But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump

Susan Milligan a Senior Writer at us news says, “Trump puts the bully into bully pulpit – but experts say his approach has problems.”

Here is a little history lesson for her which she could have easily known. The meaning of words and phrases change over time. When President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to his office as a “bully pulpit”, by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda, the word bully meant good. It referred more to the “outstanding” bully-for-you sense of “bully” than for any aggressiveness on Roosevelt’s part, and this describes Trumps use of the “bully pulpit” as well. One might say Trump has mastered a “bully tweet” to make his agenda know and propagated; that is, a damn good way to get the word out.

She goes on to say, “He talks tough, and tweets tougher. He makes demands on Congress and state governments, needles foreign nations and launches broad attacks on the press. But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump?”

Which leads me to ask, if they are not afraid of him why are they so hell-bent on impeaching him? He has upturned their apple cart, cutting the government work force starting with the White House staff, EPA, State Department, but to name a few. Slashing regulations off the books at a rate unknown in my lifetime.

Then she quotes,”‘That’s going to be a problem with Congress [and] the G-20,” the group of world leaders Trump is meeting with in Germany this week. “Already our allies are feeling pretty uncomfortable about his positions and approaches,’ Peterson says.”

Well hell yes, they are uncomfortable about his positions and approaches with the Trans-Pacific Partnership gone, and his dumping their beloved Paras Accord. They are just going to have to deal with it; he was not elected to be president of the world.

Then there is this lie, “The president’s voter fraud commission demanded that states turn over personal information on voters, including party ID and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. States are rebelling, and not just the blue-tinted ones: so far, 44 states have refused to hand over all or some of the requested information.”

According to her, any state that will not provide sensitive, non-public voter data like social security numbers has refused the commission’s request. However, the panel only requested public voter information, and most states have not refused to provide this data. But even as some states will decline to provide non-public voter data, most acknowledge that voter rolls are available to the public for non-commercial purposes. As a result, even some states that oppose the request won’t refuse to give the commission public voter data.

“The decision by states not to provide sensitive information is not a refusal to comply as CNN claims because the commission never sought non-public information. “We’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who serves as the vice chair of the commission, told The Kansas City Star. CNN grossly inflates the number of states that have refused.”

So she lies by selecting which truths she will tell, and how she strings her words together. Progressives will see her words as gospel, and not bother to check into the fact the claims to present, but she is preaching to the choir as, I hazard, very few non Democrats read her propaganda.

Further she goes on, “Trump’s orientation is to bully – ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ That’s not where you lead from,” says Texas A&M University political science professor George C. Edwards III, author of “On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit” (Yale University Press). But bullying does not translate into an effective bully pulpit once someone is in the Oval Office, Edwards says. “Presidents rarely move public opinion in their direction. That’s fundamental,” Edwards says. “You cannot govern based on the premise of expanding your coalition, but not everything presidents do lack public support. Turns out many things this president does lack public support.”

Milligan misstates Trump’s often claimed philosophy of “If I am hit, I hit back” into ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ This is a good example of twisting someone’s words into something they did not say, mean, or do. Why is it bulling to tel the never Trumper Republican that he will campaign against them in the primaries?

Then she goes back to this trope, “Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, Peterson notes, but he lost it by a bigger margin than anyone who has nonetheless won the presidency by securing the Electoral College majority. While his party hung onto majorities in the House and Senate, the GOP lost seats in both chambers in the 2016 elections. And his approval ratings are dismal, hitting the upper-middle 30s.”

They just cant get over loosing the election, undoubted she wants to scrap the Electoral College, but that would lead to a different type of campaigning, where only a few states with the biggest cities would be relevant to winning the office.

I would also point out that the ones doing the polls on Trump’s approval ratings are the same ones that had Hillary winning by a landslide.

Drain The Swamp, More Like Killing The Octopus

The Progressives have infiltrated into all aspect of our government, they are the Hidra in the “Captain America”, the ones that Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.D. fight, they have burrowed in, and will be fighting Trump at every turn.

They have wormed there way into the Pentagon:

President Trump says he wants the US to have better relations with Russia and to halt military operations against Muslim countries. But he is being undermined by the Pentagon.

The commander of US forces in Europe, General Ben Hodges, has lined up tanks on Poland’s border with Russia and fired salvos that the general says are a message to Russia, not a training exercise.

How is Trump going to normalize relations with Russia when the commander of US forces in Europe is threatening Russia with words and deeds?

The Pentagon has also sent armored vehicles to “moderate rebels” in Syria, according to Penagon spokesman Col. John Dorrian. Unable to prevent Russia and Syria from winning the war against ISIS, the Pentagon is busy at work derailing the peace negotiations.

The military/security complex is using its puppets-on-a-string in the House and Senate to generate renewed conflict with Iran and to continue threats against China.

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

The State Department is swarming with turncoats, as you know on February 1st, 900 State Department employees, in an act of extreme insubordination, signed a document stating that they did not support the temporary Muslim ban on travel into the United States. The White House is aware of this action and this led White House Press Secretary to state that they were aware of the action and that these employees needed to decide if they were going to get on board or leave. Mr. Spicer, they need to leave. President Trump has a major problem on his hands.

Monika Wesolowski has been a State Department employee for over a decade. Her work has been exemplary. However, Monika has 4 distinct handicaps. She is White, Christian, conservative and cute. In today’s State Department this is a toxic and even potentially lethal combination. Most importantly, she supports Donald Trump and for that, she is experiencing extreme workplace harassment and today, she faces termination for displaying a President Trump’s photo at her workstation.

Subsequently, Monika went to the ethics and legal department of the State Department and sought an opinion on displaying the photo of a sitting President in her workplace. The written opinion, see below, stated that what she was doing was not a violation and that she is not in violation of the Hatch Act which prohibits Federal employees from engaging in promoting a candidate. Monika subsequently showed the legal opinion to her supervisor, who promptly said “I don’t care, we will just have to agree to disagree”. Today, Monika faces an annual job review which has been moved up to coincide with these events. Monika stated that she expects to be fired today.

[snip]

In an interview on this topic which I did on Paul Preston’s Agenda 21 Radio show, he shared that he has outed 12 instances (people) associated with espionage in the State Department and that this ring was established under Clinton’s rule.

Monika’s story is no less volatile. She produces State Department documents and brochures on sensitive topics. Monika has had work rejected for having too many White faces in the brochures. There are brochures, unrelated to topic, which do not permit any White faces to be used.

The Saudi Arabian contract employee is in charge of State Department brochures on Child Sex Trafficking. She does an amazing job, according to Monika, of producing documents about these events on the continent of Africa. However, none of these same type events are covered domestically. Let me remind the readers that Washington, D.C., is right next to Fairfax County, VA, and as such, is the highest child sex trafficking area in the country. The State Department is also a stone’s throw from the alleged location of PizzaGate. How is this topic not covered domestically? As a US citizen, I want this question answered. What is the State Department potentially covering up? How deep does this corruption go? Source:

Even the National Park Service employees are over staffed with turncoats who are more interested in implementing the UN’s Agendia 21 than they are in following Trump’s agenda of pulling back from the Global Warming Hoax which is nothing but a stalking horse to impose Sustainable Development upon the world. Just what does the National Park Service have to do with Global Warming, they are charged with taking care of our parks not deciding when we can live and what kind of energy we can use.

On Tuesday (Jan. 24), a tweet from the Badlands National Park on global warming seemed to defy the new rules put in place. The Trump administration was quick to act.

Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer said that the NPS “had inappropriately violated their own social media policies. There was guidance that was put out to the department to act in compliance with the rules that were set forth.”

The temporary action against NPS social media was similar to other de facto gag orders by the Trump administration against the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture.

In those actions:

• The president banned EPA employees from providing updates on social media or to reporters and barred them from awarding new contracts or grants as well.

• The president instructed USDA employees not to release any public-facing documents including new releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content until further notice.

Although the Badlands NP tweet came down, something else replaced it — the Alt National Park Service.

On its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/AltUSNationalParkService/), it says:

“Hello, we wanted to take a moment to let you know who we are. We’re a growing coalition of 59 National Park Service employees from nine different National Parks. We formed to ensure the protection of the environment for future generations to come.

“We were forced into a media blackout, hiring freeze, policy changes, and possible reduction in funding. We are here to stand up and speak out against the current administration. We all refuse to be silenced while we watch everything we love crumble. Join the movement at www.altnps.org -Arches, Glacier, Everglades, Cuyahoga Valley, Rocky Mountain, Shenandoah, Yosemite, Badlands, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Blue Ridge Parkway, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park.”

The implication is that Rocky Mountain National Park is part of this movement. RMNP officials say that’s not the case.

“Rocky Mountain National Park is not involved nor have we joined the group,” said Patterson. “The only information I have is what I’ve gleaned from the internet or media reports.” Source:

Hydra’s Head stretched deep into the EPA, and they do not care if they are breaking the law, the EPA staff has been instructed to freeze all its grants ― an extensive program that includes funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, among other things ― and told not to discuss this order with anyone outside the agency, according to a Hill source with knowledge of the situation.

Federal employees are turning to encryption technologies to coordinate their resistance to the Trump administration, looking for ways to protect their conversations from hackers or agency overlords.

A small group of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees are already “communicating incognito using the app Signal shortly after Trump’s inauguration,” Politico reports. Such apps encrypt communications and make them difficult to monitor or hack.

But is this legal? Probably not, according to one expert.

“It appears that some employees at the EPA may be using encrypted apps on their phones to avoid transparency laws in an effort to conceal their communications from internal and external oversight,” Henry Kerner, an attorney and senior vice president of the public interest law firm Cause of Action, told The Daily Caller News foundation. Source:

The Epa was counting on a Hillary win, banked on it so they could continue with there plans to stifle the use of fossil fuels, and continue their conversion of our energy supply to the much more expensive renewables, wind and solar, and do away with Nuclear Power.  In other words Agenda 21.

After Trump’s Election: ‘EPA Employees Were in Tears’

By Penny Starr | November 14, 2016 | 11:33 AM EST

(AP Photo)

People who work at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy are having a hard time coping with the election of Donald Trump as president, with many reporting depression and some being advised to take sick leave, according to an article published Friday by Environment and Energy Publishing (E&E).

“U.S. EPA employees were in tears,” the article stated. “Worried Energy Department staffers were offered counseling.

“Some federal employees were so depressed, they took time off,” it stated. “Others might retire early.

“And some employees are in downright panic mode in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory,” the article said.

John O’Grady, union boss for EPA workers, said people are “upset.”

“People are upset,” said O’Grady, who works in an EPA office in Chicago. “Some people took the day off because they were depressed.”

“The president-elect has vowed to repeal some of the rules they’ve toiled on for the last eight years during the Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan rule to cut power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions,” the article said.

“Trump has even suggested abolishing the agency entirely, although that would be an uphill political climb,” the article said, adding that the man Trump has picked to head the EPA transition, Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is a “climate change skeptic.”

“If you look at the seven stages of grief, I’m still in denial,” an unnamed career EPA employee said. “I will not look at the news. I will not read the news.”

Another EPA staffer said, “I don’t actually know anybody here that was supporting Trump.” Source:

While Trump is just getting started his opposition is winding up in high gear, both in the streets and in his Departments, to stall, delay, and kill every move he makes, they are being added and abetted by the Democrats Party.

Democrats are insisting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) career employees could continue their work on global warming under the Trump administration.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) there’s no going back on global warming regulations, and one Democratic lawmaker has even urged the agency’s more than 15,000 employees to resist.

“This agency when this president came in really came out of the closet on climate,” McCarthy told CSM in an exclusive interview last week that was published Friday. “I have a senior team that’s great and the senior career staff that are here are just extraordinary. They are here because of this mission, and that will continue.”

“Even in the prior administration you had a lot of people in the agency that continued to do work on climate, even though that work was not visible,” McCarthy said. “The work continues in the agency.”

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer sent a letter to McCarthy and EPA employees urging them not to cave to pressure from Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to head the agency. Source:

We do live in exciting times.

Published in: on February 3, 2017 at 09:19  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Progressives, Liberals, and now Progressive Again

Woodrow Wilson, America’s 28th president, rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s system of the separation of powers. This philosophy is known as Progressivism.

“All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

John Dewey and his followers, argued that we needed a broader conception of liberty than the one maintained by laissez-faire negative-rights libertarians. The key idea can be summed up in a quote from Anatole France: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” Basically, the idea is that the freedom to starve because you have no food is not a meaningful freedom at all, because it does not maximize your autonomy or allow your to realize your potential, which were important goals in classical liberalism.

Thus Dewey argued that we should recognize positive liberty as well as negative liberty, meaning that e.g. just as we ought to recognize a right to live without someone killing you, we similarly ought to recognize a right to live without dying due to lack of food. Thus American Progressives advocates that the government should play some role in the economy in order to give people autonomy and enable them to pursue their own happiness, along the lines of the “responsiveness” part of the Progressive philosophy. Thus Americans liberals still try to achieve the goals of classical liberalism, but they sometimes do it through Progressive means.

The Progressives rejected God given rights as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not “something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.” It is “something to be achieved.” In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.”

The Progressive presidents advocated a very interventionist foreign policy, since they were motivated by the desire to help people as much as possible, even people abroad. Liberals still share some of this impulse, and are willing to support limited American military intervention in circumstances of extreme humanitarian crisis. But mostly their foreign policy views were taken from classical liberalism, so they they’re antiwar for the most part.

Progressive are totally silent about their widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, “eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state’s relationship to the American economy.” Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”

Today it is the Progressive that laud Margaret Sanger and champing the slaughter of babies, which, btw the way are mostly black, Let’s read a few quotes:

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children… [Women must have the right] to live … to love… to be lazy … to be an unmarried mother … to create… to destroy… The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order… The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

No, that was not taken from Hitler. That’s a quotation from the patron saint of the feminists and Hillary Clinton. And the above words were not a one-off moment of insanity. There’s more where those horrendous thoughts came from.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

In any case, when contemporary liberals call themselves progressive, they’re hearkening back to their intellectual predecessors. The Progressives hijacked the Democrat Party early in the 20th Century, as they were doing it they stopped calling themselves Progressive and started referring to themselves a Liberals. We can thank Hilary for the label coming back out in the open, she said that she was proud To call herself a Progressive.

National Sovereignty in America and Trump

The drive for national sovereignty in America, that is a disentanglement from the Progressive’s World Government drive, has nothing to do with nationalism in the U.S… Consider what U.S. stands for in The United States of America. America consists of 50 nations, and that which binds us is not nationalism but the love of Liberty, the ability that America gives its people to live their lives as they see fit,and not as the government sees fit. We have been watching that liberty being stripped from us day by day, law by law, regulation by regulation imposed upon us by the Progressives, in both parties, we have been duped into putting into power.

Then along came Trump singing a song that we have been longing to hear. Pointing out what we all, all of us deplorable in any case, knew. The system is rigged against us; the Globalist are not only destroying our jobs, but under the guise of combating global warming actually sending billions of taxpayers dollars to enrich other countries at our expense. The left attacked him with everything they had, he’s a racist, a womanizer, stingy, not as rich as he claims, lies about everything, he’s a con, a clown, and on and on, but we heard him. Soros paid demonstrates, and bused them in to riot and raise hell, all to no avail.

And we elected him, and then the recounts, which ended up giving Trump, not Hillary, move votes; and uncovering massive voter fraud in and around Detroit. When that failed the next assault was on the Electoral Collage electors. Barraging them with pleas and threats, begging over and over that they vote their conscience instead of for who the people of their stated voted for. Well they did vote their conscience, and Hillary had more faithless electors than Trump did.

Their claim to legitimacy was that Hillary wound the popular vote by 2 million or more votes, but if you take California’s votes away from the total Trump won the popular vote by 3 million votes, proving the wisdom in the Founders’ Electoral Collage method of our selecting the President by not allowing the larger states to lord it over the smaller states.  In this election, however, it was not so much the states against the states, rather the county folks against the city folks as this map shows.

Results by counties.

Results by counties.

Trump won, three times he won, but I fear his fight has just begun.

Merry Christmas.

The Emoluments Clause And Trump

Now that the electors will soon vote as their states voted, the next wave of attacks will come using Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: the Emoluments Clause which states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Definition of emolument: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.

Definition of employment
1
: use, purpose
2
a : activity in which one engages or is employed <seeking gainful employment>
b : an instance of such activity

Now the issue is if someone rents a room in a hotel an employment of the owner of the hotel? Or, when one repays an existing loan does that make you either holding an office or employment of the lender of the loan? Or, does playing at a golf course make you either holding an office or employment of the person who own the course?

Then Congress could just give him permission to run his businesses as he has in the past. Everyone who voted for Trump knew about his worldwide enterprises when they voted for him

Published in: on December 19, 2016 at 12:10  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

I Did Too Build This: Government does not equals socialism

Facebook Meme

Facebook Meme

When Progressive like Obama, Clinton, Warren, and their ilk say this they are implied that self-interested acts are, by definition, selfish acts. It is based upon the idea that when someone creates wealth for his own benefit, that it benefits only himself.

Adam Smith pointed out the fallacy in this notion in 1776 in his treatise A Wealth of Nations. Smith pointed out when enterprising businesses work for their own benefit, unknowingly, they also benefit society. To earn income in a competitive market, the business must produce something others value. In Adam Smith’s eternal words, “By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

This is Smith’ Invisible Hand, and it is the greatest engine of economic growth, wealth creation, easy, comfort, health and welfare the world has ever known. Private property and the right to pursue self interest is the fuel that drives this engine.

This brings to mind the story about the “Big Three” auto makers telling Robert William Kearns that he deserved no credit for inventing the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 and on into infinity because all he did was put together some existing technology that other’s had invented.

The legal argument that the auto industry posed in defense was that an invention is supposed to meet certain standards of originality and novelty. One of these are that it be “non-obvious.” Ford claimed that the patent was invalid because Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components. Kearns noted that his invention was a novel and non-obvious combination of parts.[12][13] Kearns’ position found unequivocal support in a precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) (“It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a ‘combination’: that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.”) (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). From Wikipedia

This, in effect, is the same argument that Warren is making in the meme above. When she says that nobody got rich on their own for they moved their goods on the infrastructure that others have built is the same as saying Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components thus he deserves no patent. The Supreme Court found otherwise, and applied “flash of genius” patent law terminology, which was in effect from 1941 to 1952, which held that the inventive act must come into the mind of an inventor as a kind of epiphany and not as a result of tinkering, and made all use use his invention to pay him for it.

There are Progressive that made the argument that all governments services, such as roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., as socialistic Moore wrote in indignation, “my taxes are redistributed to plow someone else’s street! Socialism!” they say”

Government equals socialism.

Socialist programs in the U.S.: The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, Amtrak, Public Beaches, Public Busing Services, Business Subsidies, The Census Bureau, The CIA, Federal Student Loans, The Court System, Dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, The Department of Energy, The EPA, Farm Subsidies, The FBI, The FCC, The FDA, FEMA, Fire Departments, Food Stamps, Garbage Collection, Health Care, Public Housing, The IRS, Public Landfills, Public Libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, The Military, State and National Monuments, Public Museums, NASA, The National Weather Service, NPR, Public Parks, PBS, The Peace Corps, Police Departments, Prisons and Jails, Public Schools, Secret Service, Sewer Systems, Snow Removal Services, Social Security, Public Street Lighting, The Department of Transportation, USPS, Vaccines, Veteran Health Care, Welfare, The White House, The WIC Program, State Zoos.

Take that, capitalists! You’re all socialists, and you don’t even know it!

These claim serves primarily to demonstrate that there are far too many people in this country who do not know what the word “socialism” actually means:

Per Merriam-Webster, “socialism” is one, or all, of the following: 1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

To claim that all government services are a manifestation of socialism is to say that all kings and dictators of the past were in truth all socialists as they all provided services for their people. That aside, how many on the above list have anything whatsoever to do with the abolition of private property, the nationalization of industry, and putting the collective over the individual? Most of these are public goods, I wrote an essay on this some years back:

Public Good

Public good. We all hear the phrase, but I fear that we do not all understand the concept and readily confuse public benefits with public goods. To start with just. What is a public good? Paul A. Samuelson, the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, said, “goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” The opposite of a public good is a private good.

Public goods like air, water, fish, game animals are normally referred to as common goods reserving the term ‘public goods’ to services provided by the government such as national defense, the police and judicial system, prisons systems, and as most people like to include the highway systems and education systems. I will get back to these last two in a short while.

For the government to provide a “Public Good” for its citizens does not make a socialist government. To say that a plumber did not build his business is as delirious as saying that I did not writer this because someone else created all the words that I used!

Donald Trump And Waterboarding: Does The Geneva Conventions Apply?

If you have not been living under a rock of indifference you will know the heat that the Progressives and MSM have been giving Trump over his advocating a return to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique for captured terrorists.   They loudly scream that it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions if we were to do so.

Does it?  No! The Geneva Conventions applies only to signatories countries of the Conventions For a complete list of them click here, you will note that ISIS is not on the list.

When one speaks of the Geneva Conventions, they are usually referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was ratified in the aftermath of World War II.

There were actually four Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention was agreed to in 1864. The agreement provided for the protection of all medical facilities, their personnel and any civilians aiding the wounded. It also gives the Red Cross international recognition as a neutral medical group.

The First convention was originally signed by 12 nations (The United States was not one of these). The United States signed the Second Convention, which occurred in 1882. The second convention extended the protection of the first convention to wounded combatants at sea and shipwrecked sailors.

The Third Geneva Convention was convened in 1929 and resulted in specific protections for prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. This convention reaffirmed the requirements of the first three conventions and provided protections for civilians during wartime.

LINK:

In 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984.  It was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994.  To this treaty the U.S. put the following exceptions:

Upon signature :

Declaration:
       “The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary.”

Upon ratification :

Reservations:
       “I. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:
       (1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
       (2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions’ includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence’ requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does not per se constitute torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,’ as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.’
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

I draw you attention to the fist exception, “(a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;”  The US Armed Forces subject their own troops to waterboarding in training so they cannot believe that it would do any of the above. Thus an appeal to this treaty to stop Trump from reintroducing waterboarding as an interrogation technique falls short,

The United States Central Intelligence Agency defines waterboarding as a procedure where the individual is bound to an inclined bench. Then a cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes and water is applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. During this process the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth and the air flow is slightly restricted and water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C – TORTURE

As used in this chapter—

(1)

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A)

the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B)

the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C)

the threat of imminent death; or

(D)

the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3)

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(a)Offense.—

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—

(1)

the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2)

the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c)Conspiracy.—

A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Torture is defined by US Law, and any law the government can make it can unmake and can be rewritten to exclude waterboarding.

 

Trump is our Zeitgeist

12654295_206248589728033_8809778510336786355_n

The world is changing, it is history (His Story) that creates the man, not the man making the times in which he is raised to greatness. You can see this all through history, Julius Caesar could have been Julius Caesar only at that time in history. George Washington came to power because of the necessity of history, he did not create the Revolution. Wellington was raised to defeat Napoleon, as was Winston Churchill for Hitler, none of which could have ever raised to power at any other time in history, the events of those days made them, they did not make the events. Trump is our Zeitgeist, he is being raised by the events of our day, for the good or for the evil, and there is no stopping him. I believe that he is a force for the good raised by God for these days.

Published in: on March 16, 2016 at 10:25  Comments (7)  
Tags: ,

Propaganda Is Thought Control, Or At Least The Attempt

“Trust your feelings”, hear it all the time and as time goes on more and more, but what does it mean?  Are feeling to be trusted?  I feel like a soda, like I need to go to bed, feel hungry, sure those feeling can be trusted.  Now how do you feel about Democracy, Capitalism, socialism, or a planned economy as opposed to a free market?   These are not thing that one should accept or reject based upon feelings rather these are the things that you should let your reason play with to come up with your support or rejection.  Regardless the propagandists will work on your feelings and try to bypass your thinking.  They will work on your subconscious to recruit to their way of seeing the world.

“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.”  By this definition anyone who is working for a cause and is trying to convince you of it rightness is a propagandist.  We call something ‘spin’ we are referring to the propagandists to give information, or miss-information, that favorable to his point of view.  They will not bring up facts which does not favor their argument, and poo paw and negative facts that does come to light.  How many times have you heard it said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts”?

The Video below: Propaganda Techniques – 1950

Lying by omission is when someone knows certain detrimental fact to his cause but does not bring them up when making their case.   It is not the presentation of the truth that is the propagandist is concern with, rather to produce an emotional rather than a rational consideration to the argument he is making.  Propaganda when the word was coined was generally benign or innocuous persuasions, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others.

But it has devolved Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell has provided a concise, workable definition of the term: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”    More to the point Richard Alan Nelson puts it in A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States (1996) pp. 232-233: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”

This Video is an Education For Death – Disney WWII Propaganda Cartoon

So I besiege you to be wary whenever someone is putting forth arguments that appeals to your feeling rather than to your understanding.  We find the propagandists in all sides, but on whichever side we encounter him we should not be manipulated by our feelings as to what is right and what is wrong about the argument, leave that to you reason and put your feelings aside.

In this current push to pass Gun Control laws you will find lots of  Propaganda employed, look for it and point it out to others.

The Trayvon Martin shooting media blitz is a good example of a successful propaganda campaign.  You do not hear about the racist Zimmerman any more for his role in their purposes is done.  When he is acquitted of the charges you may hear his name brought back up by the MSM,, now they have biger fish to fry, guns.

For a complete history of Trayvon/Zimmerman travesty read “EXCLUSIVE: ‘BULLIES’ EXCERPT: HOW THE LEFT CRUCIFIED GEORGE ZIMMERMAN”

Click HERE

According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt act of 1948 and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.

According to this official, “senior public affairs” officers within the Department of Defense want to “get rid” of Smith-Mundt act of 1948 and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Pentagon spends some $4 billion a year to sway public opinion already, and it was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.

In an apparent retaliation to the USA Today investigation, the two reporters working on the story appear to have been targeted by Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.

(In fact, a second amendment to the authorization bill — in reaction to the USA Today report — seeks cuts to the Pentagon’s propaganda budget overseas, while this amendment will make it easier for the propaganda to spread at home.)

SORCE

 

Evolution of Propaganda

Propaganda!  The word has began to take on a new meaning, when the word first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith(Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). Propaganda was then as now about convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given set of ideas.
A Brief History of Propaganda:

Religious propagation

The term ‘propaganda’ first appeared in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for Propagating the Faith (Congregatio de Propaganda Fide).Propaganda was then as now about convincing large numbers of people about the veracity of a given set of ideas.

Of course, propaganda is as old as people, politics and religion. People with ideas will always want to persuade others about them and, if they have the power, they will pull every string they have to persuade everyone.

The notion of propaganda remained one of propagating beliefs and doctrines remained the primary definition until the first world war (1914-18).

Propaganda and war

Wars have always been a good reason to use propaganda, as governments seek to persuade populaces of the justness of their cause as well as hide the horrors and failures of the front line. Misinformation and disinformation are widely used to distract people from the truth and create new realities.

Entry into the first world war was apparently accompanied with many stories of atrocities that were false. Things have not changed and more recent wars have also had more than their fair share of propaganda and false excuses.

One of the basic successful home messages of the war was that everything Germans said was a lie and everything Americans said was the truth. This gave a platform for sustaining faith in ultimate victory and cast Germany as an evil to be destroyed.

In 1933, Hitler realized the potential of propaganda and appointed Joseph Goebbels as Minister for Propaganda. Goebbels was remarkably effective and much of the propaganda literature discusses in detail the methods they used.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard.

The modern world

Propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality (and some theorize about improbable conspiracies), most people are taken in and see nothing of how they are manipulated.

Books such as Bernays’ Propaganda in 1928 still treated it as a force for good and an effective method of mass social persuasion, even though the ethics of its use varied greatly. His book starts with a sentence that would cause much concern today, yet which then seemed practical and acceptable:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society.
The dominant view of the populace then was of an uneducated, ill-informed mass whose views should be directed rather than allow them to think. Thinking on higher matters was really for managers and rulers who could decide what was best for lesser people.

The discipline of public relations (PR) started as a profession after the first world war as the commercial benefits of careful propaganda were realized.   Source:

More and more people are labeling as propaganda any information, or the source of the information, in which they disagree.  Here is an example:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s Supreme Leader, told the IRAN Farsi newspaper of his opinions on Eastwood’s film, which he admitted he has not seen but was informed of the plot by others.
“The movie ‘Sniper’ that is made by Hollywood encourages a Christian or non-Muslim youngster to harass and offend the Muslims as far as they could,” Ali Khamenei told the outlet, according to CBS News.
This is the basic they use for that claim:From Wikipedia
Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or position.
Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented.

Thus any truth uttered by someone or group in which you disagree can be dismissed as propaganda because they only tell the truth to advance their agenda.

Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding a biased approach (“what they do is propaganda, what we do is education”). Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”[4] More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: “Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion.”[5]

The question I put to you is if a white racist group such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, who are an American political organization that supports a large variety of conservative and paleoconservative causes, in addition to white separatism tells a true story about the first slaveholder in America  and other stories about rich black slaveholders in the Antebellum South, is that just propaganda to be discounted as such, or should you consider its ramifications regardless of the source?

