IMMIGRANT BAN FUROR NOT JUSTIFIED

US ELITES HYSTERICAL OVER LEGAL IMMIGRANT BAN

TRUMP PUTS USA FIRST

JANUARY 31, 2017

"But if any provide not for his own and especially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Timothy 5-8, King James, 1611

Middle Americans appear to be yawning and shrugging their shoulders over the perfectly legitimate Trump immigration ban on seven selected Middle Eastern countries. The torpor and seeming passivity of more than half of the voting public regarding this issue unnerves the chattering mouthpieces for the elites in Washington (As on Morning Joe and CNN), How is it, they ask, that this issue which gets the Hollywood crowd so aroused, Chuck Schumer to weep, our ex-president to shake off his golf-vacation stupor, and the media types to rise to states of violent hysteria, but not a whimper arises from average Joe and Jane of middle America. These folks, according to recent polls, support the President's efforts. That makes the elites, talking heads, and their facilitators on the left uneasy.

What is the answer? Middle-class Americans see the elites in Washington and the coastal fringes as out of touch with real America. The coastal urbanites with their cushy jobs, kids safely enrolled in special schools, secure in their affluent lives behind gated communities, networking with the rich and powerful, have free time, and copious cash on hand to spare. They are more concerned with most-recent haut couture, running shoe styles, home decor, and Starbuck's newest latte-creation than the plight of their own countrymen and women. These "progressive" pour their cash and excess energies into international altruism--mostly for self gratification. While the majority of middle Americans are struggling just to survive. They rightly wonder why the outcry for the Syrians, Afghanistanis, Yemenis and others while the needs and problems right here at home, in the vast "fly over" lands of Middle America are ignored. The "deplorables" can not arouse the sympathy of the establishment and the elites who rally with them. These hard-working, small town folk wonder why the biblical entreaty that charity begins at home (See Timothy 5-8 above) gets such little attention. Yes Chuck Schumer can openly weep for the Syrians but besides mouth service, he gives not a whit for the needs of the Christian, gun toting, hard working"deplorables" who populate great swaths of this nation.

Middle Americans have to worry each day about their lack of decent healthcare, their uncertain or non-existent jobs, the future of their kids in America's faltering educational system and what economic or existential problem the next day will bring. They are concerned with surviving in an America which has cast them on the dung heap. They are happy to have for once, a President who was elected to apply himself FIRST to America's pressing domestic needs and who is actually---and shockingly---doing what he promised to do while campaigning for the job.

America's first priority should be to provide for its "own house"....

NYT OFF RAILS ON LIES, VOTER FRAUD

LIES, UNTRUTHS AND MEDIA BIAS ON VOTER FRAUD

THE GREAT GRAY LADY HAS FALLEN TO THE LEVEL OF THE DAILY NEWS

They inappropriately use the word "lie".

They prefer to ignore evidence which supports Trump's assertion of voter fraud.

The great gray lady of NY (the Times) once the arbiter and paragon of journalistic excellence, good judgement and refined taste has come down a peg since the days I worked in the "Clippings Morgue" where (before digitization and the internet) each day's paper were literally cut and sliced up into individual articles. Devoted "morgue" staff neatly folded, sorted and cross referenced each article before they were catalogued and stored away in rows upon rows of worn and smoke stained wood catalogue drawers. It was interesting work. I got to read a good part of the Times each day, and I met many of the famous columnists of the day as they filed down into the basement of the Times Building to research their stories.

