Posted tagged ‘Immigration’

Off Topic | Cuban migrant crisis continues in Panama

March 19, 2016

Cuban migrant crisis continues in Panama, Newsroom Panama, March 18, 2016

(Why are these Latin American nations less welcoming to Cuban refugees than The United States? And, in view of Obama’s reset of relations with Cuba, why do so many Cubans want to leave Cuba? — DM)

uban-migrants-620x264The first air-lifted migrants disembark

ON The DAY that a Chiriqui resident fed up with accumulating  filth around his home,  was  videoed attacking a Cuban migrant with a machete and only days after Panama and Costa Rica declared that the airlift of thousands of stranded  Cuban migrants en route to the United States had been completed, another 1,000 Cuban migrants are on the Panama-Costa Rica border, according to an EFE news agency report.

“In Chiriqui, the  province that borders Costa Rica, there are about 1,000 Cubans,” waiting to continue their journey northward, said  Osiris Abrego, the program coordinator for Caritas International, a Catholic Church agency told EFE on Thursday March 17..

The Cuban migrant crisis exploded last Nov. 15 when Nicaragua, decided to close its border, claiming risks to its security and sovereignty, which caused almost 8,000 Cubans to accumulate in Costa Rica.

The Costa Rican government stopped issuing visas to the islanders in mid-December and said it was no longer able to admit any more people. As a result, some 1,000 Cubans were left stranded in Panama, forcing the Panamanian government to strike its own accord with Mexico to fly the migrants northward.

What at the time was believed to be the last of those Cubans – a group of 300 migrants – were flown from Panama to Mexico on a commercial flight on March 15  when Panama  declared the airlift operation, of nine flights over three weeks, to be completed.

Now, however, it seems that the flow of Cubans has not ended. Meanwhile, conditions for the latest group of 1,000 migrants on the Costa Rica border are worse than those faced by the Cubans who came before them, as the Panama  has ceased providing them with humanitarian aid, according to Caritas International.

The migrants also cannot be airlifted to Mexico, because the accord between Panama and Mexico applied only to the Cubans left stranded in Panama when Costa Rica stopped issuing them visas and does not apply to any new arrivals.

According to Caritas, not only is the Panamanian government not providing humanitarian aid, the government is attempting to dismantle their encampments.

T e director of Panama’s National Migration Service, Javier Carrillo, denied those claims and said that the migrants were being cared for.

“Of course we are helping them. Anyway, Costa Rica is causing the problem [by not issuing them visas], What can we do? We cannot force another country to receive foreigners,” Carrillo told EFE.

Cuban nationals receive preferential immigration status upon setting foot in the United States under the Cuban Adjustment Act, commonly known as the “wet foot, dry foot” policy.

But warming relations between the United States and Cuba have led to fears on the island that the policy may come to an end, sparking an unprecedented wave of Cuban migration that hasn’t been seen in decades.

Satire | Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic!

March 18, 2016

Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic! Dan Miller’s Blog, March 18, 2016

(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

trump-assault

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. 

As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.

Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:

They’re patriots.

. . . .

With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:

A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.

Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.

Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!

Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!

668 (1)

Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.

 

 

Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.

Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning

came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!

Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.

PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.

“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”

Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.

“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was speaking just days before a campaign event in Phoenix.

Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump

The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.

Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.

*****************

Editor’s comments

 

 

 

As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.

It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.

 

 

Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArgMK2kAjzw

 

For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?

crazed

 

Fact Check: Media claims that Trump is anti-immigrant

March 14, 2016

Fact Check: Media claims that Trump is anti-immigrant, Sharyl Attkisson, March 13, 2016

(Here’s a link to an excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson on California’s experiences with illegal immigrants. — DM)

trump_clemson_low_res_9__preview

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Univision‘s Jorge Ramos once again claimed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump called all Mexicans “rapists.” It’s a theme often forwarded by opinion reporters, as well as supposedly unbiased journalists. Other common narratives include that Trump is “racist,” “anti-immigrant,” “anti-Muslim,” “anti-Hispanic,” and “anti-Mexican.”

For his part, Trump claims to be pro-immigration and says he loves Hispanics and Muslims.

One can take issue with the accuracy of many statements made by Trump and other presidential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. But in this instance, journalists are claiming to know what’s in the candidate’s heart and mind, and are stating their opinions as if it’s fact. Are the portrayals of Trump by news reporters accurate?

Discussion

The news media often conflates illegal immigration and legal immigration, as if they are one in the same. But for the sake of accuracy, the distinction must be noted. The nation is split on many immigration questions yet decisive on the general issue of illegal immigration: in a CBS News poll, 84% of Americans viewed illegal immigration as a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem. In other words: most Americans support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. That’s the same view Trump has expressed.

Is it fair for the press to call Trump (and, by implication, 84% of Americans) “anti-immigrant” for opposing illegal immigration, while supporting legal immigration?

The media makes a similar conflation when it comes to Trump’s remarks about criminal illegal immigrants in the U.S. Referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico, Trump stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” On another occasion, Trump said he was not only singling out illegal immigrants from one country. “I’m not just saying Mexicans, I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they’re coming to this country.”

On these points, Trump’s statements are factually indisputable, according to the Obama administration’s own figures. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that 2013 and 2014 alone, it set loose in the U.S. more than 66,500 illegal immigrant criminals who had been arrested in the U.S. for additional crimes and had over 166,000 convictions among them: 30,000 for drunk or drugged driving, 414 kidnappings, 11,301 rapes or other types of assaults and 395 homicides. In a fairly short time period, ICE reported 2,423 of those illegal immigrant criminals had already been rearrested and convicted of new crimes in the U.S.– including felonies and gang offenses. These are difficult statistics to face, but there’s no reason to doubt the Obama administration’s veracity in providing them. Yet, the news media do not accuse the Obama administration of being “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “anti-Hispanic” or “anti-Mexican” in reporting these statistics. Is it fair to use those pejoratives against Trump when he refers to the trends?

Further, the press often ignores or dismisses Trump’s own pro-Mexican statements as he repeatedly differentiates between illegal immigrants and legal immigration, and states that not all illegal immigrants are criminals. For example, referring to illegal immigrants, after Trump stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he added, “And some I assume are good people.” He has also said of Mexicans: “The good people come, and they’re great people. They’re better than good people. I love the Mexican people. They have tremendous spirit. They have tremendous vibrance and life,” and “Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it…I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it.”

The case of Muslims is less clear. Trump has singled out Muslims in advocating for a temporary ban on immigration into the U.S. Does that qualify him as being unequivocally “anti-Muslim,” as the press often states? That may be a matter of opinion. But Trump has not advocated to remove or ban Muslims who are already in the U.S., and has stated that his proposed temporary immigration ban would be with the goal of resuming Muslim immigration once screening deficiencies acknowledged by the FBI can be corrected. “I love the Muslims. I think they’re great people,” Trump has said.

While media portrayals might have one believe Trump holds fringe anti-immigration views, polling consistently shows a majority of Americans often align with his views on key issues. A Rasmussen Reports survey last month found sixty-one percent (61%) of voters think the government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally, consistent with surveys of years. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters who consider border control to be more important than providing a pathway to citizenship believe that providing that pathway for illegal immigrants will just encourage more to come illegally. Most voters continue to believe the current policies and practices of the federal government encourage people to enter the U.S. illegally. Most also continue to oppose President Obama’s plan to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. Seventy-two percent (72%) believe the federal government is not aggressive enough in finding those who have overstayed their visas and sending them home.

Conclusion

Because he singled out Muslims for a temporary immigration ban, it’s fair to question whether Trump has expressed some anti-Muslim-immigrant views. But fair reporting is obliged to include the context that Trump has said the ban would be temporary; and that he has not proposed action against all Muslims, against Muslims already in the U.S. or against Muslim Americans; and he has stated that he loves–not hates–Muslims. The public can draw its own conclusion.

On other key points: Trump is correct when referring to some illegal immigrants as “rapists” and “murderers.” Many in the media lampoon his statements without acknowledging that they’re factually correct, and they allow others to incorrectly characterize Trump’s comments, unchecked.

Trump distinguishes between legal and illegal immigration, supporting the former and opposing the latter, as do most Americans. The press often advances a false narrative as if there’s no distinction.

Finally, Trump’s mother was an immigrant, his ex-wife is an immigrant born in Czechoslovakia, his current wife an immigrant born in Slovenia, and his children are children of an immigrant parent. It’s difficult to rationally claim Trump is anti-immigrant. It would be accurate, however, to state that he’s anti-illegal-immigrant.

Trump’s opponents and critics are generally free to offer their opinions as to his leanings. However, reporters have jumped onto the opinion bandwagon at times, making mischaracterizations that are contrary to the evidence. To advance an agenda, the press seeks to falsely equate protecting the U.S. border with being anti-immigration. Regardless of how reporters personally feel about Trump, it’s important that they remain true to the facts in order to preserve the integrity of journalism.

For failing to do so, these cumulative claims about Trump are given Two Little Devils.

Devils

Pope Slimes Trump, Agitates for Open Borders

February 19, 2016

Pope Slimes Trump, Agitates for Open Borders, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, February 19, 2016

pf

Pope Francis injected himself into the 2016 election yesterday by blasting Republican frontrunner Donald Trump as “not Christian” for promising to build a wall along the southern border to keep illegal aliens out of the United States.

These inflammatory comments from a pampered absolute monarch who lives in a walled fortress protected by armed Swiss Guards came after his anti-American publicity stunt at the U.S.-Mexico border careened out of control — and they were soon answered by Trump.

They also came days after Trump criticized the pope for planning to visit the border to promote lawlessness. The presidential candidate said Francis didn’t understand “the danger of the open border we have with Mexico.” He added, “I think Mexico got him to [visit the border] because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is because they’re making a fortune and we’re losing.”

Although Vatican City, recognized as a sovereign nation, has very strict immigration controls, Francis spent Wednesday afternoon blasting U.S. immigration policy and condemning capitalism during a mass strategically located near the fence that separates Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, from El Paso, Texas. He previously hoped to make an even bigger spectacle of himself by walking in solidarity with other aliens across the border, but U.S. officials nixed that plan.

At the service Francis honored “migrants who have perished trying to reach the United States just a stone’s throw away.” The pope also blessed crosses beside “shoes of migrants who died,” adding “No more death! No more exploitation!”

Sounding like a Marxist community organizer, Francis blamed U.S. immigration policies for causing a “humanitarian crisis” and declared that “the flow of capital cannot decide the flow of people.”

The pope erected a cross in memory of border crossers who have died invading the United States.

He said these people took:

“A step, a path filled with terrible injustice, enslavement, kidnappings, extortion. Many of our brothers are the fruits of the business of human trafficking. We cannot deny a humanitarian crisis, which in recent years has seen the migration of millions of people.”

Columnist Ben Shapiro was having none of it:

“The reason for the humanitarian crisis driving people north is the corrupt anti-capitalist governance so common to Latin America – the same sort of governance the pope believes is apparently more godly than the capitalism drawing people like a magnet to the United States. So the same system the pope decries is the system the pope wants inundated with victims of those who oppose that system. How ironic.”

Francis, a Jesuit from Argentina, has thrown his lot in with anarchists, anti-nationalists, neo-communists, and the radical libertarians of the open-borders movement who cry that the existence of borders in themselves is fundamentally unjust. Christians and communists are the same, Francis has also said. Communists are closeted Christians who “have stolen our flag.” This pope has even formed political alliances with the community organizers of the activist Left in the U.S., Obama administration officials, and radical activists like Naomi Klein, a college dropout and Red diaper baby whose mother made documentaries about Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky.

Francis is preoccupied with radical left-wing ideology, not empirical facts.

Anyone with eyes knows that the proliferation of capitalism over the past two decades has lifted a billion people out of dire poverty — and in coming decades is projected to rescue another billion from pauperism — but Francis robotically slams global capitalism, or “globalization” as the Left calls it, foolishly blaming markets for poverty. Markets, not handouts, accomplish humanitarian feats that the Bishop of Rome’s church could never, ever hope to match.

Francis embraces liberation theology, which Shapiro calls “essentially a mashup of Christianity and Marxist redistributionism — a theology in which capitalists must be blamed for the world’s ills and then forced to absorb all of its problems.”

Shapiro writes:

“All of this would appall Pope John Paul II, who said, ‘This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth does not tally with the church’s catechism.’ Pope Benedict XVI said liberation theology was a ‘singular heresy’ and ‘fundamental threat’ to the Catholic Church.”

On the flight back to Rome after the five-city visit to Mexico, a reporter asked a question that allowed the papal mudslinging to begin.

Trump described Francis as “a political man” and “a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics,” the Reuters scribe said. Trump, he noted, has promised to construct 2,500 kilometers of wall along America’s southern border and deport 11 million illegal aliens.

“Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus,'” His Holiness quipped.

“At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. … I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”

Trump fired back.

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened,” the real estate mogul said.

“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” he added.

This kind of conflict between the church and American politicians was inevitable.

Like plenty of Protestant denominations, the Catholic church in the U.S. has been overrun by radical left-wingers.

The ACORN-loving Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), the charitable arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is politically extreme and anti-American to its core. CCHD is aggressively pro-open borders and American Catholic bishops have conducted plenty of their own publicity stunts at the U.S.-Mexico border urging the United States to let in anybody who wants to come to America.

Long mocked as the “Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats,” the charity funds the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was founded by Saul Alinsky, and other dangerous Alinsky-inspired groups including the Gamaliel Foundation and Direct Action and Research Training Institute (DART). CCHD has funded voter drives benefitting politicians who support un-Catholic causes such as abortion-on-demand. In his career as a community organizer, Barack Obama worked on at least one project underwritten by CCHD.

The current pope’s radicalism, which some Roman Catholics say merely constitutes adherence to the church’s so-called social justice teachings, is nothing new in the world of Catholicism.

Alinsky, who infiltrated many Catholic parishes in his day, would definitely approve of Pope Francis.

Sean Hannity Full One-on-One Interview with Donald Trump (2/18/2016)

February 19, 2016

Sean Hannity Full One-on-One Interview with Donald Trump (2/18/2016), Fox News via You Tube, February 18, 2016

(Trump discusses the Israel – “Palestine” situation and the mess Obama has made beginning at 11:05 during the interview. The rest is very good too. — DM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rcALd00L5k

Off Topic | Trump, Conservative Ideolgues and Populists

January 24, 2016

Trump, Conservative Ideolgues and Populists, Dan Miller’s Blog, January 24, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Conservative ideologues want to keep things essentially as they are, making only marginal and generally ineffective changes. Populists want to change things to be more consistent with what “we the people” want. Often, what we the people want is better than what our “leaders” want or try to provide. Under these definitions, Trump is a populist, not a conservative ideologue. That’s good.

According to Dictionary. com, these are attributes of “conservatives:”

Disposed to preserve existing conditions, restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

According to the same source, “populism” means:

Any of various, often anti-establishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

Grass-roots democracy; working class activism; egalitarianism.

National Review recently published an entire special edition devoted to attacking Trump on the ground that he is insufficiently conservative. Whom did National Review support in 2008 and 2012? Guess or go to the link. He did not win.

NR - Trump

Writing at PJ Media about National Review’s special issue, Roger L. Simon argued that 

Many of their arguments revolve around whether Trump is a “true conservative.” Instead of wading into the definitional weeds on that one — as they say on the Internet, YMMV [Your Milleage May Vary] — allow me to address the macro question of what the purpose of ideology actually is. For me, it is to provide a theoretical basis on which to act, a set of principles. But that’s all it is. It’s not a religion, although it can be mistaken for one (communism). [Insert and Emphasis added.]

Ideology should function as a guide, not a faith, because in the real world you may have to violate it, when the rubber meets the road, as they say. For those of us in the punditocracy, the rubber rarely if ever meets the road.  All we have is our theories. They are the road for us. If we’re lucky, we’re paid for them.  In that case, we hardly ever vary them. It would be bad for business.

Trump’s perspective was the reverse. The rubber was constantly meeting the road. In fact, it rarely did anything else. He always had to change and adjust. Ideological principles were just background noise, barely audible sounds above the jack hammers. [Emphasis added.]

When National Review takes up arms against Trump, it is men and women of theory against a man of action. The public, if we are to believe the polls, prefers the action. It’s not hard to see why. The theory has failed and become increasingly disconnected from the people. It doesn’t go anywhere and hasn’t for years. I’m guilty of it too. (Our current president is 150% a man of theory.) Too many people — left and right — are drunk on ideology. [Emphasis added.]

Were the “old White men” who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, and those who fought for the colonies in the Revolutionary War, conservative ideologues? Did they want to preserve existing conditions under the King of England, his governors and military? Or were they pragmatic populists, as well as men of action, who opposed the King’s establishment and offered unorthodox solutions appealing to the “common” people? It took a lot of pushing from such revolutionaries as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, but the pragmatic populists won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3TGbKfkwGA&list=PLqWUmyBq_P8LZ1jP9XwPuv_4xWhMPiKs1

I don’t want to suggest that Donald Trump is this generation’s George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin. Times are now sufficiently different that doing so would be frivolous. Among other differences, there should be no need to go to war now because we still have an electoral process, flawed though it may be. Nor are we ruled by an unelected, hereditary king; we are ruled by an elected president who considers Himself a king, ignores or twists the Constitution to fit His needs, often ideological, and acts by royal executive decree when the Congress declines to do His bidding or goes about it too slowly to suit Him.

Be that as it may, what’s wrong with the populist notion encouraging members of the governed class — the “vulgarians” — to have greater voices in how they are governed than those who govern them, often to their own benefit, while mocking those whom they govern? Sometimes we the people make mistakes and sometimes we get it right. Ditto our dear leaders. Why not give us a chance for a change?

Into which category — conservative ideologue or populist — if either, does Donald Trump fit, do we need him now and, if so, why?

Here’s the 2012 video Whittle referred to in the video above:

Which of the current Republican candidates has taken, or is the most likely to take, positions comparable to those suggested in the above video?

In September of last year, I wrote an article titled To bring America back we need to break some stuff. There, I quoted Daniel Greenfield for the following proposition:

What we have now is not a movement because we have not defined what it is we hope to win. We have built reactive movements to stave off despair. We must do better than that. We must not settle for striving to restore some idealized lost world. Instead we must dream big. We must think of the nation we want and of the civilization we want to live in and what it will take to build it. [Emphasis added.]

Our enemies have set out big goals. We must set out bigger ones. We must become more than conservatives. If we remain conservatives, then all we will have is the America we live in now. And even if our children and grandchildren become conservatives, that is the culture and nation they will fight to conserve. We must become revolutionaries. [Emphasis added.]

I also suggested that if we don’t seek real — even revolutionary — change we might as well try to join the European Union. That would keep things pretty much as they now are and would, therefore, be more the “conservative” than the populist thing to do.

Our unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy could merge with that of the EU and our Congress could merge with the impotent EU Parliament.

Here’s a new Trifecta video about a proposal by the Governor of Texas to amend the Constitution which, he contends, has been broken by those who have improperly increased the power of the Federal Government while diminishing that of the states.

The Constitution is not broken. It’s just been poorly interpreted, twisted and otherwise ignored. In recent years Obama — who claims to be a “constitutional scholar” — has done more to ignore, twist and misinterpret it than any other president I can remember. Depending on what amendments might be adopted and ratified, an Obama clone (Hillary Clinton?) might well do the same; perhaps even worse. A president can personally stop that process by not doing it. A president can halt poor judicial interpretations only by nominating judges unlikely to make them.

Conclusions

Trump is not perfect; nobody is. However, he says what he thinks rather than spew multiculturally correct pablum. Few are sufficiently thick-skinned to do that. A “vulgarian,” he is not politically correct. Others are because they don’t want to offend. Trump recognizes that Islam is the religion of war, death and oppression and does not want the further Islamisation of America, which is already proceeding apace. Few leaders of either party are willing to take that position, mean it and act on it effectively if elected.

We are mad, not insane. We want to give we the people a bigger and stronger voice in how and by whom we are governed. If, by voting to make Trump our President, we make a big mistake so be it. Worse candidates with fewer qualifications have been elected and reelected. During His first and second term as President, Obama has gone far in His quest to transform America fundamentally and in the wrong directions. If Trump does not come sufficiently close to correcting course to meet our expectations during his first term, we won’t vote to reelect him. In the meantime,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ6XdwGt7Ls

Opps. I almost forgot this

Madam Hillary is on the right side of herstory

October 25, 2015

Madam Hillary is on the right side of herstory, Dan Miller’s Blog, October 25, 2015

(The views expressed in this article are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors.– DM)

 

Lies are good and truth is bad because truth would damage Madam Hillary’s and even Imam Obama’s sterling images. Both, bravely and proudly, try to feed us what is “good.” Their people love it, so what difference does it make? 

1025151 (1)

According to John Hinderaker at Power Line, Madam Hillary

lies…it’s not exactly a news flash. On the contrary, based on the liberal media’s reaction to her Benghazi testimony, her willingness to lie, brazenly, is a positive virtue.

There’s always an excuse for having “misspoke.” It need not be a credible excuse, because an incredible excuse works just fine. Anyway, whatever happened was in the past and therefore doesn’t matter now:

What has Imam Obama lied about? Plenty. Here’s an incomplete list: Islam, the nuke “deal” with Iran, Libya, His strength and Putin’s weakness in the Middle East, Israel, Immigration, Crime, Obamacare, race relations and on and on and on. As with Madam Hillary’s spewings, the “legitimate media” generally love it.

Madam Hillary blamed the video repeatedly

According to an article titled “I didn’t blame the video,” Madam Hillary did just that while also managing to lie about substantially more than that.

Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” [Emphasis added.]

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton’s apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn’t actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” Clinton wrote Egypt’s prime minister the night of the attack. “It was a planned attack, not a protest.” But in public Clinton continued to blame the “offensive” video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip. [Emphasis added]

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said “Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators.”

You want to talk about Madam Hillary’s lies? She didn’t lie, of course, but let’s change the subject to something more important. Right now.

hillary-Nixon-copy

 

Conclusions

“Her people” not only don’t care, they are delighted with Madam Hillary’s numerous lies. Again, “what difference does it make?” Plenty.

Please think about Madam Hillary’s and Imam Obama’s impunity — and readiness —  to lie, violate laws and do pretty much whatever they please. We have become a nation without law enforcement where we need it most and very much where enforcement of Obama’s executive decrees harms us greatly (climate change and immigration for example). Do we want a nation the governance of which is increasingly based on, and perpetuated through, lies to “We the people?” Do we want Madam Hillary or another Obama clone as the next Commander in Chief?

Here’s what “Commander in Chief” Obama has done with his our military:

Do you approve of those and the other things He has done to our military? Want more of the same? Or even worse? If not, what can we do about it? Supporting Donald Trump may or may not be what we should do, but I think the songs in the video are superb. Back in September, I wrote an article titled To bring America back we need to break some stuff. We still do, and if someone other than Trump is ready, willing and able he (or, of course, she) should also be considered, very seriously.;

The Most Dangerous Man In the World

October 2, 2015

The Most Dangerous Man In the World, American ThinkerAndrew Logar, October 2, 2015

…is neither Russia’s Vladimir Putin nor China’s Xi Jinping, nor at this time, Ayatollah Khamenei – it’s none other than America’s Barack Hussein Obama.  This is not because of any aggressive, risk-laden actions he has taken, far from it.  It is because of those he has failed to take at critical times to credibly dissuade strategic competitors and potential aggressors, such as Russia and China, from actions that may suddenly compound into  destabilizing confrontations, even war.  When the Middle East cauldron spawned the barbaric ISIS, Obama’s indecisive, pusillanimous response allowed this Islamic malignancy to rapidly metastasize, compounding and accelerating an existing refugee problem that will involve America.  Additionally, throughout his tenure, overt actions Obama has taken served to steadily and materially, degrade American military capabilities, while enemies grow stronger.

