++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amb. Haley's resignation is a shock and disappointment. Her muscular approach to handling The U.N. was sorely needed. Great shame. She could certainly be the first American female president.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since Democrats fear they have lost control of The SCOTUS they now will resort to winning mechanically and that means seeking to overturn the Electoral College.
If you want the thinking prevalent in California and New York to become the tail that wags America then , by all means, support Democrats in their effort to dump on rural America and the "deplorables" whom Hillary hates. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Worth re-posting in view of Soros' money's growing impact. His focus is now State Attorney General Elections. (See 2 below.)
This is from a friend and fellow memo reader: "Dick - Soros is really following the Hitler script for overthrowing governments and sowing dissent . - GG"
As for myself, I find it disturbing only Democrat past presidents believe they can continue to act like they are still in The Oval Office. Carter's efforts have been positive at times and also negative at time. Clinton stole Haiti blind under the guise of responding to the devastating earthquake's impact and Obama continues to undermine Trump at every turn.
Kroft's connection of Soros' power over Obama, Soros' grip on The Democrat Party etc. I leave to the reader to decide. It may not be as strong as Kroft suggests but the amount of wealth Soros has committed and the methods he is employing to distribute same will be an ongoing phenomenon long after he is dead. Soros intends to reach from the grave and, financially speaking, will. (See 2 and 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We need a veteran pessimist like Walter Laqueur who died this year.
We no longer teach history and therefore are not likely to be prepared for the repeat surprises. (See 3 below.) And:
Ode to Susan Collins: http://www2.philly.com/philly/columnists/christine_flowers/susan-collins-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-justice-20181008.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
What’s the Matter With North Dakota?
Think the Senate is too Republican? You can always move.
By
In the wake of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, some of his opponents have taken to denouncing the U.S. Senate as undemocratic. “It may not happen in our lifetimes,” NBC reporter Ken Dilanian tweeted, “but the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change.”
Needless to say, the Founders gave significant thought to such concerns when they designed the U.S. Congress. They weren’t concerned only with creating a popularly responsive government but also with designing a structure that could unite a vast and diverse republic of sovereign states. It’s also peculiar that the left is now objecting to the Senate when it has been a significant obstacle to President Trump’s agenda on many issues. If it were up to the House, the more democratic chamber, Justice Kavanaugh would have been confirmed more swiftly.
Still, countermajoritarian arguments carry less weight today than they did in the 18th century. And it’s true that the Senate’s structure dilutes the political power of populous states. It’s understandable that this leads to grousing among liberals in places like New York and Los Angeles.
Broadside announcing a public discussion on the proposed Kansas Constitution. PHOTO: GILDER LEHRMAN COLLECTION/BRIDGEMAN IMAGES
But this isn’t the first time the nature of the Senate has come under contestation in a bitterly divided America. As the U.S. expanded westward in the early 19th century, Congress generally admitted a slave state and a free state at the same time to keep the Senate “balanced.” In 1854 it passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed those territories to determine for themselves whether slavery would be sanctioned. Kansas’ status became fiercely contested; its admission as a free state, and the seating of two new antislavery senators, would pose an existential threat to Southern slave power.
Abolitionists, who had an advantage in the House, didn’t merely complain about the Senate. They launched an ideologically motivated effort to settle Kansas. The New England Emigrant Aid Company was founded in Massachusetts to promote settlement by free-staters. The city of Lawrence was named after an antislavery philanthropist who supported the effort. Pro-slavery emigrants also poured into the territory from Missouri.
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that today’s Democrats, concerned about their handicap in the Senate, launch a deliberate effort to send like-minded voters to less-populated Republican states like North Dakota? Maybe—you can’t simply set up a farm along the frontier today. But some of today’s liberal corporate tycoons—I’m looking at you, Jeff Bezos—have the power to create tens of thousands of jobs virtually wherever they want.
What if instead of attacking an institution that’s here to stay—equal representation in the Senate is the Constitution’s lone unamendable provision—the resistance used some of its ample resources to create a new tech hub in Fargo? It could attract thousands of workers and improve the prospects for Democratic Senate candidates. Educated metropolitan areas tend to lean left.
Liberals are unlikely to invest the money and effort such a project would require, for a variety of reasons. But the most important one is that for all their insistence that today’s conservatives represent an existential threat to the republic on the order of Southern white supremacists, in their hearts they know better.
Mr. Willick is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) George Soros
THE MOST EVIL HUMAN
ON EARTH
Steve Kroft (born August 22, 1945) is an American journalist and a longtime correspondent for "60 Minutes". His investigative reporting has garnered him much acclaim, including three Peabody Awards and nine Emmy awards, one of which was an Emmy for Lifetime Achievement. You can understand what is happening to our America after reading this. May God have mercy upon our nation.
One Evil Human. . FROM STEVE KROFT ("60 Minutes")
Glen Beck has been developing material to show all the ties that Soros has through the nation and world along with his goals. This article is written by Steve Kroft from "60 Minutes". It begins to piece together the rise of Obama and his behavior in leading the nation along with many members of Congress (in particular the Democrats, such as the election of Pelosi as the minority leader in Congress).
If you have wondered where Obama came from and just how he quickly moved from obscurity to President, or why the media is "selective" in what we are told, here is the man who most probably put him there and is responsible. He controls President Obama's every move. Think this is absurd? Invest a few minutes and read this. You won't regret it.
Who is Obama? Obama is a puppet and here is the explanation of the man or demon that pulls his strings. It's not by chance that Obama can manipulate the world. After reading this and Obama's reluctance to accept help on the oil spill you wonder if the spill is part of the plan to destroy the US? "In history, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet someone planned it." ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Who Is George Soros? He brought the market down in 2 days. Here is what CBS' Mr. Steve Kroft's research has turned up. It's a bit of a read, and it took 4 months to put it together.
"The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States of America." ~ George Soros"
George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." He killed and robbed his own Jewish people. What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist world class philosopher, despises the American way, and just loves to do social engineering and change cultures.
Garry Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of the Esperanto language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity. The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the Gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.
When Hitler's henchman, Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.
Soros has repeatedly called 1944 "the best year of his life." 70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year , yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect". During an interview with "Sixty Minute's" Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his "best year."
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors.
SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many, years. Was it difficult?
SOROS: No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it.
KROFT: No feelings of guilt?
SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power.
In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having carried some rather "potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble." Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper's death in 1994. Two of Popper's most influential teachings concerned "the open society," and Fallibilism.
Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. (Then again, I could be wrong about that.) The "open society" basically refers to a "test and evaluate" approach to social engineering. Regarding "open society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper's advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess."
In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation. Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.
In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American Thinker" she says, "Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically, almost overnight."
In 1994 Soros crowed in "The New Republic," that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history. "The "Soros Empire" indeed.
In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad, called Soros "a villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people."
The website Greek National Pride reports, "Soros was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality."
France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars. Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for "illegal market manipulation." Elizabeth Crum writes that the Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. Soros deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary's economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.
My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach. But what about America? Soros told Australia's national newspaper "The Australian." "America, as the center of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. "The game is out," he said, adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in American's consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about."
Soros: "World financial crisis was "stimulating" and "in a way, the culmination of my life's work."
Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil, in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's largesse towards Brazil came shortly after his political financial backer, George Soros, invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).
Tait Trussel writes, "The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U S could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independence."
A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. Their mission: "This blog is dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world's poor, that justice will be served."
Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago, news sources reported that "Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous. In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people". His "open society" is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of a PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements.
Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers" are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book, "The Shadow Party", outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel. Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which recently became the Obama Administration.
Discover The Networks.org (another good source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government, a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup."
November 2008 edition of the German magazine, "Der Spiegel," in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U. S.) should do after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package." Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right. Soros also said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights."
Although Soros doesn't (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.
Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by "The Baltimore Chronicle's" Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlyle Group is run by "a veritable who's who of former Republican leaders," from CIA man, Frank Carlucci, to CIA head and ex-President George Bush, Sr.
In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds. When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 (that's Five Billion) to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama's win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist. George has been contributing a billion plus to the DNC since Clinton came on the scene.
Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren't bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA. And I mustn't forget to mention Soros' involvement with the MSM (Main Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influences most of the MSM. Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, - Soros' NEMESIS.
As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthrop ist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives."
Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America's traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering."
Some of the many NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.
Poe continues, "Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia."
Without Soros' money, would the Saul Alinsky's Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would big money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals?
America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barack Obama is leading the way.
The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -----
Above information researched by CBS Steve Kroft
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
2a) Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Delivers 'Jumbled Word Salad' When Asked What She'll Do In Congress
By Joseph Curl
Socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has a hard time explaining, well, anything. So when she appeared on Friday on MSNBC, host Chris Hayes lobbed her the softest of pitches. Hayes, who rightly predicted the Democrat will win her heavily liberal district in New York, asked this simple question about what Cortez will do once she gets to Capitol Hill. “What’s your plan here?” he asked.
"Well, I think a lot of it has to do with changing our strategy around governance, you know. There is a lot of inside baseball, and inside the beltway, as you know, you always hear that term thrown around. But there are very few organizers in Congress and I do think that organizers operate differently. It’s a different kind of strategy and what it is is really about organizing and really thinking about that word ‘organizing’, segmenting people, being strategic in their actions and really bringing together a cohesive strategy of putting pressure on the chamber instead of only focusing on pressure inside the chamber," the 28-year-old former bartender said.
Huh?
But Hayes loved the answer. "That’s a really interesting thought," he said.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)The Veteran Pessimist
By Gerard Alexander
Walter Laqueur, 1921-2018.
Walter Laqueur was the most influential neoconservative intellectual you may never have heard of. He does not always figure in the roster alongside Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and other luminaries. But he should; for decades he was one of the most prolific, insightful, and instructive among this list of thinkers and advocates who were defined by their concerns about naïveté (and worse) at home and gathering threats abroad.
Like some other American intellectuals of his generation, Laqueur was a refugee from foreign turmoil. He was born and raised in Breslau in eastern Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland), and starting at the age of 11, he navigated the increasingly fraught life of German Jews under Nazi rule. He emigrated alone, late in the game, in 1938, dodging a threat that his parents did not survive. He made his way to the British Mandate of Palestine, where he did some further schooling, picked up languages like Arabic and Russian along the way, and began work as a journalist.
But he quickly became an essayist and researcher who was a better fit with academia. Not all academics agreed. Because Laqueur never had a settled enough life to earn advanced degrees (and possibly not the patience either), some university faculties resisted hiring him. But Tel Aviv University and then Brandeis and finally Georgetown embraced him.
Instead of the one research specialty to which scholars tend to apply themselves, he eventually developed a number of them: Russia, totalitarianism, political violence, the Arab-Israel conflict, Jewish culture and politics, Zionism, 20th-century European society and politics, and U.S. foreign policy. From his pen would flow an impossibly large volume of work on these subjects.
In London, he founded two academic journals, one on modern history and the other on foreign policy and international affairs. The pairing nicely sums up what he made his daily work: bringing modern history to bear on international issues and debates. He did so to combat the foolishness and error to which people are vulnerable when they are ignorant even of the last few decades of their own history. Laqueur commented in one of his books that “human memory is notoriously frail,” because its knowledge evaporates unless studied, talked about, and taught.
If people weren’t learning the needed history in school or on their own, he would teach it to them in books and magazine articles that dredged up the crucial facts and showed readers their implications. For instance, Europeans habituated to a quarter century of political peace reacted with panic to the terrorism of the 1970s that they considered new and horrifying. Laqueur wrote a string of works calmly noting that terrorism had deep historical roots and was unlikely to destabilize confident democracies. When the ordeals of Vietnam led some to think that well-intended people could craft international rules and organizations that could ensure peace, Laqueur refreshed their memories about similar ventures in the 1920s and 1930s that ended in tragedy. When many of the same people interpreted the leaders of the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s in increasingly charitable terms, he analyzed the Soviet story and came to very different conclusions. When the collapse of the USSR in 1990-91 raised hopes that a new Russia might be a good global citizen, Laqueur warned that if the country’s history were any guide, Russians were just as likely to be national chauvinists and authoritarian populists. That proved as prescient as any of his forecasts. Laqueur used history to offer these lessons not because he believed history repeats itself rigidly, but because being ignorant of history is the surest way to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors.
These and other of Laqueur’s warnings have in common a pessimism that he acknowledged, including in the title of one of his books, Reflections of a Veteran Pessimist. This was no doubt partly a product of his personal story. When sympathizers hailed the radical student movements of the 1960s and early 1970s as idealistic and inspirational, he pointed out that the German youth movements of the 1920s were idealistic but also malevolent. He had lost his family, his home city and country, and later even the peculiar pluralistic character of the mandatory Palestine in which he had matured. He knew a huge number of people who had died violently. It would have been hard to maintain simple optimism through all that.
But by the same standard—he survived, after all—his pessimism was not a sense of doom. He worried that Western Europe was a region in decay, with a gaping chasm between its economic might and its political mousiness. But he drew strength from the élan and vitality he detected in the United States, Israel, and other places. He just believed those energies would prosper in a society that was clear-eyed and levelheaded. He wrote about the “West in retreat” not because he thought retreat inevitable but because he knew it was not, which is why he was part of an effort to rally the West, starting with its resolve.
Running through his work like a river, most emphatically in the pages of Commentarymagazine, was a series of assumptions, lessons, and traits that characterized what came to be called neoconservatism. These included realism about imperfect politics, an appreciation of the scarcity of time and other resources, a conviction that thugs can and should be deterred and that fanatics need to be called out instead of indulged, and a belief that our ideological hopes and dreams should not write checks that human nature cannot cash.
These views led him to vigorously defend liberal democracies. This was not because he romanticized their citizens. He believed corners of the American New Left were more sinister than naïve. He also had no love for right-wingers of the traditional or populist type. And he repeatedly insisted that Israeli Jews were insufficiently attentive to the Palestinian question, from the Mandate period right up through what he considered the ill-advised settlement policy.
If Laqueur is too often overlooked in the roster of the founding generation of neoconservatism, it might be because he deliberately spoke to policy and intellectual elites more than to mass audiences. Maybe, too, it’s because he did not define himself as the world’s greatest expert on any single issue, instead spreading himself thickly across a dozen topics. And maybe it’s because he was not actually a conservative, situated instead in the liberal wing of the movement, along with Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Finally, Laqueur considered himself a European instead of an American. It is symbolic that he shuttled for decades between homes and workplaces in the United States, Britain, and Israel. He once remarked that learning several languages “was one of the side effects of being uprooted.” He was uprooted so much that he never settled into any single identity. That made him unlike, say, Henry Kissinger, who had a thicker accent but a simpler self-conception as an American.
But Laqueur deserves to rank with the greatest intellectuals of his generation. During a dangerous period in Western history he worked furiously to communicate to anyone who would listen the crucial lessons that history can teach us about the international threats we face, what strategies are likely to work in confronting them, what tempting mistakes to avoid along the way, and why an imperfect America is well worth fighting for. Sometimes immigrants see that most clearly
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment