Monday, February 17, 2020

Will this pandemic be a nail in the coffin of globalism?

I’ve listened to many folks who minimize the potential impact of CoVid19 (Wuhan Coronavirus) by comparing it to the annual US flu.  They conclude that more die from the regular flu than the “mere 1,800” or so that died so far from CoVid19 – so why the worry.

Yes, it is true that more die annually from the annual flu in the US than from CoVid 19, so far.

From Microsoft News:

Flu season is hitting its stride right now in the US. So far, the CDC has estimated (based on weekly influenza surveillance data) that at least 12,000 people have died from influenza between Oct. 1, 2019 through Feb. 1, 2020, and the number of deaths may be as high as 30,000.

However, let’s compare some vital facts:

Flu in the US kills around 0.002% (2 in 100,000) of those who contract it.  For the most part, the “standard” flu infects others only after symptoms appear enabling timely self-quarantining.

On the other hand, CoVid19 is reported to kill 2.5% of those who contract it.  That is a mortality rate 1,200 times that of the standard flu in the US.

Even more concerning is the fact that symptoms manifest themselves anywhere from two to 24 days after contracting the virus.  During this period, the virus is transmissible.  So people who show no symptoms can and do unknowingly transmit CoVid19 to others.

Add to this the fact that the current tests for CoVid19 frequently show a false negative meaning that even though the test is negative, the person tested is actually a carrier.

Now let’s pivot over to what is a significant “super spreader” of pandemics:  Globalism.

I introduce to you Laurie Garrett,  who, according to Wikipedia, is a noted

“…American science journalist and author. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1996 for a series of works published in Newsday, chronicling the Ebola virus outbreak in Zaire.[1]

She is interviewed in a current YouTube video, HERE, where she discusses various aspects of CoVid19.  The one plus hour video is factual and helpful up till five minutes before its conclusion where she reveals her strong globalism bias.

I am not the only one who was struck by her politics.  Here are two comments about her interview:

At around 1 hour 8 minutes - I can NOT believe she equated quarantine policies with racism.

Same here. I was actually enjoying her talk and then she went to the racism bullshit. The general population has been so brainwashed on this whole diversity bullcrap that all they see around them is the racism they've invented in their minds. This cancerous thinking can't die fast enough.

And I added the following observations:

Throughout her interview she described how air travel, international cruises, and an open, global society spread this particular virus.  But at the end she added that anti-globalization is going to be a big impediment to suppressing an outbreak.  Sounds like forked tongue, trying to have it both ways. Then she called those who are against globalization “racists.”

No, no, it's not racism. It's looking at facts. It's looking at who - what region, what nation - is the potential carrier based on the source of infection. Damn, she sounded really credible until the last few minutes of the interview. Then she sounded like every other socialist democrat, an anti-nationalist, a globalist, a fund the UNist, a one-worlder. The global spread of viruses is an effective justification for increased nationalism.

Heck, look at our medical supply chain. 90% of medical supplies, prescription medicines, latex gloves, protective suits, face masks, respirators; all made in one nation, China, the source of the outbreak. When a nation does not make its own essential supplies, whether medical or defense related, that nation is exceedingly and unnecessarily vulnerable and exposed.

Who does Laurie Garratt, this globalist expert, work for?  Low and behold, her employer is the Council on Foreign Relations, the foremost promoter of globalism on the planet.

In 2004 Garrett joined the Council on Foreign Relations as the Senior Fellow of the Global Health Program.  Wikipedia

Yes indeed.  The source of one’s income certainly does bias one’s politics – even to the extent of saying one thing during most of a one hour interview, and concluding with the opposite in the last five minutes.

In the bulk of her interview Garrett explained all the ways CoVid19 is spread through open borders, international flights, international cruise ships, and wide open international trade, and concludes that globalism is fantastic.

Sure, it is wonderful for medically advanced nations to assist those nations that are not as fortunate to help avoid or minimize the impacts of pandemic.  But that benevolence does not argue for globalism any more than desiring secure borders and promoting nationalism makes one a racist.

At this point it is more appropriate than ever to promote secure borders, to vet those who cross those borders not just for their political and cultural intentions and compatibility, but now more than ever, to determine what disease they are carrying across the border.  CoVid19 is not the first formerly “eradicated” disease to cross our border.  World Net Daily reports

Cramped conditions and the spread of difficult-to-treat diseases has doctors worried in the wake of a massive influx of children coming across the Mexican-U.S. border, many of them from Central and South America. Outbreaks of scabies, lice, dengue fever, tuberculosis and other diseases – many of them contagious – are already being documented among the children and in some border agents who work among them.

Whether they are legal or illegal border crossers, a 14-day minimum quarantine period is essential.

Call it “nationalism”; call it whatever.  Stronger borders, not “globalism” is the way to maintain not only a healthier nation, but a more prosperous and self-sufficient one.

Is this pandemic another nail in the coffin of globalism?  If it isn’t, it should be.

Sunday, February 02, 2020

Can ******-free Zones be Justified?

I am being very, very careful not to mention the name of any belief system, group of people, or individual so that I will not upset the sensitivities of snowflakes, leftists, adherents of ***** or Google censors.

So, back to the question I asked in a blog over five years ago that was recently deleted by Google as “hate speech”:  “Can ******-free Zones be Justified?”

I must have proclaimed a resounding “you betcha” in my earlier, Google-erased blog, because I guess that’s why they erased it.

Look what happened to our president when he asked the same thing in his attempt to reduce immigration from violence-prone nations that hate the US.  He was appropriately trying to make our entire nation a ******-free zone.  He got himself impeached.  I only got a blog post deleted.

Back to my very clear question:  “Can ******-free Zones be Justified?”

Again, you betcha.  Why?

If said ****** is a devout adherent to the ******* ideology, and given that the ******* ideology promotes violent supremacism and maintains a doctrinally pure and consistent hatred of the religions and values of western civilization, then yes, you betcha they have no place here.  Granted, not all ******* are deeply devoted to the pure doctrine of *****.  The trouble is, because of the deep deception practiced by adherents of *****, it is virtually impossible to know which ***** does or does not believe and practice the doctrines of *****.

So, having concluded without any shadow of doubt that ******-free zones are justified, how can we go about accomplishing this?  It is obvious that liberal judges who overturned our president’s attempts to at least minimize the invasion of our nation by a force of evil against it are clueless concerning ******* doctrine, history, and practice.  So, yes, we need judges who understand the seditious intents and purposes of ******* who devoutly practice *****.

Doesn’t a nation possess the right to admit only those non-citizens who at least don’t hate, if not love this country, to enter into it?  Don’t we have the right to identify nations dominated by people possessing hatred for and violence toward this nation and refuse their entry?

So, yes, ******-free zones are absolutely justified:  In your neighborhood, town, county, state and nation.  Diversity based on gross incompatibility with those who believe in and use violence to further their ends brings nothing but strife and demonstrably deadly consequences.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Muccings Banned by Google-Blogger!

Yes, indeed. I went to my phone yesterday morning to check on emails and there it was: An email from Google telling me that I violated their "Terms of Service" of their Blogspot/Blogger app. Why?

Here are the two emails I received from Google:

Blogger <no-reply@google.com>

Wed, Jan 29, 5:53 AM (1 day ago)

Hello, Your blog at http://muccings.blogspot.com/ has been reviewed and confirmed as in violation of our Terms of Service for: HATE. In accordance to these terms, we've removed the blog and the URL is no longer accessible. For more information, please review the following resources: Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/terms Blogger Content Policy: https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy -The Blogger Team

----

Blogger <no-reply@google.com>

Wed, Jan 29, 6:19 AM (1 day ago)

Hello,
     Your post titled "Can Muslim-Free Zones be Justified?" at
http://muccings.blogspot.com/2015/01/can-muslim-free-zones-be-justified.html
has been identified as in violation of our Terms of Service for hate
speech. In accordance to these terms, we've removed the post, and the URL
is no longer accessible.
     For more information, please review the following resources:
     Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/terms
     Blogger Content Policy: https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy
     Sincerely,
     The Blogger Team

The blog titled "Can Muslim-Free Zones be Justified?" was written over five years ago. That apparently offended a Muslim, leftist, or snowflake to the extent that they complained to Google about it. And Google, in their predictably intolerant, offend-no-one, knee jerk mentality, instantly banned my blog into oblivion - 10 years worth - without notice. Many conservative bloggers who go against the leftist narrative experienced the same fate. One of my favorites, Pamela Geller, changed from Blogspot several years ago. She saw the censor coming. I was not as prescient.

But wait, there’s MORE…

Later that same day I received another email from Blogger:

Blogger no-reply@google.com   Wed, Jan 29, 9:49 PM (10 hours ago)

Hello, We have received your appeal regarding your blog http://muccings.blogspot.com/. Upon further review we have determined that your blog was mistakenly marked as a TOS violator by our automated system and, as such, we have reinstated your blog. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused in the meantime and thank you for your patience as we completed our review process. Thank you for understanding. Sincerely, The Blogger Team

The blog was “mistakenly marked” as a “terms of service” violator.

That was a wake up call to the fact that,

(1) Google Blogger can, will, and does, at its sole discretion and without notice or legitimate cause, unilaterally eliminate content from its sites, and

(2) Google has been known to do this to blogs and web sites with conservative leanings on a frequent basis.

The removal of 10-years worth of Muccings, even with their “generous” reinstatement, was enough for me to be wary of Google Blogger.”  In fact they did permanently remove the one blog post discussing whether “Muslim-free zones can be justified.”  I’m guessing the problem Google Blogger had with that is that not all who say they are Muslim agree with all  or most of the Islamic doctrine and practice.  So if I wrote “Can Islamic doctrine-free zones be justified” that post might not have been removed.  I will soon rewrite that blog to express while the great majority of Muslim likely believe the vile Islamic doctrine, the majority do and deserve close scrutiny.

So, stay tuned.

Friday, January 24, 2020

How forthcoming has China been about the mystery virus?

One can be expected to not get the straight poop from a closed, Communist nation like China.  And that is likely the situation concerning the Wuhan virus. As one source pointed out, more accurate information is likely provided by the rumor mill (people on the ground) than from “official China outlets.”

As of January 26, we are told by official China outlets of 56 deaths from the virus and a mortality rate of 2.8%.   HERE is one report from other sources of 10,000 dead in Wuhan alone.

CORONAVIRUS: Reports of 10,000 DEAD in Wuhan, China

Further, the Daily Mail reports that …

“China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan - and US biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could 'escape' the facility that's become key in fighting the outbreak".”

Little snippets of info are beginning to paint a more troublesome story than has be reported so far.

As you recall over the last few days it has been reported that the source of the virus was from a bat delicacy at a market.  And then we heard it may be from a snake.

Here is a post from an individual familiar with Asian cuisine, and particularly with the types of foods Chinese official outlets attributed to the outbreak:

Poster 1:

I don't buy into this bat/snake folderol. I've eaten fruit bat upon many occasions. Cooked in coconut milk, it's absolutely delicious and considered a delicacy throughout Micronesia. On the snake story, I had some wealthy acquaintances, long ago, that had quail hunting leases outside of Del Rio. The number of times that I ate rattlesnake … I lost count of. Point of fact, someone told me that chicken tastes quite a bit like rattlesnake.

Poster 2:

Knock yourself out, … though I suspect your post is an attempt at weird humor….I'll stick to beef, pork, fresh fish, etc. and a multitude of fresh vegetables and fruits prepared under sanitary conditions. The big problem is that China, most of Asia, India, Africa and various 3rd world countries are unsanitary dungholes.

Poster 1:

…When I lived, in the Marianas…fruit bat is an absolute delicacy. It's cooked in coconut milk. There's actually a hunting/trapping season. And, when hunting quail, outside of Del Rio, we often shot rattlesnakes. One of the reasons that hunting with bird dogs isn't recommended. And, wearing of chaps is highly encouraged. I've eaten a lot of rattlesnake.
I challenge you to find one city, any city, in the PRC that is one-tenth as filthy as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Baltimore, Chicago … and the list goes on and on and on. Filth is piled over two stories in many areas of Baltimore, Detroit, etc.

Me:

So, do you believe the virus lab breakout story has more credibility [than the animal market story]?

Poster 1:

Yes

Here is a photo that has been in the national news over the past couple of days.  Several dozen pieces of heavy earth moving equipment are preparing the ground for the 10-day, super fast track, construction of a large hospital in Wuhan to help treat the infected population, where “only 25 have died.”

Huge efforts are being made by construction workers in Wuhan to erect a new hospital in less than a week on the government's orders. Officials said the medical facility must be built to cope with overwhelming numbers of coronavirus patients

Question for those familiar with the planning and construction of large hospitals:  When is the last time you’ve seen this level of construction activity for construction of a hospital with less than three weeks of advance planning? Survey work alone would take a week or more.  Drawing up plans longer still.  What is the likelihood that a “fully transparent” Chinese government has given us the full story behind this mystery virus outbreak?  How many months do you think the Chinese government has been aware of this outbreak?  And is it a breakout of a weaponized strain from their less than stellar Level 4 lab?

Update January 24:

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding‏ @DrEricDing, a public health scientist on the faculty at Harvard.

“I’ll be honest - as an epidemiologist, I’m really deeply worried about this new coronavirus outbreak. 1) the virus has an upward infection trajectory curve much steeper than SARS. 2) it can be transmitted person to person before symptoms appear — I.e. it is silently contagious!”

“HOLY MOTHER OF GOD - the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!! [multiplier of new infections from one infected person] How bad is that reproductive R0 value? It is thermonuclear pandemic level bad - never seen an actual virality coefficient outside of Twitter in my entire career. I’m not exaggerating… #WuhanCoronovirus #CoronavirusOutbreak

What does this mean for those who were on a plane or in a crowd with people who showed NO symptoms yet, but who came down with this virus days or a week later?  You probably received it.

Thursday, January 23, 2020

The US “Brexit”: UNexit

Should the US exit the UN?

There have been proposals and demands for the United States (US) to leave the United Nations (UN) ever since it was created in 1945.

But US membership and funding of this international “peacekeeping” organization continues.

Funding?  What funding? The US pays the UN about $3.3 billion annually, about 22% of the total UN budget.  Much of this is to promote UN policies and programs contrary to US interests.

https://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/feb/01/rob-portman/us-contribution-un-22-percent/

But but but…there are benefits to the US remaining a member.  There have been no new world wars since 1945.  We are on the UN Security Council.  We can veto any proposal or mandate that we don’t agree with.  Our membership reinforces our status among the worlds most powerful nations.  The UN sends peacekeeping forces around the world.  Who knows how many holocausts and wars the UN has prevented?

Who knows, indeed.  How many skirmishes and local wars has the UN perpetuated?  How much UN money goes to illicit tribes and armies fighting against freedom? And of the areas where the UN has “peacekeeping” forces funded significantly by the US, are they in the interests of the US?  Not many know that, either. 

In other words, is the value of US membership in the UN similar to the value of Britain’s former membership in the European Union (EU)?  Asked another way, should the US question if its national interests are best served by remaining in the UN as Britain questioned whether its national interests were best served by remaining in the European Union?  They were not.  So Britain got out.

Sure, there are differences.  Britain’s laws and trade were subsumed by EU laws and trade agreements whereas the US still maintains much greater autonomy as a UN member.  All this means is that Britain’s membership in the EU mandated loss of autonomy and influence while the US membership in the UN results in a voluntary loss of autonomy and influence.

Here is why this is the case: 

How many of the members of the UN share US interests?  How many share similar forms of governance, beliefs, cultures, and values?  The UN has 93 member states.  Among these, fewer than a dozen share US values.  The rest are either majority Islamic nations, communist nations, socialist, or nations teetering between socialism and anarchy.

There are 45 Muslim majority member nations.  And by “majority”, it isn’t 51% or even 80%.  A “majority” Islamic nation is typically high 90+% Muslim.  Add to that the dozens of Muslim special interest groups with representatives running up and down halls of the UN lobbying for Islamic interests.  Included among these special interest groups are:

  • Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, 57 UN Member States)
  • Islamic Development Bank (IDB, 57 UN Member States)
  • Arab League (formerly League of Arab States, 22 UN Member States)
  • Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD, 29 UN Member States)
  • Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, or more commonly, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC, 6 UN Member States)
  • East African Community (EAC, 6 UN Member States)
  • Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS, 15 UN Member States)
  • Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS, 9 UN Member States and 1 affiliated member)

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the primary Islamic “representative” at the UN, alone is comprised of 57 Islamic nations:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Cote D'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-Islamic-countries-represented-in-the-UN

And then there are the communist nations including Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, and China.  Add to this the dozen or more hard core socialist nations like Venezuela, most European member nations, and half of the South American member nations and we suddenly realize that over 75 nations of the 93 members of the UN have national interests diametrically opposed to those of the US.

Even though the US has veto power, we don’t and can’t influence most of the policies and programs, not to mention the actions, of the UN.  Who has the most overall, day to day, influence in the UN?  Islamic, communist, and socialist nations.  And between these three, Islamic nations carry the most influence and pay the smallest share of expense.

So, is the US getting a worthwhile return on investment?  Where else could that annual $3.3 billion be spent?  Yet, even outside this UN expense, we are still the world’s policeman at a cost of $100’s of billions beyond that.  And if we were not in the UN, we would still be the world’s policeman if that is the path we wish to continue to follow.  How many of our current foreign military installations, airfields, and special forces interventions formally sanctioned by the UN?  Any?

Is our continuing membership and substantial monetary funding of the UN giving unjustified credibility, power, and influence to that body contrary to the interests of the United States?

Should there be a UNexit by the US, using very similar rationale of Britain’s Brexit? 

You be the judge.

Monday, January 20, 2020

US European-bred Christians becoming the new Native American…

Whites in America will become a minority in the US by 2045, according to the Brookings Institution.  Further given the fact of declining Christian belief among the general population, white Christians will become a minority much sooner if not already.

The rest of the US population smells blood in the water, so to speak; I suspect as did the European settlers here in the 17 and 1800’s against native Americans.  You know how THAT turned out.

Christians of European ancestry are the new Native Americans.  I am one.  We think of ourselves as the founders of this nation – the rightful heirs, settlers, and leaders of the land, government, religion, and culture.  We were for 200 years.

Affirmative action has been a dual-edged sword.  It gave opportunity to blacks in the form of favored access to education and jobs.  But it continues to discriminate against deserving whites long after its intended purpose has been achieved.

Unbridled immigration and open borders continue to increase the rapid influx of Latinos and Middle Easterners both of whose birthrates are at least double those of the “new” native Americans.

The term “people of color” now includes EVERYONE except Caucasians.  Isn’t white as much a “color” as “black”?  The term “people of color” has become an accepted racist term against whites.

What can we expect from this paradigm shift?  Look at American history and human nature for the answer.

Affirmative action will live in perpetuity as those initially favored by it will seek their reparations in the form of retribution via this legalized form of reverse discrimination.

The new majority will embrace socialism, and use the tyranny of the majority, aka “democracy” to achieve their political dominance.  Their political dominance will put the new minority, Christians and Caucasians, in their place.  A new form of “reservation” will be created, shades of the plight of the native American.

Transition will occur akin to a slow boil, but the end result is virtually inevitable.  It is as if the European-bred Christians have little regard for their own faith, culture, and heritage, have a death wish and welcome their own demise.

This is a bumper sticker used by those who have so little regard for their own heritage, religion or culture that they pander to everyone else’s.

Monday, January 06, 2020

What happens next with Iran, Iraq, and US policy?

The left in Congress and the media are pleading “doomsday”, WWIII!, and “Trump is out of control with no plan” in response to his order to remove Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.

These Trump-haters are so full of vitriol against Trump that they have blinded themselves to the facts:

Who was Soleimani?

From the BBC:  “Under his leadership, Iran had bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon and other pro-Iranian militant groups, expanded Iran's military presence in Iraq and Syria and orchestrated Syria's offensive against rebel groups in the country's long civil war.”

In essence, Soleimani was in charge of terrorism in the Middle East on behalf of Iranian and other jihad-inspired Muslims.  HERE is a link to Soleimani’s “accomplishments”, aka “top ten atrocities” on behalf of the “religion of peace.”

Has the previous United States policy of appeasement worked? 

No.  Our policies under Obama, the not well disguised Muslim, emboldened Iran and like minded infidel-hating nations and bought them time and space to expand their areas of influence and control.  The $1.7 billion Obama sent to Iran in cash was most likely used to fund Iran’s proxy militias to undermine US influence and to further destabilize the Middle East through terror and intimidation.  THAT was appeasement on steroids.

What will Iran do in response?  Here are the possibilities, from most to least likely:

1. Continue  and likely up their game of asymmetrical warfare against Western and more moderate Islamic interests in the region.  These tactics include use of proxy militias and nations in executing terror attacks to intimidate and control, harassment of shipping in narrow regional international shipping channels, and carrying out cyber-attacks against the computerized systems (banking, infrastructure) of first world nations.  In other words, at least in the short term, they will continue what they have been doing, except perhaps a bit more clandestinely, not as readily observably.

2. Through proxies, fire additional missiles at Israel.

3. Directly attack US interests in the region or in the US.

What will the US do going forward?

The US has ended Obama’s regime of appeasement.  The rules of engagement have changed – hallelujah! 

Presidential bluster and threats on our behalf against Iran are essential.  Iran cannot mistakenly believe we will do nothing any longer.  Such talk from Trump unhinges the Democrats, but must be said to minimize stupid actions by Iran.

It is now open season on Iranian military leaders.  The ROE shackles are off.  Iranian militia leaders within Iraq have withdrawn into Iran, supposedly to help ready missile batteries, but more likely to preserve their lives.

