Tag: Politics

Biden’s 1st week quite a show

Biden’s first 12 days has been quite a show.

Thomas Jefferson said that “people get the government they deserve,” Benjamin Franklin stated, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

If you’re a leftist such as Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, you welcome this importation of socialist-minded voters. If Lady Macbeth is her party’s nominee, California will be a lock, and if the whole nation looked like the Golden State… well, her biggest worry would be competition from the left.

As for those welcoming this cultural suicide, they will learn the hard way that one must be careful what he wishes for; you see, by and large, they know not what they sow.

A Political Parable

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

The Rebirth of Reason
Dinner at the White House – a parable
by Richard Gleaves

Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There’s nothing that the government can do to me if I’ve broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.

“Sorry about that,” said the President. “Andrew is very hungry.”

“I don’t appreciate…” I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. “Of course,” I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.

“And his brother Eric is very thirsty.” said the President.

I didn’t say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don’t want to seem unkind.

My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.

“Eric’s children are also quite hungry.”

With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

“And their grandmother can’t stand for long.”

I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.

“Their grandfather doesn’t like the cold.”

I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn’t moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

“Andrew’s whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven’t planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do.”

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

“By the way,” He added, “I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I’m firing you as head of your business. I’ll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There’s a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can’t come to you for jobs groveling like beggars.”

I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.

What had I done wrong?

As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

“You should have stopped me at the dinner roll,” he said.

Return of the tribe

if we are in no position to judge others, we are in no position to protect or save others either.

What is happening in our country today… feels a lot like The Return of the Tribe.To make that observation, is not to mindlessly denigrate a basic form of human social organization. There is a sense in which we are all tribal. Certainly our ancestors were.

In many pre-urban environments, the tribe is a superior survival mechanism.But the tribe is a harsh mistress. It brooks no infraction. In return for 100 percent loyalty and obedience, it grants 100 percent protection and affirmation.Most of the nations that exist in the modern world are aggregations of related tribal groups.

But the American nation was something new.Though it was culturally English, it was a nation created deliberately and from scratch… with agonizingly detailed and informed self-awareness. It aspired to learn from the past every learn-able lesson in how to maintain that delicate balance between freedom and order that enables a nation to keep moving forward, yet remain civilized and stable. There had never been anything like it.

Nearly every nation that has come into being since, has been modeled upon it.Fast-forward to the twentieth century.

In the latter half of that century, the American professional class moved in the direction of eschewing not only “tribal” identities, but all other forms of less-than-universal identity as well: family, faith, neighborhood, even nation.What could take their place?

Well, how about “human being?” For a brief, shining moment in modern history, the ideal of “human rights” did seem to be an ideal that was well understood, and sincerely aspired to, by many people. Most Americans did not see that as conflicting with their national identity, because they truly believed (with some cause) that the shape of the government they had created… provided a sound structural foundation for the protection of human rights.

But gradually, American education was infiltrated by the toxic doctrine of “cultural relativism” according to which American belief in its own carefully– even painfully– wrought institutions, was seen as just another chauvinistic conceit. After all, who were we to judge others?!

The problem with that was– and is– that, if we are in no position to judge others, we are in no position to protect or save others either.

For a while, World War II knocked relativism out of the cultural ring, but it kept creeping back. By the 1960s, it dominated academic discourse and was reflected in most high-school textbooks.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party of the USA was re-shaped by something known as Identity Politics. Identity Politics and Relativism eventually made a marriage of convenience that would sound the death-knell for human rights… though “human rights” continued to be solemnly invoked when convenient, and ignored when inconvenient. (Kinda like that thing called “democracy.” )

Roe v. Wade in 1972 was a stunning slap in the face for human rights. Soon, we were well and truly rolling rapidly down a cultural“slippery slope.” That much-mocked slippery slope turned out to be all too real, greased as it was by pride and greed.

Both of America’s two great political parties practiced hypocrisy regarding human rights, both internally and internationally. Because upholding human rights sometimes made their wealth portfolios skinnier. And when they had to choose between their ideals and their portfolios, they often chose their portfolios. Thus, many members of both parties won a sort of human-rights booby prize in that regard.

Rules For Radicals-Part 1

Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant.

Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant.

To understand his mind better, we only need to go to the dedication of his book rules for radicals. “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom” – Lucifer.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the Chuck Schumer on down is playing by his rules in the political arena. Not all liberals have read his book or know his name, but his tactics have become universal.

Sadly, for conservatives, when two evenly matched forces go head-to-head outside of a fairy tale, the side that tries to play nice usually ends up with its head handed to it.

So, don’t lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.

When we take a look at events of today unfolding in our political and social world, we see that Alinsky’s “13 Rules for Radicals” are being fully played out. Perhaps it is time to understand Alinsky’s “rules” and co-opt them to use against the Democrats, AntiFa, BLM and all others who would destroy our Republic.

In this series I will take a look at Alinsky’s 13 rules point by point, remembering that Hillary Clinton herself wrote her senior college thesis on this book.

In any tactical scenario, knowing the oppositions moves and methods beforehand gives an unprecedented advantage. The methods and simple rules found in Alinsky’s playbook have been the force behind progressive leftist politics and their media cohorts for the last 50 years.

Let us begin to take a look at Alinsky’s 13 Rules for Radicals with examples of each behavior now being played out.

  1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources-money and people. “Have-nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Ever since Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, she and the Democrats have attempted to undermine the president’s agenda while their allies in the mainstream media have put out slanted and outright false stories.

  • “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear, and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

President Trump has successfully used a type of verbal jujitsu to diminish and in many cases eradicate the believability of the Democrat leaders. The same tactics used by the president’s press secretary against the mainstream media propaganda merchants has taken away much of their believability.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity anxiety and uncertainty.

President Trump and his surrogates has successfully turned Saul Alinsky’s rules against the Democrats and their mainstream media allies and while they continue to attempt to thwart him and his America-1st agenda, he and his surrogates continually throw their own tactics back in their faces. This is caused frustration and anxiety in the deep state and their media allies.

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

For a number of years, the Democrats have been successful in “making their enemies live up to their own book of rules”. Apparently, President Trump has also read Alinsky’s book and has continued forcing the Democrats to live up to their own set of rules, fighting fire with fire.

“Rules for Radicals” is considered the Bible for the left, the Democrat party playbook. Barack Obama is a disciple of this guide for community organizing. The reality is that the rules are applicable to any political cause or movement, not just one on the left side of the political spectrum.

The rules can easily be used by conservatives and libertarians to. In Alinsky’s own words, “in this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.” The time has come to fight fire with fire.

In tomorrow’s post I will continue shining light into the dark corners of “Rules for Radicals”, pointing out more ways that these principles can be used in the fight against those who would change our Republic into a tyranny of the elite.

Fearmongering and loss of liberty

I see the need to a degree of shuttering businesses to slow down its progression, but stripping rights or even suspending them is a bit more nuanced as I said previously. Not everyone will win.

Many are talking about our rights being taken away during the Coronavirus pandemic. People on YouTube talking about how the government is suspending rights due to Coronavirus.

On the flip side, President Trump is barely using his authority. He seems to be scupulously following Constitutional principles.

There are several threads on FaceBook this topic, and I try to see it both ways.

Let’s be honest, people are acting like idiots with this outbreak. That goes across the board from government officials down to the everyday person.

There’s a disease. People can have it before showing symptoms, and spread it before showing symptoms. It’s about protecting people from other people who might be endangering their lives. If most people would do this naturally, this wouldn’t be handled by the government. There wouldn’t be a quarantine enforced or mandated, people would quarantine themselves to protect themselves and their community.

A virus doesn’t care that you have your rights during those days you’re coughing on people not yet knowing you’re sick. It thrives on it even.

BUT, care must indeed be taken about overreach. The way our society works just handles diseases very poorly.

It shows the flat-footedness of our society today and how people are reacting to the situation.
It shows that our general misunderstanding of the delicate balance between common good and constitutional rights is such a tiny razor’s edge.

The rights argument is obvious.

Industrious demi-tyrants will obviously take advantage of the situation to further their political agenda. There are literally thousands of examples of this over the past few weeks. The governors of Virginia and Illinois and the mayor of Chicago for example.

The “common good” argument however is also valid in many respects because when does it become too painful to protect liberties over common good?

The reality is far more nuanced that what one can figure. The education level of the founders of this nation is obviously far higher than many of the modern politicos and media talking heads.

But the stern truth is, that if the common good (and here we are talking a real and measurable threat) may, because of its mechanisms not be respond-able to our liberties in the traditional sense nor the protections traditionally used.

We have to create guards of liberty in such times and hold accountable the politicians and others who abuse them.

I see the need to a degree of shuttering businesses to slow down its progression, but stripping rights or even suspending them is a bit more nuanced as I said previously. Not everyone will win.

But a check valve and the rights of the individual to fight government overreach should be and should have been in place and institutionalized long before the current crop of singing and fiddling morons took the helm.

THAT was the purpose of the 2A. It is such times as now that we must be vigilant and keep the politicians and other idiots in check.

Fearmongering and the loss of liberty

I see the need to a degree of shuttering businesses to slow down its progression, but stripping rights or even suspending them is a bit more nuanced as I said previously. Not everyone will win.

Many are talking about our rights being taken away during the Coronavirus pandemic. People on YouTube talking about how the government is suspending rights due to Coronavirus.

On the flip side, President Trump is barely using his authority. He seems to be scupulously following Constitutional principles.

There are several threads on FaceBook this topic, and I try to see it both ways.

Let’s be honest, people are acting like idiots with this outbreak. That goes across the board from government officials down to the everyday person.

There’s a disease. People can have it before showing symptoms, and spread it before showing symptoms. It’s about protecting people from other people who might be endangering their lives. If most people would do this naturally, this wouldn’t be handled by the government. There wouldn’t be a quarantine enforced or mandated, people would quarantine themselves to protect themselves and their community.

A virus doesn’t care that you have your rights during those days you’re coughing on people not yet knowing you’re sick. It thrives on it even.

BUT, care must indeed be taken about overreach. The way our society works just handles diseases very poorly.

It shows the flat-footedness of our society today and how people are reacting to the situation.
It shows that our general misunderstanding of the delicate balance between common good and constitutional rights is such a tiny razor’s edge.

The rights argument is obvious.

Industrious demi-tyrants will obviously take advantage of the situation to further their political agenda. There are literally thousands of examples of this over the past few weeks. The governors of Virginia and Illinois and the mayor of Chicago for example.

The “common good” argument however is also valid in many respects because when does it become too painful to protect liberties over common good?

The reality is far more nuanced that what one can figure. The education level of the founders of this nation is obviously far higher than many of the modern politicos and media talking heads.

But the stern truth is, that if the common good (and here we are talking a real and measurable threat) may, because of its mechanisms not be respond-able to our liberties in the traditional sense nor the protections traditionally used.

We have to create guards of liberty in such times and hold accountable the politicians and others who abuse them.

I see the need to a degree of shuttering businesses to slow down its progression, but stripping rights or even suspending them is a bit more nuanced as I said previously. Not everyone will win.

But a check valve and the rights of the individual to fight government overreach should be and should have been in place and institutionalized long before the current crop of singing and fiddling morons took the helm.

THAT was the purpose of the 2A. It is such times as now that we must be vigilant and keep the politicians and other idiots in check.

Is former President Obama nervous?

In 2011, Blagojevich was sentenced to 11 years in prison on corruption charges. Of course, he wanted a pardon from Obama, but never got one.

Ever since President Trump commuted the sentence of disgraced former governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich, I’ve been asking myself why he would do such a thing. I have a theory about what might have contributed to the decision, and if I’m right, Barack Obama should be concerned.

When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, it was then-Governor Blagojevich’s responsibility to appoint someone to fill the seat. But, Blagojevich didn’t just want to give it away, he wanted something for it. “A Senate seat is a f—ing golden thing. You don’t just give it away for nothing,” Blagojevich said at the time.

In 2011, Blagojevich was sentenced to 11 years in prison on corruption charges. Of course, he wanted a pardon from Obama, but never got one. That had to be tough for the disgraced governor, considering Obama granted clemency to terrorists and traitors, but couldn’t (or wouldn’t) give one to a former political ally.

This naturally should have people asking: Why?

In my opinion, it all comes back to Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Obama’s former Senate seat. Soon after Obama’s victory, negotiations began for Blagojevich to appoint an Obama-approved candidate to fill his seat. Obama even provided a list of suitable candidates. At the top of the list was Valerie Jarrett. But, as previously mentioned, Blagojevich didn’t just want to give away the seat to someone. He wanted something in return: a position in Obama’s cabinet. Unfortunately for him, at the time, he was politically unpopular and the target of a federal corruption probe, and being wiretapped by the FBI. The chances of him getting picked for a cabinet position were slim. Jarrett also eventually decided to follow Obama to the White House as an advisor.

When the Senate-seat-for-sale scandal broke, Obama denied having any contact with the governor about his Senate seat, and his transition team conducted an internal investigation, which obviously cleared him of violating any laws–because what other conclusion would the Obama transition team come to? However, the criminal complaint and sworn testimony during Blagojevich’s trial contradicted Obama’s statements, as did media reports at the time. Obama advisor David Axelrod also accidentally revealed that Obama spoke directly with Blagojevich about the Senate seat–though he later claimed he misspoke.

Blagojevich even wanted Obama subpoenaed to testify in his trial. One government witness in the trial testified that Obama sent intermediaries to negotiate on his behalf about who should be named to fill his former seat–directly contradicting Obama White House claims to the contrary.

Now that Blagojevich is a free man, slighted by Obama but ingratiated by Trump, it could mean that he’ll be willing to talk more freely about Obama’s illegal actions in the Senate-seat-for-sale scandal. I’d love to see that happen. That scandal was one of many that Obama was never held accountable for.

Who is that lady?

While Roberts is tasked with overseeing the proceedings from the Senate’s most prominent chair, it will be MacDonough hovering, omnipresent but essentially unseen, in the corner of the frame, offering guidance the entire time.

With the trail phase of the impeachment of President Trump about to begin there is a prominent, if currently unknown player about to take center stage. Her name is Elizabeth MacDonough and she is the Parliamentarian of the US Senate.

She and her aides have to advise Chief Justice John Roberts on how to run that trial and address a slew of arcane procedural questions that few — if any — had ever been asked. Their answers will influence how the historic event unfolds.

While Roberts is tasked with overseeing the proceedings from the Senate’s most prominent chair, it will be MacDonough hovering, omnipresent but essentially unseen, in the corner of the frame, offering guidance the entire time.

She and her team will be tasked with delivering to Roberts the daily program that he’ll use to guide the proceedings.

She will also be the one helping Roberts keep track of the clock as he calls on the people with assigned speaking roles — Trump’s White House and personal attorneys, Senate leaders and the House impeachment managers who will present the case for the Democrats.

Perhaps most importantly, though, MacDonough will be the one who must give the chief justice instant advice should he need to make any snap rulings or decisions that could influence the trajectory of the trial.

A powerful position filled by a career government employee.

Virginia Cop warns elected gun grabbers; “Your mindset is exactly what caused the civil war 150 years ago.”

“The legal precedent we would set by allowing the legislature to selectively ignore enumerated rights at will is the same mindset that 150 years ago let this country into a civil war.”

With the increasingly volatile situation in Virginia regarding numerous gun control proposals incoming Democrats have been floating since they won control of all lawmaking institutions in November.

While it’s not clear yet what specific proposals are going to be offered, one thing is certain: Virginia Democrats are making it clear that any effort to oppose any new laws won’t be tolerated.

Specifically, “Second Amendment sanctuaries” — now covering nearly 80 percent of the state — won’t be honored, and anyone who attempts to defy their Left-wing masters in Richmond will face legal consequences.

Last month, a reserve Marine Corps officer and cop addressed Democrat arrogance on the issue of guns and even claimed that it could lead to a second civil war because their “mindset” is exactly the same as it was in the 1860s.

At a Dec. 3 meeting of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, U.S. Marine Corps Reservist Maj. Ben Joseph Woods addressed the board and admonished Commonwealth of Virginia lawmakers for their plans to pass sweeping gun laws after they gain the majority next week … 

As Maj. Woods addressed the meeting, he spoke of his time in the military and federal law enforcement and what he feared politicians were doing to the state:

“I’m not going to address the bills themselves. What I would like to address is the fact that at this point, so many people believe that these are unconstitutional or draconian that as of last night, 30 counties in this state which have voted themselves…to be Second Amendment sanctuary counties.

The ugly truth of our situation is that is just scratching the surface of what is happening…I work plainclothes law enforcement…I walk around without a uniform, people don’t see my badge, people don’t see my gun, and I can tell you: People are angry.

And I am frightened to the point that I am looking at moving my wife and child…out of this state if these bills pass. The reason is because my fellow law enforcement officers…Tell me that they would not enforce these bills regardless of whether they believe in them ideologically because they believe that there are so many people angry in gun shops, gun shows, at bars, we have heard it now, people talking about tar and feathering politicians in a less than joking manner…

That is a terrifying prospect and I have never seen people willing to speak about something like that publicly…As a law enforcement officer, I empathize with concerns people have over gun violence.”

When asked to sum up, Maj. Woods concluded with this warning:

“The legal precedent we would set by allowing the legislature to selectively ignore enumerated rights at will is the same mindset that 150 years ago let this country into a civil war.”

It’s not clear if he believes that Democrats in the South were responsible for the Civil War via secession over the institution of slavery or if he’s implying something else. But to hear a veteran military officer and cop say something like this is chilling.

Incoming majority Democrats have been floating one new gun control bill after another — a “red flag” law that destroys the Fifth Amendment’s “due process” clause; bans on entire classes of semi-automatic rifles; magazine bans; even a gun confiscation measure.

Democrats have claimed that they have been given a “mandate” from voters in the state because they happened to have captured a majority of seats in the Assembly and Senate, as well as owning the governor’s mansion.

But if that were true, then how come more than 110 cities and (a majority of) counties around the state have declared themselves to be “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” pledging not to help state authorities enforce any new gun control laws like “sanctuary cities” in the state refuse to help federal officials enforce immigration laws?

It just feels like this issue is going to come down to who blinks first or, if no one does, someone will miscalculate. And our money is on state Democrats who are arrogantly dismissing two-thirds of their state with new gun law proposals.

5,000+ Quarantined by ICE for exposure to diseases.

A total of 5,200 detainees have been quarantined, including 4,200 are for exposure to mumps and 800 who were exposed to chicken pox and 100 have been exposed to both, the agency said.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that more than 5,000 migrants exposed to infectious diseases have been placed in quarantine. The agency said there have been cases of either mumps or chicken pox in 39 different detention centers.

“The preponderance of evidence points to the major influx at our Southwest border being, at minimum, a significant contributing factor of these occurrences,” Nathalie Asher, executive associate director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, said in a statement.

A total of 5,200 detainees have been quarantined, including 4,200 are for exposure to mumps and 800 who were exposed to chicken pox and 100 have been exposed to both, the agency said.

Last week President Trump announced a deal with Mexico to help curb the number of Central Americans coming through Mexico to request asylum in the U.S. On Friday, the Mexican government released the details of a “side deal” made with Trump that includes some additional measures.

The supplementary agreement signed June 7 between the two countries shows that Mexico will require migrants fleeing their homelands through Mexico to seek asylum there. Mexico agreed to examine domestic laws and regulations to identify necessary changes to implement the side agreement.

The provisions included in the side agreement released Friday call for “burden-sharing and the assignment of responsibility for processing refugee claims” from migrants, part of a regional approach to tackling a rise in Central American migration to the U.S.

Mexico has long opposed any calls to designate itself as a “safe third country,” saying it lacks the necessary resources.

The agreement also includes a remedy if the actions by Mexico do not reduce the flow of migrants to the U.S. border.

Under the terms of the side agreement, if the U.S. determines “at its discretion and after consultation with Mexico” after 45 days that the measures adopted by Mexico haven’t sufficiently achieved results in addressing the flow of migrants to the U.S. southern border, “Mexico will take all necessary steps under domestic law to bring the agreement into force.”

Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard has said he expects the measures the government is taking to curb the flow of migrants, including the deployment of the newly formed National Guard to Mexico’s border with Guatemala, will be successful.

“This isn’t just a Mexican issue, not just an issue for El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, it’s one of the biggest migration flows in the world,” he said on Friday.

Isn’t that special? We’re importing disease.