The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: What Real Voter Suppression Looks Like

One of the most contentious issues brought about as a result of the 2016 Trump Clinton Presidential debates concerned if Trump lost, would he accept the results.  This was never asked of Hillary Clinton, mostly because the costal elites and East coast media machine had decided it was a foregone conclusion that she would win, but she didn’t.  Now it is the democrats who seem to have a problem accepting the outcome of the presidential election.

Now comes the kicker. Since they are unable and unwilling to accept the outcome of the people, they have started a new movement to skirt the assurances of the constitution and a representative government by doing the outlandish – replacing the electoral college with the popular vote. The vehicle for this is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact is comprised of 11 states and the District of Columbia on board. Recently, Colorado is set to become the latest member of this group of states joined together to bypass the electoral college system. Yes, that is correct, and if successful, it would give the 2020 presidential election to whoever wins the popular vote. Although it could only go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes pass the law, it remains a frightening proposition to know that this how people who frequently scream voter suppression, are in their own way suppression the vote of the citizens of their own state. As it stands, the states in the compact has 172 electoral votes.  

This is why the framers, via the twelfth Amendment, instituted the electoral college, to prevent group think and highly populated urban areas to have more say than less populated and rural areas. When we vote to elect a president, we are really selecting a slate of electors to indemnify that the candidate who wins in that state with a plurality of the votes gets all of the state’s electoral votes.  This system has worked very well.  However, sometimes as we recall from the 2000 election, the Electoral College can result in a candidate that wins the popular vote can still not become president.   Likewise, in the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only 43 percent of the popular votes. Although the introduction of a third party candidate, Ross Perot was the main reason for this, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections in either 1992 or 1996, yet he was named as President because he won an Electoral College majority in both elections.

I think democrats need to think twice before they take us down a slippery slope to re-write, changes or alter the constitution. In particular, if we pick and choose only the parts of the constitution they do not like. Although they continue to scream Russia stole/hacked and interfered in our electoral process without evidence other than Ads on twitter and Facebook, and equally contend that people are so dumb and stupid that memes made us vote the way we did, or that Pro-Beyoncé and Anti-Beyoncé were targeted to split the Black vote, they never ever consider that Hillary Clinton was just the perfect image of unlikableness (i made this word up) ever to run for the highest office in the land.

We must accept the constitution as it is. Why? Because James Madison and Hamilton really didn’t want The United States to be a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.  They both wrote extensively about this with Madison being mainly concerned with tribes, mobs or ‘Factions’ (pro-life, pro-choice, pro illegal immigration, anti-illegal immigration, free trade, anti-trade, isolationist, globalist etcetera) that could hurt the nation by violating the rights of and having more power than other citizens based on where they lived. Specifically, he stated that such groups could possibly: “sacrificeto its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of othercitizens.”

  

This is why we need the Electoral College and why it should never be obviated from our national political process.  To suggest the opposite is infantile and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Constitution of the United States and reading of the Federalist Papers (expressly Federalist #10). Moreover, to change to the results of the popular vote to select our President would be true voter suppression.

Read More

Flashback: Russia paid Hillary Clinton $3M to influence Uranium One deal

Read More

Video: How Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Restarted the African Slave Trade in Libya

Read More

Bush, Obama & Trump Middle East Policy is one in the same

I have attempted to stay out of the fray regarding what has just happened in Syria.  It is almost as if Obama is still in Office and as if Trump has turned into Obama in the same fashion Obama turned into Bush. For all I know Trump is putting together a secret “kill list” like his predecessor and continuing Obama’s drone strike assassination program. I have read some interesting perspectives on this topic and agree with many of them.  For example, Norman Solomon’s suggesting that all this incessant Russian bashing may have been used to ‘bait’ Trump to bomb Syria, with or without evidence. I also agree with MIT professor of Science, Technology, and International Security Dr. Theodore Postol in his assessment of the White House report noting that it provides no evidence that the Sarin came from or was dropped from an Airplane and that without being on the ground at the time such a position is impossible to prove given Assad’s advantage in his battle against IS and other western supported terrorist proxies. For lack of a better statement, to use the words of Mike Whitney, “You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak.” Or as the free-thinking cats at MOA have pointed out, the White House “assessment” begins with "The United States is confident that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapon attack, ..." noting that “The U.S…. does not have"proof" - it is just "confident".” And returning to Dr. Postol, he was also correct in 2013 when he disproved the Obama Administration uninformed position that Assad was responsible for a chemical nerve agent attack in Damascus.  My question is will Trump be another Obama with respect to Foreign policy in West Asia and use his war powers even out there past Obama? Will he engage in even more unjustified and clandestine wars in the same way Bush and Obama did by targeting even more majority-Muslim countries?

