Socialism compared to Cooking Frogs

As more and more young Americans object less and less to Socialism, the truth about this failed ideology as a political system needs to be exposed. Perhaps more importantly, the influence of communism in the modern Democratic Party needs to be illustrated with real world examples of today; not the fading lessons of the defunct U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany.
Recently a newly formed organization gathered speakers in Loveland. All had immigrated to the United States from Socialist / Communist countries and they came together to tell their stories of life under socialism.
While they varied in backgrounds, age and years in America, their stories of poverty, hunger and, worst of all, the despair they escaped were poignant. A common thread connecting their experiences was their education as youths.
Education focused on indoctrination is the key to the expansion of socialist ideas. And the process is slow. One of the speakers compared the decline of education and growth of socialism to the story of cooking frogs by first dropping them into comfortable cool water and gradually heating it to boiling. It is believed the frogs never understand what’s happening until it’s too late. Is that what happened in America?

Is there a lesson here for us? In 50 years the education in the United States has gradually fallen from the best in the world to struggling to be in the top 30. During those same decades the Great Society outlined by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson gained momentum as social programs gave more and more benefits while government gained more and more control over our lives.
Today we face government gaining control of every aspect of our lives. And the Democratic Party candidates for President are comfortable proclaiming they promote more socialism – not less.

Socialism Advanced by Schools

The speakers were all immigrants from socialist countries. All had fled to America, to freedom! All of them still had family in their birth country. They had come together in the small crowded room in the basement of this church to tell us their stories. Stories that differed because of their ages and family status in their native countries. Yet regardless of when or where they had left their birth countries, regardless of how old they were or when they came to America, each of them had come to the church this evening to explain to us the truth about life under socialism. And make no mistake, to those of us who are old enough to have seen communism in its undisguised years, to see people shot and killed for tying to escape over the wall from East Berlin, to see it before it was rebranded in our schools as socialism – or worse, the modern American Democratic Party – what these new Americans were describing was frightening.

While the stories varied from Cuba under Fidel Castro, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, to corruption so prevalent in Peru that three ex-presidents are under indictment and the current Congress has been suspended by the current President who himself has been suspended by that same Congress calling for impeachment. All the while Peruvian’s distrust of the politicians has reached the boiling point. Does that sound familiar?
Despite their varied origins, despite the fact they came from different countries, despite the difference in names assigned to their various governments and leaders, the results were always the same; poverty and despair and starvation. People suffer with diseases that could be cured and are easily prevented in other nations where the government doesn’t control every aspect of the healthcare system.

While universal poverty, lack of medicine and nutritious food are undeniable results of socialism, how does a nation fall prey to such an obviously failed ideology? The answer to that question is the common thread that ties each story to every other. That universal connection is the government control of the children through schools that indoctrinate not educate. Schools where history is rewritten to exaggerate the attraction of socialism and the suffering of the working class under Western democracies. From free daycare to free college, a government monopoly of the curriculum guarantees socialism will prevail over time. Indoctrination like this takes time. The rise of socialism isn’t usually an overnight transformation like a violent revolution. And even in the cases of revolution such as in 1959 Cuba the underlying motivation to follow and install a Socialist leader takes time. The promise of a life of comfort being insured by the State is an easy sell to the most ignorant, the impoverished, the laziest and, sadly but most importantly, the most trusting: school children.

Two of the speakers recalled similar memories of being required to spend their Sunday marching in youth parades to show the love they had for Fidel Castro. Going to church was not permitted. These parades started early and lasted all day. In contrast to the youth parades in Cuba were protests in Venezuela. But instead of the marchers being filmed for propaganda to show the success of the Socialist society, those who demonstrated opposition to Hugo Chavez were subjected to severe punishments.

Today in Cuba diabetics die from lack of insulin. Infants die in filthy hospital rooms where simple disinfectants are unavailable. Food and medical supplies are stopped at the borders of Venezuela to prevent the weakening of the government’s control over every aspect of the citizens’ lives. And these are only two of the unlimited number of examples the people escaping from socialist countries can recount.

Many in the audience were folks who remember hiding under our school desks during nuclear attack drills. Yeah, we really did that! Others could understand how terms like “cold war” and “ mutually assured destruction” effected daily life. But clearly our generation has failed to be vigilant over our youth as evidenced by polls indicating a majority of young voters have little to no objection to Socialist policies. Worse still, our lack of awareness of what has been happening in our schools is now translating into votes for openly socialist political candidates. Most haven’t won yet but time is running out for freedom. The “one generation” Ronald Reagan warned us about may be about to assume real power. Since the late 1960’s America’s education ranking has fallen until today our students no longer rank among the top 30 developed countries. Ignorance is a valuable tool for socialists.

But the question from the young folks was; how does any of this affect me here in Colorado?

Recently, Colorado has followed California’s examples of socialist policies in far too many instances. The tyranny demonstrated by the vengeance-motivated Democratic party ruled legislature this past session is a warning shot to let those who have the audacity to oppose their leadership will be punished or driven out of “their” state. Perhaps there is no better example in the world than the overwhelming citizen opposition to proposition 112 in the election of 2018. Yet the citizens’ loud and clear voices were completely ignored as the Democratic legislators immediately demonstrated their disdain for the citizens’ who would dare to question their desires to shut down the oil and gas industry in “their” state.

But the example here is not that the legislators believed they had the duty to reverse what they decided was the wrong decision by the voters. The example here is that those same legislators then claimed to be supporting “democracy” by joining a movement to eliminate the electoral college system and thereby support the popular vote system for electing the President. These two actions are oxymoronic. The very idea that a popular vote supporting an issue the Democrats controlling the government didn’t like had to be overturned is in direct conflict to the same idea that a President should be elected by only a small geographic section of the country where the concentration of population is easier to convince to support Socialists.

Conflicting Training creates Confusion

The images are too familiar: students parading away from their school in single file with hands raised as heavily armed ‘peace’ officers shout orders to keep eyes straight ahead. The process behind these scenes has been taught and practiced so regularly that when one of these horrific events actually occur the officers respond almost autonomously.

So it is that while police departments review their performance after incidents like we saw recently in south Florida, a conflict is widening between the way schools and law enforcement are preparing and training for one of these mass attack events. Seconds are critical. The actions of responding officers are tempered to divide their attention three different ways. Don’t misunderstand. Unlike the students and staff who may find themselves directly in the line of fire and survival is their only immediate focus, officers responding from the outside have time to consider what they will be facing “inside” the situation. These men and women have every right to take a few moments to suit up in protective gear, call for activating special teams and roll in the heavily armed vehicles. Understandably responding officers are trained to prepare for the possibility that any one or more of the people coming toward them may turn out to be an assailant. This is the reason they are trained to approach the outbound crowd with intent to gain and maintain control.

In contrast to the training and practice of the responding officers, students and staff are not afforded the opportunity to suit up in protective armor. They don’t have the luxury of time to gather as a team and discuss their response tactics. Very few staff and virtually none of the students have portable communication systems capable of instantly informing multiple recipients simultaneously. Possibly the only mass signal of value is the sound of gunfire. The students and staff suddenly confronted with a life-threatening situation simply need a different plan than that of responding officers. And more and more school systems are realizing that their plans – born of the obvious – must be designed to reduce the targets of opportunity for the attacker(s).

Students huddling in a classroom simply create a larger target without protection. This is why more and more school districts emphasize and train the system known as “run, hide, fight.” Run is obvious and the first choice – but it very clearly contradicts the orderly evacuation mandated by well-meaning responding officers. Hiding is only effective if the hiding place is not easily discovered. A large group can not hide together and a locked classroom door is very temporary at best against an armed intruder.

And so the last choice becomes the best and possibly only chance to reduce the number of casualties. Fighting back against an armed attacker who is probably nervous, has little or no experience in life or death confrontations, and most probably has some instinct to survive, is not nearly as dangerous as it may initially seem. Something as simple as a book or a chair thrown toward the attacker isn’t going to permanently stop the attack, but it may well buy enough time to escape – run!

Run, hide, fight. If “run” is the first option, “fight” may very possibly the best option to create the opportunity to run. The situation might seem out of control to the incoming responders. Armed responders need to be retrained to be on the same page as those who they currently see as an out of control crowd. Then they can focus on getting out of the way instead of creating an organized line of targets like ducks at a shooting gallery. Of course the very best and most effective way to reduce the number of deaths and casualties by a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It is time to stop these criminal-safe zones and allow teachers and staff to choose to be armed and ready to protect our children.

img001

Were the Founding Fathers so thoughtful as to anticipate Dark Matter?

The process by which government could create laws and indeed the scope of where and how government can interfere with liberty was considered enough of a priority that the Constitution addressed the issue early and often. Article one section one defined the legislative Powers and delegated them to Congress.  Additionally, Revenue bills were designated as exclusive to the House of Representatives with the Senate being authorized to “propose or concur on Amendments as on other bills.”  Furthermore, if a bill was approved by the house and then debated and approved by the senate, it required the signature of the President before it could become a law which then and only then allowed the government to collect the Revenue.