A recent NYT editorial calls the President a "liar" regarding his claim that there may have been voter fraud in the last election which cost Mr. Trump the popular vote. The possibility does seem remote. Mrs. Clinton took the popular vote with about 2.8 million votes. However, there are several studies which do indicate that voter fraud is possible and may have occurred. The existence of these reports SHOULD abrogate the Times' "liar" epithet. In fact some have claimed that as many as 800,000 votes were cast by illegal immigrants. (See Washington Times, R. Scarborough, 1-26-17 "Trump argument bolstered:Clinton could have relieved 800,000 votes from non-citizens.). This assertion is based on Prof. Jesse Richman's work at Old Dominion University, Va which is based on the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. The CCE document is compiled every two years by a consortium of 28 universities which produces a detailed report on voters and their views. Tucked deep inside the lengthy questionnaire is a query on citizen status. A significant number of respondents indicated (anonymously) that they were not citizens when they voted. Richman and his co authors used that information to calculate by extrapolation that in 2008 their data supported the contention that in 2008 an estimated low of 38,000 to a high of 2.8 million non-citizens cast votes illegally. The numbers would be different in 2016.

It is no secret that Democrats have encouraged non-citizens to vote, since they assume that these illegal voters will more likely support them--the Democrats. It is also clear that they dragged their feet on legislation which would get control of our porous southern border. Sanctuary Cities and the Democrats ensconced in mayoralties in those urban areas are openly supported by illegal immigrants. Then there are the statements of President Obama made as he addressed a group of "Dreamers" in which he asserted that since the ballot is secret that there is no way for investigators to find and punish illegal immigrant voters. His statement was interpreted as giving a green light to illegals to vote. Furthermore, the hacked emails of John Podesta published by Wikileaks reveal a message from him directing illegal immigrants to vote. Podesta directed these individuals to get a drivers license and using that document claim citizen status at a polling place.

You will not read such information in The NY Times. Ignoring such evidence suggests their reporting is biased.

In recent times, since the election of 2016, I have wondered what "old timers" at the Times like the late William Safire (who besides his political op ed piece also wrote a column entitled: "On Language" which I avidly read ) would think of the Times' present state of journalistic "excellence". . I am pretty sure I know what he would have thought of Mr. Trump----but would he have called him a "liar"? I think not. He most certainly knew precisely what that word meant and would have had a much wider and more varied and accurate lexicon to call on. Today's NYT is not up to Saffire's standards.

I am fully aware that the gang on the Editorial Page are "out to get" Trump. But should they do it so blatantly and in a manner which drags down the journalistic level of their paper to that of NY Daily News and Inquirer standards?

Let's look at their word usage. They call the President liar. "Lie" implies that the person so impugned made an untrue statement to intentionally mislead or deceive. The "liar" purposely with intention made an untrue statement from which he or she would gain in some manner. The key part of that phrase is "intention". Did Mr. Trump have the intention to deceive? That is of course possible. It is also possible that he actually believes, as do others, that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers. But can the Times editors actually claim that he lied? Not likely! Aren't they exactly in the same boat as Mr. Trump? He is claiming something he can not prove (about voter fraud) and the Times editors are doing exactly the same in claiming they know his personal intentions. They can not prove Mr. Trump's intentions.

They should not use "lie".

GERMANS LIKE FREE LUNCH-- DON'T LIKE TRUMP

IT AIN'T FAIR--WE PAY FOR WORLD DEFENSE-THEY LIVE THE GOOD LIFE WITH FREE LUNCH

Angela Merkel and her government don't like our new President Trump. They decry his assault on the existing world order. (See "Assault on World Order". Der Spiegel On Line, January 22, 20170). Ms Merkel and her government fear his "America First" stance and his warning that the Germans will have to pay more for their NATO membership. They were happy with the old order of things. They do like the secure, affluent lives they lead. The Deutsche folk have set up the EU as their own fiefdom, selling their well-made manufactured goods to the other member states, maintaining high employment, and keeping positive and very profitable trade balances. The Germans have a stable Deutschmark, job-security for their workers, great health care, a top-grade education system, fine roads and infrastructure and they routinely take long vacations abroad to sunny climes. Unlike the USA, they do not have ugly pockets of poverty, rusting factories, out dated mid 20th century infrastructure, and a government squabbling over how to fund a totally inadequate health care system. What they also lack is the burden of paying for their own and the world's defense like we Americans. German citizens fork over about $ 38 billion dollars for defense, (less than one one hundredth of their --$3.8 trillion GDP in 2015) while Americans must put out way over $600 billion dollars (more than three percent of our $18 trillion GDP) or nominally about a fourth of our annual revenue. That fact makes clear why we can not live like they do. The Germans are now anxious that President Trump may change the "established world order" as if that was something that they hold as some sort of a birthright, due to their losing WWII.

