. © 2017 Creators.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Mueller Probe Examining Whether Donald Trump Obstructed Justice

Special-counsel investigation has expanded to look into president's firing of former FBI Director James Comey


By     
WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey is now a subject of the federal probe being headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, which has expanded to include whether the president obstructed justice, a person familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Mueller is examining whether the president fired Mr. Comey as part of a broader effort to alter the direction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and whether associates of Mr. Trump colluded with Moscow, the person said.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, denounced the revelation in a statement.
“The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal,” Mr. Corallo said.
Mr. Trump’s reaction to the new turn in Mr. Mueller’s inquiry came early Thursday morning in the form of a tweet. He suggested that he is unhappy with the focus on obstruction of justice, given that he believes there was no underlying crime.
“They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice,” Mr. Trump wrote.
Aides to Mr. Trump have warned him not to tweet about the Russia investigation, an inquiry in which any statement he makes could become fodder for investigators.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, declined to comment. The special counsel’s pursuit of an obstruction of justice probe was first reported Wednesday by the Washington Post.
Mr. Mueller’s team is planning to interview Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers as part of its examination of whether Mr. Trump sought to obstruct justice, the person said.
The special counsel also plans to interview Rick Ledgett, who recently retired as the deputy director of the NSA, the person added.
While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. During the call, the president questioned the veracity of the intelligence community’s judgment that Russia had interfered with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russian officials, they said.
Russia has denied any government effort to meddle in the U.S. election. Mr. Ledgett declined to comment, and officials at the NSA didn’t respond to a request for comment. An aide to Mr. Coats declined to comment.
“If the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him to ask his questions, I said I would be willing to do that,” Mr. Coats said June 7. Mr. Rogers said he would also be willing to meet with the special counsel’s team.Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers told a Senate panel June 7 that they didn’t feel pressured by Mr. Trump to intervene with Mr. Comey or push back against allegations of possible collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia. But the top national security officials declined to say what, if anything, Mr. Trump requested they do in relation to the Russia probe.
Mr. Comey told a Senate panel on June 8 that Mr. Trump expressed “hope” in a one-on-one Oval Office meeting that the FBI would drop its investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned under pressure for making false statements about his conversations with a Russian diplomat. Mr. Trump has denied making that request.
Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president’s actions amounted to obstruction of justice. The former FBI director also said he had furnished the special counsel with memos he wrote documenting his interactions with the president on the matter.
At a June 13 hearing at a House of Representatives panel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein declined to say who asked him to write a memo justifying Mr. Comey’s firing. The White House initially cited that memo as the reason for the termination, and Mr. Trump later said in an NBC interview that he also was influenced by the Russia investigation. Mr. Rosenstein said he wasn’t at liberty to discuss the matter.
“The reason for that is that if it is within the scope of Director Mueller’s investigation, and I’ve been a prosecutor for 27 years, we don’t want people talking publicly about the subjects of ongoing investigations,” Mr. Rosenstein said.

No comments: