RSS Feed

Monthly Archives: December 2016

Merry Christmas

I was making an infrequent visit to Facebook today (December 26) and found this post from a friend. Funny as it is, just in case it has not made the rounds everywhere, I think it makes a valid point:

To My Republican Friends:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

To All My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2017, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference or selected gender of the wishee.

Merry Christmas to All, Happy Hanukkah and a Joyous Prosperous New Year!

Russia and Our Voters

I am including an article written by Logan Albright at Conservative Review. I have always believed that the politicians underestimate most voters. I know that the media does. Now the media is misrepresenting what Trump has said. I heard him say that he was absolutely behind an investigation into hacking as long as it covered all hacking. Chris Wallace didn’t emphasize that and the dems on his “panel” ignored it.

I understand that 17 intelligence agencies determined that Russia hacked the DNC as well as Podesta. They further concluded that the motivation for this was to get Trump elected. I believe they can accurately determine concrete facts but I have a problem with the politically appointed head of The CIA stating that they all agree on something as subjective as motive. For all we know, Russia would have supported anyone over Clinton. Maybe they didn’t want to pay millions into the Clinton Foundation. They knew her well from her four years as Secretary of State. I don’t think they thought much of her. But maybe it wasn’t about who was elected at all.

Mr. Albright has a beautiful point of view on this:

People are freaking out over the persistent allegations that Russian hackers “fixed” the election by leaking private emails to the public. While the extent of Russia’s involvement is not clear, and there are a number of conflicting accounts, the accusation itself gives a fairly clear insight into the Left’s view of the democratic process. Note that no one is accusing Russia of altering vote counts, of rigging voting machines to give the wrong result, or of publishing false information about Hillary Clinton. The accusation is that voters were exposed to true information about Clinton, and that this knowledge caused them not to vote for her.

This position is so fundamentally insulting I’m surprised it isn’t talked about more often.
Right there, the implication is that truth is bad, and that democracy would be better if it were easier to conceal facts from voters. We have to lie to people for their own good, because otherwise they might make bad decisions (like voting for Trump.) And here I thought a well-informed electorate was a necessary ingredient to a healthy democracy. But liberal outrage runs deeper than a simple condemnation of truth.

There is a belief among progressives — rarely made explicit but implied in many of their policy positions — that voters are not rational actors who decide the president based on their preferences, but are instead pawns who can pushed this way or that by political chess masters. From this perspective, the problem is not that people decided against voting for Clinton based on the information available, but rather that Russia made them vote for Clinton via its alleged actions. Choice never seems to be a concern.

This prevailing attitude among the Left is clear from their positions on campaign finance. If corporations are allowed to spend money on political advertisements, leftists argue, they will be able to “buy” elections. How does this work? Have you ever changed your mind about who to vote for because you saw a yard sign? I haven’t. No amount of advertising, phone calls, or search engine optimization can convince me to vote for someone who doesn’t share my principles and values. I suspect most of the critics of SuperPAC spending feel the same way. They could never be swayed by corporate money, but all the lowly peons — the average voters — apparently lack the same sort of insight, conviction, and indeed, free will.

This position is so fundamentally insulting I’m surprised it isn’t talked about more often. We are all human beings, with the freedom to select whichever candidate we choose. We can’t be bought, and we can’t be forced to vote for someone we dislike, certainly not by leaked emails or corporate-funded yard signs. To suggest otherwise is to deny our agency and our humanity.
People howling about the Russian hackers with claims that democracy has been compromised assume that voters had no choice to ignore the leaks and vote for Clinton anyway. But if your view of people is that they are mindless automata who can be manipulated into voting a particular way by ad buys and leaked truth, then democracy is beyond saving.
* See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/if-russia-gave-voters-more-information-is-that-not-a-good-thing#sthash.QBJxxTQL.dpuf

Rules or Manipulation for Radicals

Sol Alinsky wrote his famous Rules for Radicals in the early 1970’s trying to help those who would disrupt society. His well known rules are restated here for the edification and enjoyment of all who might need a quick reference:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule.)

These people are thieves and monsters. Why Clintons Must Be Prosecuted

Dec 5, 2016 by Douglas J. Hagmann | The Hagmann & Hagmann Report   The nation of Haiti could easily serve as the most visibly damning evidence of the most despicable type of self-enrichmen…

Source: These people are thieves and monsters. Why Clintons Must Be Prosecuted

 

This is a repost from one of my favorite blogs, RECLAIM OUR REPUBLIC. Justice should be equal for all and as we all believe, no one should be above the law!

NO!  NO!  NO!

I see now that the latest attack from the Democrats is to demand that President-elect Trump put his business into a blind trust. The ethics laws do not demand this, there is currently no reason to believe that Trump would do anything that would even have the appearance of impropriety and America, to my knowledge, has never penalized her presidents this way.

This would be damaging to Donald Trump’s entire family. His children would be excluded from the business and, therefore, out of a job. This business empire that he has spent his whole life working for and building would be yanked out of his control and put at risk. The properties possibly sold or ill-managed, the care and keeping of his employees, which he seems to take a personal interest in, would be handed over to accountants and all of it would merely be to appease the media and the Democrats.

From the beginning of Donald Trump’s campaign he has clearly stated what his bargain with the American people would be. Time after time, rally after rally and in his speech at the convention, if memory serves me right, he has said he will totally disconnect himself from all of his personal businesses and his children will take over and make the decisions, guide the business empire and handle the daily business operations. This was acceptable to me as a voter, and I did weigh his decision along with everything else before I voted for him. Evidently sixty million other voters did the same thing.

The President is not required to liquidate his business and put his money in a blind trust. He is also not required to accept the presidential salary. President-elect Trump plans to accept $1.00 per year. However, the media is not saying very much about that!

The argument is that if he does not dismantle a large part of his fortune, the democrats and the media will keep his presidency in turmoil. He will be responsible for the conflict and allegations of using his office to profit his business because he has not avoided the appearance of impropriety. It should be mentioned that he could always be accused of this whenever any legislation is passed, or trade deal negotiated which even might benefit Trump’s future business prospects in a positive way. So where are they going to draw the line? You either have to trust the man or not!

If the media and the democrats start hearings and smear campaigns that are not based on solid evidence, the American people will see through it. The republicans will fight it with facts, Trump will fight it with facts. The conservative media will fight it with facts. We will no longer have a White House that constantly lies to the people. The solid facts that “the people” all know, and have become absolutely sick of, are that every politician elected goes to Washington and makes millions of dollars while being held to enforceable legal ethical standards that are much tougher than anything applying to the presidency. The president does have a great deal of power, but as long as we abide by the Constitution and hold it up as our lodestone, as long as he is transparent as is reasonably possible, as long as he does not lie to us, as long as he is trying to do what he promised he would do to the best of his ability and as long as he abides by the laws and the Constitution – then any problems caused by the media or the democrats will just be problems caused by the media or the democrats.

Americans are believers in fair play and honesty. We give people a chance before we judge them and we still shake hands on a gentleman’s agreement. So, while the media is busy trying to tell us what to think about what Trump should do with the Trump business empire, I think we have already shaken hands with the President-elect on the deal.

YELLOWHAMMER NEWS – Jeff Sessions

This is the best article I have seen on Jeff Sessions. It incorporates the details that most others leave out. I wish that there was more, but it is accurate and right on point!

YELLOWHAMMER NEWS

Sessions broke the back of the KKK in Alabama. Now the media wants you to think he’s racist.

WRITTEN BY BRIAN ELLIS ON NOVEMBER 20, 2016 AT 5:20 PM CST

President-elect Donald J. Trump over the weekend nominated Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to serve as United States Attorney General, signaling that he is serious about returning the Justice Department to its core of mission of “ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

Sen. Sessions’ credentials are impeccable.

Assistant United States Attorney. United States Attorney. Alabama Attorney General. United States Senator. A combined 35 years of public service and a lifelong commitment to the rule of law.

And yet if you read the New York Times and Washington Post, or watch MSNBC and CNN, you would think President-elect Trump brought segregation-era George Wallace back from the dead and appointed him to be the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. (In reality, Sessions campaigned against Wallace as a college Republican, but that’s a story for another time.)

The media constantly point back to Sen. Sessions’ failed confirmation after then-President Ronald Reagan nominated him to a federal judgeship as evidence that he is, as CNN puts it, “dogged by allegations of racism.” During Senate confirmation hearings in 1986, Sessions was accused of making racially insensitive comments.

When a former Justice Department colleague came forward with the accusation, Sessions did the unthinkable in Washington: he told the truth. He conceded that he had made a joke that was being taken out of context.

And his actions clearly backed that up, because at the moment Sessions made the unfortunate joke, he was tenaciously leading a fight to deliver justice for the family of an African American man who had been viciously murdered by the KKK. And this is the part of the story the media never tell.

Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American man, was walking home when he was kidnapped by two Klan members, who drove him to a secluded area, nearly beat him to death with a tree limb, tied a noose around his neck, strangle him, then slit his throat and hung him from a tree.

KKK member Henry Francis Hays was responsible for the vicious murder, and did so at the order of his father, Klan leader Bennie Hays, who ordered the killing “to show Klan strength in Alabama.”
Sessions was so disgusted by what had happened that he allowed the State of Alabama to try the case, rather than making it a federal case, because Alabama had the death penalty.
Years later, when Sessions was Alabama Attorney General, the story came full circle as he oversaw the execution of Mr. Hays.

Barry Kowalski, the now-legendary civil rights attorney and former Special Counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, recalls Sessions’ involvement with the case.
“Senator Sessions could not have been more supportive of our investigations, and in the Michael Donald case specifically, he personally contributed to making sure his killers were brought to justice.”
In short, Jeff Sessions made Henry Hays the first white person to be executed in Alabama for the murder of a black citizen since 1913. Additionally, Mr. Hays is the only known member of the KKK to be executed in the United States in the 20th century for murdering an African American.
The successful prosecution of Hays also led to a $7 million civil judgment against the Klan,” which the Associated Press in 1997 noted bankrupted the KKK in Alabama.
And yet these days the AP is busy cranking out stories about Sessions’ “racial issues” and claiming that he’s facing “a tough senate confirmation,” even though he has already garnered bi-partisan support and Republicans clearly have the votes to confirm him.
If you want to know the truth, listen to what the people who actually know Jeff Sessions have to say.
Larry Thompson, who worked closely with Sessions at the Justice Department and went on to serve as Deputy Attorney General of the United States, said this week that Sessions “does not have a racist bone in his body.”
“I have been an African American for 71 years and I think I know a racist when I experience one,” he added. “Jeff Sessions is simply a good and decent man.”
William Smith, who Sessions tapped to be the first African American to ever serve as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Sessions “a man of high character and great integrity” who always “treated me like family.”
U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow said Sessions “has done more to protect the jobs and enhance the wages of black workers than anyone in either house of Congress over the last 10 years.”
Civil rights attorney and founder of the Black American Leadership Alliance Leah Durant said Sessions “has been a leader in the fight for preserving American jobs and ensuring opportunities for African American workers.”
And Kenyen Brown, the Obama appointee who now fills the very same US Attorney seat that Sessions once sat in, called Sessions “a man of outstanding character with an impeccable reputation for integrity.”
Jeff Sessions is a brilliant legal mind with a titanium spine, but most importantly, he is a good man. And that, in short, is why liberals and their allies in the media are resorting to 30-year-old, trumped-up lies to try to take him down — because that’s all they have.

 

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world

larrysmusings

This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and comments on random issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Rouser

Wake up. Ask Why?

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

SMALLGOVREPORT

Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: