One Citizen Speaking

CAN WE AFFORD TO PROVIDE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY TO SAUDI ARABIA?

The subject at hand is the transfer of nuclear technology to non-nuclear Islamic states like Saudi Arabia as a deterrent to Iran’s plan for regional domination in the Middle East…

The situation as I currently understand it…

(1)  Saudi Arabia, no matter what the politicians say, cannot be trusted on any level. They are a fundamentalist Islamic state with a proven track record of funding and spreading fundamental Islam (Wahhabism) throughout the world; with many Mosques hiding and supporting radical terrorist activities. There is little or no doubt in my mind that Saudi Arabia was criminally complicit in the 9/11 attack on the United States which should have responded to Saudi Arabia before bogus actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. In my mind, the Saudis are as evil and duplicitous as Pakistan and have but a single goal: perpetuate the monarchy’s control over Saudi Arabia by any means necessary – including the funding of international terrorism to prevent domestic attacks leading to an overthrow of the House of Saud.

(2)  The government of the United States can no longer be trusted to act in the best interests of our nation and its people; instead only acting when national security issues may impact the future personal and political agenda of individual politicians and their organizations. With the stunning revelations of constitutional, criminal, and political betrayal by the Department of State, Department of Justice,, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the hyper-politicization of various Congressional oversight committees, can “we the People” trust what the politicians on both sides of the aisle are telling us?

(3)  One of the most partisan and corrupt of the politicians appears to be Elijah Cummings, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform whose members include some of the more radical and untrustworthy representatives such as:  Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Ro Khanna, (D-CA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and others who do not wish America well.

(4)  The Saudis have the funding and motivation to purchase nuclear technology, or even rent nuclear weapons, from India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.

So what are we to make of a recently released report on the proposed plan to share nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia? Does the report even begin to answer the question, “So is America being played by the Saudis and certain American interests into providing critical nuclear infrastructure to the Saudis whose government hides embedded radical Islamic terrorist elements?”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  This interim staff report was prepared for Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, after multiple whistleblowers came forward to warn about efforts inside the White House to rush the transfer of highly sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the Atomic Energy Act and without review by Congress as required by law—efforts that may be ongoing to this day. [OCS: There is no doubt in my mind that this is a legitimate issue and a gravely important matter that can have far reaching consequences in the future.]  The Trump Administration’s interactions with Saudi Arabia have been shrouded in secrecy, raising significant questions about the nature of the relationship.  [OCS: There has always been some level of secrecy between the actions of the Executive Branch and members of Congress who are known to leak classified information for political advantage. Case in point, consider the joint State Department/CIA’s transfer of military weaponry to Islamic terrorists in Benghazi, Libya which was unknown to Congress and may represent a clear violation of various laws.] In 2017, President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, orchestrated a visit to Saudi Arabia as the President’s first overseas trip. Mr. Kushner also met on his own with then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who subsequently ousted his cousin, Mohammed bin Nayef, launched a crackdown against dozens of Saudi royal family members, and reportedly bragged that Mr. Kushner was “in his pocket.” [OCS: I am also skeptical of the use of Mr. Kushner in a critical negotiating role because he is a virtual unknown acting on the orders of the President without input or consensus from other agencies with critical knowledge and legitimate concerns. As for the internal politics of Saudi Arabia, that is not relevant at this point.] In October 2018, the brutal murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was met with equivocation by President Trump and other top Administration officials. This month, the White House ignored a 120-day deadline for a report on Mr. Khashoggi’s killing requested on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  ‘' [OCS: Again, it is a Saudi matter of a Saudi citizen killed in a foreign land by Saudis – none of our concern. That Khashoggi was a journalist is a fiction – he was a militant hard-line propagandist for the Saudi government, until he went off the reservation. Not our problem nor concern.]  Within the United States, strong private commercial interests have been pressing aggressively for the transfer of highly sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia—a potential risk to U.S. national security absent adequate safeguards. These commercial entities stand to reap billions of dollars through contracts associated with constructing and operating nuclear facilities in Saudi Arabia—and apparently have been in close and repeated contact with President Trump and his Administration to the present day. [OCS: Now, this is troubling in the same manner as the machinations of Loral Space & Communications providing highly sensitive missile guidance to China under the watchful eye of former President Bill Clinton and his associates. As former President Eisenhower warned, there will always be some degree of lobbying by the military-industrial complex and those who would profit from conflict. As to “potential risk to U.S. national security absent adequate safeguards” and the lack of Congressional approval or authority, I seem to remember former President Barack Obama transferring billions of dollars to Iran, a terrorist state that was complicit in the killing of American soldiers, which lead to new nuclear and missile initiatives – plus evading sanctions to revitalize a portion of Iran’s failing economy,] However, experts worry that transferring sensitive U.S. nuclear technology could allow Saudi Arabia to produce nuclear weapons that contribute to the proliferation of nuclear arms throughout an already unstable the Middle East. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman conceded this point in 2018, proclaiming: “Without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” When Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act, it imposed stringent controls on the export of U.S. technology to a foreign country that could be used to create nuclear weapons. Under Section 123 of the Act, the U.S. may not transfer nuclear technology to a foreign country without the approval of Congress, in order to ensure that the agreement reached with the foreign government meets nine specific nonproliferation requirements. [OCS: I seem to remember high-ranking members of the Obama Administration, including State Department, Department of Justice, and FBI being complicit in hiding bribery, criminality, and essentially handing over control of twenty-percent of America’s critical uranium stockpile to hostile Russian foreign interests. (Uranium One Scandal)] The whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. They have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes. [OCS: I seem to remember a whistleblower who laid out the bribery and criminality of the players of the Uranium One scandal and who was roundly ignored by the Obama Administration. In fact the whistleblower was actively attacked by the Obama Administration. As for the conflicts of interest among top White House advisers, I do not remember any credible allegations regarding selling access to their office or personally profiting from any business before their respective departments.] They have also warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction, and backbiting. [OCS: A pure partisan political attack with no bearing on the subject at hand. I still would like to know what happened in the White House during the 9/11 Benghazi attack. Where was the President of the United States – because we certainly know he wasn’t in the Oval Office or the White House Situation Room during the attack when he could have ordered protective measures to save American lives?] For those wishing to read the full report in context, it can be found at: Multiple Whistleblowers Raise Grave Concerns with White House Efforts to Transfer Sensitive U.S. Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia (Feb 19, 2019)

 

Bottom line…

The first question I have regarding this report, beyond the self-serving nature of Elijah Cummings and the radicals who sit on the committee, is the credibility, reliability, and allegiance of the “alleged whistleblower” and the political nature of this report. I would hasten to note that many of the committee’s members are openly antagonistic to Israel, the only democratic and stable nuclear power in the region. And, if this report were intellectually honest, it would have considered the implications of creating a second or third nuclear power in the region. I believe that Iran already has nuclear weapons and a missile delivery system and the United States knows it – and is covering up the exact nature of the threat to contain political fallout and a public backlash. There is little doubt in my mind that North Korea will sell any of its military capabilities for hard cash and Iran has billions at its disposal courtesy of the unilateral actions of Barack Obama.

Cummings and his cadre of socialists and communists may be a corrupt douchebag, but he does raise a legitimate point about protecting the safety and security of the United States. Based on historical actions and knowledge, I would much rather see the GOP in charge of our military, foreign relations, and nuclear weaponry than the progressive socialist democrats who are trying to weaken or destroy America from within.

We are majorly screwed.

-- steve 

PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS REJECT "COMMONSENSE GUN CONTROL" AMENDMENT

In a shameless display of political hypocrisy, moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty, we find the progressive socialist democrats who want to negate the Constitution’s Second Amendment and impose stricter gun control on law-abiding citizens of the United States giving criminal illegal aliens a pass when it comes to further felonious behavior.

Democrats should be held to account for their failure to incorporate Representative Greg Steube's (R-FL) commonsense and community protection amendment to “The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019” which would require that law enforcement is notified "when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check."

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 8 -- OFFERED BY MR. STEUBE OF FLORIDA On page 5, line 15, insert the following: (E) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph shall include, in the case of a background check conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System pursuant to the request of a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of firearms (as such terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code), which background check determines that the receipt of a firearm by a person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, and such determination is made after 3 business days have elapsed since the licensee contacted the System and a firearm has been transferred to that person, a requirement that the System notify the law enforcement agencies described in subsection (b).      (b) LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DESCRIBED The law enforcement agencies described in this subsection are the law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location from which the licensee contacted the system and the law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location of the residence of the person for which the background check was conducted, as follows: (l) The field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2) The local law enforcement agency. (3) The State law enforcement agency. (4) In the case of an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, U:S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

While it is unlikely that criminals, crazies, terrorists, and illegal aliens who do not respect nor obey the law will purchase a weapon through a licensed firearms dealer, it is time to ensure that illegal aliens do not have more rights than legal citizens and hold illegal aliens accountable for the criminal actions.

Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) in the United States Department of Justice that is required to be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder…

Hypocrisy and rank political partisanship on display…

It is not like the progressive socialist democrats had not seen this language before as it was taken from House Resolution 4343, The Unlawful Gun Buyer Alert Act, which was introduced by Democrat Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) and co-sponsored by Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Both miscreants voted along party lines against the amendment. The only things that changed were: (1) the amendment was offered by a Republican; and (2) the Democrats need the Hispanic vote for the 2020 election.

 Bottom line …

The next time you hear a progressive socialist democrat use the term “commonsense gun control,” know that they are about disarming law-abiding citizens and creating a greater pool of victims who will be calling for a larger stronger government effort to keep them safe. These are the very same progressive socialist democrats who are allowing unvetted illegal aliens to cross our border, provide them with the benefits reserved for lawful citizens and immigrants, ignore their criminal activities – allowing them to ignore or plea bargain gun-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors to avoid deportation, and ignore the heinous crimes they commit within the United States,

When I see this nonsense, I cannot help but think of the Bologna family where Salvadoran gang member Edwin Ramos murdered Tony, Michael, and Matthew Bologna because he thought they might be rival gang members, Jamiel Shaw, the 17-year-old Los Angeles High School student shot dead by recently released illegal alien gang member Pedro Espinosa, or Kate Steinle shot by an illegal alien who had seven felony convictions and had been deported five times as she walked with her father along a San Francisco pier. While this amendment would have not prevented these shootings, it could be used to remove some illegal alien criminals from our communities.

As a side-note, Kamala Harris, then San Francisco District Attorney who is now running for the Democrat nomination as their presidential candidate refused to seek the death penalty in the heinous Edwin Ramos murder case.

We are so screwed when we allow the progressive socialist democrats to play with the safety and security of America and Americans to promote their toxic socialist political agenda.

-- steve

ADAM SCHIFF: CO-CONSPIRATOR IN FALSE TRUMP-RUSSIA COLLUSION FRAUD?

On 60 Minutes…

After watching Scott Pelley interview former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (Sunday, 2/17/2019), I couldn’t help thinking that the top ranks of the Democrat Party and the Obama Administration have, without a doubt, participated in the worst political scandal in U.S. history, and it is more than likely than not that few of these corrupt individuals will ever be held accountable for their actions and prosecuted.

That their freedom may be guaranteed by the personal knowledge, they may have on those that would investigate or prosecute them. If you believe that these individuals are above the use of coercive extortion, one need only look at the number of Trump associates, some with only a tangential role, that have been spied upon, set-up, or prosecuted for criminal activities have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, his pre-inaugural activities, or his Presidency.

And that the firing of then FBI Director James Comey, a now proven liar and leaker, was somehow something other than a constitutionally-protected act -- and did not constitute obstruction of justice, the weakest of pretexts to launch a concerted effort to damage the presidency by so-called non-partisan officials.

It is also wondrous to me just how many officials had a clear conflict of interest in any investigation of the activities of Donald Trump, including Andrew McCabe whose wife received political support from a close Clinton associate, Bruce Ohr whose wife worked directly on the Steele Dossier which he passed to various officials, and various others who were part of previous investigations of scandals involving Bill and Hillary Clinton who managed to walk free each and every time in spite of overwhelming documented evidence. Including others who were unnecessarily given immunity from prosecution and allowed to tamper with evidence or obstruct justice. And, most of all, Special Counsel Mueller who had a hand in previous Clinton activities and was a friend of both James Comey and Rod Rosenstein.

In fact, Trump’s appointment of Christopher Wray to head the FBI appears to be similarly conflicted due to his personal relationship with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Considering that President Trump appears to be totally transactional and functions “in the moment,” it is most likely that he thought that this relationship could play to his advantage in stopping the investigation and clearing his name.

About the swamp and the addition of a Member of Congress to our explanatory flowchart…

With the recent revelations of sworn testimony in committee investigations, sworn depositions, information obtained under FOIA requests, and the public pronouncements of current  United States Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, it appears that the entire Trump-Russia collusion matter was undertaken by Obama Administration officials at the behest of the leadership of the Democrat Party and represents the greatest political scandal in the history of the United States -- a post-presidential bloodless coup d'état.

I now believe that Representative Adam Schiff, formerly the Ranking Member of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and now its Chairman, should be added to the list of co-conspirators for his obstruction of the legitimate investigation of matters by the Intelligence Committee which now appears to be a high-level cover-up of unconstitutional and criminal activities of high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration. Additionally, for his continued actions against a sitting president knowing that there is substantial evidence of the falsity of the original charges which he plans to expand and investigate further for partisan political advantage.

But where to position him on the chart of players? It is time for a special section, “colluding congress members.”

LINDSEY "GOOBER" GRAHAM: ANOTHER CONGRESSIONAL DOG AND PONY SHOW?

Senator Lindsey “Goober” Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and suggested that he is planning to subpoena the former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to probe McCabe’s assertions that top-level officials of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation discussed using the Constitution’s 25th Amendment to possibly remove President Donald Trump from office.

This is disturbing on several levels …

(1) The Senate Judiciary Committee cannot hold anyone responsible for their actions and at the most can make a criminal referral to the politically corrupt Department of Justice.