Let us begin with some historical perspective. The west has had its eye on Syria for decades now.  Although many would assert it started with a 1949 coup attemp timplemented by the CIA just 3 years after Syria became an independent country, I would suggest it started after WW1 in 1919 and continued up until the Franco-Syrian war initially. Specifically, after the implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 - which cut up what was left of the Ottoman Empire between France and Britain. The war itself happened in 1920 ending in a victory for the French and the formation of a new pro-French government. This resulted in Syria being divided in to several regions according to religion. This is an important historical event because it appears the object of current western interference and the call for regime change in the nation has a similar objective.

In addition, history shows us that the objective of these efforts was to dominate and control the rich natural resources (oil and natural gas) in the region. As early as 1957 President Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan were making plans to establish and support financially the establishment of what they called a “Free Syria Committee” for the singular purpose of regime change in Syria to try and control the oil fields of not only Syria but also Iraq. There was no real geopolitical reason for this other than the desire of the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) to build a Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean via Syria through to Turkey. This required a “Syrian right-of-way” to be agreed upon without input from the Syrian people of course.

Unfortunately, the efforts of the west resulted in making a divide between Shiite and Sunni that has been going on since the seventh century even worse especially if one considers that Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, and are the largest Muslim group in Lebanon and their lands include what many consider the richest oil fields in the entirety of the Middle East. 

These efforts have only increased and intensified over the past few decades with regime change in Syria being priority. First a unified Syria stands in the way of policy objectives in the region to numerous and nuanced to discuss (US interests both in Lebanon and preventing the establishment of an Iraq’s pipeline to the Mediterranean for example). We know this because recently unclassified documents show that the CIA even made plans to use Iraq, Israel and Turkey as proxies in 1983 to pressure the Syrian government by using covert military actions just to establish a pipeline. Although this didn’t manifest, it did not prevent the CIA from continuing to try for in 1986 they drew up some more ideas to overthrow Syria by provoking sectarian tensions (does this sound familiar?). The same policy goals were desired again in 1991 and in 2001.

What we see now - with the supposed “civil war” in Syria - has been years in the making and the recent efforts of ISIS and other terrorist extremist (all supported by the West and Saudi Arabia) may have finally come to fruition after hard work put in by the British government according to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas who is on record saying that he got it from the horse’s mouth that “top British officials” were in the process of arming Sunni nationals “to invade Syria” in 2009 – two years before the anti-Assad protest. Then there is what then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in 2012: that the best way to help Israel deal with Iranis to help overthrow Bashar Assad.

So it seems that President Trump is no different than Obama or Bush or his democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and their desire to use any excuse to make bankers and oil giants the benefactors of the wealth to be generated by a divided Syria without Assad at the helm.  Chemical weapons like WMDs in Iraq, was contrived as an excuse to justify their goals.  I mean we know that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels in 2013in order to frame the Syrian government. We also know that independent Humanitarian organizations have documented that ISIS has used chemical weapons, including Sarin, chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since 2014.

We also know that just like the Bush Administration, Hillary Clinton and Obama cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government to fund and arm clandestine operations designed to take down Iran and its ally Syria  by encouraging Sunni extremist groups that not only champion a militant view of Islam but are also are anti-America and sympathetic to ISIS and Al Qaeda. All which seem to be from extremist Islamic fundamentalist groups with origins in or connections to Saudi Arabia. 

In all sincerity, the west, as in Yemen, is backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Sunni’s who are an openly admitted group that considers the U.S. and of Israel as lifelong enemies. By bombing Assad, we are basically s one writer put it serving as the ISIS/Al Qaeda Air force. This in my opinion, is no different that when Barack Obama invaded Libya without Congressional approval in 2011.  Trump clearly is no different and seems to take his marching orders from the neoconservatives and neoliberals who won’t be happy until a major U.S. military intervention happens in Syria (and other places) even if it means a confrontation with Russia and/or China. You may question my analysis but for what it is worth, NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster is no dissimilar than Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, or Nuland’s husband – Robert Kagen on this matter.

Again as I asked in the beginning of this essay, is Trump any different than Bush or Obama? I suspect not. As one writer pointed out: “I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody.  To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat.  Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true).  Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have.  He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras.  Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support.  And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack.  Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV.”

I remember the Gulf of Tonkin and other major U.S. lies to justify war like the one in 1970 when our government lied to the American people and said, “We didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia” when in fact we did. Former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, was correct in his assessment equally when he said like Libya, Syria will "implode" if President Assad was removed from office period. Not to mention bombing Syria does nothing to provide humanitarian relief and merely distracts the world from the West supported atrocities in Yemen, Mosul and the South Sudan.

Read More

The Stasi Has Returned and it is American

The sudden resignation of National Security Adviser and retired General Michael Flynn and the unprecedented leaks pouring out to damage and even destroy the Trump presidency is a throwback to what I recall other nations (namely autocratic or communist regimes) did when the political status quo felt threatened. Likewise, they often emerged as a consequence of actions taken by top members in state sponsored intelligence operations.

There are several possibilities for this including oscitant retribution proffered by folk like former CIA director John Brennan and former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, or even a backlash by career officials (Democratic politicians and, more importantly, theintelligence community) in an effort for whatever reason, to keep Trump from instituting his foreign policy agenda.

Sadly many in the elite east coast press and large numbers of Democrats support these actions while failing to accept and admit that for unelected officials to go around the constitution and imped policy efforts of a democratically elected official, whether you support that official or not, is seditious and boarders on actions of former governments run by police apparatus like the Stasi of East Germany.

The Stasi was a shorthand term used to describe the East German State Security "Staatssicherheit." It was a combination of the United States FBI, CIA and NSA for lack of a better description, meaning they had policing, investigating and uninhibited surveillance powers. The Stasi was responsible for hundreds of thousands of perceived political opponents being tried without due process, imprisoned and even murdered in an effort to suffocate political dissention against all the tenants of conventional democratic standards.

Most people they imprisoned and executed where charged with specific acts such as engaging in "propaganda hostile to the state," interfering in “activities of the state or society" orthe "treasonable relaying of information." In addition to domestic surveillance, the Stasi was also responsible for foreign surveillance. Through the use of wiretapping (it is illegal to wiretap the U.S. President) and anonymous unsourced claims unaided by any evidence (sounds familiar), for more than four decades, the Stasi operated unfettered and without remorse until the collapse of Communist East Germany and the opening of the borders with West Germany in 1989. These type of energies seem to have been put into action inside the Beltway as it regards the Trump administration.

It is obvious that there is a real fear or hatred for Trump as he goes about his campaign promise to “drain the swamp” and dismantle the bureaucratic system of politics including the FBI, CIA and NSA and their historic abuse of unfettered power that they feels places them over the elected government. Also clear, is that even before Hillary Clinton ran, highbrow member of the Washington political establishment, including assets of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, were supporting her hook, line and sinker. From former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and Gen. Michael Hayden who served in the capacity of both director of the NSA and CIA under George W. Bush. Both men, without evidence or proof asserted that Trump was a “useful fool” and Russian agent being influenced by Putin.

Upon which, immediately rumors started to be thrown into the political ether. In particular when then candidate Trump continuously rejected the establishment narrative of the media and intelligence community that under the direct orders of Putin, Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta emails in order to interfere with the election on the side and behalf of the Republican nominee. This was followed by a pile-on by the Democratic Party which since then have willingly encompassed this effort to disrupt the elected President who they gave no chance of winning.

Since then we have had the Trump “dossier” which was produced by a former member of the British intelligence agency MI6 and hired first by a never-Trump super Pac and then the Democratic Party to find some dirt on Trump. This report fell apart, although the media tried to establish a narrative that it was true, when it was proven that unlike the dossier stated as fact, Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had never secretly traveled to Prague in August to meet with Russian officials or had ever been to Czceh Republic..

Why would the intelligence establishment take this path? Well even a blind person can see that their preferences for Clinton was in line with all of their desired policy objectives: Trump wants to work with Putin to destroy ISIS and Clinton wanted to go deeper into Syria in an effort to get Assad out of office as she did Gadhafi in Libya. For this reason if my logic is tenable, targeting Trumps security executives would be paramount.  More than likely, Flynn was planning to try and reform and change the mindset of the national security state in America. Such would have surly been an economic loss the military industrial complex could not afford to take a chance on.  It has been said that all wars are banker’s wars and we are well aware that banks dole out large sums of money to the US military and intelligence apparatus.

The short of the story is that the East Germany Stasi, even if not in body, in action is alive in the administrative halls of Washington, DC.  Like the Stasi, elements in the U.S. intelligence community are essentially committing treason against the Office of the President of the United States by leaking classified material to the press. This is also without a doubt happening with the urging and assistance of former Obama administration appointees because anonymous leaks without any evidence at all is speculation, guessing and/or gossip. Unfortunately, the democrats and mainstream media flunkies are more than giddy to run with any claim, substantiated or not to bring down Trump and his administration. This is the most probably scenario given from the Obama years, we know the immense powers the U.S. intelligence community has through the leaks (not anonymous) of Edward Snowden alone and that he gave them even more powers days before leaving office. As one writer noted: “Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what policestates do."

Any assertion regarding Russia’s interference in U.S. elections as been presented based on guess and without evidence. The charges with Flynn began with the remnants of the Obama Department of Justice when then acting attorney general Sally Yates told the White House counsel that Flynn was not telling the truth with respect to talking about sanctions with the Russian ambassador. How did she know this and who authorized wiretapping Flynn’s communication? Still, we do not know if this was true since the phone transcripts have not been released. All I can state is that these attacks against the President and his administration were planned and contrived in what I perceive as a hidden effort to thwart the will of the American people by elements representative of the Democratic Party, the U.S. intelligence establishment and mainstream media.

Read More

Manufactured Synthetic Outrage

The veil of hypocrisy is best seen when one looks in the mirror.  It is opaque and empty until we accidentally see it while we are putting on our makeup, or a tie to adorn our image. Our hypocrisy is so consistent, especially here in America that it should be used like a scientific constant similar to Planck’s or Avogadro’s number.

It seems as that President Trump’s recent announcement of a temporary ban on immigration from several specific countries got a lot of folk upset, 99 percent of them who presented no real outrage to the policy or even the ban, but rather the man who implemented it.  They are out in mass protesting at airports on behalf of these individuals as if their life depended on it.  Now I too disagree with Trump’s implementation but not the policy. But unlike most, I am rational and have been consistent, in my views from president to president, but I will never evince the fake and cosmetically contrived outrage band wagon revolutionaries show whenever they get their feelings hurt or do not get their way.

It is comedy at its best and more life-like than anything Hermippus or Eupolis could have ever written.  And I say this honestly, because although I have been pained by the refugee crisis for more than six years now, I was more upset at the Obama administration for its continuous bombing and destruction of these humans homes and murdering their families, for creating this outcome from Libya to the South Sudan and equally the lack of concern partisan progressive neoliberals, allowed him to carry out his inhuman slaughter without protest.

You see, when Obama was droning weddings in Afghanistan, or providing Saudi Air force with targeting direction to drop US supplied cluster bombs and White Phosphorus on schools, hospitals and Yemeni markets using US F-15s, few of the many at the airports across American cities currently said a single world.  Since it was Obama, it was “all good.” Even still, there was nothing said when in 2011, then President Barack Obama and the Clinton state department stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months imposing a similar ban as Trump’s. I say similar because if you take the time to read the EO (as I have) it is nothing like these idiot pundit talking heads describes it as being.  Instead, they play the herd-like public, so distraught with emotional indignity and desecration so eager to accept what they see from TV without question.  A more accurate representation of the EO is that it specifically focuses in on Syrians (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not even declared, stated, cited or listed in the EO specifically). If they were, we can thank the past administration for this policy shift for these visa restrictions for these seven nations exactly, which was put in place by the Obama administration in 2015 for cats who had been in said nations after 2011 (ironically it was in March 2011 when a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya and at the same time the Obama administration instigated the civil war in Syria).

In all accuracy, if one read it, the only mention of the other nations are as follows: “For the next 90 days, nearly all travelers, except U.S. citizens,traveling on passports from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen will be temporarily suspended from entry to the United States.“  It also goes on to state: “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

If you read the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington post (and I can only imagine mainstream TV/cable  news), all I am seeing is messaging pushing the narrative that seven mostly Muslim nations are targeted from entering the US over the ninety day period.  But this isn’t true.  Don’t believe me, again read the EO yourself.

So when Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth “full-blooded Indian” Warren, or media pundits whom proclaim to be objective journalist yet clearly do not know how to read or either comprehend processes that allow for the extraction of semantic meaning from words, express their OFFENDEDNESS at President Trump's action, I have to question their sincerity, as I do with all these protestors.

I question if they care so much, then where have they been and why have they been silent.  As I noted earlier, they didn’t mind when Obama did it for a period of 120 days, nor complained when upon leaving office ending a privilege bestowed among Cuban migrants and immigrants of being allowed to enter the U.S. without a visa—and to remain with benefits. They were uncommunicative and closed-mouth even prior to this for when Obama  approved policy designed to destabilize governments (neoliberal interventionism’s), allow for the bombing countries (undeclared wars of aggression),  and arming  jihadist extremists , no one complained then even when we saw the massive outflow of people from Niger, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria among others. If you never complained about the Obama administration accelerated/enhanced drone policy, you are really in no moral or ethical position to complain about Trump's refugee policy. Look in that mirror and ask yourself, what's worse: Trump not allowing refugees to enter the US or Obama droning and bombing  these peoples’ into oblivion and creating an environment for fundamentalist cats that cut off heads, enslave women and girls, and burn people alive in an effort to control their communities? But no now we have a responsibility to refugees.

It is nothing wrong with caring and having compassion for others, but when it is phony and falls along partisan lines it borders on fascism.  Such hypocrisy has no moral footing to stand unless you are willing to take these migrants in your home or have refugee camps built across from where you live, but I doubt you have that much care and sincere interest to go that far. I mean we have homeless people right here in America who many of the anti-Trump EO protestors drive past, don’t help and even lock their doors and roll up their windows when they approach their car. Take San Francisco for example.  Liberal democrats all over the city protesting for affordable houses but when plans were made to put that housing in their liberal democratic neighborhood they fought and still are fighting against it. I guess it is okay to protest for affordable housing for the poor and homeless as long as it isn’t put next door to me

Clearly these protesters like to say it is an all-out Muslim ban when fact dictates these nations only account for 12 percent of all Muslims in the world – nations that have had similar bans against Israel but proffered no protest.  But this is cool, but some aspects are not.  For example, Starbucks announced it plans to hire 10,000 refuges but when it comes to former inmates or young black youth in America, they are content with them remaining unemployed. But like I said before, where was this activism when Obama & Hillary were creating refugees by dropping bombs on the homes they once owned in the places in which they hail from? And don’t forget about the celebrity Hollywood cats that politicize the #Muslimban yet never mentioning that in the majority of their movies they portray Muslims as terrorist (which can be interpreted as progressives protesting under the claim that they are tolerant, but they are not).  Tolerance for them only means accepting views comparable to theirs for reason and compassion is thrown out the window when you disagree with them. One can only speak your mind if you tow the same ideological line.

Something must change, it is as if you don’t agree with someone, instead of listening and using reason and pragmatism, folks would rather just yell, call names and argue.  This isn’t productive. I will not point fingers but there is enough hypocrisy to go around feed the world indefinitely.  Strange there's so much outrage over Trump's refugee ban compared to Obama's disastrous regime-change policies in Libya, Syria and Yemen. I know what trump did was idiotic, stupid and in American but for you fake outrage and not put in work in your back yard is equally stupid. This is what I meant by such being comical for the hilarity of the herd mentality cannot be ignored.  And this is sad because as one writer pointed out describing all of the anti-Trump protest: “…marchers aren’t waiting for the policy fog to lift. Their anger is directed at people, not policies. [These] protests [are] intended,above all, to express the protesters’ moral superiority to the president and those who voted for him…. Why complain now, when no decision has been made? It delegitimizes the future protests and exposes the bias of the opposition. . . .An opposition focused on personality.”

I just ask, is this you? Are you as loud when Israel already has a wall?

Read More

The Alt-Left is Real & It’s Run By White City Cats

I had never heard of the Alt-Right until Hillary Clinton introduced the term in our lexicon during a speech she gave in Reno this past August. Now I had heard of the alternative right, which had nothing to do with media, but rather an ideology that was juxtapose to the mainstream GOP. Now maybe you had read or heard about it but not me, in particular in the manner in which she framed it as being a platform for white supremacy, which is far from the truth.  And like the sheep in the heard, most, especially liberal democrats engaged in Orwellian newspeak to make it real and tangible. However, if the Alt-Right is as dastardly as folk make it out to be, the Alt-Left is even more destructive and fascist. Yes, the Alt-Left is real and it is run mostly by white city cats. What is the Alt-Left?  Well it is the diametric opposite of the Alt-Right and is manifested in action and word through extreme intolerance.

The examples of Alt-Left activities are both sickening and too numerous to name and I say this because I know if their actions were directed toward President Barack Obama for instance, these activities would be seen in a different vein. Let us look at voter intimidation.  The left has always advocated that voter intimidation is horrible and intolerant.  There are even laws on the books that note that such is a criminal act.  But when it is directed towards electors of the Electoral College, there is not a single statement of outrage from democrats or the mainstream media opined against these occurrences.  When people are receiving death threats urging them to change their vote to support Hillary Clinton it seem as it is swept under the rug.  These threats are not coming from the Alt-Right, but rather the Alt-Left.  Or when the daughter of the President Elect is verbally accosted while riding on an airplane with her kids by two gay men, there is no outrage and it is presented as being acceptable comportment.  Now mind you if this was done to the wife of President Obama, I can only imagine the outrage. Even if it were just a women in general with her kids, no one in their civil mind would consider this as being acceptable behavior.

I used to the think the left was big of bullying but clearly they are not. This in simple terms in bullying.  I take it is okay to bully people who do not think like you or maintain the same political beliefs as one does.  But outside of this it is wrong.  Or the young college student at Bryn Mawr College who was harassed and sent death threats for supporting Donald Trump and now has been forced to leave school for her safety.  Or the University of Pittsburg student who set up a Trump table at his university. This is the Alt-Left although they are constantly speaking on ending hate and violence,these remain their go to weapons of choice.  These students didn’t ask for or need a safe space, they were amenable to open dialogue and discussion and put their views out for all to acknowledge. Nicholas Kristof said it best: We progressives believe in diversity and we want women, blacks, Latinos and Muslims at the table – er, so long as they aren’t conservatives…We are fine with people who don’t look like us as long as they think like us.”

This is the closed-minded intolerant hypocrisy that defines the Alt-Left. How can the left incessantly speak about the necessity of tolerance and openness but write off the political beliefs of others they do not listen to or engage in dialogue with? Most of these representatives of the Alt-Left are educated urban white folk and maintain a descent capability of subject-verb agreement but they would rather vandalize, curse, yell and call others out of their name.  I read that some do not want to do business with Trump supporters. Now if a baker or restaurant said the same about an Obama supporter or a gay couple, it would fall under the banner of bigotry and intolerance – I do not want to serve you because of your beliefs. 

I suspected this rise of the Alt-Left would be problematic since their anti-trumps protest in Chicago, California and Portland. After Trump won, it became even more idiotic: a black man painting racist images on a blackchurch in Mississippi, artist demanding Ivanka Trump take down paintings of their she bought down from her walls (thus the use of the term idiotic), a Muslim women in New York faking an attack by white Trump supporters while in the subway and singers refusing to perform at the inauguration while they have no problem performing for millions for known despots and murderous authoritarian dictators.

These safe space trophy babies are the embodiment of fascist ideology – my way or the highway, authoritarian cultural Marxist.  Yes the Alt-Left is real and these cats are the fascist of tomorrow.

Read More

The Forgotten South of Sudan

As we continuously hear from the Obama Administration about Aleppo, among the other international events laid at the feet of President Obama’s foreign policy we do not hear of inclusive of Yemen is South Sudan. Established after a referendum vote to secede from the northern part of Sudan and the Khartoum government, and once touted as a way to formalize peace to Sudan’s long-running civil war, this small oil rich nation has dissolved into pure blood stained disorder. Even famous actors the likes of George Clooney and Don Cheadle advocated for its existence as being a humanitarian necessity to show the people we in the west cared.

For years prior to its formulation (not formation), the US supported rebels in the south of Sudan. After the nation of South Sudan was formed, the U.S. continued to provide billions of dollars in military and security assistance to the fledgling country under the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. In 2011 then Secretary of State Clinton, at a major conference onSouth Sudan in 2011, spoke of her visions for the future of South Sudan. Ironically, in the same year in which President Obama employed a technicality to get a Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA) exemption for South Sudan.

The logic was feculent and two fold. First being that the law could not be applied to a newly formed nation that recently became independent and second, the administration wanted the country to get on firm ground before the US made any statutory request of its military. Meaning that since the countries subjected to CSPA were already in existence, they could not add the South Sudan to thelist. The Obama administration also openly advocated their support for the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA).  The SPLA according to human rights group worldwide have been documented to have engaged in numerous human rights violations, including but not limited to rape and extrajudicial killings (nice UN saying for murder).

However since the celebration of South Sudan as the world’s newest member state in 2011, a political rivalry between the Dinka President Salva Kiir and the then Nuer Vice President Riek Machar erruptrd dissolving the nation into a civil war along ethnic lines. Since then more than 1 million South Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries like Uganda and many thousands more have been slaughtered, tortured or raped. One UN report noted that South Sudanese army soldiers had raped thousands of women and girls as a reward for their service instead of being paid salaries. Others had been used as part of ritual cannibalistic activities or burned alive.

But none of this mattered to the Obama Administration.  Although in his formal recognition statement for the Republic of South Sudan as a sovereign and independent state he described it as a “historic achievement” after “the darkness of war,” his policy has proven the opposite and has resulted in more bloodshed and insecurity by not ending the use of child soldiers on the one hand and by turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the nation he pushed to establish on the other. What the president once hailed as one of his foreign policy success stories, is now merely a failed state in reality - unless it is the desire for Nobel Peace prize winning presidents to leave nations in the ruinous aftermath of war (Yemen, Libya and Syria also included).

Obama in concert with his National Security Advisor Susan Rice vehemently led the crusade for the creation of South Sudan, but since then, we have only seen daily tribal hostilities continuing to fester. Add to this that the economic condition is following a similar descending path and that state sponsored repression remains a major impediment to any form of democratic government, what we get from the President is silence or troops. Nor does he address how the ongoing violence rests as a massive obstacle to peace which on its own serves as a catalyst for the continuing genocide in Darfur and a growing militarization of the party’s involved. In particular since the present administration continues to honor the authorization of more than $120 million in U.S. military assistance and over $20 million in arms sales since FY2013 and an addition request for $30 million in military assistance for South Sudan for FY2017.

Now it would be insincere to place all of this at the feet of President Obama since a sizable amount of his foreign policy was advocated for and proposed by Hillary Clinton. As a presidential candidate, Clinton consistently presented her  foreign policy experience as a major justification for her being president, although she never spoke openly about her desire to intervene in Libya or her role in the failed Russian “reset.” More importantly, there was no mention of the outcome of her efforts in South Sudan. True in 2012 she openly stated her disparagement of the use and recruitment of children as soldiers, however it was a position in dire contrast to her part in allowing South Sudan  receive US military support via her approval of waivers to the nation while it used children as fighters.  Still Clinton’s handling of South Sudan and how the new nation descended into a calamitous civil war that involved the use of thousands of child soldiers is rarely reported.

When President Obama leaves the White House next January, people worldwide will question his foreign policy. This will likely be partisan but the objective individual will note from Yemen to Libya and Syria to South Sudan – he was afailure. Moreover, he managed to make social and economic situations in these places worse. But in Sudan he will be remembered for creating a state and leaving it to rot; a place where he waived to the prohibition on the use of child soldiers  in an untried country that is acknowledged as being one of the most corrupt in the world and the home of a 4-year-old civil war where US installed leaders have used their positions to rob the country of its wealth, while at the same time creating one of the greatest humanitarian disasters today – in essence an embarrassment for the Obama administration. As a newly formed country, the future looked bright for South Sudan and its vast oil reserves. But realty has shown us otherwise, that effective foreign policy demands more than words and dumping huge sums of money in the hands of installed puppets.

Read More

When Democratic Arrogance Becomes Whining Tantrums

Weeks after the Presidential election and it appears that some folks are still very much in their feelings. Each day it seems that no matter what the President Elect says or does, it is problematic for this segment of the electorate and if given attention to, is considered to be some sort of dangerous attempt to “normalize’ the behavior of a person they consider pathological and profoundly perilous.

This week it ranges from Trumps taking calls from the leaders of Pakistan, Presidentof Kyrgyzstan Almazbek Atambayev or Taiwan, to his cabinet selections. However, any clinician worth their professionalism would note that these are just secondary to the main issue which is that as opposed to accepting reality they prefer to remain in a delusory state of denial, displacement and projection. This became clear to me after I heard the entire two hour and thirty-eight minute exchange between the Trump and Clinton campaign teams at Harvard this past week. 

Obviously, there remains a significant level of grief for losing and animosity against Trump for winning the 2016 Presidential election. Thus no matter what the president elect does, will always be seen negatively. I saw this same sort of bitterness and angst displayed by the GOP and Clinton staffers when Obama won his 2008 run for the presidency.

Although Trump has thus far selected accomplished people who have made a mark in their chosen fields of expertise, many liberals are upset because he has not placed career politicians the likes of Clinton or Kerry in such slots as Obama did, although he ran on this as part of his platform. More indicative of this rage can be observed when they attempt to buttress their interpretations via argument, then seem unable to make any critical comment without invoking Hitler comparisons or worse, vilifying these selections as being images of racism or sexism, or the final election outcome being due to the influence of hackers and Russian meddling as a blogger I frequently read noted.

They ignore the fact that many in middle America outside of the urban landscape perceive that the Democrat party derides the concept of working hard, seem to care about not enforcing laws or supporting the men/women whom they frequently send off to fight in unnecessary wars and have more concern for illegal/undocumented aliens or foreign refugees than thepeople born here – especially the poor and homeless.

Accurate or not, they see the Federal government as a business and think it should be run like a business the way they run their households like businesses. These are some of the same people that gave Obama a chance although he had no business experience and what they see as the result is an America where race relations, poverty, employment opportunity and economic security has gotten worse.  They considered Hillary Clinton fairly but concluded she was not in touch with their life experiences, and like Obama, had never in her life run anything on the level of a business. Not to forget that when President Elect Obama filled his cabinet with political elites, academics and Ivy League professors, there was no complaints. But with Trump bringing in competent people with success in the real world to be his advisors, it is evident that he desires folk that want to put the US before using their government positions to make money for themselves. These people already have money and such selections demonstrate that it is Trump’s goal to run the government like a business.

Even when he follows through on a promise to keep that Indiana Carrier plant from moving to Mexico he is mocked. Yet there was no problem with Obama when he gave $500 million to Solyndra and even called Solyndra a success when he visited the company although most experts considered the company a failure.  This is what most Americans see, and they consider these types of actions as arrogant responses of cry-baby sore losers. Not to mention we all know that he gave Solyndra this money as a favor to Rep. Pete Stark of California so he would push the ACA out of the House health committee. 

Trump is putting together a business leadership coterie of advisers that understand the global economic market. This thus far has proven to be a group of folk that will not be prisoner to special interest. Which is another reason many are turned off by democrats whining and making excuses as if the general populous is so dumb that on our own examination, we are not supposed to see through the artificial veneer that you project Hilary Clinton to be. We, no matter what you tell us we should think or believe will never see Hillary as being smarter than us, let alone as successful as Trump, who although began with a large loan from his father, built his business with hard work and not with $250,000 a pop 45 minute speeches.

Democrats have to stop whining and confront the actuality that they are out of touch and have been out of touch and only have themselves to blame and no one else, so stop crying and pointing fingers at contrived bullshit ranging from James Comey, Fake news, or anything else. It is unfathomable as to how you could not see this coming. This was not an isolated event.  Not only did HRC lose, but the Democratic Party also loss on the state level only holding a majority in 31 of the 98 legislative bodies across America.  

Continuing to blame others for their own failures is a major indication that losing on this level for Democrats may only get worse in the coming years if they do not do some somber reflection and soul searching. And I say this because it appears they have learned nothing as evidenced by re-appointing 76 year old California Representative Nancy Pelosi as the Minority Leader of the House. In her own words she recently indicated how out of touch she and her party is when she stated: “I don’t think people want a new direction. Our values unify us and our values are about supporting America’s working families. That’s one that everyone is in agreement on. What we want is a better connection of our message to working families in our country, and that clearly in the election showed that that message wasn’t coming through.”

Yes it looks bad for the democrats when they don’t comprehend that speaking at or down to others and basically ordering them to do something that they singularly have decided as being unacceptable, and calling the names because they don’t, isn’t communicating, nor is it a message.

Read More