The truth is that the Germans take advantage of our nuclear umbrella, and the costly thousands of troops we have stationed in Germany so they can ignore their own defense needs and concentrate their economic efforts on maintaining and expanding their infrastructure and economy and running a trade surplus with the USA each year. While here in America our tax payers foot a "world defense" budget of about 30% of GDP (when we examine all aspects of defense and remove Social Security from the budget) our taxpayers are saddled with the cost of their defense (and other nations ) so they can live the secure, affluent lives they live.

Here in the USA, the vox populi has been heard loud and clear. Mr. Tump has arrived on the scene and the circumstances for Germany and the rest of the world will have to change.

We are done with transferring well paying jobs abroad, we are tired of paying for a level of world defense we can not afford any longer. And it is not fair.

I admire and like Mrs. Merkel and the good, hard working, honest and decent people of Germany. We just can't afford to carry them anymore.

TRUMP ADDRESS-SUNRISE FOR AMERICANS

President Donald Trump's inaugural address was a breath of fresh air and a new sunrise for the "forgotten". Americans. Rather than the "dark tone", and "Midnight in America" as some commenters seem to have sensed in the speech, most working class Americans I spoke with up here in the Green Mountains of VT saw the first glimmer of light and hope--a "sunrise for Americans"-- in the President's blunt but honest address.

After being sworn in, President Trump came to the podium with a grim face. He stated at the outset that his election was a transformational one in which political power would be taken back from the Washington elite and returned to the people. Trump stood only a few feet from the political elites who had control of the government over the last decades but who did little to change it. Instead focusing their energies on self emolument or worse. As he spoke Mr. Trump recited a 'reality list' of dire circumstances that characterize the lives of the working people in much of middle America. He described the "carnage" in our cities, the "rusted out factories" scattered "like tombstones across our great land", the good jobs and wealth stripped from our workers and sent overseas to enrich others. He spoke of the borders we strengthen for foreign states and ignore at home, the decaying communities and school systems, and stagnant or lost income. He made clear that his government would protect American jobs, put the well being of America and Americans over all others, and hew to the policy of "America first".

The well heeled, coiffed and coddled Washington elites were deeply troubled by Trump's plain truth language and realistic imagery of America. "That's not the America I know"----they stated. (Some even compared his" America First" phrase to that of the USA pro-German political activists of the long ago WW II era. That was a stretch. But on MSNBC the shrill Ms Rachel Maddow's raised the "Nazi" epithet. She should be chastised for that shot too far. Maddow and her ilk are simply living too high up in the ivory tower to understand real people.) These wealthy plutocrats, globalists, corporatist, media types and government elites know the economically depressed pockets of pain and joblessness in America's heartland as only a place to "fly over". Their only view of closed factories is the change from vegetation to shadowed hulks of gray and rusted steel seen through the steamed window of a speeding auto.. They have no concept of the devastating abrupt loss of a well-paying job for a family, or the sadness of faltering schools for children, the bleakness of a jobless future, and the hopeless collapse of an entire community when a key factory relocates across the southern border. They have not experienced the sense of deep injustice when well-paying jobs are ripped from a community and with lock, stock and barrel transported to a foreign site, just to increase the stockholder's profits by a few cents a share.

Many or the media commentators and pundits suggest that Trump "lacks empathy" for the foreign born who steal illegally into our nation. But they can not find one iota of empathy for their own countrymen and women (terming them "the deplorables") who suffer grievously at the hands of a government who used them only as a reliable source of votes every four years then callously ignored their plight.

Trump has become a savior to these Americans and they have rallied to his standard. For these millions of Americans, listening to Trump's inaugural address was a "sunrise in America." They know all to well what darkness is.

MR OBAMA RIGHT ON MANNING

MR OBAMA COMMUTES CHELSEA MANNING SENTENCE HE IS RIGHT TO DO SO.

Private Manning was responsible for the release to the public of thousands of pages of secret documents which embarrassed the USA. Many of them exposed the malpractice, cruelty and unprofessionalism of our troops in Iraq, We didn't like what we saw. We like to imagine that we are the "good guys' even when we are not. Manning gave us the truth about our invasion and occupation of Iraq, He was an heroic whistleblower to do it. I don't know many individuals who would have the courage to do what he (and later ) she did.

Manning did not create or edit the tapes, emails and other documents he released. The embassasment was only a function of the truth. If we object lets do something about it. P erhaps if we are so very unhappy with what Manning released...we should revise our foreign policy, strengthen the training regemin of or troops and increase their awareness of the rules of combat.

Manning suffered greatly at the hands of the military, kept in isolation, treated harshly and he served seven years. The President thought it was enough. I agree.

MISGUIDED INAUGURATION BOYCOTTERS

About fifty democrats are boycotting the 2016 inauguration ceremony of President Trump. They will not be missed--the event will go forward without them, but they do the nation, their constituents, and US democracy a disservice. Their action reveals more about them and their supporters and facilitators than about the man whom they claim is not their "legitimate president". The boycott reveals the democrats as a demoralized and weakened polity that they can not even function de mimimis as a loyal and necessary opposition.

The inauguration is a celebration of the underlying principle of our democracy. The ancient principle that the people have the power to elect their leaders. There is no elite royalty in our nation---we decided on that more than two hundred-twenty-five-years ago when we broke our ties with the British monarchy. The power to lead arises not from a godhead but from the people. John Locke (1532-1704) the British philosopher stated that there was no "Devine right". The governed are the source of power." The people decide The last election was decided fair and square--by the people. The people chose Mr. Trump over Mrs Clinton to be our next President.

A small group of disgruntled and misguided Democrats who pledged to honor the will of the people (who elected them) will self-righteously ignore their sworn duty and boycott the very function which underscores the basis of our democratic Republic. The installation of the President is the day this man or woman is consecrated (by augury and omens) as our leader is the day in which the collective members of our representative government come together to remind the nation and world that the people's choice will be made manifest in peace and comity.

There remains after that day a full four year period to fight and bicker about policies and issues. The nation and the world-looking-on is done a great disservice by these elected officials since they bring into question the basis of our democracy. That is the primacy of the people's will. These misguided individuals sadly question and weaken that concept....perhaps to their own detriment in the future.

President Obama had a chance to speak our about this issue.....he claims to be much concerned about "democracy", but when he had a chance to chastise the boycotters, in his last press conference (today) he chose only to state..."I will be there".

MERYL STREEP: DISRESPECTS THE NATION

Meryl Streep teed off on Donnald Trump last night as she accepted the Cecil B. DeMille Award For "contributions to the world of entertainment". ( It is ironic that DeMille was a lifelong deeply conservative Republican who may have well supported Mr. Trump.) She is well deserving of that award. She is an entertainer par excellence. But with no special knowledge of government, economics, politics or world affairs. During the ceremony Ms. Streep gratuitously attacked president-elect Donald Trump, who will assume the office within a few short days. In the opinion of this author she stepped over the line between useful partisanship and disrespect for our nation and our institutions.

Ms Meryl Streep is a wonderfully talented and accomplished actress....certainly one of the finest of our generation. But her accomplishments on the stage and screen in which she simply memorizes and mouths the words of others does nothing to give us any confidence that she has any special knowledge or insight in excess of any other moderately-well-informed American citizen. Howeever, her great talent as an entertainer does provides her with a national and world wide forum to express her personal opinions...but with it should also come a sense of responsibility and respect to the nation and its institutions which nurtured her and her talent. I know foresters, ranchers, farmers and construction workers who have great insight and judgement and enormous practical experience in business and life...from whom we may all may learn something. They have only one vote each---which many of them cast for Mr Trump. So her notoriety and popularity as an entertainer should not give her license to gratuitously denigrate the peoples's choice and in doing so sully the nation and the institutions which operated to elect Mr. Trump.

The election is over. The time for ad hominem attacks on the candidates has ended. The people have made their decision. Donald J. Trump will be our president. It is time to end the personal attacks and begin a period of healing. Perhaps prior to the election Ms. Streep's comments could be excused. Now that the people have spoken...her remarks have no purpose or function. Ms Streep's comments only serve to further divide the nation at a time when we are facing grave domestic, economic and foreign threats.

The election is over. Time to remember we are all citizens of this great nation.

IN DEFENSE OF MR. ASSANGE

WHAT WOULD THOMSAS JEFFERSON THINK?

"The most effectual means of preventing the [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate as far as practicable the minds of the people at large and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits ..to know ambition under all its shapes (that) they may be enabled....to defeat its purposes (tyrannny)." Thomas Jefferson 1779, Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, FE 2:221, Papers 2:526 <br/>

The main-stream media have been awash with the big question of the day.."Did the Russians hack into the Democratic National Committee, and did the release of the information effect the outcome of the 2016 election?" The Democrats, as well as their allies within the establishment, the government, the intelligence agencies, and even some elements of the GOP are adamant that the "Russians did it". Others see this as a clear example of the politicization of intelligence analysis, and an obvious and clear attempt to delegitimize the presidency of Mr. Trump. These latter elements are skeptical and rightly so.

The controversy has engulfed the editor of Wikileaks, Mr. Julian Assange who was responsible for publishing the leaked emails. He suffered at the hands of the mainstream media--being cast as a criminal, terrorists and spy. Assange is a native of Australia, a computer programmer, publisher, journalist, and editor-n-chief of Wikileaks. He is the recipient of several prestigious journalism awards. Wikileaks was founded in 2006 but became prominent in 2010 when it published the Chelsea Manning "Collateral Murder" videotapes, and subsequently the "Afghanistan War Logs", "Iraq War Logs", and "Cable Gate". All were embarrassing to the USA and revealed the unpalatable nature of our war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, Wikileaks published leaks of the DNC emails, and John Podesta emails which brought Wikileaks and Assange into conflict with the Democrats and the powerful Clinton organization. The Clintons and Democrats have attempted to explain their disastrous, unexpected, (say shocking) loss to novice candidate Trump as a result of leaked information which they attribute to Russian sources. (One bit of evidence of a Russian source is that the data may have been typed on a computer using the Cyrillic alphabet--used by Russian and at least ten other nations as well. Though I suspect this should point the finger elsewhere. Would the Russians be stupid enough to actually leave such evidence behind? More likely a false flag operation.)

Mr. Assange's bad press initiated soon after Mr. Trump quoted him in a tweet (January 4, 2016). The President elect noted that Assange's statement cleared the Russians did not supply him (Mr. Assange) with the hacked emails. These are those from Mr. John. Podesta, manager of the Hillary Clinton campaign. These revelations are universally thought to have helped to elucidate the electorate regarding some of the corrupt, unethical and biased practices used by the Clinton presidential campaign, and may have had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election.

Mr. Assange has been a target of the US government since 2010, when the Chelsea Manning tapes were released. A key element of his troubles have been a sexual assault allegation, arising after a visit by Assange to Sweden. The incident was adjudicated and dismissed by the Swedish government in August 2010, and Assange left that nation without incident. However, after the release of the Manning tapes by Wikileaks, in January 2010 Sweden, at the behest of the USA, re-opened the case and empowered a special prosecutor to "question Assange over two counts of sexual molestation". Assange who was at the time in the UK, agreed to an interview in London. But the prosecutor required Assange to return to Sweden for this purpose. Assange, fearful of being turned over to the Americans in Sweden resisted. A warrant for his arrest was issued and he was incarcerated in London and held in isolation for several days. Released on bail in that city and fearing a return to Sweden would result in his being extradited to the USA where he was facing charges of espionage and 45 years in prison, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy and has remained there ever since. Meanwhile the statute of limitations on the Swedish criminal allegations expired in August of 2015 and those on the second charge will end in 2020. The case is a classic of what happens to a whistleblower when they make enemies of a powerful and vengeful government, that is determined to prevent further revelations of its secret and perhaps illegal actions to the public which it serves.

The media, a central part of the Washington group think scheme is well-versed in undermining the legitimacy, honesty and integrity of any whistleblower. They went at it with gusto in attacking Mr. Assange who has after all only been a conduit of information which has educated the citizenry concerning the behavior of its government. Assange's legal case has been misrepresented, he has been charged with "stealing" information, and has been indicted for espionage. In point of fact he has done nothing different than what the Washington Post did when they published the Deep Throat papers which exposed the Watergate scandal and brought down President Nixon. Whistleblower Mark Felt was the source of the information, the Washington Post revealed it to the public as a service to our nation. The Post and their writers were awarded a Nobel Prize for their efforts. Assange on the other hand has been in virtual prison for six years and will probably have to remain there until 2020 when the UK will no longer have a reason to extradite him to Sweden---to face trumped up charges.

One of our most illustrious founding fathers, Mr. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our Third President, understood the need, indeed the requirement for the education of the electorate. Today in defense of the release of the Wikileaks documents Jefferson may have stated that : An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. Julian Assange was instrumental in advancing those very goals.

There are numerous quotes of Jefferson's thinking on this matter. I pass on the following to my readers:: "The most effectual means of preventing the [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate as far as practicable the minds of the people at large and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits ..to know ambition under all its shapes (that) they may be enabled....to defeat its purposes." Thomas Jefferson 1779, Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, FE 2:221, Papers 2:526

What after all did Assange do but help to "illuminate" the people to give them knowledge to be able to exercise oversight? Mr. Assange is only the conduit of that information.

TRUMP RAISES QUESTIONS--IS SKEPTICAL--ITS EXHILERATING

IS'NT IT REFRESHING TO HAVE A PRESIDENT (ELECT) WHO IS ATTEMPTING TO BUILD BRIDGES RATHER THAN BOMB BRIDGES.

Mr. Trump seems determined to buck President Obama, the chicken hawk GOP, other Republicans, the Democrats and the entire Congress as well as the print and electronic media in attempting to find common ground with Mr. Putin, rather than stirring up a phony causus belli. Trump's behavior is positively "unAmerican" according to some! The typical US politician left or right is almost always ready to stir up a fight to the death at the drop of a coin....as long as he or she can stay safely inside the Beltway in Washington. Oh, they'll send you or your kids off to some bomb scarred, bullet pocked, war-torn place to shed your blood or leave behind a limb or two---to maintain the honor of the nation, so they claim. But do not expect them or any of their progeny to share your military C rations. So its pleasant to find the new president on a different course..a course

Mr. Trump, perhaps is a real tough guy, and need not play-act at the part. Let's hope so.

ISN'T IT REFRESHING TO HAVE A PRESIDENT ELECT WHO STANDS ALOOF FROM "WASHINGTON GROUP THINK". IS SKEPTICAL OF INTEL COMMUNITY.

Mr Trump is skeptical of the nation's intelligence agencies. The Washington establishment is aghast. The denizens of the nation's capital (with very few exceptions) are subject to "group think" in which an idea, opinion, concept or policy becomes dogma which is then repeated as the creed or gospel of the group. Anyone expressing doubt or incredulity is attacked as an apostate.

So let's recall that our intel agencies have not been infallible...far from it. There have been many failures. Among the many blunders: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Collapse of the USSR, India's Nuclear Tests, the tragic 9-11 attacks, and the most egregious and damming error which gave rise to the most calamitous and far reaching foreign policy blunder in American history---the Iraq war----based on the false claim of WMD in Iraq.

Mr. Trump's skepticism, doubt, wariness is warranted and is a refreshing change from the past.