(2)  Both witnesses could refuse to appear, and it is doubtful that either man would answer substantive questions in open or closed-door sessions citing pending litigation.

(3)  The Judiciary committee contains members that have been known to participate in apologizing for or covering up democrat malfeasance in the past.

(4)  Three of the members have announced as candidates for their party’s nomination for the Presidency and will be prone to grandstanding. (Booker, Harris, Klobuchar).

(5)  Any staff investigation might further muddy the waters and the proceedings leaked to the media by multiple members who have been known to leak in the past.

(6)  The correct venue for an investigation is the DOJ and FBI after the removal of the senior leadership by the President and the newly confirmed Attorney General.

(7)  If testimony is required, it should be before an impaneled Grand Jury that can issue indictments.

Bottom line…

Shut up, Goober … you can only make things worse and give the evildoers another opportunity to escape being held responsible for their actions. The active investigation should be cover the conspiracy to influence a presidential election, obstruction of justice and a cover-up of criminal wrongdoing, and the attempted coup to overthrow the President of the United States – not what was said in meetings, a book, or in the media.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

SOCIALIST ACCOUNTING THEORY

Every time an economist speaks, there should be a disclaimer such as the one imposed on the mutual fund industry, “Past performance is likely to presage future results” and accompanied by a copy of Hayek’s Nobel Lecture, “The Pretense of Knowledge.” And, a re-telling of my favorite joke about the three economists who go deer hunting. Standing next to each other they spot a buck standing still at one hundred yards. The economists on the right and left both open fire at the same time and miss, one-foot to the right and one-foot to the left. The economist in the middle starts whooping and hollering which confuses his hunting companions. Seeing their puzzled looks, the economist in the middle explains, “Don’t you see, on the average we bagged that sucker?”

With that said, let us consider the latest fashionable economic theory being embraced by such learned economists as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez …

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had it right … “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money.” A pesky problem to be sure, but one that can easily be overcome by the bafflegab and bullshit of economists such as Bill Mitchell of the University of Newcastle located in New South Wales. He posits that there is an overlooked viable monetary policy known as MMT – Modern Monetary Theory, the central tenet being the public, through the government, owns the money supply and can simply print money to purchase anything it wants as its basic economic policy.

This is not the fiction of a government borrowing money through various debt instruments, but simply printing money whenever it wants. Guaranteed income – no problem. Housing for all – no problem. Universal healthcare – no problem. So you can see why the socialists love this theory and respected financial publications like London’s Financial Times are beginning to take the policy seriously. To combat inflation, you simply raise taxes – problem solved.

Couched in bullshit and bafflegab, Modern Monetary Theory describes currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as the evidence that currency monopolists (i.e. wealthy individuals and corporations) are restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires. The approach of MMT typically reverses theories of governmental austerity in spending is good and promotes taxation. 

Vertical transactions MMT labels any transactions between the government, or public sector, and the non-government, or private sector, as a "vertical transaction". The government sector is considered to include the treasury and the central bank. The non-government sector includes domestic and foreign private individuals and firms (including the private banking system) and foreign buyers and sellers of the currency. [OCS: Lest we forget, the central bank is a PRIVATELY-OWNED institution ostensibly owed by its member banks (although nobody has ever provided a list of ownership shares) and is not part of the government. While the stated purpose of the central bank, in this case the Federal Reserve, is to regulate the money supply, and balance inflation and unemployment, its real function is to inflate the money supply by 90% allowing a financial institution to lend 90% more than the 10% capital reserves needed to maintain liquidity.] At any given point, the government’s budget can be either in deficit or in surplus. A deficit occurs when the government spends more than it taxes. [OCS: This is pure bullpucky that serves to conflate and confuse that nation’s real obligations. A budget is little more than a schedule of anticipated expenditures based on an anticipated funds flow. It is not a spending authorization and it is not representative of the national debt -- and it is about as crooked at the nation’s books which contain trillions of dollars in unfunded (e.g. hidden) liabilities that do not appear on the nation’s balance sheet. Here in California, balancing the budget is an art form of deceptive accounting practices that would be the envy of Enron.] A surplus occurs when a government taxes more than it spends. MMT states that as a matter of accounting, it follows that government budget deficits add net financial assets to the private sector. This is because a budget deficit means that a government has deposited more money into private bank accounts than it has removed in taxes. [OCS: Not if those deficits are allocated to waste, fraud, and abuse. Budget deficit and runaway spending – GOOD – Ignore the fact that the debt, which will come due at some future point cannot be paid down with deficits.] A budget surplus means the opposite: the government has overall removed more money from private bank accounts via taxes than it has put back in via spending. Therefore, budget deficits add net financial assets to the private sector; whereas budget surpluses remove financial assets from the private sector. [OCS: Budget surplus equals over taxation – BAD – With this theory it is possible for the government to spend its way to a vibrant economy. Something which has not happened in any society, be it capitalist, socialist, communist, or a theocratic dictatorship.] This concept is widely represented in macroeconomic theory by the national saving identity. G − T = S − I − NX where G is government spending, T is taxes levied, S is private saving, I is physical investment and NX is net exports. [OCS: Describing something with a mathematical formula to induce credibility is simply more bafflegab.] Based on the national income identity, MMT states that it is possible for the non-government sector to accumulate a surplus only if the government runs budget deficits. As most private sectors want to accumulate a surplus, MMT economists usually advocate for government budget deficits. <Source> [OCS: Lewis Carroll who wrote Alice in Wonderland would be so proud of this theoretical concept where up is down, left is right, and good is evil. The real key to fiscal responsibility would be to eliminate the central bank, tame inflation with a monetary underpinning of hard assets, and use the government only as a repository for assets and their associated bookkeeping.]

Bottom line …

There are a number of things, such as theoretical physics or mathematical constructs, which are hard for individuals to understand but, money is not one of them. Money represents the stored value which can be created by labor, productivity, and other economic activity, and be voluntarily traded to a counterparty for something of value. The government inserts itself into this transaction chain ostensibly to regulate the value of exchange rate and to fund its own operation – much like the croupier taking the house’s percentage out of each poker pot.

Unfortunately, most people do not want to appear ignorant or uninformed with respect to their peers, so they simply accept the fashionable bafflegab of the day which they – and possibly nobody else – do not understand as a fait accompli.

Perhaps Warren Buffett makes the most sense: “I won't invest in a company if I can't understand the footnote because I know they don't want me to understand it.”

We are so screwed.

-- steve

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: A STUDY IN ECONOMIC IGNORANCE

In a stunning display of economic ignorance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who graduated in 2011 with distinction (cum laude) from Boston University where she majored in international relations and economics, somehow believes that a city that is not collecting $3 billion in taxes from a corporate entity is the equivalent of that city having $3 billion dollars to give to that corporate entity.

“You know, I think it’s really important that we understand that we need to invest in our economy, but we need to invest in our people, and to give away $3 billion to a company that has a history of worker exploitation that’s paying below what the cost of New York City is not acceptable for us.  [OCS: Who is the “we” that will invest in the economy? The government does not invest in the economy, it redistributes wealth (after taking its share) from the taxpayers to those projects and causes it deems politically important. Where did New York City get $3 billion dollars to give away to any company?] We need to have good jobs, and they need to come to the table as in — you know, any company that wants to come to New York needs to come to the table as an equal partner, and you look at how Google came to New York; it was not nearly as controversial as this, and I think it’s because of, they were willing to work with local communities. [OCS: It is not up to any political entity to define what is or is not a “good job.” That choice belongs to the individuals who freely choose to trade their labor for remuneration.  “Come to the table” is a socialist phrase usually involving unions. It reminds me of the stupidity in California where progressive community leaders and politicians refused to issue permits to a non-union big box store, losing in the process hundreds of jobs and the sales tax revenues that were generated by purchases made by consumers who traveled three miles to the store which was built in an adjoining city.] What’s great is that our economy, our local economy, is already growing. So I firmly believe that if we want to take that $3 billion dollars that we were willing to give to Amazon and invest it in our local community, we can do that. [OCS: Huh? The city does not have $3 billion to give to anybody. And if they did, you can be damn sure it wouldn’t be spent on funding corporate activities.] We can make those jobs. We can make 25,000 jobs. [OCS: The government does not create jobs in the private sector, they create more unionized jobs in the public sector – jobs which ultimately contribute to the bankruptcy of the municipality, county, or state when you consider growing unfunded pension liabilities generated by politicians owned and operated by the unions.] But we don’t have to give away and allow our subway system to crumble so that Amazon essentially owns a part of New York City. [OCS: You are right. You do not have to allow anything to decay and fail to prioritize the funds necessary to repair, replace, or build-out crumbling infrastructure. That you give funds to illegal aliens and special interest projects is a political choice.] We can create 25,000 jobs with Mom-and-Pops; we can create 25,000 jobs with companies that are willing to come to the table, but we should not be giving away our infrastructure, our subway system, our schools, our teachers’ salaries, our firefighters’ budgets, to a company that has not shown good faith to New Yorkers. [OCS: 25,000 new bodegas? Just how would those jobs be created and funded? Nobody is giving away anything. Does AOC believe that those 25,000 individuals would not be paying the confiscatory taxes found in New York? Excuse me, but companies do not exist to pay teachers’ salaries or fund your overblown unionized budgets. They exist to make a profit and to the extent they create jobs which generate taxable revenue, that is a benefit – not a right.] And we can ask for more because we deserve more.” [OCS: It is a sad fact of socialist life that there will never be enough money to fund their utopian pipedreams of unicorns and self-licking lollipops. The truth is that you do not deserve more, you need to cut needless expenditures, prioritize, and eliminate the political graft, waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in the system.]