We have and will increase our troop strength in the short term in the Middle East to protect our assets.  How long that will be necessary is unknown.  We have and will increase our readiness at home knowing there are Iranian terror cells that are likely to be activated here.

If there is  known to by ANY link between terror carried out in this nation and Iranian influence, the rules of engagement with Iran change further, and significant bombing of Iranian assets becomes more likely.

What about our presence in Iraq?

In spite of the resolution of the Iraqi Parliament, heavily influenced by Iranian interests, by the way, to eject US forces from Iraq, the US can choose to remain, at least for a short while.  While it takes a decision of the Iraqi Executive, currently a “caretaker” government, to change that policy, we could leave sooner than later.  HERE is a not fully verified claim that we may leave sooner than later.  It may be a test, and only a test, of the will of Iraqi leaders. HERE is a later report indicating the above letter was a draft, with no immediate withdrawal pending.  This may be a “misdirect” to confuse everyone, especially Iran –and especially to ferret out where the US presence stands in the minds of Iraqi leadership.

On the other hand, taking out Soleimani despite the explicit rejection to do so by the Iraqi government might have been Trump playing 5-D chess, as someone described, with the full conscious intent being to elicit Iraqi anger as cover for total US withdrawal.  If that is the case, not too many of us are terribly sad.

Despite all this speculation, there is considerable support among Iraqis, notably the Kurds and Sunnis, for the US to remain.  Most Sunni lawmakers and all Kurdish members of parliament sat out the vote – likely out of fear if they overtly voting “no” to the US expulsion vote.

And what about Democrat anti-Americanism?

The words and actions of Democrats in the House, such as hand cuffing the President via limiting the War Powers Act, make them appear to be pro-Iranian and anti-American among most voters.  These actions will motivate the electorate to support Trump as much as the actions of the Virginia Governor sell guns.

A word about “fear”:  Pelosi and her crowd are consumed by fear.  We have indeed become a nation of fearful snowflakes.  A related term is “soft.”  We dare not allow any encroachment into our comfort zones which are many and all consuming.  Fear is the number one reason we have pandered to rogue nations and terror groups.  We are fearful of their threats almost to the point of fearing our own shadows.  Fear is what drives the Democrat party and even most of our Christian churches to cave to every craven thought and act.  We don’t want to offend anyone for any reason.  We fear the potential consequences, even though the potential rewards in both victories and faithfulness are greater than any threat of “offending.”

Friday, January 03, 2020

Thoughts on eliminating the most influential leader of terror in the Middle East…

First, from Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer, through Barack Hussein Obama, the barely disguised Muslim, US policy has emboldened Iran to become the most prolific source of terror in the Middle East.  Over the past several years Iran had gained influence in Iraq’s government to the point of virtually dictating their every move the government made.  In fact, this past week Iran’s influence was behind the Iraqi government relaxing Green Zone security so that Iran-backed militia could storm the US Embassy.  And Iran for months has been promising violence against both Israeli and US interests in the area.

In response to Trump’s vow to punish Iran for their invasion of our Iraqi embassy, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on January 1st said that US President Donald Trump was powerless to do anything to Iran.  Within 24 hours of that statement, Iran’s most vaunted military leaders were pulverized by US missiles.

So now, not only are the Iranian jihadis in an uproar,  US democrats are squealing like pigs just before a BBQ.  In fact, they are making more noise than the rabid Muslims of the Middle East.  All because President Trump did the job that both Democrats and Republicans failed to do over the past 40 years.

Will this US action cause upheaval in the Middle East?  The better question is:  Have the actions of Iran caused upheaval in the Middle East?  Yes to both.  Of  course, if the US laid down and played dead, as we had before Trump, and dumped plane loads of cash in the hands of terrorists to “placate” them, as Obama had done, there might be a false impression of stability while Islamic jihadis continue their conquest throughout the Middle East and Africa.

Nancy Pelosi is having kittens:  She’s upset she wasn’t notified of the pending attack – but why would we notify an enemy of the US?  And the Islam-dominated United Nations is expressing concern, of course.

Yes, our stock market will react in the short term.  Oil and gas prices will spike in the short term.  Iran and its terrorist proxies and cells will commit a few more acts of terror.  What else is new?

The most important thing:  There was a clear message sent by the US that we will not tolerate Iranian BS, attacks and threats against the US and our allies.

The Democrats would rather criticize, cower, and placate.  They appear to be on the side of our enemies.  I believe that is called “treason.”