RSS Feed

Category Archives: Foreign Affairs

Repost: Trump is Right, Socialism Does Not Work!

Trump is right, Socialism doesn’t work 

Larry Alex Taunton | FoxNews.com

Published on September 24, 2017

On Tuesday, President Trump addressed the United Nations and, shocking to no one save left-of-center news agencies, he expressed his strong belief in his own economic policies; in America—its people, way of life, and the Constitution which governs it; and in business enterprise as a path to freedom and prosperity. Trump’s speech, optimistic and pro-American as it was, falls in the mainstream of American presidential tradition. Indeed, it is the stuff of a Truman or a Reagan.
But you’d never know it from how it was reported.

The Guardian called it “a blunt, fearful rant.”

That is a more apt description for The Guardian itself. (Trust me, I know. I’ve been trashed by them no less than twice for a claim I never made and they never bothered to verify.)

Salon said Trump “careened wildly from some warped form of principled realism to threats of mass annihilation and back again.”

Perhaps Salon, careening wildly from one Trump attack-piece to another, is unaware of the fact that America has been threatened with “mass annihilation” by a declared enemy with an increasing capability to do it. Someone should tell them.

Slate characterized it as “the most hostile, dangerous, and intellectually confused—if not outright dishonest—speech ever delivered by an American president to an international body.”

We live in an age of hyperbole and this is an excellent example of it. I encourage you to read the full text of Trump’s speech and decide for yourself if it was “the most hostile, dangerous … speech ever” or if this is the worst reporting in the history of human civilization. Ever.

Then there is John Haltiwanger’s article in Newsweek titled, “Trump was laughed at by world leaders for dissing socialism.”

This column caught my attention both for its content and lack of content. The title alone intrigued me—as good titles are supposed to do—but for all the wrong reasons. I mean, really? I know we live in the age of 24/7/365 news cycles and the hunger for fresh web content is relentless, but has Newsweek sunk so low that an article that feels like dialogue lifted from the script of “Mean Girls”is now counted as serious journalism?

Let’s consider Mr. Haltiwanger’s argument, such as it is.

As the title indicates, his critique of Trump’s speech centers on the president’s “dissing” of socialism. Haltiwanger writes:

When President Donald Trump criticized socialism during his speech Tuesday at the United Nations, he seemed to expect roaring approval from the audience. Instead, world leaders responded with laughter and weak applause. It was perhaps the most awkward moment of Trump’s speech.

Speaking on the recent crisis in Venezuela, Trump said, “The problem…is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.”

“From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure,” Trump added.

In the middle of his comments, Trump paused to take the room’s temperature, but it was apparent world leaders were unmoved by the rebuke of the worker state. The room was silent. It was reminiscent of Jeb Bush’s “please clap” moment…. Video of the [president’s] speech has immortalized the uncomfortable moment.

That Trump would do such a thing is, for Haltiwanger, evidence of the president’s buffoonery, lack of sophistication, and his failure to properly read “the room’s temperature.”

He includes a screenshot of a tweet from someone named Jordan, which reads, “The /#UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] just LAUGHED at Trump for criticizing socialism.”

So what?

I laughed at Mr. Haltiwanger’s article, but this is no proof that it is logically flawed (though logically flawed it is). The Left has always been overly sensitive to what the world thinks of America and its president. They need global affirmation, it seems. Obama was, for them, urbane, glamorous, “a gentleman,” as an acquaintance at the New York Times has often characterized him to me, as if these are defining characteristics of great national leaders.

By contrast, Trump is, for them, a national embarrassment with his comb-over, trademark scowl, and unfashionable patriotism. How are we to stand toe-to-toe with France and Canada when they have socialist beefcakes like Macron and Trudeau? Winston Churchill, who was neither a gentleman nor glamorous—and whose scowl was likewise perpetual—seems to have worked out rather well as Prime Minister. Moreover, Churchill biographer Paul Reid has said that Churchill, ever a reactionary, “would out-tweet Trump.”

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Trump expected, as Haltiwanger maintains, “roaring approval from the audience.” According to a 2015 Freedom House study of 195 nations—and, at the moment, there are precisely 195 nations in the world—only 46 percent of them are deemed free. Worse, that same report says the world is trending away from freedom — 193 of the countries included in this report are member states of the United Nations, North Korea and Venezuela among them. Trump “seemed to expect roaring approval”? Please. Ann Coulter will sooner get applause at Berkeley than Trump before such an audience as this one.

Of course, the reason the author tells us that UN “leaders responded with laughter and weak applause” is because he is, in the spirit of an adolescent, inviting us to join in the mockery and scorn of this president.

Mr. Haltiwanger, who is clearly infatuated with the undeliverable promises of socialism, concludes his argument with what he apparently thinks is his article’s mic-drop moment, proving once and for all that socialism works and that Trump is an idiot for thinking otherwise:

Most industrialized countries, for example, have implemented universal health care. Moreover, Norway was recently ranked the happiest country in the world, and it pointed to its strong state-support programs as crucial to achieving this accolade…. Several other Scandinavian countries, including Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, were also among the top 10 happiest countries in the world, according to the most recent figures…. The U.S., however, can’t even make it into the top 10 happiest countries. It’s ranked at No. 14.

Icelandic and Scandinavian happiness.

Let’s drill down on this a bit and the inference that socialism is the reason for it. Norway’s designation as the “world’s happiest country” is based on a United Nations report. You might think that this ranking comes from simple “yes” or “no” responses to the question, “Are you happy?” It isn’t. That is essentially what Gallup did and guess who dominated the top ten? Paraguay and Latin America. Neither Iceland nor a single Scandinavian country appeared in Gallup’s top ten.

So how did the guys at the UN produce entirely different results? After spending an afternoon reading the UN report, that is still is unclear to me. This is because their study is 184 pages of abstruse data and reads like this:

The U.S. corruption index rose by 0.10 between 2006/7 and 2015/6. With a coefficient -0.53 in the happiness regression, the negative effect on U.S. happiness is 0.054. Reversing the rise in perceived corruption would therefore raise happiness by 0.054….

Drilling down still more, we find that this report, as with any UN report I’ve ever read, has a very definite political agenda. It concludes:

To escape this social quagmire, America’s happiness agenda should center on … an expanded social safety net, wealth taxes, and greater public financing of health and education…. [A]cknowledge and move past the fear created by 9/11 … Trump’s ban on travel to the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries is a continuing manifestation of the exaggerated and irrational fears that grip the nation.

So, from a haze of data on global happiness the report makes the illogical leap to America, Donald Trump, and the lack of “a social safety net”—i.e., lack of socialism—as the sources of unhappiness? They could have saved themselves time, money, and the clever use of dubious statistics and just interviewed Maxine Waters—or Kim Jong Un.

Should we really be surprised that the UN, the body that commissioned this report, didn’t like Trump’s speech?

As for the myth that Iceland and Scandinavia are socialist utopias, it is interesting to note that these countries rank highest in the use of antidepressants. Iceland holds the top spot while Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are all in the top ten. It seems they rank high because they are, well, high.

While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen rejected the idea that his country is socialist even though it has a much larger social welfare system: “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

I am currently going around the world investigating the question of national greatness. In the last month, I have been in Japan, Singapore, and China. Traveling across Asia, you quickly discover that no one outside of Pyongyang has faith in the tenets of Marx and Lenin anymore. Not even China is truly socialistic. That is because they knowsocialism doesn’t work.

No, the people who believe in that naïve, unworkable, utopian ideology no longer live in Beijing, Moscow, or Hanoi. On the contrary, socialism’s modern advocates reside in such places as London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and, increasingly, Washington.

Since we are using happiness as an indicator of socialism’s emotional influence, let’s look at Gallup’s least happy country: Ukraine. I’ve spent a lot of time in that country. Indeed, I’ve written a book on it, and I can tell you that Ukraine has been economically, intellectually, and spiritually assassinated by socialism. Five more socialist (or formerly socialist) countries make Gallup’s bottom ten.

Trump is right to say that “wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”

The failure of socialism is a wholly unjustified confidence in human government. It is, as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky observed long ago, “the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth, but to set up Heaven on earth.”

Larry Alex Taunton is the author of The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World’s Most Notorious Atheist (2016) and the Executive Director of the Fixed Point Foundation. You can follow him at larryalextaunton.com or on Twitter @ LarryTaunton.

©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

Russia! Russia! Russia!

Posted on

Before a criticism is given, perhaps it should be thought all the way through.Practically every one of the components of the commonplace press has posted, broadcast or published at least one article/commentary denigrating President Trump for not “being firmer” or even “standing up to” Putin on the allegations of Russian interference in our last presidential election. I would like to add my humble opinion:

It is always presumptuous for any outsider to make a judgement about how one issue should be handled and fit into the overarching strategy of the relationship, the negotiations and what we want to get out of that regime or what path we want them on. They also presume that they know all about every phone call, every message, etc. However, often they do not know context at all. They are only presented with optics.

So, I think automatically about what my response would have been if I were Putin. It isn’t very difficult at all. The United States foolishly tried to meddle in the last major Israeli election, and to condemn us even further, Israel is one of our closest allies! I do not think President Trump would have come out on top of that argument. You could add in Libya, Iraq and more (justified or not they were sovereign nations).

Since Russia and America have not been on friendly terms for the last eight years and we have numerous other highly advanced technical adversaries in China, North Korea, Iran and etc. It seems a little ignorant to me that we neglect installing top notch protection and defense of our election systems. Why are we not angry at the people responsible for leaving us open to attack? Why are we not investigating the entire election, including the Democratic Party? Why are we not hardening the grid? Why are the democrats and the MSM trying so hard to focus the public and the politicians on Russian collusion with the Trump campaign? What are we missing while they are flashing their worthless shiny object?

Before we back any person in a corner and forcefully present him with his crime, we had better have good evidence. That is right and reasonable. It cannot be the expert opinion of 17 professional organizations, opinions will always be subjective. If there is no IRREFUTABLE proof, then President Trump sounds like the boy crying wolf. After all…..what proof does he have when so many other hackers can leave traces making themselves look like Russians? What real proof, hard evidence, do we actually possess?

Play it out in your mind, but take the part of Putin. Obama did not leave Trump an easy fact set to work with!

Media? What Media?

Posted on

By what right or measure does “the media” claim its current self endowed titled of The Free Press? They are in no way free as they are well known to be employed by large corporations who support globalism and are in bed with the Democratic Party. Just to be clear, it would be equally as bad if they were controlled or manipulated by the Republican Party, especially if the Republicans were advocating anti-American policies and working to fundamentally change or make obsolete substantial portions of our Constitution. They have become so obvious about their prejudices that they are even selective about what news items they will actually report! When the media is driving the news and manipulating the dialogue for the entire nation, elevating gossip and hearsay over facts, policies and agendas then things have just gone too far!

Where was this “media” when Obama’s administration was caught up in “fast and furious”? Why were there no continuous interviews targeting the administration for gun running? Why was there no outrage from the press when a border agent was murdered and then later when those guns began surfacing in the US? Why was the press not shocked? Why was there no rumor of an independent prosecutor or an investigative committee?  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430153/fast-furious-obama-first-scandal          http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Where was “the media” criticism when Obama started bringing in members of the Muslim Brotherhood to work in the White House? Why were there no questions when an enemy organization was allowed to rewrite and revise the procedures and training practices of the military, the FBI, the CIA and those are just the ones we know about! The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization and supports the jihad movement and its activities. Why was there no media coverage of this? Why wasn’t this critical and important information on every front page in America?             http://freebeacon.com/national-security/fbi-national-domestic-threat-assessment-omits-islamist-terrorism/            http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/expert-fbi-neutered-by-muslim-brotherhood/                                     https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/fbi-document-purge/

Why did “the media” cover up for Comey when he made his announcement about Hillary Clinton and the email investigation. He obviously, plainly and clearly deliberately lied about what the statute (18 USC section 793) required. Do you have to be a democrat to tell a bald faced lie on national TV and suffer no consequences? Where was “the media’s” reference to the actual statute? Why did not one reporter check to see if intent was a requirement at all? (Intent is not a requirement, it is deliberately not a requirement) Where were the talk show demands for accountability? How could the exposure of our nation’s secrets be disregarded and unpunished? Where was “the media”?

Why did Obama surveil so many Americans? How many did he collect information on? Why is “the media” talking about White House gossip and attacks on President Trump instead of this? Why did Obama sign that Executive Order right before he left office promoting more sharing of information between intelligence agencies when it allegedly only encourages leaks? Why has there been no editorial questioning this? Where is “the media” on such a topic of true concern, is our government spying on us? Are the intelligence services out of control? Without a decent investigative press we may never know.                                                                                                                                                http://planetfreewill.com/2017/05/28/new-revelations-shed-light-extent-nsa-spying-obama/   http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-24/fisa-court-finds-very-serious-fourth-amendment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-search                                               http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/ask_james_rosen_and_angela_merkel_about_obama_spying.html

There are other issues that I think should have been brought into the light also. We never did find out the particulars about Benghazi and no one was held accountable. The shameful use of the IRS to handicap conservative organizations before an election was horrendous and once again, no one was held accountable. There are literally mountains of evidence against the Clintons and their foundation and the way they set the State Department up as a “pay for play” deal. That isn’t news? That isn’t important or shocking? It involved citizens, corporations and foreign governments, yet our press barely even gave it acknowledgement. Clinton’s Uranium deal should definitely be investigated. Yet there has been little coverage, not at the time it occurred and not now. Where is “the media”? If they are so afraid of every small interaction with Russia then Clinton’s facilitation of the sale of 20% of America’s uranium reserves to Russia should be the biggest story of the year!

So, we do not really have a legitimate mainstream media, we actually have a propaganda machine. As American citizens we can either be manipulated sheep or we can be intelligent consumers. I can not trust the networks or cable channels since they all push a liberal point of view. I have gone elsewhere…and, either way, I highly recommend fact checking!

Give Me Liberty…..

Posted on

For as William Lloyd Garrison opined:
“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

It seems to be of no significance which party wins any election. Regardless of outcome, all of the political debate, the government’s decisions and movements, the ways and means of making decisions, everything that actually makes the government tick is manipulated skillfully by the democrats. The republicans do not fight this manipulation, in fact, the louder the message is which originates with the Democratic Party and their “talking heads” the more likely the Republicans are to give in to the pressure. After seeing this machine in action since election night, it has totally changed my mind about that party and its motives. 

Although the Democratic Party presents itself as a great representative of the people constantly keeping the government honest and diligently pursuing justice, in truth democrats have shown themselves to be totally corrupt, mindlessly in pursuit of power and deliberately blind to the negative consequences. Furthermore, the democrats have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care about this country, its Founding Documents, our history or our culture and traditions. 

Time after time the Democratic Party has openly displayed its character for all to see, putting forth Hillary Clinton for president even when there was enough evidence made public to convict her of numerous federal violations, no republican could have, or ever would have, used the IRS to target democratic organizations in an effort to damage the opposing party, what president has ever just ordered that our borders not be enforced and that illegals be allowed in? There were so many things that Obama did that upset and distressed conservatives, republicans, libertarians, independents and free thinkers. In addition to what I have mentioned already there is “fast and furious”, Clinton’s State Department access for pay scandal, Clinton’s uranium deal with Russia, the lies told about the Iran treaty and hiding all of the secret side deals from the Congress and the people and etc.

Yet, except for Benghazi, not one investigative committee convened. No hordes of republicans took to the streets burning cars and smashing out building Windows. No republicans formed groups to attack democrats. Obama’s cabinet nominees were approved relatively quickly as were his decidedly liberal Supreme Court Judges. On most legislation, but not all, Republicans either worked with, negotiated with or just gave in to Democrats. Obama’s threatened veto on any potential bill was mighty indeed!

President Trump seems to be treated differently by the media and certainly by the Democratic Party. A Harvard Professor just finished a study and reported that the way in which the media has gone after Trump, trying to destroy him, is literally unprecedented! Never before has the media machine operated in concert together with such a singular purpose of the personal destruction of a legitimately elected president. He is denigrated, obstructed, laughed at, misrepresented and misquoted. His words are deliberately lifted out of context and twisted out of all relationship to what he originally meant. He is presumed a liar and a cheat while he is working nonstop to make America a better place for her citizens. To add insult to injury, his own party is not being all that helpful in Congress.

President Trump is making an excellent start on his term. He has signed new trade deals bringing jobs to our shores and has also issued executive orders which get rid of onerous and excessive government regulations and this too means more jobs. He has worked hard to promote American Industry, reform the tax code which will hopefully pass soon, to straighten out the health system and to turn back the tidal wave of illegal immigrants flooding across our southern border. 

President Trump has certainly shown a talent if not pure genius in foreign affairs. Trump may be unappreciated at home, but our allies absolutely do appreciate him and seem to understand him much better than we do. Isn’t it interesting that the president who our media fawned over constantly managed to damage our relationships with almost every ally. The Saudi Arabians said that they had been waiting for Trump for eight years. The judges (read Democratic Party and liberal) in the two circuits that claim Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration was issued because he was biased against Muslims should feel like total idiots now!

Always, though, facts will be ignored, buried, covered up or otherwise twisted or changed. The Democratic Party is perfectly willing to lie, threaten, destroy and commit fraud to win elections. How then can we not acknowledge that they have become more of a criminal enterprise than a political party? We cannot allow this continuing manipulation of the dialogue through the media, the persistent changing of the values and the belief systems of our young people through the liberal teachings of academia and the ever increasing rise of liberal intolerance for any other point of view. No one will stop this, no one will save us, no one is responsible for maintaining our freedom but us! In the end, each generation must fight to preserve the Liberty that we all consider our birthright. As the disaster in Venezuela has so brutally demonstrated, tyranny with all of its misery and suffering is never more than a generation away. (I wish I could remember who said that!)

We should not be watching Trump fight for us on TV. We should do whatever we can do to help!

60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries

By Patrick Goodenough | February 16, 2017 | 4:20 AM EST

60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries

(CNSNews.com) – Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.

Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.
Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.

Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations. Trump’s Jan. 27 order barred entry to the U.S. of all refugees for 120 days; prohibited entry to refugees from Syria indefinitely; and blocked all entry – immigrant and non-immigrant – by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days. (The order does not itself name the seven countries, referring instead to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).” 

That law, signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015, required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns. Two months later Obama’s DHS added Somalia, Yemen and Libya to the list of “countries of [terrorist] concern.”)
In the week between Trump’s inauguration and his Jan. 27 executive order, a total of 2,090 refugees were admitted to the U.S., of whom 918 (43.9 percent) were from the identified countries: 296 from Syria, 218 from Iraq, 211 from Somalia, 155 from Iran, 37 from Sudan, one from Yemen and none from Libya.

The following seven-day period – from the day of the executive order to the day before the judge’s restraining order – only 19 refugees were admitted from the countries of concern (18 Somalis and one Iraqi, all but two arriving on the actual day of the order). Those 19 comprised just 2.2 percent of the total 861 arrivals over that period.

The next week, from Feb. 3 to Feb. 9, saw 1,180 refugees arrive, 882 (74.7 percent) of whom were from the countries of concern.

Last Saturday, Trump tweeted that 77 percent of refugee admissions since Robart’s ruling, which was subsequently upheld on appeal, “hail from seven suspect countries.” (The actual figures at that time, according to the Refugee Processing Center data, were 402 refugees from Syria, 340 from Iraq, 155 from Somalia; 115 from Iran; 38 from Sudan; and none from Yemen or Libya, amounting together to 71.7 percent of the total admissions.)