In politics the manufacturing of propaganda is now called spinning.  So what is political “spin”? “Spin” is an interpretation of a particular position to garner public support. Sometimes, it relies on the creative interpretation of the facts to move that position forward.  Should all spin be disregarded because it is merely propaganda?
In public relationsspin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often implies disingenuous,deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.
Propaganda is most well known in the form of war posters. But at its core, it is a mode of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position, and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Although propaganda is often used to manipulate human emotions by displaying facts selectively, it can also be very effective at conveying messages and hence can be used in web design, too.

Notice that propaganda uses loaded messages to change the attitude toward the subject in the target audience. When applied to web design, you may experiment with techniques used in propaganda posters and use them creatively to achieve a unique and memorable design.

In this article, we look at various types of propaganda and the people behind it, people who are rarely seen next to their work. You will also see how the drive for propaganda shaped many of the modern art movements we see today. Notice that this post isn’t supposed to be an ultimate showcase of propaganda artists. Something or somebody is missing? Please let us know in the comments to this post!
Advertisers use deceptive propaganda all the time, one of the first use of it changed the perception of American’s to believe that breakfast is the most important meal of the day:
In the 1920s, the Austrian-born Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was approached by the Beech-Nut Packing Company – producers of everything from pork products to the nostalgic Beech-Nut bubble gum. Beech-Nut wanted to increase consumer demand for bacon.  In the video above Edward L. Bernays describes his work with the Beech Nut Packing Company and how bacon and eggs became America’s favorite breakfast.

He turned to his agency’s, the Public Relations Counselor, internal doctor and asked him whether a heavier breakfast might be more beneficial for the American public. Knowing which way his bread was buttered, the doctor confirmed Bernays suspicion and wrote to five thousand of his doctor friends asking them to confirm it as well. This ‘so called study’ of doctors encouraging the American public to eat aheavier breakfast – namely ‘Bacon and Eggs’ – was published in major newspapers and magazines of the time to great success. Beech-Nut’s profits rose sharply thanks to Bernays and his team of medical professionals.

[snip]

Bernays was quite good at using psychology, i.e., brainwashing, to get people to buy a product or an idea. He was hired by the Aluminum Company of America to use the American Dental Association to convince people that water fluoridation was safe and healthy for the public. This allowed them to sell a very toxic by product that was costing them a lot to dispose of and have the cities of the nation dump it for them and pay for the privilege.
Yes your government will lie to you, and then lie about lying, but that isn’t the point, the point is that people are trying to persuade to accept their version of reality, their vision of the future, and many will deceive to persuade you.  Be aware and think things through, just because someone says something is propaganda does not mean the information is not true and worthy of consideration.  The propagandist will do their utmost to come across as most trustworthy, but then so will someone who truly believes what they are preaching.  It is your choice, not theirs.
Published in: on March 2, 2016 at 11:12  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

The Ocean Is Coming For Us, The Global Sea levels Rising Hoax

From the Global Warming Hoax Department:

Here is the spiel :

“The ocean is coming for us. Global sea levels are now rising by 3.4 millimeters per year, up from an average rate of 1.4 mm per year last century. In just 80 years, the ocean could be a full 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) taller than it is today. That kind of planetary sea change can be hard to fathom — unless you live in a low-lying place like Miami, the Maldives or the Marshall Islands, where the effects of sea-level rise are already apparent. But within just a few decades, the problem will become unavoidable in major coastal cities around the world, from New Orleans, New York and Amsterdam to Calcutta, Bangkok and Tokyo. We all know why this is happening. Rising seas are one of the most salient effects of man-made climate change, triggered by thermal expansion of seawater as well as the influx of melting glaciers. Yet many people still see it as a distant risk, failing to grasp how (relatively) quickly the sea is swallowing shores worldwide. And since half of all humans now live within 60 kilometers (37 miles) of a coast, this isn’t a niche issue.”

Now I looked up Fort Lauderdale Sea Level because I lived there in the mid 1960s, that was 52 years back, I still have friends that live there that can attest that the sea level has not climbed since then, consider this, Posted on October 25, 2014, about a year and a half ago, and the level then was the same as it was in 1960, 56 years ago now. if the above assertion were true should we not see some indication of it at Fort Lauderdale, that is an ocean is it not? Is not the Caribbean a global ocean? Or is it immune to the 3.4 millimeters per year global rise?

Propaganda bull shit is what it is. Trump will put an end of all the US Government give to support this Hoax.

Then

screenhunter_4022-oct-25-08-20

Now
ShowImage-id=536&t=635377779220830000
Update 3/24/2016