Thorner/O’Neil: Trump’s re-election depends on patriots to succeed against all obstacles

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Within hours after Trump was elected President, a Nobel Laureate economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, among others of his ilk, reported how a Trump presidency would result in an immediate, serious recession. Krugman claimed and the Times reported, “We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”

It has since been proven over three years of a Trump presidency, that those dire predictions were wrong.  Our economy is thriving, and our nation remains the envy of most people throughout the world, which is why our borders must be protected.

We must remain a nation that adheres to our laws. This includes those who govern the admission process of foreigners living here on limited visas, but who then remain because they disappear and cannot be found for deportation.  There are likewise many thousands of foreigners who don’t bother to wait for a Visa, but simply sneak into the USA illegally only to disappear. Donald Trump was largely elected President due to his strong stance on illegal immigration.

Krugman was not alone in predicting a recession. Consider Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers who warned in a June 2016 Financial Times op-ed: “If Trump is elected, we could expect a protracted recession to begin within 18 months.” He added, “The damage would be felt far beyond the United States.”    

Summers joins Krugman

Summers was likewise wrong, but did he or any other Trump hater ever admit it? Instead they doubled down on their passion to malign President Trump, which certainly was not common behavior toward our former presidents. Most presidents do experience a honeymoon period following their inauguration

These were the same people who promoted President Obama’s presidency and who disregarded the mistakes Obama and his administration made, which included, but were not limited, to the Benghazi tragedy, the IRS scandal, and the disaster of his administration’s Fast and Furious plan.

Were the statements made by Krugman and Summers, echoed by other Democrats and news sources, ever retracted?  Perhaps that is best answered by their treatment of President Trump since his election. Facts indicate that President Trump has endeavored to honor his campaign promises, something rather rare in today’s political arena. However, Leftist media and political sources have largely managed to ignore any of President Trump’s achievements, while appearing to search for opportunities to falsely malign Trump for the same offenses they themselves are guilty of

Negative news reporting spurns fake news  

The excessive negative reporting began during Trump’s debates with Hillary Clinton but escalated once he was elected President. You might remember how many in the media lied and attempted to deceive the public about Trump’s inauguration ceremony, when many news sources claimed an historic low attendance at the ceremony, even publishing misleading pictures as proof.  However, these sources failed to mention the pictures were taken many hours before the ceremony began, that it had been raining, and thus many were waiting to take their seats or places in line, hoping the rain would cease. They didn’t mention that by the time the ceremony began, every seat was taken and people were standing throughout the area to witness the event in honor our new President.

It was on Trump’s Inauguration Day that many Americans began to realize the unvarnished truth, that mainstream media sources were indeed prejudiced and not deterred by the public’s preference for a President Trump.  It came to be that many Americans could no longer trust the mainstream media for accurate and non-partisan reporting.

President Trump is correct in calling mainstream media sources like CNN and MSNBC part of the fake news cabal. Trump has been a victim of their blunt efforts to discredit him from the beginning of his presidency. The anti-Trump media has become a force to spread the propaganda of the Democrat-Socialist Party. Even when media reports prove false, instead of retracting an article or informing the public about an inaccuracy,  an unapologetic and determined mainstream media, without shame, continues to find ways to express their apparent hatred for this man who was chosen to be President by the people.

During the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, D.C., President Trump, newly sworn into office, was attacked by militant women.  

Biased news reporting continues

Bias against Trump from all liberal entities has not waned but has continued. It is particularly noticeable when one compares how the same media sources conspired to minimize President Obama’s obvious mistakes. Remember the IRS scandal, the tragedies in Benghazi, and the disaster of “Fast and Furious.”  It was Hillary Clinton’s who jeopardized our nation’s security when caught using a private, poorly protected cell phone and personal computer, in violation of mandatory laws requiring she use government equipment when discussing or referring to anything pertaining to the government.

Worse yet is how Hillary repeatedly lied under oath when confronted with the accusations about her computer use. This was probably before she had bleached washed the incriminating evidence.  Not that this ever mattered to American patriots, especially those who lost their lives fighting for the values that set the United States apart from countries with corrupt leaders.

