Nationalism or One-world government: The choices before us…

These are the political options as I see it.  For those who dislike “black and white” comparisons, tough tamales (in deference to borderless Mexico).  It is black and white.

The parties and especially the candidates’ polices make this a black and white issue.

The Democrats are clearly for a one-world government.  Obama, the Clintons, Sanders, Pelosi – the whole crew promote free trade, borderless migration, infinite immigration, policing the world, and foreign handouts we cannot afford.  Reducing our nation’s sovereignty is an acceptable casualty of their aspirations.  Secretary of State Kerry wants a “borderless world” as he pleads HERE.

Every one of their policies rack up our national debt, cause us to eliminate jobs while making the United States less autonomous and more subject to the actions of other nations for our prosperity or impoverishment.  They are “progressives”, and the progressive mantra is elimination of national borders and culture while inexorably moving toward one-world governance. The options could also be seen as “greater national sovereignty or less.”

The Republican establishment comprised of the majority in Congress and their supporters and financiers - aka “special interests” - are in philosophical if not procedural lockstep with the Dems with regard to this One World business.  They have the same aspirations, but at a more gradual and less overt pace.  The analogy I will use is “radical Muslims” and “moderate Muslims.”  They both have the same ultimate objective – a one world Islamic Caliphate.  The radicals want it quicker.  The moderates will take their time.

***

Jeff Session ID’s the same choices HERE.

***

Donald Trump, and to a significantly lesser extent, Teddy Cruz, are the exceptions.  Trumps’ mantra has recently crystalized into “nationalism” – America first.  This wasn’t real clear at the beginning of the campaigns, was it.  Now it is.  He wants every action taken by our government to benefit our nation – not the world at large.  Cruz occasionally sounds like he has a similar message, but his recent allies – Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Graham, Fiorina, and “one-world” leaning conservative media – along with his Goldman Sachs wife, Heidi, compromise his sincerity. 

Look at Trumps’ most often stated priorities:

• Border wall – reducing cheap foreign labor that unfairly competes for our jobs; cutting welfare expense to illegals
• Correct trade imbalances by entering into trade agreements that benefit American workers more than foreign workers
• Strengthened military – so that we can bargain from a position of strength
• Scrap job-killing Obamacare
• Jobs:  Every action is focused on enhancing job opportunities and wages for American citizens
• Reduce foreign aid – the level of handouts that we cannot afford given to nations that we cannot effectively influence
• Stop subsidizing foreign defenses and encourage our allies to devote more of their own resources to defend themselves

Package all these policy proposals together and we have what progressives call “bigoted”, “racist”, and “xenophobic.”      Or in other words, what we have in the past cherished as “nationalistic”, “patriotic”, “loyal”, and “special.”  What just a few decades ago were thought of as great qualities of proud American citizens have been turned on their ear by progressives and become hateful qualities.  Trump is the one candidate who has hit a chord with what I sincerely hope is a majority of us who would like to return to these positive American, and yes, nationalistic qualities.

In Islam, nationalism is abhorrent.  Anti-nationalism is a common bond between progressives and Muslims that helps explain progressives’ affinity for and lack of real concern about Islam.  I just discovered THIS Islamic web site that demonstrates Islam’s anti-nationalist sentiment.

Europe is further along this progressivist, one-world road than is the United States.  A Trump presidency may provide a short-lived reprieve from our trek toward Bush’s New World Order.  But it might also provide a spark that ignites enough pride in our nation to foster a multi-generation march to rebuilding our damaged national pride and prosperity.

To see an example of the extent of sentiment against nationalism, I invite you to Google “Google Images” and enter the word “nationalism.”  You will see in a significant portion of the images how our media and much of the world view nationalism.  Progressives don’t mind sacrificing a very good thing, the former greatness of our nation to join the relative mediocrity of the rest of the world.

Among potential VP women, Joni Ernst stands out

This is how my research began…

My wife casually mentioned that Condoleezza Rice would be a good VP pick for Trump.  So I followed up on that suggestion by Googling “possible Trump VP candidates.”

I focused on women first because that would neutralize the Hillary gender card effect and  THIS website popped up that proposed five options for a female VP:

• Susana Martinez, New Mexico Governor
• Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire Senator
• Condoleezza Rice, former  Secretary of State under George Bush
• Joni Ernst, Iowa Senator
• Carly Fiorina, former HP exec. and former presidential candidate.

So what about these five?  Do any have potential land mines or obvious positives that would both counter the Hillary debacle and satisfy most conservatives?  While they all have some positives in terms of catering to gender or ethnicity, most have qualities that conflict with Trump’s messaging.

Here are the land mines:

• Susana Martinez:  She does NOT support repeal of Obamacare in its entirely.  She supports Common Core.  While her Mexican heritage may bring Latino votes, it may also raise concerns about Mexican immigration, both legal and illegal.
• Kelly Ayotte:  She voted for the comprehensive immigration reform bill of the Gang of Eight.  She voted to extend unemployment benefits to disincentivized the unemployed seeking employment.  She believes “climate change” is real and caused by human activity and supports the Clean Power Plan to address climate change and protect the environment.
• Condoleezza Rice:  Her baggage is her role as Bush’s surrogate during the Iraq war – she was a proponent of that war.  She championed the ill-informed notion that democracies can be made of centuries old Islamic tribes and Sharia-inclined governments. From Wikipedia:  “In early December 2008, Rice praised President-elect Barack Obama's selection of New York Senator Hillary Clinton to succeed her as Secretary of State, saying "she's terrific".
• Carly Fiorina:  Carly is Cruz’s VP pick.  Not a good one, either.  She is viewed by many as a failed executive.  She sides with the notion that climate change is real and caused by human activity.  She supported the DREAM Act that provided a path to citizenship illegals who graduate from US colleges or serve in the armed forces.  She was critical of Trump’s proposal to stop Muslim immigration “until we can figure what the hell is going on.”  She expresses little concern about Islam.  And her favorite business author is Communism’s inspiration, Hegel?  Wow!  Here is more on why Carly is a poor choice.

 

Joni Ernst:  I did not find ANY land mines in Joni Ernst’s Wikipedia profile.

In fact, virtually ALL of her political positions would support the concerns expressed by Trump throughout his campaign.  Add to that the fact that she is the only one of this bunch who served in the US military – having served from 1993 to 2015,  and retired from the National Guard as a Lt. Colonel.  Her current position as a mid-West senator will strengthen Trump’s status in our heartland.  She has been mild and forgiving in Trump’s comments about some women despite the biased headlines that infer otherwise.

Her lack of negatives and her many positives that promote the conservative agenda make her not merely a legitimate pick for Trump’s VP but also superior to Cruz’s pick.  And she represents more of what thinking citizens believe is urgently needed to be done to make America great again.

Here is a link to an interview during Joni’s 2014 Senate campaign…

http://www.kcci.com/news/Candidate-interview-Joni-Ernst/26216654

Being a known “rule” doesn’t make it right…

I have listened to way too many pundits defending the delegate rules Republicans have used for decades.   They rail against those who believe the rules are “unfair” or “trickery”.  They claim there is nothing unfair about them because they have been in existence a long time.  They claim there is no trickery because the rules are there for anyone to see.

Those defenses of the “rules” miss the point of the concern of the American voter.  While the rules may have existed for a long time and were there for anyone who looked to see, the rules themselves promote insider dealing and lock the voter out of the process.

Not even none other than the otherwise intelligent Rush Limbaugh has made the point clearly.  Even he is all about “well, the rule has been there.”  So has cancer.

Just because a rule is there that benefits “the Party” does not make it fair to the voter.  What’s fair about a rule bypassing the voter and putting some bribed delegate in line ahead of the voters to influence the outcome of the national nomination?  The rules perpetuate a rigged system in favor of the establishment, which Ted Cruz is revealing he is a part of more than we were led to believe.

There are several examples of “rules” that have outlived their usefulness, or perhaps were not even fair or legitimate to begin with.

The rules of British combat during the American Revolution – line ‘em up, head ‘em out to the beat of a drum with an audience of loyalists along the sidelines -  proved to be a severe detriment to British success.

The rules against African American use of the lunch counters or white only restrooms were well known and in effect for decades.  Did that make them right?

Congress, too, is well known for making fairly outlandish rules.

And currently, there are rules that intimidate and prevent  those who understand the threat of Islamic doctrine from freely speaking out with the truth about Islam in many parts of Europe, but will lead to disaster for those nations being Islamified into submission because of them.

Just because a rule has been around awhile and is well known does not make it a fair, equitable, legitimate or provide a good outcome.

View this:

Gap between party rules and popular democracy widening...

Those who defend the delegate rules because “they’ve been there the whole time for all to see” does not mean the rule is legitimate and promotes good government.   To the contrary, such rules deprive the citizens of a legitimate say in the nominating process, place the Party ahead of the will of the people, and ultimately disenfranchise the voters in the entire so-called democratic voting process.   If tradition is wrong – to hell with tradition.  If the rule is wrong – to hell with the rule. 

Quit defending the indefensible!

Asexual, bisexual, unisexual, transsexual: Confused minds reign supreme…

This is from the Department of Utter Confusion, not to be confused with the transsexual female perspective, “udder confusion.”

It was bound to happen.  Gay marriage, celebration of homosexuality, open homosexuality mandated in the military; these have all led to acceptance of many other forms of behavior formerly universally understood to be  perverted , now sanctioned by law and pop culture.  The latest is the implied sanction given to perverts to use the restroom, men’s or woman’s, of their choice.  Sexual perversion is granted the same legal protection as racial integration. 

Here is one commentator’s view of this cultural oddity:

In my opinion it’s a no-win situation.  Trump’s answer was an attempt to escape through the horns of the bull.

That would be my stance also, but the freakin’ ACLU and the confused bastards who don’t know WTF they are will beat it to death (no pun intended).

We’ll just have to see how it plays out.  That having been said, I’d throw it back to the entity that offers the bathrooms.  Mark’em “men only” and “women only” or “confused men” and “confused women.”  Or maybe clarify it with “pricks” and “pussys.”  Or if trans-gender becomes national law “men—keep your hands to yourself” and “women—no peeking.”  Or maybe have all bathrooms labelled “gender neutral” with the added line on ladies  rooms “caution, no urinals.”    Or maybe have just men and women as it is now with the added line “if you’re confused, come back when you figured it out.”  Would it be permissible to have “gender neutral” on both bathrooms with the added line “no perverts?”  How about changing the admonition that used to be seen at FBOs in men’s rooms at smaller airports: “All pilots with small props and low manifold pressure please taxi closer to the fuel pits”  To read “All men with no props, please go sit.”

However we poke fun at our moral decline, it is just that:  A nation that is fine with the moral abyss in the name of “freedom of choice” - a radical obsession with judging those who hang on to any sense of morality as “bigots.”    Stated another way, we are a nation seeing no use for traditional morality.

The mentally confused perverts of our nation are driving our social and legal agenda.  How the hell did that happen?  Here’s how.  Most churches, the self-proclaimed Christians, religious Jews, and those who took traditional morality for granted no longer care.  It is easier to “go with the flow.”  They cannot think of any good reason to uphold moral principles.  It’s too hard, too time consuming, and besides, there are too many other priorities that are more fun, more rewarding, and less controversial.

There are a more than a few of us “holdouts” who clearly see this as a leading indicator of, if not the fall of Western civilization, the precipitous decline of a formerly great nation.

While I love Donald Trump’s message of “make America great again”, that will not and cannot happen without the moral underpinnings that made us great in the first place.  Fiscal discipline and prosperity and status as a respected world power are not sustainable without self-disciplined moral principles (mores) based on beliefs in powers much greater than our mere selves.  Such powers and principles have begun to allude a critical mass of our population.

