.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not generally comment on my cartoon postings. I let them speak for themselves.
However, since this is my memo I can take a few licenses.
The cartoon above comparing Honduras and Switzerland speaks more about a people's/nation's character than about guns.
The last posting is the one BIBI used to explain Iran's elimination of it's nuclear garage that held uranium. It speaks for itself I just wanted you to understand it was in Iran.
I find the dark photo of trees by my friend and fellow memo reader haunting.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The mass media have responded to Trump's firing of Bolton as I thought they would. The same ones who criticized Trump for hiring him are now attacking him for firing him.
Yesterday I sent out a brief memo in support of Bolton. Now I would like to send out one in support of Trump. (See 1 below.)
The mass media reported Trump was irritated because Bolton took some "unnecessary" trips with a lot of staff. I know nothing about that.
I do know Bolton and Trump came at negotiations, and often their view of how to resolve a knotty problem, from two different viewpoints. Bolton more hawkish, Trump more inclined not to be so hawkish but also willing to threaten/use force if necessary. Unlike Obama.
Trump is impatient, wants results and is unconventional. The faster you build the lower the cost. Government grinds very slow and costs beyond what is affordable because there is no penalty for spending other's money.
Trump is willing to listen to a variety of inputs but when he makes his decision that is it and he wants, and certainly has the right to expect, his team to support him after they have had their chance for input. In that regard alone, Trump was right to ask Bolton to depart.
Lastly, the mass media say Bolton often went behind Trump's back to oppose him. I have no direct knowledge of this.
My liberal friends have jumped all over for Trump because of the issue of did he fire Bolton or did Bolton resign of his own accord. As the Senator from S. Carolina said 'what difference does it make." The difference is the anti-Trumper's are always looking for something to pick at which leads me to the third cartoon above about bashing Trump. Anti-Trumper's love to bash Trump because they are not happy with the menagerie of candidates they have chosen to support.
"I truly like this guy:
Political
Lindsey Graham SHOCKS World With Latest Announcement
| |
Here’s who it is…"
| |
|
Liberals do not trust "we the people" and thus they have every reason to distrust the Constitution which does trust "we the people." Hell, it was written with and for"we the people" in mind.
Finally, and most important, liberals/progressives want to win at any cost and will do anything to win even if it means not accepting Trump's election and thus, their desire to seek changing 250 years of our election method - the Electoral College.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Malkin challenges (See 2 below.)
And
As previously noted Bernie gets in bed with Sarsour, the Islamist activist and anti-Semite.
Because Sarsour is a snake and for Bernie is cooling her hate filled speeches he must think it will help him gain voters among liberal Jews and unwashed college kids. (See 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One person's commentary on 9/11 (See 3 below.)
And:
NYT's - https://www.thegatewaypundit.
forgets-to-
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was totally unaware of these responses to my memos and it appeared today. I have not read them at all but will when I have the time so I post them accordingly. (See 4 below.)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You got to be kidding: https://babylonbee.com/news/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Trump May Come To Miss Bolton — As the
UN Did
1) Trump May Come To Miss Bolton — As the
UN Did
By BENNY AVNI
As now, the cheering then was misplaced. Just like Mr. Bolton’s approach to national security now, his handling of the United Nations in his 18 months here was based not on slogans and traditions but on recognition of stark realities. The UN, where diplomats and officials were aghast at the mere appearance of the disrupter in their midst, was better for Mr. Bolton’s presence.
In one of his first press conferences, shortly after arriving at Turtle Bay in August 2005, Mr. Bolton laid down the law: America will veto any one-sided Security Council resolution on Israel. Proposals for such resolutions frequently arose before his arrival and gave ulcers to American diplomats that were much less blunt and more, er, diplomatic than Mr. Bolton. After that, anti-Israel initiatives at the Council started to wane, at least during his tenure.
Mr. Bolton went out of his way to defend Israel. In the aftermath of its 2006 war against Hezbollah, diplomats debated a Security Council resolution that would end the hostilities and install a reinforced United Nations peacekeeping contingency in southern Lebanon. According to several Israeli sources, at one point Jerusalem was so eager to end the fighting that it agreed to a French-initiated resolution text.
However, Mr. Bolton, a lawyer by trade, recognized several paragraphs in that text that could well harm the Jewish state’s security. He alerted Jerusalem to the peril and halted all negotiations in New York. The resolution was then amended on his insistence, and only then was approved with America’s — and Israel’s — blessing.
Mr. Bolton was far from the first American ambassador defending Israel at the UN. Daniel Patrick Moynihan fought against the tag of Zionism as racism and Nikki Haley masterfully presented a compelling case on Israel’s behalf. Mr. Bolton, though, was not only a hawk fighting for the interests of America and its allies. He was also an adept fighter inside Turtle Bay’s bureaucracy .
Which brings me to Mr. Bolton’s most important, but rarely acknowledged, contribution to the UN — confronting the Oil for Food shenanigans. That mushroomed into a full-blown scandal (at times due to strategic press leaking from an American team here that under Mr. Bolton was the most press-friendly in memory.)
Most significant, Mr. Bolton’s team forced the UN to submit to an external probe into the Oil for Food program for Iraq. Led by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, it yielded several volumes documenting vast corruption. Afterwards, the late Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the UN should never again agree to such programs.
The UN was then pushed to assemble a team looking into the heavily corrupt procurement department, followed by several indictments in United States federal court. Under pressure, Turtle Bay’s senior officials were also forced to fill out financial statements annually, to assure no conflicts of interest — a measure undertaken in any modern democracy, but one that was resisted at the UN.
Through all this, Mr. Bolton rarely used the word “reform,” which is cavalierly thrown around Turtle Bay every time something untoward happens. Pie-in-the-sky reform schemes perennially dominate UN talk — like enlarging the Security Council, and specifically its permanent seats, to make it more reflective of the world today than the way it was when the UN was established in the aftermath of World War II.
It will never fly. The permanent members need to approve it and, since it’s bound to usurp the five countries’ power, they never will. It also is not advisable. The 15-member council can barely arrive at significant decisions as is, so how will it do anything if it became, say, a 25-member council?
I once suggested to Mr. Bolton the idea of shrinking the council’s membership to make it seven seats for five rotating members, and two permanent ones: China and America. Good idea, Mr. Bolton said with a wily smile, adding that instead we should have only one permanent member with veto power.
I didn’t need to ask which one.
A true American patriot, Bolton never shied from a good UN food fight, as suggested by the title of his book on that era, “Surrender Is Not An Option.” Historians will forever debate whether his battles truly benefited America and its allies, although I have no doubt they did.
Few observes noticed how, by seeing the UN as it is rather than as it aspired to be, Mr. Bolton benefited the world body itself. It was forced to significantly change some of its bad old ways in the mid-2000s, and became a tad better. No doubt we will find out that President Trump’s White House similarly benefited from his presence as well.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
These are the rules of the militant open borders media:
But if you are an activist journalist who exposes immigration anarchy, investigates the global financiers behind it and unapologetically defends American sovereignty, you are dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" and "racist" who will never be allowed to pose counterbalancing questions at any national political forum.
Case in point: your's truly.
If there is no mainstream media bias, why is it that the most buzz-worthy immigration questions asked by the media's phony arbiters of neutrality are all framed from the perspective of illegal immigrants -- and never American citizens?
If Democrats "don't want 'open borders,'" as anointed fact-checker at the Fishwrap of Record (a.k.a. Linda Qiu of The New York Times) claims, why is it that every last Democratic candidate marches lockstep on the side of exponentially expanding government benefits, rights and privileges for illegal immigrants -- driver's licenses, in-state tuition discounts, "Medicare for All" -- and never limiting them?
Case in point: yours truly.
And why has the fundamental concept of "sovereignty" never been deemed a worthy enough topic for a stand-alone national town hall -- unlike guns or climate change?
Here is my top seven list of Democratic debate questions on immigration that Jorge Ramos (and the rest of the feckless Fourth Estate elites, for that matter) won't ask:
1) This debate is taking place on the day after the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by 19 foreign Muslim hijackers, five of whom had overstayed their temporary visas. A bipartisan commission urged our government to build a biometric entry-exit program to track and remove visa overstayers -- who comprise an estimated 40% of the total illegal immigrant population. But thanks to Open Borders Inc. lobbyists from the travel industry, universities and big business, the system has never been finished. In 2018, nearly 670,000 foreigners broke the rules and overstayed their visas. Will you protect America by fulfilling the 9/11 commission's recommendation to implement a fully functioning entry-exit program?
2) This debate is taking place in Houston, long a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants. The deliberate failure to check the immigration status of criminal suspects and the willful decision not to cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents has resulted in untold deaths, including the murder of Houston police officer Rodney Johnson in 2006. Johnson's killer had been previously deported to Mexico, re-entered illegally and was arrested at least three times for drunk driving and child molestation charges before shooting Johnson, an Army veteran and Houston PD gang unit leader, fatally during a traffic stop. Do you support the right of American citizens such as widow Joslyn Johnson, whose loved ones were murdered by repeat illegal alien criminal offenders, to sue sanctuary cities that prevent cops from communicating with ICE agents about detainees' immigration status?
3) This debate is taking place in Texas, where the notorious Mexican serial killer Angel Resendiz wantonly murdered more than 15 innocent men and women between 1986 and 1998 by exploiting our catch-and-release system. More recently, Kenyan serial killer suspect Billy Chemirmir was arrested in the gruesome smothering deaths of 12 elderly women and one grandfather across Texas. Those victims would still be alive today if Chemirmir had been deported after overstaying his visa, entering a fraudulent marriage to an American citizen and racking up multiple charges of assault and domestic violence. What is your plan -- let's start with planner-in-chief Elizabeth Warren -- to prevent senseless and deadly violence committed by criminal illegal immigrant deportation fugitives?
4) Teenager Joshua Wilkerson was tortured and beaten to death by an illegal immigrant from Belize near the sanctuary city of Houston. Wilkerson's mom, Laura, confronted Nancy Pelosi about the devastating impact sanctuary anarchy had and asked: "How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?" Do you support the continued separation of American families by criminals in this country illegally protected by sanctuary policies? How do you reconcile Pelosi's glib rhetoric that illegal immigrants are "law-abiding" with the bloody reality suffered by Rodney Johnson, Wilkerson and the dozens of victims of Angel Resendiz and Billy Chemirmir?
5) ICE agents have been doxxed, harassed, shot at and demonized as racist terrorists while trying to stop child predators, arrest drunk drivers, apprehend serial killers and prevent the next 9/11 plotted by visa overstayers, border crossers, deportation evaders and ID thieves. Do you condemn the reckless incitements to violence by the "abolish ICE" and antifa movements?
6) Will you renounce anti-ICE hate speech and return campaign donations from individuals and organizations who disseminate it? Let's see a show of hands.
7) If you support every last gun control measure that might possibly "save just one life," why don't you support illegal immigrant crime control that could have averted the 100% preventable deaths of untold innocent Americans right here in Texas? Anyone? Anyone?
2)
7 Dem Debate Questions Jorge Ramos Won't Ask
These are the rules of the militant open borders media:
By Michelle Malkin
If you are a self-declared Donald Trump-hating "activist journalist" who works for an ethnic separatist TV network that unapologetically elevates illegal immigrants over American citizens, you get to be a "moderator" at the next Democratic presidential candidates' debate.
Case in point: Univision's Jorge Ramos.
But if you are an activist journalist who exposes immigration anarchy, investigates the global financiers behind it and unapologetically defends American sovereignty, you are dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" and "racist" who will never be allowed to pose counterbalancing questions at any national political forum.
Case in point: Univision's Jorge Ramos.
But if you are an activist journalist who exposes immigration anarchy, investigates the global financiers behind it and unapologetically defends American sovereignty, you are dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" and "racist" who will never be allowed to pose counterbalancing questions at any national political forum.
Case in point: your's truly.
If there is no mainstream media bias, why is it that the most buzz-worthy immigration questions asked by the media's phony arbiters of neutrality are all framed from the perspective of illegal immigrants -- and never American citizens?
If Democrats "don't want 'open borders,'" as anointed fact-checker at the Fishwrap of Record (a.k.a. Linda Qiu of The New York Times) claims, why is it that every last Democratic candidate marches lockstep on the side of exponentially expanding government benefits, rights and privileges for illegal immigrants -- driver's licenses, in-state tuition discounts, "Medicare for All" -- and never limiting them?
Case in point: yours truly.
And why has the fundamental concept of "sovereignty" never been deemed a worthy enough topic for a stand-alone national town hall -- unlike guns or climate change?
Here is my top seven list of Democratic debate questions on immigration that Jorge Ramos (and the rest of the feckless Fourth Estate elites, for that matter) won't ask:
1) This debate is taking place on the day after the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by 19 foreign Muslim hijackers, five of whom had overstayed their temporary visas. A bipartisan commission urged our government to build a biometric entry-exit program to track and remove visa overstayers -- who comprise an estimated 40% of the total illegal immigrant population. But thanks to Open Borders Inc. lobbyists from the travel industry, universities and big business, the system has never been finished. In 2018, nearly 670,000 foreigners broke the rules and overstayed their visas. Will you protect America by fulfilling the 9/11 commission's recommendation to implement a fully functioning entry-exit program?
2) This debate is taking place in Houston, long a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants. The deliberate failure to check the immigration status of criminal suspects and the willful decision not to cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents has resulted in untold deaths, including the murder of Houston police officer Rodney Johnson in 2006. Johnson's killer had been previously deported to Mexico, re-entered illegally and was arrested at least three times for drunk driving and child molestation charges before shooting Johnson, an Army veteran and Houston PD gang unit leader, fatally during a traffic stop. Do you support the right of American citizens such as widow Joslyn Johnson, whose loved ones were murdered by repeat illegal alien criminal offenders, to sue sanctuary cities that prevent cops from communicating with ICE agents about detainees' immigration status?
3) This debate is taking place in Texas, where the notorious Mexican serial killer Angel Resendiz wantonly murdered more than 15 innocent men and women between 1986 and 1998 by exploiting our catch-and-release system. More recently, Kenyan serial killer suspect Billy Chemirmir was arrested in the gruesome smothering deaths of 12 elderly women and one grandfather across Texas. Those victims would still be alive today if Chemirmir had been deported after overstaying his visa, entering a fraudulent marriage to an American citizen and racking up multiple charges of assault and domestic violence. What is your plan -- let's start with planner-in-chief Elizabeth Warren -- to prevent senseless and deadly violence committed by criminal illegal immigrant deportation fugitives?
4) Teenager Joshua Wilkerson was tortured and beaten to death by an illegal immigrant from Belize near the sanctuary city of Houston. Wilkerson's mom, Laura, confronted Nancy Pelosi about the devastating impact sanctuary anarchy had and asked: "How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?" Do you support the continued separation of American families by criminals in this country illegally protected by sanctuary policies? How do you reconcile Pelosi's glib rhetoric that illegal immigrants are "law-abiding" with the bloody reality suffered by Rodney Johnson, Wilkerson and the dozens of victims of Angel Resendiz and Billy Chemirmir?
5) ICE agents have been doxxed, harassed, shot at and demonized as racist terrorists while trying to stop child predators, arrest drunk drivers, apprehend serial killers and prevent the next 9/11 plotted by visa overstayers, border crossers, deportation evaders and ID thieves. Do you condemn the reckless incitements to violence by the "abolish ICE" and antifa movements?
6) Will you renounce anti-ICE hate speech and return campaign donations from individuals and organizations who disseminate it? Let's see a show of hands.
7) If you support every last gun control measure that might possibly "save just one life," why don't you support illegal immigrant crime control that could have averted the 100% preventable deaths of untold innocent Americans right here in Texas? Anyone? Anyone?
Michelle Malkin
Biography
Or are we still sleeping? September
11, 2019 Daniel Greenfield