In retrospect, divining Obama’s foreign policy should have been relatively easy given his background – a world seen through the eyes of someone whose father was a Muslim, as was his step-father, whose early education was in a Muslim madrassa, followed by mentoring from the known communist Frank Marshall Davis, associations with Columbia University’s Palestinian activist Edward Said and later, Harvard’s leftist Brazilian socialist Roberto Unger, later close association with admitted communist and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, then followed by 20 years of anti-American and anti- Semitic sermons by Reverend Jeremiah Wright who, placing much of the world’s ills at America’s doorstep, culminated a post 9-11 sermon sententiously intoning, “…America’s chickens have come home to roost.”

Ironically, other chickens have indeed come home to roost.   American liberalism’s pernicious obsession to eradicate the odium of slavery long gone and any vestiges of remaining discrimination in one fell swoop, blindly promoted the candidacy of the first black president, propelling a relatively unknown, unvetted and remarkably unqualified candidate to two electoral victories.  That most unfortunate occurrence followed by resultant deleterious fallout at home and abroad, are liberalism’s chickens coming home to roost – in the White House – where they’ll cluck away until January 20, 2017.

After winning the 2008 election, Obama launched his now infamous “Apology Tour,” covering three continents in some 100 days, during which the Heritage Foundation identified 10 major apologies Obama made for America’s past behavior.  Mitt Romney, in his book, “No Apology,” correctly criticized Obama’s gratuitous apologies.  Indeed, unnecessary apologies by our president projected a weakness in resolve, confidence and appreciation of our nation’s accomplishments, our beliefs and values.  While in Europe, when asked if he believed in American “exceptionalism,” he said yes – in the same way that, “ …the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.”

This was an arresting, if not downright stupefying statement – coming from the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation, with a manifestly unrivaled history.  This is a nation which in 239 years since the Declaration of Independence, grew from 13 colonies and 3 million people to 50 states and 320 million people, a nation victorious in its Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and which fought its bloodiest of wars, the Civil War, to expunge slavery; this is a nation victorious in the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII, that introduced the incontestably successful Marshall Plan critical in European post war recovery, that sent men to the moon and back, 6 times – and the nation that won the Cold War – a nation that has consistently led the world in Nobel prizes in medicine, science and technology. This is unequivocally a nation like none other, a nation of unparalleled achievements and sadly, one whose president does not consider particularly exceptional.

The historical record now shows global competitors and enemies have taken their measure of Obama: the Russians have acted with impunity in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, the Chinese are establishing a stranglehold on the South China Sea while Russians, Chinese and Iranians are engaged in flagrant cyber-espionage against America, ISIS is growing, while Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are all in play.

Barack Obama’s sophomoric efforts at geopolitics derived from his warped, kaleidoscopic misreading of 20th century history have now spiraled into a veritable tragicomedy of incompetence.  Witness his administration’s $500 million program to train Syrian rebels to fight ISIS: not only didn’t that produce the projected 5,000 trained fighters, or even 500, but only, according to General Lloyd Austin, “…four or five.” This is grist for a Marx Brothers movie and attributable to abysmally poor leadership, planning and organization which can only be placed at the doorstep of the White House.

An objective review of the Obama administration’s policies reveals they have consistently posed a direct or indirect threat to national security:

– The unilateral cancellation of the Easter Europe ABM deployment without securing a tangible quid pro quo from Moscow and no counter to Russia’s recent decision to sell the potent S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran.

– The ill-advised support for the overthrow of long-term ally of the West, Egypt’s Mubarak and the inexplicable enthusiastic White House support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

– The equally ill-advised and ill-planned toppling of Libya’s Gaddafi, resulting in a country without a functional government now overrun with Islamists, where at Benghazi four Americans died needlessly.

– The withholding of vital intelligence from the Senate that Russia had been flagrantly cheating on the existing INF treaty to advance ratification of New START in 2010. Seventy-one Senators voted for ratification without full background knowledge.

– The 2011 withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq by Obama while blaming the Bush administration for inadequacies of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).  This allowed Iraq to descend back into sectarian chaos, giving rise to ISIS and advantage to Iran.  A war won at high cost in blood and treasure was thus lost.

– The military drawdown in Afghanistan – mindlessly pre-announced to the enemy – may lose that war as well if continued.

– The release of five dangerous Taliban in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl is beyond rational justification and/or discussion.

– The manifest dereliction of duty in not taking strong measures to protect America from devastating EMP attack – which can be done at very affordable cost.

– The lack resolute policy has turned Syria into a graveyard of American credibility. Nothing substantive has been achieved to slow, let alone destroy, rapidly metastasizing ISIS, unconscionably leaving a compounding problem to future administrations.

– The opening of our southern border to a tsunami of illegal immigration, arguably to permanently bias future voter demographics toward a one-party (Democratic) state. That many of those gaining easy entry may wish us harm is apparently of no concern to Obama.

– The continuing undermining of America’s military superiority is increasing the likelihood of confrontation with adversaries. According to the Heritage Foundation Index of Military Strength, our Commander-In-Chief has allowed our military power to degrade to “Marginal,” leaving the US Army at its relatively weakest level since the end of WWII, while our antagonists pour money into their armed forces.

– Finally (but Obama is not through yet!) – during recent post-summit remarks, China’s Xi Jinping suggested tough U.S. response to Chinese hacking would bring retaliation; obligingly, Obama affirmed sanctions wouldn’t be directed against governments. Essentially, Xi stepped forward, Obama blinked and stepped back – signaling a major geopolitical sea change. Cyberespionage by Russia and Iran haven’t been addressed.

Before winning the 2008 election and still a senator, during the Bush administration’s then ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, Obama, in a brazen and historically unprecedented move, secretly sent a personal emissary to Iran, William G. Miller, a former Ambassador to Ukraine, essentially conveying this message: Obama will very likely to be elected president, after which time Iran will find negotiating with him far easier.  The Bush negotiations reportedly then reached a stalemate.  Fast-forward to 2015, through Obama’s and Kerry’s “hard” bargaining, we’ve reached an agreement with Iran whereby monitoring Iran’s programs will be left to the Iranians as they now have the right to self-inspect” and so as to take the sting away from such an onerous deal, we’ll give them $100 billion of frozen assets  – with which to do as they please – while America agrees to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from cyber warfare.

Though Red China, Russia and Iran increasingly challenge America, the Middle East bloodshed continues and ISIS grows stronger, President Obama has declared “…no challenge–poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” This extraordinarily vacuous statement is from either a hopelessly delusional ideologue, woefully untutored in world history, geopolitics and the unequaled greatness of America, or a brilliant Manchurian Candidate marching to his own drumbeat.  In any case, Obama is a president like none other – and may we never see the likes of him again.

 

Off topic (?) | To bring America back we need to break some stuff

September 15, 2015

To bring America back we need to break some stuff, Dan Miller’s Blog, September 14, 2015

(The article is not immediately pertinent to Israel because the current President will continue to be Obama and his tame Congress will continue to go along to get along. However, the 2016 U.S. presidential elections are very pertinent to Israel’s future, so I am taking the liberty of posting it here. For those not familiar with the acronym “RINO,” it is a term of disparagement referring to Republicans who would probably be happier if they were Democrats. Needless to say, the views expressed in the article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

In December of 2011, I wrote an article titled The U.S. Constitution and Civil War. A remark by Cokie Roberts — that we need to ignore parts of the Constitution to save the rest — inspired my article. To bring America back, we don’t need to, nor should we, ignore or otherwise break the Constitution; it is America’s foundation. We do need to destroy and rebuild much of the mess that has been wrongly erected atop that foundation.

Obama and Constitution

Who should be our next President?

Daniel Greenfield, in an article titled This is the America We Live in Now, wrote,

We are not this culture. We are not our media. We are not our politicians. We are better than that.

We must win, but we must also remember what it is we hope to win. If we forget that, we lose. If we forget that, we will embrace dead end policies that cannot restore hope or bring victory.

What we have now is not a movement because we have not defined what it is we hope to win. We have built reactive movements to stave off despair. We must do better than that. We must not settle for striving to restore some idealized lost world. Instead we must dream big. We must think of the nation we want and of the civilization we want to live in and what it will take to build it. [Emphasis added.]

Our enemies have set out big goals. We must set out bigger ones. We must become more than conservatives. If we remain conservatives, then all we will have is the America we live in now. And even if our children and grandchildren become conservatives, that is the culture and nation they will fight to conserve. We must become revolutionaries. [Emphasis added.]

If we don’t, perhaps we should surrender and petition to join the European Union. Our unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy could merge with that of the EU and our Congress could merge with the impotent EU Parliament.

Joining the EU would not fit well with the U.S. Constitution, but so what? Obama and “pragmatic” judges have twisted and distorted it. They pay but scant attention to its clear language or that of the statutes they misconstrue. Most in the current crop of Republicans in the Congress have been willing to surrender whenever Obama blows His dog whistle and run to Him with hopes that He may offer them small bones.

Our once great nation is itself broken, but not necessarily beyond repair. It needs to be fixed before it gets to the point where it can’t be, and we are rapidly approaching that point. Our Constitution must be revived, and as revived survive, if America herself is to survive. America can’t be fixed with fresh paint and new floral arrangements featuring a “new” Bush.

When Ronald Reagan was first mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate, my first thought was that we don’t need a washed-up grade B movie actor/former Democrat leftist as President. I was wrong. He became the best President America has seen in my thus far seventy-four years on Earth. We need another Reagan, but who should it be? There are only a few good candidates and the Republican establishment opposes, with such insipid vigor as it can muster, all of them. It wants Jeb Bush, or in any event a Bush clone, to march stolidly toward a new Amerika.

Donald Trump

The mainstream media cannot understand why Trump continues to lead in the polls. Neither can the RINOs. Trump can’t possibly continue to lead; why, he is not even a politician! On September 12th, Sharyl Attkisson posted an article titled Donald’s Duck: 7 Reasons Why Nothing Sticks to Teflon Trump. In it, she explored seven of the reasons why it is claimed that Trump “can’t win.”

1. Trump doesn’t know the names of terror leaders.

2. Trump doesn’t have a plan.

3. Trump isn’t conservative enough.

4. Trump has flip-flopped.

5. Trump personally insults people.

6. Trump is against immigrants.

7. Trump won’t apologize.

Please read her analysis pointing out the fallacies behind these talking points as seen by Trump supporters; I think they are correct.

On September 13th Sundance, writing at The Last Refuge, posted an article titled The GOPe Roadmap, Status Update and The Event Horizon… There, he pointed out the RINOs’ multifaceted plan to defeat Trump and to install Jeb Bush as “our” next President. Jeb wants to lead us to more of the same namby-pamby nonsense that gave us Obama, the “great healer.” I don’t want to go there and want to stay as far away from there as possible. Please read Sundance’s article in its entirety. It’s excellent and so is this sequel about the upcoming CNN debate and the night of the long knives.

What will Trump do if elected?

I don’t know what Trump will do if elected President. He probably can’t make things worse, will try very hard to make them better and may well succeed. Please watch “lunatic” Trump respond to questions during this interview.

The only thing I am confident that the RINO candidates would do is to continue America’s collective swirl down the toilet. I very much like Ted Cruz (he would also be an excellent Secretary of State) and Ben Carson (Secretary of Health and Human Services?). Carina Fiorina? I like her thus far but need to learn more.

Trump has captured the public attention and, in many cases, its admiration and trust. Apparently many of his supporters feel as I do and are “mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore.”

Please compare and contrast these Obama and Hillary campaign videos:

Obama won His last two elections by campaigning for change “we” can believe in. Trump has thus far campaigned for change those who think America was great before Obama got to mucking around with her do believe in and want to have implemented.

Much is yet unknown about where and how Trump will lead the nation as her President. One thing seems clear, at least to me: he will discard that which is broken and replace it with what we need. So long as he does not muck around with the Constitution (as Obama has done with abandon), I think we should give him an opportunity to try.

gop-elite

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

trump-punch-600-la

H/t Kingjester’s Blog

Video: Greek island turns into war zone as Syrian and Afghan migrants clash

September 8, 2015

Video: Greek island turns into war zone as Syrian and Afghan migrants clash, BreitbartDonna Rachel Edmunds, September 8, 2015

The Greek island of Lesbos has been turned into a war zone by rioting migrants, leaving the island’s 85,000 residents in despair. Around 25,000 migrants are currently camped out on the island with hundreds more arriving daily, leading to frequent violent clashes and rioting despite their claim to be fleeing violence.

Located just 6 miles from the Turkish shore, the migrants come over in inflatable boats which they cut up on arrival to prevent being turned back, expecting to be able to quickly travel on by ferry to mainland Europe, German station RTL has reported.

Instead, they are being held on the Island while the police issue emigration documents, a delay which can take days. The wait is causing tension between groups as Afghans accuse Syrians of getting preferential treatment by the authorities, leading to vicious violent clashes.

As rocks, bottles and municipal bins fly, one tearful local woman told RTL “We are in danger, every day, every minute. We need someone to protect us. They come into our houses. I want to go to work, but I can’t. Our children want to go to school, but they can’t. They have stolen our lives!”

Another yells at the migrants flinging rocks as they pass his house: “Go away from here! This is private land! Respect Greece!”

WATCH:

 

The full video is here.

 

The main town of Lesbos, Mytilene, now resembles a war zone as the migrants rip apart the infrastructure and use the town as a urinal. Mayor Galinos helpless in the face of such an onslaught is out of ideas, and is calling on the European Union to do something.

“This is a ticking time bomb that will go off soon,” he said. “We have managed to avert some catastrophes, but we need help, more ferries. This island is so small, we can’t solve a worldwide humanitarian crisis by ourselves. The European Union needs to act.”

Monday night saw fresh clashes as 2,500 surged towards a government chartered ferry bound for Athens. Just a dozen police and coastguards, armed with batons, struggled to control the crowd by shouting “keep back”.

Junior interior minister Yiannis Mouzalas told local radio “the situation is on the verge of explosion.” It is a scene being replicated on islands all along Greece’s coastline.

Evangelos Meimarakis, leader of Greece’s right wing New Democracy party which could retake power this month, said the country should strengthen its borders to as to dispel “the message that ‘it’s good over here, come over’”.