 

Treatment of Obama vs. Trump

The mainstream media sources did their best to protect both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama from obvious mistakes and illegal actions made throughout Obama’s presidency, especially during Obama’s first years in office.  Remember the Democrat’s plan they called “Fast & Furious?” It resulted in the Mexico mafia gaining thousands of our guns, one of which  killed an American border agent.

Or who can forget the horror of the “Benghazi tragedy,” that caused the death of USA  Ambassador Stephens, left our embassy ablaze, and killed Marines who tried to save both Ambassador Stevens and our American Embassy?

Then there was the IRS scandal in which President Obama, members of his staff, and the IRS were proven to have negatively targeted conservative groups prior to the 2012 presidential election.

Barack Obama took office in a failing economy that needed help.  Instead of choosing an economic recovery plan that would help all our citizens recover, Obama’s plan mainly benefited the educated, prosperous people, far more than the middle class, according to Reed Hundt, a Democrat and former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

One can only speculate how many more mistakes and infractions of the law might have been hid from the public during the Obama administration, but we do know that during that time unemployment was at 9.8 percent and many Americans were just thankful  to be able to put food on the table and pay medical expenses.

The same media sources who minimized President Obama’s missteps are using every possible reason and way to malign President Trump and remove him from office. Consider Trump’s sham impeachment trial which started on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. The hypocrisy is not only obvious and wrong, but it is dangerous to our nation’s future.

Action needed by patriots

American citizens cannot allow major media sources to use their positions to manipulate public opinion to their own preferences by covering up mistakes of one president but exposing every possible flaw and/or mistakes — even manufactured ones — through smears and lies of the next one who happens to be a Republican.

It is time for patriots, no matter their party preference, to demand fairness and unbiased reporting.  Some patriots have cancelled subscriptions to specific newspapers and refuse to access biased television news sources that specializes in biased reporting.

Other patriots have contacted media sources and explained why they no longer care to tolerate the favoritism and/or criticism seen in their biased reporting, largely based on personal preferences rather than any attempt to be unbiased.

Ballot harvesting in CA

What should concern every patriot is a new California Law that caused long time cities, such as Newport Beach in the last election to suddenly go from decades of voters preferring Republican candidates to electing almost every Democrat candidate on their ballot.

As to what could have caused this historic turn in one election, Republicans are convinced it was the new California law that allows voters to “harvest” ballots.  The new law made voter fraud easy to commit and difficult to detect.  It was easy to hire people to go door to door to collect ballots, claiming they would be delivered to the Voter Registrar’s Office.

As to why anyone would surrender their ballot to a stranger.  Could it be as simple as saving them the price of a stamp?  How easy would it be to collect ballots, sort the Republican ballots from the Democrats, burn all the Republican ballots, but safely deliver the Democrat ballots to the Voter Registrar’s Office.

Have CA Republican officials fully investigated this issue to detect if there was any fraud. Are they making any effort to reverse the law?  If so, they are keeping it a secret.

Will other states follow California’s lead and allow “ballot harvesting” in their elections?  Thorner and O’Neil sincerely hope not, as the options for fraud are significant and discovery of the crime difficult.  None of us want to even consider that our ballot was nullified by an illegal ballot, but California citizens no longer enjoy that confidence.

A recourse for concerned citizens would be to change that law wherever it has been enacted.  That would likely require proof that the new law invited and thus produced fraudulent activity, exceedingly difficult to prove.

It is probably more logical for Republicans in CA to energize their base and encourage their members to engage as well in ballot harvesting, at least until proof of fraud is found that would force a change.

If Republicans do not use the new law to their own advantage, they are not likely to see their party in positions of authority for a very long time.  There is even concern that the new law will produce an exit of more Republicans from California.

Importance of 2020

The 2020 election is perhaps the most important election this nation has ever faced, for it will decide the future or our nation. Will she slip into the grips of Socialism, which will eventually cause the downfall of this once great nation, or will voters re-elect President Trump to save our Constitutional Republic with its stated freedoms for all, as Trump  continues to work to drain the swamp of those seeking to remove him from office.

You, the voter, will decide the direction of this nation.  May you choose wisely and make every effort to explain to others what is at stake in the 2020 elections.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 02:20 PM | Permalink

Comments

Comment below or sign in with Typepad Facebook Twitter and more…

Thorner: When Supporting the US Constitution Demands Clarification

Friday, January 17, 2020

Thorner: When Supporting the US Constitution Demands Clarification

Three Muslim faith-affiliated U.S. Congress members

By Nancy Thorner –

Recently I came across a book by Stephen M. Kirby, PhD which every voter should read. The Center for Security Policy announced on December 4, 2019, the publication of Kirby’s new monograph, Islamic Doctrine versus The U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

It was written in anticipation of the 2020 election season to come, with consideration given of how starkly Islamic Law differs from the U.S. Constitution in a work that is at once informative, sober, and scholarly.

The Center for Security Policy, a  non-profit, non-partisan 501C3, non-profit think tank, is going into its 33rd year.  It was founded and led by Frank Gaffney who has now stepped back from day-by-day duties, although he is still involved as Executive Chairman of the Center. Fred Fleitz is its current president and CEO.On December 29, 2019, Clare M. Lopez, Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, joined Hal Shurtleff to discuss Kirby’s new book.

Clare Lopez was previously a Senior Fellow with the Center as well as with the London Center for Policy Research, member of Sen. Ted Cruz’ 2016 presidential campaign national security advisory team, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, and a career operations officer with the CIA.  Read her complete bio here. Follow Lopez on Twitter @ClareMLopez.

In addition, Clare Lopez is either author, co-author, or editor of all the books at the Center.  All publications can be downloaded free as a PDF at the Center’s website or ordered from Amazon in a paperback book.

Hal Shurtleff is director of Camp Constitution. Both Shurtleff and Lopez have been speakers for ‘Spotlight on Special Americans’ speaker series started 6 years ago.

Here is the December 29, 2019 interview with Clare Lopez,  Center for Security Policy: Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution.

Initially discussed were the number of Muslim office holders.  There are three in Congress and a good number of legislators around the country, some of whom are converts.

Asked of Ms. Lopez was whether it was possible to be a Muslim of good faith and still take an oath to a non-Muslim document.

As to Ms. Lopez’s response, she referenced Dr. Stephen M. Kirby’s book, Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials, published by the Center for Security Policy, as presenting some of the key points about the issue.

As related by Ms. Lopez: “The doctrine of Islam obligates faithful, practicing, and devout Muslims to prioritize faithfulness and allegiance to the legal system of Islam which is Sharia (Islam law), as is written, taught in universities, and preached in mosques and Islamic Centers.  Accordingly, all practicing Muslims are obligated to prioritize Sharia law above every other law including our U.S. Constitution.”

A question of importance is how then can Muslims be elected as public officials in the United States, honestly taking an oath to the Constitution which is antithetical to Islam Law?  There are now three Muslims in Congress:  Andre Carson, Indiana; Rashida Tlaib, MN; and Ihan Omar, MI.

At this point interviewer Hal Shurtleff asked Lopez about a belief held by many that Muslims are family oriented, homosexuality is taboo, and free enterprise is supported; however, in looking at their voting records this is not the case. The three Muslims in Congress are hard core Democrats, even Socialists.

According to Lopez, a large number of Democrat representatives in Congress are members of the Democratic-Socialist Party of America, which is essentially the Communist party of the U.S, definitely Marxist.

How then do Muslim candidates reconcile a liberal leftist agenda when running for office?  As addressed in Chapter 3 of Dr. Kirby’s book, Muslims are permitted and even obligated to lie to infidels, that is Islamic law.  As Ms. Lopez revealed, “one of the 99 names of Allah is the “great deceiver”, an attribute in Islam doctrine.”

In addressing the swearing in of Muslims, whether on the Bible or Koran, Lopez explained: “A new class of freshmen congressmen coming in for the first time will assemble on the floor of the House of Representative.  It is there they take the oath of the Constitution. It is when Muslims go to their new chambers that they may opt for a photo depicting an oath taken with their hands on a Koran.”

Another question posed by moderator Hal Shuetleff was if Muslims have, as we do, a concept of sovereignty?  When Muslims come to a “free country like this nation, why are they still hanging on to remaining a Muslim, even if they no longer believe in the doctrine?  They probably don’t have to fear the death penalty for leaving Islam.

It was then that Ms. Lopez defined the meaning of “Muslim” in the Arabic language. The literal definition is “one that obeys Sharia.”

As to the concept of sovereignty, Lopez spoke about the Peace Treaty at Westphalia in 1648 which said that “nation states are sovereign and what goes on within their borders is the prerogative of the people of the nation and their government.”

While this concept applies to our nation, it does not apply to Muslims who embrace the idea of “ummah”,  meaning “one world under one God” (exclusively Allah), further implying the global coming together of all Muslims wherever they are in the world under Islamic law, like globalism without borders. It is also important to understand that Islam is not a race.

It is difficult to be critical of Muslims in any way for fear of being called “Islamophobic”.  It was explained by Lopez that ” Islamophobic is a word created by the Muslim Brotherhood to stop all criticism and conversation.”

Ms. Lopez highlighted two chapters in Dr. Kelly’s book:

Chapter 2, Understanding Islam, was pointed out by Lopaz of great importance because it covers the Doctrine of Abrogation. “It is important to understand that the Koran is not put together in chronological order. It is organized from the largest chapter (surah) to the smallest one. Often there are verses that do not agree with other verses.  The Doctrine of Abrogation dictates that verses that come later supersede all verses that come earlier, as a way of getting around attributing mistakes to Allah.”

Although Dr. Kirby’s book has informative chapters about Islam covering Amendments 1 through 14, Lopez chose Chapter 4 to discuss: Islam and the 1st Amendment.  Although Americans are granted five liberties, not one of them applies to Islamic law.   As to Freedom of Speech, it is not allowed in Islam, nor does Islam allow it here in the U.S.   Muhammad did not like to be criticized or rebuked and ordered the killing of many non-Muslims because they had criticized or mocked him.

Freedom of Religion is also not allowed in Islam for Muslims who want to leave their faith.  A death penalty for Muslims who wish to leave is still a valid punishment today. This is found both in the Koran and in the teachings of Muhammad.

As more and more Muslims are entering politics, it does seem fitting to ask each one how they view this nation’s Constitution.

Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Nearly 40 years ago, Soviet KGB defector warned about communism going mainstream

By Nancy Thorner – 

A few weeks ago, I received from a friend rare video footage of a powerful interview with Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov that has been banned by YouTube as part of the Google-owned tech giant’s latest censorship efforts against “hate speech.”

“A former KGB agent, Bezmenov had some not-so-nice things to say about the horrors of communism. He also warned that communism would eventually creep its way into the United States if Americans failed to spot it and deal with it,” one source wrote.

Even though Bezmenov’s lecture took place in Los Angeles in 1983, just as he warned, we’re now seeing communism go mainstream.  And ironically enough, one prominent example of its tactics of subversion is the escalating assault on free speech by YouTube and other Big Tech companies.

A Review of Bezmenov’s lecture  

 

The meaning of “subversion” was first of all defined as “an action, activity, or plan intended to undermine or overthrow a government or other institution.” it was then pointed out that subversion has nothing to do with espionage, such as stealing blue prints of defense secrets and then selling them to European entities.

Notable at the time was the KGB.  As to espionage, only 10% to 15% of the KGB’s money and manpower was spent on espionage.  85% was spent on subversion to destroy the enemy.  Subverters were then described not as those who blow up buildings, but as students, diplomats, actors, artists, and journalists.

Pointed out was the impossibility to subvert an enemy that doesn’t wish to be subverted, as subversion is only possible when the agent is a responsive target. The U.S. was noted as a target susceptible for subversion,

 

Categories under which subversion happens 

As set forth by Bezmenou:  Religion; Education; Social Life; Power Structure; Labor Relations; and Law and Order.  As for Education, it takes only 15 – 20 years to educate one generation of students to shape their outlook.  

 

The Concept of Equality

As Bezmenou indicated, “It is impossible to create equality by force. Yet a propaganda system has told us to believe that equality is desirable.  Should a criminal be treated the same as a law-abiding person? Should one that comes to this country and immediately takes hand-outs be treated the same as a hard-working American.”

“Democracy is not equality.  Democracy is where different people and equal people have a chance to survive and help each other in constant competition and in constant perfection.  There is equality in the Soviet Union, but some people are more equal than others.”