Here is one more example of the priorities of our pop culture.  Try entering the word “Prince” into Google images.  Instead of respected national leaders of formerly great nations  popping up in that search, 98% of the images are of Prince, the deceased pop iconic performer.  The death of Prince has consumed more hours of national news in his death than I remember any other national figure receiving in the last decade. 
PRINCE'S DRUG DEALER SPEAKS: $40,000 AT A TIME FOR 25 YEARS...  Yes, our culture worships THAT!  So why should we wonder why we don’t care who uses which bathroom?

God help us!

Give up liberty or give up safety–a chicken and egg dichotomy, oh my…

You’ve heard it said in defense of extreme libertarian intransigence:   “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.”  I’m certain this attempt to quote Ben Franklin was made hundreds of times to discredit the FBI’s attempt to hack into the Islamic terrorist’s Apple phone.

Here is what Franklin REALLY said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

While the context of Franklin’s quote was more about taxes for defense of western lands then either liberty or security – as explained HERE - it is not a stretch to interpret the quote in the context of “liberty versus safety.”

There are several other things wrong with this misrepresentation of Franklin’s quote besides misrepresenting it.

First, giving up one or the other is NOT an “all or nothing” event.  There are a thousand shades of both liberty and safety.  Hacking Apple’s phone to achieve an additional increment of “safety” will not obliterate “liberty.”  “Liberty is not destroyed by the NSA doing bulk scans of phone conversations.

I am more prone to reverse the misquote of Franklin’s saying to this:

“Those who refuse to give up a little liberty to achieve safety may end up with neither.”

How can I suggest such a politically incorrect, dangerous and immoral thing?

Here’s how.   Given the state of the world, given the intent and mission of the world’s supremacists via Islamic jihad and the greed and avarice of human nature generally, safety is essential.  Safety by its very nature entails giving up a piece of liberty.  Giving up a piece of liberty for safety assures our liberty.

Those who favor the 2nd amendment and own a handgun to help assure their safety gave up something to purchase and learn how to effectively use their handgun.  They gave up a piece of their liberty to purchase something else with the $500 spent on the handgun.  They gave up a piece of their liberty to spend their time on something else instead of their handgun training.

Some families choose to install a home burglar alarm system.  The same trade offs apply to this purchase.   A little liberty for a little more safety.

If we had neither guns for defense, alarms for intruders, fences for trespassers, walls for privacy, nor armies for defense, we would have no safety.  Having security insures our liberty.

Government programs that monitor and track those intent on destroying or subverting our nation insures our liberty.  Having NO government program to address those intent on destroying or subverting our nation will insure that our liberties are eliminated.

Be careful when you hear neatly misquoted sayings from famous people of the past.  They are often not only applied to current conditions outside of their original context, but end up making little sense if the implications of that distorted advice is actually applied to current conditions.

If we fail to give up a little liberty to achieve safety, we will, in fact, eventually end up with neither.  I always thought there was something a little “one off” with that misquoted expression used against enhancing our national security.  Now that I have thought it through, I am certain.

Here are my preferred expressions:

“We need only enough safety to protect our essential liberties.  Excess safety erodes our essential liberties.”

“Our ‘essential liberties’ are those liberties that remain after we devote some on the safety necessary to assure the preservation of those liberties.”

The 9-11 Commission Report, 28 secret pages, and Saudi Arabia’s threats…

Recall that 15 of the 19 Muslim 9-11 jihadis were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

Three years later, in July 2004, the 9-11 Commission Report was published, minus 28 pages of details that were not released to the public and which continue to be classified “Secret.”  The entire report, minus the still secret 28 pages is located HERE.

Ever since the 9-11 Commissionn Report was published, the families of the 3,000 victims of 9-11 and millions of others have called for the secret portion of the report to be made public.  In fact, a web site, 28PAGES.ORG, was created as“an information & activism hub for the growing movement to declassify 28 pages on foreign government ties to 9/11.”

Congress is now actively considering legislation to de-classify those 28 pages.

The revelations that most of us suspected all along are making the Saudi government a bit edgy.  So edgy, in fact, that Saudi Arabia is threatening the United States with selling off $750 billion in US assets if the Saudi Arabian government is implicated in the 9-11 attack.

We know that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi citizens.  It is not a stretch that the Saudi Arabian government was behind that attack.

The timing of Saudi Arabia’s threat is telling.  Congress is about to declassify 28 pages of the 9-11 report that most already suspect demonstrates the Saudi government facilitated if not directed the attack.  If the missing 28 pages do NOT implicate Saudi Arabia, why, then, would they have any reason to threaten us?

The ironic and troubling thing is that Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US, especially under Barack Obama, with his deep bows to the Saudi King.  We spent and continue to spend billions for Saudi oil each year.  In fact, Saudi Arabian oil imports into the US are second only to Canada, constituting 11% of all oil imports.

*****

Trump on the role of Saudi Arabia…

“In all fairness, we went after Iraq – they did not knock down the World Trade Center, okay? It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center,” he said.

“We went after Iraq, we decimated the country. Iran’s taking over, okay.”

“But it wasn’t the Iraqis,” Trump continued. “You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have papers there that are very secret. You may find it’s the Saudis, okay?

“But you will find out,” he said.

*****

You have to admit, ever since, and including George Dubya Bush, our relationship and trade with Saudi Arabia has been inexplicable.  The very least our government owes our people is the release ALL of the findings of the 9-11 Report, Saudi Arabian threats be damned.

No, George, Islam is NOT “peace.”  And no, Barack, Saudi Arabia is no friend.  Islam is supremacism, submission, and jihad.  Saudi Arabia is pure Islamic, 100%, and tolerates no others.  And remember, Saudi Arabia is spending billions funding “Middle Eastern Studies” in dozens of US universities.  Middle Eastern Studies indeed.  More accurately, supremacist promotion of Islamic doctrine and incitement against American government and culture.

Diana West adds to the discussion HERE.

And now THIS from the New York Post.  And here is the headline from the New York Daily News.  Read the article HERE.

Republicans great at disenfranchising voters…

Rush Limbaugh says “it’s just part of the ‘game’.”

Michael Savage says “it’s a rigged election.”

Ted Cruz says “Thank you Colorado for another resounding victory!”

And most [establishment] media simply say “Cruz has a better ground game.”

All the above comments were in response to the Republican Party in Colorado deciding a few months ago to deprive the citizens of Colorado the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate.  At the Colorado Republican Convention a few days ago a small number of Republican elite gave Cruz 30 of the 37 delegates without a single vote being cast by voters in the state.  The remaining 7 are uncommitted.

According to the Denver Post in August 2015,

“State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.”

The most recent major presidential poll in Colorado was taken in November 2015 by Quinnipiac University.  That poll gave Trump 17% of the vote when most of the 17 candidates were still in the race. 

Carson was leading with 25%, Rubio was second with 19%, Trump was third  with 17% and Cruz was fourth with 14%.  Given that Carson and Rubio are no longer in the race, Trumps’ and Cruz’  percentage would be much higher if a poll was taken last week.

So what occurred in Colorado?  Is it a “game” with the “rules” made up by 24 Republican leaders among 2,947,020 active Republican voters in the state?  Or is it a superior Cruz ground game?  This debacle is more the result of the Republican Party’s “anyone but Trump” campaign than it is a “great ground game by Cruz.”  Cruz reaped the spoils not intended for him as much as aimed against Trump.

I agree with the Trump camp.  It is gestapo tactics.   I describe it as the Republican version of the Russian Politburo.  I don’t think the term “republic” in “Republican” anticipated 24 Party elites deciding who should get all the delegates in a state with nearly 3 million voters.  This smacks of the Soviet “nomenklatura”, the elite membership of the Soviet governing system, so called because their names appear on the nomenklature or list of the most loyal Party officials eligible for senior posts at home and overseas.

How would you feel as a Colorado Republican voter who didn’t care much for Cruz?

This will bode not just poorly for the “Party” by will go a long way toward  disenfranchising half the voters, splitting and possibly destroying the Republican brand.

What were they thinking?  Is there that much weed in Colorado?