By being so specific about how the government was to be permitted to raise Revenue, it is possible to argue the founding fathers may well have anticipated that as government grew there might be the possibility of the government generating Revenue by enforcing regulations created by unelected bureaucrats. These regulations – which never meet the Constitutional measure of a law – have become so pervasive in our everyday lives they are now commonly referred to as “Dark Matter” created by the “deep state.”

“The problem with regulatory dark matter is that it allows the executive branch of our government to rule sectors of our economy through mere announcements, rather than actual lawmaking or even proper rule-making,” states Clyde Wayne Crews Jr of the Competitive Enterprise Institute1.  Crew attempts to explain the extent of what he calls “lawlessness” in his analysis.

The extent of Dark Matter became headlines recently when President Obama signed some 1500 pages of such regulations on his last day in office.  And almost immediately following his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order2 intended to eliminate thousands of existing executive orders as he took the first steps toward restoring the rule of constitutional law and reigning back the power and size of the federal government.

But Trump’s order that requires two existing regulations be revoked for each new one only scratches the surface. A major study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute revealed that not even congress understands the full scope of Dark Matter. The Federal Register list more than 440 federal regulatory agencies3, but a Daily Mail article posted March 14, 20174, says there is no finite number as to the number of agencies operating with so-called federal authority.

Not only is the number of agencies unknown, the total number of their rules and regulations can’t even be estimated to any degree of certainly. The federal government is estimated to issue approximately 3000 new regulations every year. The 2016 estimate of Obama administration regulations exceeds 2850: a ratio of 18 regs to each 1 law passed in accordance to the Constitution.

  1. https://cei.org/content/mapping-washington%E2%80%99s-lawlessness-2017
  2. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/trump-signs-executive-order-slashing-regulations-biggest-our-country-has-ever-seen/#ixzz4bJTIz02d
  3. https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies
  4. http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/14/agencies-use-regulatory-dark-matter-to-skirt-trumps-reforms/

Truth vs Truthful in the Un-Fake News

Is there a difference between a true statement and a truthful one? For decades we have all watched as lawyers and politicians dissected words into such literal meaning that we finally reached the point of being told by a United States President that different groups might well have different meanings for a word as small as “is.” It was September 13, 1998, when President Bill Clinton told a grand jury he hadn’t been lying because, “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And many would argue that was the final crashing blow to honesty in the public media.

Today the news media has perfected the art of extruding the meanings of words to create impressions designed to mislead their audience in whatever direction leads toward their ideological position. Moreover, when the writer doesn’t possess enough command of the language to deflect a story with word meanings alone, the popular tactic has become simply distorting the truth by scattering a few false details to an otherwise true story or using the headline to create the first impression.

To illustrate that method, consider the following event:

A colorful city commissioner who’s policies were opposed by the local newspaper was walking through his neighborhood when he came upon a house on fire. As he approached he heard the moaning of the elderly gentleman who had fallen near the front door. The commissioner managed to force open the door and drag the nearly unconscious victim to safety. When the fire department arrived firemen made the victim comfortable and called for an ambulance while the auxiliary team offered the exhausted commissioner coffee and a doughnut.

The next day’s headlines read:

Commissioner Relaxes with coffee and donuts while neighbor’s house burns

Regardless of how accurate the paper reports the rest of the story, the headline has served its purpose – malign the commissioner. The paper then avoids reporting why the commissioner was even on the scene until at least the second paragraph. This insures fewer readers and gives the writer additional opportunity to invoke his opinion into the article mis-catagorized as news.

If or when someone complains on behalf of the commissioner the paper gets a second news cycle from the original headline by very easily making the case that the headline was true. They may even have a photo of the commissioner with a cup of coffee sitting in the yard of the burning house. The follow-up story defending the original headline (ie the article) then has the added benefit of discrediting a supporter of the commissioner and “proving” the paper is factual and – by implication – truthful. The fact is that it is true, just not truthful.

On Black History Month

Why is Black History only One Month

Fatherhood.gov is a federal government web site operated within the Department Health and Human Services. It takes only minute of research to link backward through the Office of Family Assistance to the Fatherhood Research and Practice Network. The home page of the web site of the FRPN makes no apologies for their goals:

  • Promote the evaluation of fatherhood programs
  • Expand the number of researchers and others evaluating the fatherhood programs
  • Disseminate information that helps the expanded numbers of researchers evaluate the fatherhood programs they have researched and evaluated

It might be easier to understand if written this way: spend buckets full of taxpayer money paying lots of people to figure why, how or where fatherhood in this country went away so liberals will feel better explaining why it wasn’t their fault. The truth is that if not for liberal sponsored government programs Black History would probably not be limited to just one month out of twelve.

Morgan Freeman has said the history of blacks should be part of American history not limited to just the one month. Thomas Sowell is quoted as saying, “liberals seem to assume that if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t care about the people they claim to want to help.”

Why would such highly regarded black men make such statements?

Mr Freeman’s statement is certainly not difficult to understand. But Dr. Sowell’s has a back story that spans decades of experience. Consider first that Dr. Sowell has very few comments supporting any race as a basis for much of anything. He makes a valid point when he says that many Americans and certainly most of the white liberal establishment can identify all of the black racial leaders, but are silenced when ask to name race-based leaders who are Asian or Jewish.

Sowell grew up in Harlem before the civil rights bill or the War on Poverty. He did not graduate from high school yet he became a senior fellow of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. He is a Marine, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and earned his doctorate in economics in 1958. It is important to note that 1958 pre-dates the 50 or so years of democrat party control of the federal government. So it is even more noteworthy that this black child of poverty accomplished the feat of earning his doctoral degree before the democrats, liberals and progressives began building their government financed Great Society and their War on Poverty to “help” blacks do exactly what free and ambitious men like Sowell had already proven could be done without their “help.”

This year marks the 52nd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Act no longer has any real value in this age of non-citizen, illegal immigrant voters and the nonsense of motor voter, no ID, same day voting laws, et cetera. It is more interesting to note we have now entered the second half century of the Civil Rights Act. Arguably these two so-called landmark pieces of legislation were the first two battles in Lyndon Johnson’s legacy named the War on Poverty. But the question is, why did congress pass the Voting Rights Act in 1965 when the 15th Amendment to the Constitution very clearly addressed the issue 95 years earlier. The 15th Amendment was ratified February 3, 1870. The text is direct and to the point: “The right of the citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

At the time the democrats decided they wanted to take credit for helping blacks the 15th Amendment was already 95 years old! The democrats’ claims of being the party that took action to help blacks were shouted the loudest by the great Ku Klux Klansman, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and his cohort the father of government paid abortions, the architect of Medicare – Lyndon Johnson. So while the nation’s attention was focused on the Viet Nam War raging half way around the globe, the racists rantings of democrats in Washington sat the stage for big socialist government to manage the lives and fortunes of black families in America.

In recognition of this black history month, let’s take a moment to acknowledge some of the successes of the government’s race-based social welfare programs.

  • As recently as the early 1960’s two-thirds of black children were living in households with a mother and a father. Today, thanks to special welfare incentives, that number is reversed to less than 1 in 3 living in two parent households and that number drops to as few as 1 in 10 in the inner cities with a history of democrat control. This then is the real back story for the government fatherhood research programs; liberals again trying to double down on failed policies.
  • In the past 8 years under the economic leadership of a black president, the black to white poverty gap has increased – not decreased.
  • The percentage of blacks to whites in prisons is higher today than it was in 1960.
  • In spite of one of the highest cost per student rates in the world, 80% of black students in New York city’s public schools perform below grade level and well below their counterparts in charter and private schools; schools now being forced to downgrade into federally mandated common core curriculum standards.
  • Black crime rates were lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it is today after 50 years of government social engineering, even though in those decades black poverty rate was much higher and racial discrimination was legal.

The list of accomplishments of the Great Society’s social welfare programs could be extensive. But perhaps the greatest of all the liberals’ victories against blacks in America is the hyphenation of their identity. They no longer consider themselves Americans. Today they are hyphenated Americans, even when their American born ancestors can be traced back over 150 years. This self-imposed segregation has created what Wall Street Journal senior editorial page writer, Jason L. Riley, describes as “a culture that produces little black girls and boys who are already worried about acting and sounding white by the time they are in the second grade.”

U.S. Math Scores Drop to 35th

U.S. Math scores down to 35th from 28th

Reading and Science rankings also decline.

In the month following the election a report was released that got little attention. The report shows results of the most recent student assessment testing conducted worldwide. Once again, the United States students’ performance declined. In 2009 U.S. student rankings peaked from their 2003 and 2006 upticks, but since 2009 the news has been continuously disappointing.

The assessment tests are given every 3 years to 15 year old students. After decades of decline in several areas of education such as high school graduation rates, education was prioritized by the Bush Administration. In spite of criticism, scores improved over the next 3 rounds from 2003 to 2009. However the improved scores came with the cost of a more difficult curriculum which was blamed by many for a reduced high school graduation rate. In 2009, of the 34 reporting countries, only 8 had a lower rate than the United States.

In addition to falling test scores, between 1995 and 2008 America’s college graduation rate fell from second to thirteenth. President Obama set a goal to raise the U.S. college graduation rate to number one. However, Obama’s education program focused on ways to increase graduation quantity without consideration for the quality. As a result U.S. student test scores turned downward over the next 6 years and the latest report shows our math scores had declined all the way to 35th and science and reading skills seem to be headed lower as well. Reading skills alone fell from 14th in 2009 to 24th in 2015 while science dropped from17th to 25th.

Clearly the negative influence of Obama’s federally mandated Common Core can not be ignored.

What’s behind those Names Leftists call Trump

The truth as I understand it is that Hillary is a career politician with an extraordinary amount of experience in getting things done in Washington. Trump is a despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac that has zero plan and on top of it is racist, xenophobic, alienating, misogynist, who not only has sexually assaulted women but brags about it openly.”

image1In the weeks between the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the women’s march following Donald Trump’s inauguration, I was privileged to exchange thoughts on America with a young graduate of the University of California Santa Barbara who holds a post graduate degree from Columbia, is an education executive with Planned Parenthood and marched in the women’s protest in Washington DC.

Our correspondence followed a note sent to friends in California fallaciously asking if they were preparing for secession. I had read news about Governor Brown’s choice for California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, and I included a link to an article about Becerra’s ties to the radical Marxist / Chicano organization M.E.CH.A. The goal of his organization as stated on the group’s web site is to create a social crisis so great the only solution would be reorganization with California and a large portion of the southwestern U.S. becoming the Chicano nation of Aztlan.

MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as “Mechistas,” romanticize Mexican claims to the “lost Territories” of the Southwestern United States — a Chicano country called Aztlan.

From the M.E.CH.A. web site

Although M.E.CH.A. has roots in Denver’s Crusade for Justice civil rights group, its initial organization grew from a meeting of several like-minded groups on the campus of UC Santa Barbara. My young friend was proud to explain how her former campus has probably become more radical than UC Berkeley. She accepts that the southwestern U.S. had been stolen by white settlers and soldiers who slaughtered natives.

Even more interesting is that she views America as a country built on land stolen from the original residents by murdering between 1 and 95% of them. The number doesn’t matter since 1 is as bad as 95%. Then, to build the capitalist economy, the founding white fathers kidnapped and enslaved a significant portion of the population of Africa. Again, “significant” portion is any number, as even 1 justifies condemning all white people in today’s America as undeserving murdering slave runners. To support her argument, she cited her friend who writes history curriculum (implying a credible source) that until 1820 there were more blacks in the country than whites.

It seems her opinion is that any wealth or power the U.S. has accumulated is the result of abuses to women, the murdering of Indians, and the bloodshed of enslaved blacks who’s labor enriched the politically powerful who control capitalism. She firmly believes those abuses will intensify under the “white nationalists” President Trump is installing in powerful positions. Especially if he takes away a woman’s right to abort a baby at taxpayers’ expense. But that of course is not a bad murder of a person, it is simply a woman being free to live her life the way she wants. A bit convoluted but certainly her belief.

How can anyone prove something which does not exist, does not exist? Is it possible? No! However, events which have occurred can be discussed. Unfortunately such discussions are often based more on feelings or beliefs than facts. Name calling is typical – especially from those who suspect they really don’t have facts on their side. Such discussions nearly always end when the shouting and name calling become excessive, violent, or both.

She didn’t want to continue to read my “… propaganda, tunnel vision, trump bullshit…” because, “People around the world (will) die because of this man’s policies. That is real and happening…I’m here for the worldwide struggle for equity (equality I think she meant) not stories like this (the vulgarity of the march) meant to distract us from what’s really happening.”

The latest example of liberalism came recently as the world watched liberals on the UC Berkeley campus advance from shouting to beating as attendees attempted to get past the blockade and attend a lecture by a conservative author. Sadly, as police stood idly by, protesters supposedly there to protect the innocent students from hearing the poison speech of the invited author, beat attendees with a shovel and left one bleeding in the streets as other liberals sat fires and destroyed property in the area. This scene followed a similar but less violent protest on the University of Colorado at Boulder just days earlier. It seems the liberals involved need to compete with each other for the title of most radical.

My young friend was quick to justify violent radicals on the California campuses because President Trump must be stopped – for the sake of humanity? Her quote pictured above is repeated in various forms by many on the radical political left. It is also an excellent example of an emotional argument containing both name calling and a syllogism fallacy.

Since syllogy is the most popular means of introducing a debate tactic known as a red herring into a liberal headline story, taking a minute to understand what it is and how it works is important to understand today’s media name calling attacks on anyone who threatens to reduce the influence of the media or the political establishment.

Syllogism fallacies begin with a statement difficult to deny which in turn supports a conclusion. In my friend’s example, she claims Hillary is a career politician and therefore is successful. The fallacy is that the conclusion – that she has gotten things done – is certainly supposed to mean she got ‘good’ things done. But who gets to say if those things were good. Judging from the rioting and violent assaults on the campus of UC Berkeley as leftist protesters shut down a scheduled presentation by a conservative author, only liberals are allowed freedom of speech and they decide what defines a positive accomplishment. So lets examine closely my friend’s quote.

The fallacy makes the claim that she got things done because, and only because, she was in Washington. But there is no evidence offered to support that idea. Therefore, to question what she accomplished opens a new debate and introduces a new set of opinions about whether those “accomplishments” were positive for the country or not? And now the debate is based on the opinions about things that got done and not if they got at all. Suddenly the otherwise questionable claim that Hillary has had “extraordinary” experiences in Washington is accepted as evidence she has been a successful career politician. And now the entire fallacy is arguably supported by opinion not facts and the debate reaches a draw.

Convoluted? You can be assured that this is how nonsense becomes a powerful force in politics. But as evidenced by the second half of my friend’s quote, if the syllogy fails to catch and deflect, name calling is always the best second choice. And just look at that list: despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac (which could mean he is either unpredictable or a megalomaniac but to be both would be contradictory), racist, xenophobic, alienating and a misogynist who rapes and molest women. She can say these things because his political opponents said so on television – and that makes it true of course.

When name calling, using more syllables gains the most attention since they sound more intelligent. Most people don’t like to admit they don’t know what a derogatory name means so they simply accept it must be true if someone ‘smarter than themselves’ said it. But as evidenced by the photo seen above taken recently at the women’s protest in Washington, anything associated with the Nazi party, racism or Fachism or vulgarity also seems to excite the liberals.

Making Money creating Turmoil

Most Americans have heard the name George Soros, but very few can explain how he has made his fortune. Recent video evidence obtained by undercover techniques clearly connected organizations financially supported by Soros to protests and riots the mainstream media has been reporting as being spontaneous protests against the election of Donald Trump. But we know this is not true, the leading instigators are known to be paid to incite these incidents. And the money trail leads to George Soros.

So the question is what does he have to gain by financing civil unrest and lawlessness across America?

In its most simplistic form: George Soros makes money on the misery of others. The greater the misery the more money Mr. Soros can make. The collapse of more than one small nation has been attributed to the Soros operations designed to collapse economies. Now, it seems he has become so arrogant that he believes he can become unimaginably powerful and wealthy if the United States economy collapses.

Reports began to surface as early as 2012 that under the unsustainable debt created by Obama’s unrestrained spending the consensuses of leading economists is that the US Dollar would be replaced by a Chinese backed currency system by 2020. The Trans-Pacific Trade agreement is already showing signs of weakening the dollar as a standard for trade. Clearly if Hillary Clinton had been elected, the dollar’s decline would have occurred sooner than the original projections of 2020. But president elect Trump’s financial genius and understanding of world trade systems could postpone that decline well beyond 2020, perhaps for a decade or more. Is that too many years for George Soros? After all, his age will limit the enjoyment time he would have even if he succeeded in collapsing the US dollar in Clinton’s first year. Would a decade be too far off?

Regardless of the looming timeline for the downfall of the dollar as the world’s trade currency, the consequences to the United States’ unique position of being able to print more currency without any back-up value to those new bills are dire in our credit based economy. And this is when George Soros will reap the huge benefits of his investments in these organizations behind the current explosion of civil disobedience and riots.

To understand this method of financial gain from the misery of others it is necessary to reduce the massive scale of the economy of the country to a personal level. While many people have yet to suffer such economic struggles as could be nearing, others can identify with the struggle to just meet their daily expenses. For evidence of this look no further than the explosion of the pay day loan industry. More and more people are are so close to financial ruin that even though they have jobs they can’t meet their current debt and expenses without borrowing against their next payday. While these short term notes may seem to help get today’s food or keep gas in the car, their costs reduce the next paycheck and each successive cycle brings about more need.

Eventually these folks begin to try the desperate move of selling their household belongings to catch up. Items they may even still owe on through credit cards or other payment plans may be offered for sale for much less than their value. Buyers who have cash available can obtain real bargains – from the misery of the sellers.

Now expand that scenario to a bank or a business. If more and more borrowers fail to pay their debts on loans the bank begins to lose more and more money. While houses and cars can certainly be reprocessed and sold to recover the loans, too often the sale doesn’t cover the full amount owed. This was especially evident in the mortgage loan crisis that led to the collapse of America’s savings and loans.

Property was so over mortgaged and buyers were so unwilling to pay inflated prices that the savings and loan companies became unable to meet their debt payments which included interest on deposits as well as interest owed on money they had borrowed from other institutions to loan on property. In other words, the S & L’s were taking out ‘pay day’ loans to meet their operating expenses hoping their borrowers would catch up on payments before their own payments came due. But when the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to those institutions to which it loans money, the incoming payments from borrowers could no longer stretch between the S&L’s pay days so to speak.

Enter an investor like George Soros. Property as well as businesses and banks all become for sale at greater and greater bargains. Very few individuals, however, can afford to “buy” banks or savings and loan companies. And so when the bidding starts and the only bidder is a George Soros, the sale prices are usually well below value.

Then comes the second half of this transaction; making a profit. In the case of the old savings and loan industry, there was a deposit insurance program named the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The FSLIC was faced with more than 3200 potential failures but the insurance funds ran dry after only about 1000. The fund failed. Bankruptcy followed and a federal trust (Resolution Trust Corporation) was established. RTC was charged with disposing of the assets of the S&L’s through sales of assets (accounts receivable, property, etc) or mergers with banks or simply closing the balance of the S&L’s. RTC was only able to rescue the depositors of about another 750. But both federal programs only accounted for about one half of the total S&L’s. The rest were closed or acquired through private sales to banks and investors at very deep discounts.

If an investor is able to buy in early and then get the government to make up the difference between accounts receivable and losses due to borrower bankruptcies, there is profit to be made. Hence the value of being seriously involved in government policy making/policymakers.

By gaining access to policy makers an investor can influence key policy that will too often insure profitability in investing in the failures of businesses. But without that all important access and the threat of policies that would protect businesses and discourage predatory investors working to accelerate failures the ‘Soros’ system is potentially a losing system.

Now it should make more sense as to why George Soros is so involved in creating anti-Trump sentiment across the country: such activities might slow Trump’s attempts at draining the swamp.

An Evil Woman

In a disappointing turn of events a young advocate for women has been successfully indoctrinated into voting for Hillary Clinton based on the “news” she has seen or read as indicated by what she writes:

Trump is a despicable, unpredictable megalomaniac that has zero plan and on top of it is racist, xenophobic, alienating, misogynist, who not only has sexually assaulted women but brags about it openly.

But will she change her mind after the alleged “victims” of Trump sexual assaults speak out in defending Trump and accuse NYT of lying about them and distorting the truth? Or will the release of emails proving the Hillary campaign is behind the turmoil be too late? Where do these women’s stories originate?

In the Marxist manual for Hillary’s campaign, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, a key rule is to accuse the opposition of what you do or plan to do in order to create the illusion that your position is the legitimate position. Read the details attached to this YouTube https://youtu.be/pC-w-XV00aA

But the truth is being revealed through emails being verified and reported upon as rapidly as possible.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/08/02/exclusive-nbc-quietly-scrubs-discredited-smear-clinton-rape-accuser/

When NBC “Today Show” anchor Andrea Mitchell reversed a 1999 NBC report and claimed Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation had been “discredited,” the network quickly and very quietly removed the word discredited from its web site knowing their own story from 1999 had been well documented to support Broaddrick’s accusations. But in the midst of the Clinton campaign and their promoting of accusers of Donald Trump, the network refused to apologize or even retract the word on the air.

It is incredibly disappointing that NBC and Andrea Mitchell will not publicly apologize for this egregious error, especially considering that NBC has retroactively edited the online version of the story and taken out the word ‘discredited.’”

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/leaked-dnc-files-dems-planned-hit-trump-widely-discredited-hit-piece-falsely-accusing-rape/

Top allies of Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton planned to falsely accuse presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump of rape, a leaked file from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) shows.

This story became reality when Megyn Kelly rushed the story on air before verifying its contents, over and over again.”

The story was addressed by the woman who allegedly made the accusations – Ivana Trump, during divorce proceedings. Ivana’s on statements continued, “Not In The ‘Criminal Sense.’” but Kelly didn’t care to be honest in what appears now to be part of the Clinton campaign strategy.

Ivana Trump told CNN right after the story broke in The Daily Beast:

I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.

Ironically, The Daily Beast never made any attempt to verify the story with Ivana Trump before rushing the 1,700-word smear to print back in July. What’s perhaps most important about this situation is that, despite the story being entirely disproven about Trump—disproven by his own ex-wife no less— the DNC wanted to send Trump through the exact same ringer again at one point or another during the forthcoming battle with Hillary Clinton. The Democrats clearly care not one bit about accuracy, since the Party’s official opposition research files on Trump don’t even include the full story—or the fact that said accusations have been discredited.

Now let’s look at Jessica Leeds accusation about Trump being like an octopus…

http://www.westernjournalism.com/thepoint/2016/10/14/1-key-thing-just-uncovered-about-trump-sex-accuser-shows-her-story-already-unraveling/

As of now, the FAA cannot confirm her to have been on any passenger or crew manifest with Trump. (Another passenger who was confirmed to have been on the flight across the aisle from Trump has stated on the record that Leeds story is a lie.)

However, we can confirm that Jessica Leeds has been in a long-running property dispute with Donald Trump since at least 2007. Leeds, herself a millionaire, is quoted in the New York Daily News in 2007 complaining about Trump’s (then new) Rancho Palos Verdes Golf Course in California:

In yet another story, this one run by the Associated Press, Leeds complains of the trees on Trump’s golf courses.

In 2008, the Los Angeles Times ran with a similar story. Framing their piece as a random property dispute, the Times reported: “A Rancho Palos Verdes woman says the Donald Trump organization summarily ended a property dispute by sending a construction crew and bulldozers to rip down and relocate the fence in her backyard. The homeowner, Jessica Leeds…”

The New York Times which initially ran the accusation story could easily have found that Leeds may or may not have ever been on an airplane with Trump, but she has a nearly ten-year-old beef with the real estate mogul over a property dispute.

And so a comment to my young Hillary supporter and advocate for women rape victims I ask….

As a professional involved and concerned about the trama suffered by rape victims, and a Hillary voter, it must be sad to realize every single accusation you have made against Donald Trump is now proving beyond a doubt to be fabricated by the Hillary campaign…

By perpetrating a possible lie, the Times manipulation of serious sexual assault allegations to support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and achieve its radical, leftist political agenda does a disservice to real victims of sexual assault. They are now forced to climb over an even higher bar to have their stories heard and justice served.

Typical of the left’s cynical whatever-it-takes approach to winning the political war — they are willing to do lasting damage to the cause of the very “victims” they’re claiming to champion.

On the other hand…

http://observer.com/2016/07/up-next-for-the-fbi-clinton-foundation-corruption/

Hillary was the accuser-in-chief of attacking the credibility of Bill Clinton victims during the ‘bimbo eruption’ days of Clinton’s presidency and beyond. Some readers may remember her accusing the accusers of being bimbos when she made the comment about dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park and catching all the bimbos you could ever want.  If ever there was a “war on women” Hillary would be the most qualified candidate to be commander-in-chief.

Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who claims to have co-founded the Clinton Global Initiative, served 13 months in jail for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Epstein is the subject of ongoing litigation involving several other underage victims, and flight logs from Epstein’s private jet show Bill Clinton flew with him at least 26 times. Vice News reported one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts, told her attorneys she had damaging information on Bill Clinton.

And now for the real issue of honesty…

North Florida-based Congresswoman Corinne Brown is the latest Clinton super delegate to receive an indictment for corruption and ethics violations. Brown allegedly received $800,000 from an organization called One Door For Education under false pretenses that the funds would be used for charitable purposes.

Late last month, Congressman Chaka Fattah was convicted on charges of racketeering, corruption and stealing charitable funds. Sen. Bob Menendez, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Gov. Dannel Malloy and the former Virginia governor who served as Clinton’s 2008 campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, are also in the midst of corruption probes.

God Bless Edward Snowden

God Bless Julian Assange

God Bless America

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