Inability to define words

No longer are people sure what is right or wrong; good or bad; or evil or good, often believing there is no division among the terms.  Everything is relative and subject to what a person deems the terms to mean. Bezmenou also spoke about church leaders who see violence as good if the justification is social justice.

Much of Bezmenov’s lecture discussion was how subversion could have been nipped in the bud before it took hold in the Soviet Union. Basic is that unlimited power and subversion of power be curbed  The enemy must be taken out before it becomes too powerful. Reference was made to a Marxist professor landing a job at a University in CA.

How to keep a society strong?

As to Socialism creeping into this nation, Bezmenou had this to say: “History has shown us that countries in the past with centralized governments have collapsed and disappeared the moment they lost religion.”   “Ideas are moving society and keeping mankind a society of human beings. Neither exact knowledge, nor the sophisticated knowledge of computers will keep our society from degrading and eventually dying out.  For it’s not material things that move society and will help it to survive.   The answer to ideological subversion is simple: “We don’t have to shoot people or aim missiles. We simply must have faith not to be a victim of subversion.”  

 

Recommended books

Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism starts off with details of how President Bill Clinton seized upon the black church hate crime hoax of the 1990s to foment hatred toward whites and Christianity, perfectly following the blueprint of Soviet-style “demoralization,” destabilization and subversion.

Another similar book with more modern details is called Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America by Ann Coulter.   Demonic reveals astonishing historical details of how leftists not only overthrow governments, but then they usually kill their own subversives after the takeover, having decided their own people were “useful idiots” to achieve the coup.

To keep up with the latest censorship stories, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

Thorner/ Boese: The World’s a Better Place With Soleimani Gone

By Nancy Thorner & Al Boese – 

Critically-important news and articles were published in Saturday’s edition of the WSJ on January 3rd to dominate this weekend’s cycle following the drone strike that killed Solemani and close associates.  The event was a significant one in the War on Terror to have eliminated one of the world’s most deadly architects and executioner of terrorism. It is also a blow to Iran’s Aitolia who counted on him to create mayhem in the Middle East, granting Iran freedom of movement and action there. As such, this is a major disruption of the Iranian grand plan.

The four WSJ articles shared below confirm just how important this elimination of Soleimani will be and a historical perspective of the influence and impact of Soleimani.

The world is far in a far better with Soleimani gone and Iran on the defensive than before the drone strike approved by Donald J Trump.  Nevertheless, as usual the hysterical and hypocritical response from the left and right-wing establishments abound.

Article 1 by the Editorial Board: Justice Arrives for Soleimani

 

Excerpts from article:

“Iran is promising retribution, and perhaps it will strike somewhere. But now Iran will have to consider that Mr. Trump will strike back. The U.S. President had shown great restraint—more than we thought he should—in not retaliating after Iran or its proxies shot down an American drone, attacked Saudi oil facilities, and attacked bases in Iraq with U.S. troops 10 times in the last two months.

Mr. Trump finally drew a line at the death of an American contractor and the storming of the Embassy. Perhaps he heard echoes of Barack Obama’s failure in Benghazi. Whatever Mr. Trump’s calculation, Mr. Khamenei now has to consider that even targets inside Iran are not safe.”

The death of Soleimani should also reassure U.S. allies spooked by Barack Obama’s many capitulations and Mr. Trump’s partial withdrawal from Syria last year. This assumes Mr. Trump will be resolute if Iran escalates and doesn’t withdraw remaining U.S. forces from Iraq or Syria.

 

Article 2 by The Editorial Board: Trump’s Legal Authority

Following the killing of Soleimani the Dem’s are crying foul because they were not consulted and labeling the action illegal. The WSJ article by The Editorial Board make the legal case that supports the Trump action. No wonder Trump never consulted the Dem’s in Congress, can you imagine the rush to the cameras and mic’s to either expose the plan or to criticize the idea; it is in their DNA to be openly critical Trump at every turn and one can imagine the new “wag the dog” narrative in light of the Grand Impeachment movement they have created.

President Trump was right to ignore Congress, he saved lives and created an atmosphere for success, rather than leaks that sinks ships.

Excerpts from article:

 

“Mr. Trump is accused of violating the executive order against assassinations. But that long-time ban has never applied to terrorists, which Soleimani clearly was. He ran Iran’s Quds Force, which the Bush Administration designated as a terror group in 2007. He was also a general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which Mr. Trump designated as a terror group last year. If Mr. Trump’s drone strike was illegal, then so were Barack Obama’s raid on Osama bin Laden and his hundreds of drone strikes over eight years as President.

Mr. Trump also has the power, as Commander in Chief, to use military force against anyone waging war against the U.S. The Quds Force has been doing that for years, going back to the Iraq war and recently with the rocket attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by militia under Soleimani’s control. Soleimani was a general in the chain of command of the enemy, and as such was a justifiable target.

Congress had declared war on Japan, but under international law there is no need for such a declaration when a nation is acting in self-defense. The drone strike in Iraq was a defensive military action intended to prevent attacks on U.S. troops by an enemy general who had ordered such attacks in the past. Numerous Presidents have used force in such a way without Congressional approval, including Ronald Reagan in 1986 against Libya after the terror bombing at a Berlin nightclub killed three people, including two American soldiers.

Some say Mr. Trump’s drone strike is different because it has the potential to become a larger conflict with Iran and thus needs Congressional assent. But Mr. Obama’s Libya intervention also had the potential to become a larger conflict, as did JFK’s naval blockade of Cuba. The consequences of any military action are hard to predict.

The question for these critics is whether they would be making the same arguments if someone else were President. We doubt it.

Article 3 by Reuel Marc Gerecht: The Bloody Legacy of Qasem Soleimani

 

Mr. Gerecht is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and author, as Edward Shirley, of “Know Thine Enemy: A Spy’s Journey into Revolutionary Iran” (1997).

In case you were disturbed by the killing of Qasem Soleimani, take a deep breath and read some history of the late, overachieving terrorist.

If nothing else, the world is rid of a very bad dude and perhaps has left Iranian leadership with fewer options to promote unrest and mayhem in the Middle East, the US and Europe. They mat also be looking over their shoulder for the next set of shoes to drop.

Excerpts from article:

“. . .  Soleimani and Mr. Khamenei are as responsible as Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Syrians and the displacement of millions. It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this foreign adventure to Tehran’s self-esteem and its adjusted “civilizing mission,” which Mr. Khamenei has always seen as his sustaining purpose. Soleimani became a cult figure among Shiite holy warriors—in his heavily accented, halting Arabic, he exuded a menacing charisma—and even among more secularized Iranians who saw in him an Iranian paladin who made Sunni Arabs tremble.

But that allure was fading.  In a country fed up with religious dictatorship, it’s not surprising that discussions about Solemani’s becoming president died before an American missile killed him. In Iraq, the earliest protests among Shiite politicians against Solemani’s heavy-handedness were in 2004; anger at Iranian meddling and religious arrogance has been growing ever since. It’s not surprising to see some Iraqis celebrate his death, or the more fearful quietly express relief.

Now Soleimani has become a martyr in the Islamic revolution’s 41-year battle against the U.S. The men he trained and advanced will carry on. But the supreme leader may be less bold, at least for a while. Mr. Khamenei’s close relationship with Soleimani probably revolved around the man-of-action fortifying the cleric’s more ambitious inclinations.

It’s an excellent bet that Tehran’s most daring maneuvers—the foiled bombing of Iranian dissidents in Paris in June 2018, which could have killed hundreds; the attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Saudi oil facilities last year; and the repeated recent attacks on American bases in Iraq, which killed and wounded Americans—all had Soleimani’s fingerprints.

Article 4 by Holman W.Jenkins, Jr:  On Iran, Trump Says ‘Yes We Can’

This article by Mr. Jenkins, Jr. is an interesting twist on the outcome of the killing of an Iranian key operative, Qasem Soleimani. Oil independence is at least 3 dimensional, and should, but likely not have an impact on the Liberals who want to ban fracking.

Energy independence has given our leaders so many strategic options that were not available pre fracking, that National security and financial health can be secured irrespective of any disruption of oil flow from the middle east. That seriously reduces the options the Ayatollahs have available to retaliate the death of the General.

Excerpts from article: 

 

“By every account, the U.S. had Soleimani in its sights many times over the years but concern for wider consequences always stayed its trigger finger until now. Soleimani was responsible for outrages around the world. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq. In the past decade, he was the chief proponent of Iran’s expanding proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, the world has changed and any tip-up in oil prices is likely to do the U.S. economy as much good as harm. By a common view of economic history, most post war recessions were caused by oil-price spikes and/or related Federal Reserve actions to curb inflationary pressures. But such pressures are not apparent today. Weighed against any damage to consumers from higher oil prices are millions of jobs and billions of dollars in domestic investment and export revenues directly and indirectly tied to America’s drilling boom.

Mr. Trump’s decision to pull the trigger was premised on strong advice that a Soleimani strike need not drag the U.S. into a wider war nor produce undue economic consequences given the new dynamics of the U.S. economy and the global oil market.

Iranian leaders in decades past could calculate that terrorist actions and oil disruptions aimed at third-party countries would be effective ways to pressure a U.S. president. Less so now. President Trump, through no particular virtue of his own, just doesn’t need to care as much as his predecessors did. Add his temperamental indifference to allies and the outside world. Though I might be wrong, I don’t see that Iran has many tricks up its sleeve that would come close to damaging the U.S. as much as they would damage Iran itself.”

Monday, January 06, 2020 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

Thorner: Communist/Socialist Elements in Democrat Party Threaten this Nation’s Republic

By Nancy Thorner – 

As Jessica Chasmar reported in The Washington Times: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared that the U.S. is “not an advanced society” and is “evolving into fascism”, during a campaign rally in Venice, CA on Tuesday, December 24, in front of a crowd for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernard Sanders:

“We need to fight to start this work, the establishment of an advanced society. Because as much as we like to say that the United States is the richest country in modern history — for who?” AOC asked. “The richest country — who cares about how much gold is being amassed if we can’t realize an advanced society with those resources?”

Let’s pause to consider Fascism.  As defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary, “Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Although fascism and socialism differ in crucial and central principles,in so far as the role of the state is concerned, both fascism and socialism require a strong state involvement in economic and social policies. The reason why the government intervenes in public affairs is different, but the means used to achieve different goals are interestingly similar.  Both have also  proved to be incredibly powerful and effective ideologies, able to bring together huge masses, and to foster large and cohesive social movements.

How it is that the U.S. is maybe the greatest country in the history of the world with its constitutional freedoms and free booming economy, and yet it is “not an advanced society” and is “fascism.”  In contrast, how is the society AOC would like to usher in with government control in the form of things like the Green New Deal, dictating what we can do and how we should live, is an “advanced” and “not fascism?” It is impossible to wrap one’s head around such twists of logic and reality.

If this nation is not an advanced society, what nations qualify in AOC’s mind as advanced nation?  Might they be Cuba, maybe Russia, or perhaps even Venezuela? AOC was in good company when communist Harvard professor and left-wing activist Cornel West spoke before her at Bernie Sander’s CA rally. The crowd was estimated at 20,000.

As to AOC’s answer:

“Establishing a loving society in the United States of America” is not “an irrational, overly feeling, sympathetic statement. Rather, it’s the pursuit of “an advanced society.” And an advanced society guarantees healthcare and tuition-free college and trade schools, among other benefits. What we are living in now is not an advanced society.”

In other words, according to AOC, only a communist society can be an advanced society.

 

Communism in the 30’s

 

There was a time in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, when America’s Communist party was at its most formidable.

But even back then, the best they could do in the 1932 election was provide presidential candidates with fewer than a million votes (Communist candidate William Z. Foster, 102,221 votes; Socialist Norman Thomas, 883,990 votes out of 39,749,382 cast). cast

By 1936, a Socialist in everything but party affiliation, FDR, was bringing Thomas’s dreams to fruition.  What more could the Leftists have asked for after FDR initiated Social Security; expanded the federal government and loaded the Supreme Court with a bunch of justices who considered the New Deal to have been divinely inspired and regarded Roosevelt, not Madison, to have been the author of the Constitution?

When it came to propaganda Roosevelt knew the value of it.  He got the feds involved in subsidizing the arts, paying painters to paint murals in post offices and other government buildings and paying writers and actors to take to the road performing plays preaching the sort of left-wing pap that could have played equally well in Moscow.

None of this really explains why in 2019, a time of general prosperity in America, Socialism is taking hold.

 

Young people and Socialism

It is disconcerting that young Americans are embracing socialism.  It seems that the word “socialism” does not carry the same stigma it did in the past now that it has been resurrected by celebrity politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

According to a Harris Poll conducted Feb. 21 – 25, 2018 given exclusively to Axios:

“Among 2,035 adults, Generation Z has a more positive view of the word ” socialism” than previous generations, and — along with millennials — are more likely to embrace socialistic policies and principles than past generations.  Gen Z and millennials are projected to make up 37% of the electorate in 2020.”

Also disconcerting is information in an article by David Boaz, Young People like ‘Socialism,’ but Do They Know What It Is?, that appeared in National Review (Online) on October 25, 2018:

“Fifty-seven percent of Democrats and 51 percent of young people have a positive view of socialism, Gallup reports, slightly more than those who have a positive view of capitalism.”

As to the importance of education in shaping the lives of young people, this quote by Vladimir Lenin says it all:  “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

This has already borne fruit among the youth of our nation. Our education system is failing as young people more and more would prefer to live under a Socialist society than capitalism, not even understanding what Socialism stands for.

Contenders for the Democratic nomination are pushing a Socialist type agenda. Bernie Sanders even declared himself a Socialist and raised $34.5 million in the Fourth Quarter. It is the largest three-month haul disclosed by any candidate so far in the Democratic primary race.

Even Joe Biden flip-flops from earlier saner positions in order to in with the rest of the candidates.

Apparently Democrats actually believe, as well as many young people privy to our failed education system, that by pushing Medicare for All; free health care and education for illegal aliens; gun confiscation; gender by choice; open borders; late term abortions; expanded welfare; and censorship of Conservatives, they have a winning platform.

 

Socialism vs. Capitalism?

According to Sean Ross, Updated Jul 9, 2019:

“The United States has a mixed economy. It works according to an economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to intervene in economic activities in order to achieve social aims and for the public good.”

Yet as scholar Mark Perry observed: “As we’ve learned from countless examples throughout history, including now Venezuela, the main difference between Capitalism and Socialism is this: Capitalism works.”

Or as Winston Churchill put it: “The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

The reason that Capitalism works is because it recognizes and accepts that human beings have foibles, whereas Socialism insists that an economic system can be successful while maintaining the fiction that human nature is irrelevant.  People like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren might as well pretend that gravity is just an unfounded rumor.

What human nature shows is that human beings are competitive creatures.  That is not a bad thing.  It has led to all the advances man has made since leaving the caves to bats and bears.  Every advance, whether it’s been in the arts, the sciences or our relationships with one another has been born of our natural urge to excel and to improve our own lives and, thereby, the lives of others.

That doesn’t mean that human beings can’t cooperate, but it does mean that they don’t want to share the fruits of their labor with those who refuse to share the labor.

 

Could Socialism triumph in 2020?

In a move reported by Trevor Loudon in the Epoch Times on September 9, 2018, socialist and communist organizations in the United States have formally allied to increase their infiltration and manipulation of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Socialists of America group numbers didn’t start to rise until Sanders ran for president in 2016. Nearly 100 democratic socialists now hold elected office across the country, from school boards to state legislatures and Congress, where Ocasio-Cortez and the Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib have become avatars of an emboldened left wing insurgency. Its plan is to run primary challenges against centrist Democrats and to organize low-income, working people, including in communities that voted for Trump.

See here the names of Progressive (Socialist) members in Congress following the 2016 election.

By January 3rd, 2018, the Progressive Caucus, represented the left-most flank in the House of Representatives, between 90 and 95 members — the most ever. That’s about 40 percent of all House Democrats. Thirteen committee chairs and roughly 30 subcommittee chairs will likely be filled by Progressive Caucus members. It had more influence in the 116th Congress than at any other point in its 27-year history.

With the above in mind, it is essential that Trump is re-elected president and Republicans win back the House and keep the Senate. It is not far-fetched to believe that this nation’s destiny is one of Socialism if the Communists and Socialists embedded within the Democrat Party should keep the House and a Socialist wins the presidency.

Friday, January 03, 2020 at 09:10 AM | Permalink