That’s the price you pay to attract a premier corporation to your city and creating 25,000 jobs whose individuals will pay New York’s confiscatory taxes to fund public safety services first, critical infrastructure second, education third, and the use whatever is left to fund your other initiatives.

Bottom line…

AOC (Another Odd Communist) needs to be primaried in the next election lest her ignorance and venom spread like an unchecked contagion. And yes, I do recognize the hypocrisy of my comments when I choose to live in the People’s Republic of California which may be slightly worse than the State of New York.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

CORRECTION: MARK LEVIN

It appears that new information has surfaced on a broadcast advertisement I criticized based on a Mark Levin broadcast featuring a URL (truehealthcarefacts.com) that was different from the one originally broadcast at least twice on consecutive days (truehealthfacts.com) and the websites are as different as night and day. Thus the conclusion I formed, based on wrong information, is in error and should be corrected. I have done this by updating (but not removing) the post and using strikeout overlay type to correct the matter. I have an upfront policy of fixing, not deleting my errors. This appears to be a Levin production error, and since Mark cannot be everywhere at once and is apparently dealing with health and family issues, I am sorry I even doubted him for a moment. – steve

For those who want to view the corrected post, it can be found at YESTERDAY I WAS DISAPPOINTED BY MARK LEVIN (UPDATED)

CONGRESS TO TRUMP: ABOUT THAT BORDER WALL -- TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY

Once again the Democrat Party points to the Republicans while they disadvantage poor and minority Americans by refusing to protect their interests against an invading horde of illegal aliens who take their homes, employment, medical care, and social benefits and leave more poverty, illiteracy, disease, and crime in their wake.

In an example of the bureaucratic bullshit and bafflegab that accompanies most every piece of important legislation, we present the relevant excerpt which shows the funding for the so-called border wall – now referred to as a primary pedestrian fencing – and the weasel-words meant to bollix up the actual construction… 

CONFERENCE REPORT [To accompany H.J. Res. 31] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 31), making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the following: DIVISION A -- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 TITLE II SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATIONS U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OPERATION'S AND SUPPORT SEC. 230. (a) Of the total amount made available under "U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Procurement, Construction, and Improvements," $2,370,222,000 shall be available only as follows: $1,375,000,000 is for the construction of primary pedestrian fencing, including levee pedestrian fencing, in the Rio Grande Valley Sector; $725,000,000 is for the acquisition and deployment of border security technologies and trade and travel assets and infrastructure to include $570,000,000 for non-intrusive inspection equipment at ports of entry; and $270,222,000 is for construction and facility improvements, to include $222,000,000 for humanitarian needs, $14,775,000 for Office of Field Operations facilities, and $33,447,000 for Border Patrol station facility improvements. [OCS: How much money will remain after required repairs and replacements are made on existing barriers which have been decaying for years? In the totality of expenditures, the amount allocated by Congress is niggardly and totally inadequate. Especially when compared to the funding of other non-essential projects and causes.] (b) The amounts designated in subsection (a)(l) shall only be available for operationally effective designs deployed as of the date of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31), such as currently deployed steel bollard designs, that prioritize agent safety. [OCS: This requirement prevents newer and more advanced designs from being built.] (c) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States an updated risk-based plan for improving security along the borders of the United States that includes the elements required under subsection (a) of sec 231 of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141), which shall be evaluated in accordance with subsection (b) of such section. [OCS: Does this mean another risk study must be performed and submitted to Congress, a further waste of time and effort as the risks are well-known at this time?] SEC. 231. None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction of pedestrian fencing (1) within the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge; (2) within the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park; (3) within La Lomita Historical park; (4) within the National Butterfly Center; or (5) within or east of the Vista del Mar Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wild life Refuge. [OCS: Only the progressive socialist democrats prioritize insects, rodents, and butterflies over American lives and the pressures destroying our culture and economy. Nice to know that there will be designated corridors for drug dealers and human traffickers.] SEC. 232. (a) Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of any city or census designated place described in subsection (c), the Department of Homeland Security and the local elected officials of such a city or census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city or the census designated place (as the case may be). Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing. [OCS: This is the democrat delay and obstruct clause that ensures that endless negotiations will halt the build-out of this crucial safety and security barrier.] (b) Not later than July 1, 2019, the Secretary shall issue notices for public comment regarding construction of pedestrian fencing in the places identified in subsection (c). The notices shall afford the public not less than 60 days to submit comments on the location of proposed fencing in the affected areas. Not later than 90 days following the end of the comment period identified in this subsection, the Department shall publish in the Federal Register its responses to the comments received along with its plans for construction in the areas identified in the notice to which it is responding. [OCS: More delay and obstruction.] (c) The cities and census designated place described in this subsection are as follows: (1) Roma, Texas. (2) Rio Grande City, Texas. (3) Escobares, Texas. (4) La Grulla, Texas. (5) The census designated place of Salineno, Texas. [OCS: I was curious why these areas were special. So I turned to my friend named Google and found this… Roma, Texas: A Smuggler's Paradise … “Thick brush and brambles, not to mention the invasive Carrizo cane that’s widely seen as an impediment to interdiction efforts, cover the river banks and deep arroyos here, offering ideal hiding places for humans and dope. More importantly, the town sits so close to the river that agents say it takes only 15 seconds to run from the soggy bank to the Dollar General store and other shops backing up to the Rio Grande. Right in front of those shops and neighborhoods sits Highway 83, where a vehicle full of immigrants or a few bundles of weed can soon melt into the rest of the traffic — and off to Dallas and Houston they go. <Source> Why should I be surprised. It is always the progressive socialist democrats who provide aid and comfort to the illegal aliens – not to mention our international enemies like China, Iran, and Russia.] <Source>

Bottom line…

There is no doubt in my mind that the Democrats, the Party of Lawyers, will do everything to obstruct and delay the construction of this barrier by using the process and our own laws against us.

The only way left to protect our borders is for the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, to use his emergency powers to get the job done irrespective of the wishes of a corrupt congress.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

IGNORANCE-DRIVEN PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS

In a world of unicorns and self-licking lollipops, the biggest mistake made by the progressive socialist democrats is that the ignore fundamental human nature. That there is a natural dichotomy between the strong and the weak, the leaders and the followers, the creators and the consumers, and those who seek to minimize their effort while maximizing their gains. A world where feelings, rhetoric, and totemic symbols replace facts and logic and the intrinsic understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, and freedom and slavery.

 

A little example… 

Capitalism	Socialism
Freedom and individualism under the Constitution (Open choices)	Slavery, conformity, and collectivism without constitutional guarantees (Limited choices)
Private property rights	Public property
The means of production are owned and controlled by private individuals under the direction of contracts and agreements	The means of production are owned and controlled by state bureaucrats under the direction of elected and appointed officials
Private property rights	Public ownership of property
The tyranny of the marketplace	The tyranny of the government
The weakness of capitalism is greed	The weakness of socialism is corruption
Goods and services allotted/rationed by the money and the marketplace	Goods and services allotted/rationed by government favor, perks, and privileges
Moderate taxation and government services	Confiscatory taxation and massive government taxation
Earned entitlements and wealth inequities based on inheritance, ability, or luck	Massive entitlements and the redistribution of wealth
The endpoint of capitalism is more capitalism where people have equality of opportunity, not forced equality of outcomes.	The endpoint of socialism is the totalitarianism needed to keep the population in check as misery and poverty are equalized among the population.
Individual wealth is flaunted as a totemic symbol of success	Individual wealth, especially owned by the government's leadership and special interests is hidden to prevent jealousy.
Tax avoidance with limited tax evasion	Outright tax evasion and capital and talent migration.
Individuals are motivated to excel, to invent, to be better	Lack of motivation and little or no reward for stellar performance or invention without disturbing the theme of equality
Open education as individuals are treated as individuals	Indoctrination and regimentation as individuals are treated as population units
Favored by seasoned individuals with ability and optimism	Favored by college students and the government bureaucratic class

Bottom line…

You can bet it wasn’t a capitalist that said, “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” It might work well in ant colonies or bee hives – but there is always one queen and everybody else exists to service the nest or hive. Not exactly the way a man or woman should live.

If you believe that government bureaucrats can manage enterprise-level companies and provide better service, one need only consider the Department of Motor Vehicles, the healthcare provided by the Veterans Administration, or the services provided by any of the large governmental agencies. If you believe that the government will be a benign and transformative influence, think about a militarized Internal Revenue Service. And, if you believe that the government is about fairness, think about someone who pops over our border and immediately dilutes the available government resources – to the point where those who get benefits have little or no motivation to work and are content to live in the squalor and conditions of the country they have left.

Ask yourself why people favor socialism until it is explained in stark terms? Force the conversation to deal with definitions and real-world examples. Point to Venezuela, Cuba, and other socialist experiments – and ask them if they want the United States to become just another nation-state in the world instead of a demonstration of American exceptionalism and a shining city upon the hill.

Those useful idiots wearing Che Guevara shirts probably do not realize that he may have been labeled a revolutionary, but he was a depraved murderer and a person who delighted in torturing his fellow citizens.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

THINKING ABOUT MARIJUANA AS THE GATEWAY DRUG TO SOCIALISM

You probably have heard it said that marijuana is a gateway drug, that is, the use of recreational marijuana may lead to the use of harder and more dangerous drugs. Of course, the proponents of marijuana point to alcohol as also being a gateway drug that is often abused as much, if not more, than marijuana. The very same proponents also point of the hypocrisy of alcohol being regulated and taxed while marijuana remains illegal.

As a non-user of marijuana and without taking a position on its recreational use, I considered the possibility that marijuana is a “gateway drug” leading to something far more destructive our society than a relatively few stoned druggies or happy social warriors.

What if marijuana was the gateway drug that leads to socialism and the destruction of America from within?

No, not from the direct effects of the drug or its use, but its use as a cause célèbre, a controversial issue that attracts widespread attention which can be exploited by the progressive socialist democrats to destroy the United States Constitution and bring about a radical transformation of our American values.

A little background…

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

As far as I can tell, marijuana, formally known as cannabis, is still illegal, under federal law,  and is treated as any other controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act  (21 U.S.C. § 811). It remains on the schedule of Class I  substances that have been deemed to have no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse as per (21 U.S.C. §§ 1308.11 through 1308.15. 

However, as I count them, ten states and the District of Columbia (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C.) have voluntarily chosen to defy federal law and make a mockery of the United States Constitution and its Supremacy Clause. It appears that three states (Illinois, New Jersey, and New York) will join the movement.

And, a number of municipalities, counties, and states have voluntarily chosen to defy federal laws, and by extension the Constitution of the United States and its Supremacy Clause.

ALL WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES OR ATTEMPTS BY CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, OR THE JUDICIARY TO HOLD THESE STATES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR DEFIANCE. 

How soon will it be before states give the vote to illegal aliens and allow them the political power to vote us out of our own country, or even worse, implement Sharia law and other un-American practices?

Violating their oath of office …

Most local, state and federal office holders swear an oath that contains the phrase indicating that they will, to the best of their ability, “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” One might assume that either the politicians, their nominees, and the sworn bureaucrats lack the courage to stand up, even at the risk of losing their positions, for their country or they agree with the direction the United States is heading.

How slippery is that slope?

Unlike prohibition which saw the creation and passage of an Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment banning the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933 and its subsequent repeal, again by the lawful Twenty-First Constitutional Amendment, there have been no Constitutional Amendments challenging drugs, immigration, or the supremacy clause itself.

What we have seen in the past is that the progressive socialist democrats using activist judges in the courts to usurp the sole law-making role of Congress and the Executive Branch’s power to implement the laws of the land. Ultimately nine individuals having near absolute constitutional power to determine the direction of the country. And the reason the nomination and confirmation of judges, in particular circuit and Supreme Court Judges, is crucial to maintaining our republic.

Without regard for the United States Constitution, how soon will it be before our fundamental freedoms are restricted and even our ability to address our grievances against tyranny with the ultimate measure, armed revolution?

What makes the progressive socialist democrats so dangerous today?

One need only look at what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is saying, what newly-minted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is saying, and the leftward movement of the progressive socialist democrats. They are openly talking about the unspeakable: a revolutionary takeover of the United States government without firing a single shot and using useful idiots and apathetic voters to convey power over our military, our economy, and our very lives. They are “normalizing” subjects which would have been unspeakable abominations just a few decades ago. Have we lost the lessons of fighting World Wars to preserve liberty? Have we lost the lessons of allowing spies and saboteurs to infiltrate the government and all of our institutions and infrastructure?

Where do we see patriot-politicians stand up and shout BULLSHIT! NOT ON MY WATCH!? When do we see the investigation and prosecution of those who have betrayed the United States and committed criminal acts?

Where do we see honest journalists inquire into the radical positions taken by our elected officials and those who aspire to higher office? Questioning a Barack Obama on his terrorist and radical communist friends? Refusing to publish leaks that will damage and compromise our country – no, not the legitimate revelations of perfidious wrongdoing, but the snarky weaponized anonymous leaks that prove to be false and misleading as more information comes to light in the public domain?

Bottom line…

I am afraid that the 2020 election has the power to tip the balance of civility and the rule of law in America. I am afraid that we will be ignoring or eliminating the Electoral College and resorting to little more than mob rule in the guise of democracy. Our Founding Fathers gave us a Republic, with checks and balances, not a Democracy which could be easily subverted. And, I am afraid that their enlightenment and wisdom will disappear in the sands of time as amoral socialists and communists reign supreme in our nation.

If people are unwilling to fight, then we are well and truly screwed.

-- steve