Since then the proportion of refugees from the countries of concern has declined somewhat, although the countries continue to account for a disproportionate number of the total contingent of refugees admitted since Feb. 3.
While those five countries alone – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sudan – have provided 60.1 percent of the refugee arrivals from Feb. 3 until today, another 22 countries have together accounted for the remaining 39.9 percent.
Those 22 countries are Afghanistan (25), Bangladesh (2), Bhutan (96), Burma (147), Burundi (2), Central African Republic (12), China (1), Cuba (17), Democratic Republic of Congo (347), El Salvador (23), Eritrea (48), Ethiopia (15), Honduras (3), Moldova (10), Pakistan (24), “Palestine”(2), South Sudan (6), Russia (22), Tanzania (1), Uganda (4), Ukraine (213) and Vietnam (8).

Apart from the majority of 1,424 Muslims, other religions represented among the refugees admitted since Feb. 3 include Christians, (including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and evangelicals, from countries including Iraq, Iran, DRC, Ukraine and Burma), Buddhists (mostly from Bhutan), Hindus (from Bhutan), Baha’i (from Iran), Yazidis (from Iraq) and Ahmadis (from Pakistan).

RePosted From RECLAIM OUR REPUBLIC

We hear about the Political arguments and the Constitutional arguments over President Trump’s temporary ban but this post by Reclaim Our Republic, one of my favorite blogs, boils the issue down to what is important. We should consider why the President has plenary power over immigration.

I’m putting up a partial transcript, as this video is being deleted fast. One deletion said it violated a “hate-speech” policy, meaning “, we can’t let the truth slip out!!!”

Steven Gern, a 10-year veteran of the Marine Corps working in Iraq, uploaded a video to his Facebook page on Wednesday talking about President Trump’s immigration order and Gern’s own experiences asking locals how Americans are dealt with in the countries that were on the watch list. 
In the short time it’s been on Facebook, the clip has been viewed over 35 million times, racked up over 1.4 million shares, 250 thousand “likes,” and almost 60 thousand comments.

Here’s the transcript of Gern’s viral statement:

“I work currently in Iraq, which is one of the countries that’s on the list. Obviously, in the United States, a lot is going on – and over here, this is a lot going on, as well, just a lot of things y’all don’t see.
The other morning, we were having a discussion on the executive order, and a lot of the Iraqis showed their displeasure in this executive order, and why they feel like they’ve been betrayed by the United States…

So, I listened to what they had to say, and after they were done yelling and screaming about their opinion on things, I asked a simple question, and I got an answer to that simple question, and I got it without hesitation. My simple questions was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’

They answered me, and said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘Okay, what would happen if I went in town?’”

They said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour. I would be tortured first, and after they were done torturing me, I would probably be beheaded. It would go on video for everybody to see as an example.

The point I’m trying to make is – this is the local populace that would do this. This isn’t ISIS. This isn’t al-Qaeda. So, my question to them was pretty simple after that.

If you would do this to me, in your country, why would I let you in my country? All this means to me is that if you had the opportunity to take the life of an American, you would do it.

Maybe that’s something y’all need to think about back there. If this is the way some of these cultures feel… about Americans, why would you be so naive to believe that, if they came to the United States, they would do anything any different than what they would do right here in their own country”

I’m just trying to inform you about what’s actually happening on the ground in one of the ‘banned countries’ – something you should probably think about. I can’t go out in town here. Why should they go out in town in my country?”

Gern’s Linkedin profile reveals a long and decorated career as a Marine and security specialist operating in the Middle East. The profile summary reads:

Driven, exacting and self-motivated professional with 10+ years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps and 10+ years as a Personal Security Specialist in a High Threat Environment. Embody and reinforce core values that define success in team building, training, program management, and continuous improvement. Respected as a sound Leader, professional program manager, and technically and tactfully competent security consultant. Skilled in identifying and correcting flaws, deficiencies and gaps in security in any High Threat environment.

Our Liberal Outreach: Watch, and then Share with a “liberal” so that they Might Come to Know the TRUTH…

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13150/viral-video-marine-working-iraq-praising-trumps-chase-stephens

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

Preacher01704's Weblog

My Published Works

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: