ON GENDER, FREE SPEECH, 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND GENDER BENDER BLUNDERS

First Amendment: US Constitution  “Congress shall make no law........ abridging the freedom of speech......and more.   

Thought police gone wild in UK where speech is not free. 

The UK has no right to free speech as is guaranteed in our First Amendment. The only protections for free speech are found in the Human Rights Act (HRA) of the EU which was incorporated into English law in 1998.   But that legislation (based on the input of 28 diverese nations) has so many exceptions —too many to name here—that the HRA is essentially meaningless to protect free speech and meaningful debate on issues of policy.  If citizens are denied a forum how can debate and thought and policy evolve?   Sadly Wikipedia notes that in In 2017 there were nine people per day arrested in th UK for speech violations —with most of them leading to conviction.  

With those ideas as preamble, lets turn to an article in the UK Guardian (theguardian.com) concerning  Ms Maya Forstater, a British subject and tax expert who was until recently,  visiting fellow at the Center For Global Development (CGD), a London “think tank”. Ms Forstater was fired from her position based on statements she made about transgender issues on social media.  Forstater is a feminist who believes—-like most biologists— that gender is immutable and that sex is binary-male and female.  Sex is not determined by how you were raised—but is a biological imperative..like rising CO2 levels, climate change. evolution and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  Ms Forstater  stated on social media that “men cannot change into women.”  She was fired from her position by CGD for that statement. 

Ms Forstater proceeded to seek redress In a subsequent court case against the CGD for terminating her.  In that case the presiding judge,  James Tayler ruled against her.   Judge Tayler in a 26 page document,  termed her statements were “absolutist”, not protected as a philosophical belief, were offensive and exclusionary, and  that her statements created an hostile and intimidating environment, and her (statements) were not worthy of respect in a democratic society.  This author is of the opinion that the response for simply stating the obvious biological fact that “men cannot change into (real) women” was way out of line.  And deserves further  adjudication perhaps in a higher court.  To an American—protected by our First Amendment it seems contrary to our democratic norms.  

So that’s how poorly free speech is unprotected in the UK.  Apparently the thought police are actively controlling what a citizen can say and think in the UK  How disgraceful. 

As any high school biology teacher can explain. Physical sex or gender is not a choice.   It is determined at conception.  You are either xx (female) and xy (male).  Every single cell in a human  body is determined.  Remove an epithelial cell from the inner surface of the cheek of anyone and you can without looking any further, determine if that individual is  male or female.  That one epithelial cell would tell you. 

Females have ovaries which generate hormones which control subcutaneous fat distribution, development of mammaries,  emotions, sex drive,  skeletal pattern, the unique way the female pelvic girdle is designed to facilitate child birth, as well as that unique monthly cycle.  Even long after death a forensic pathologist can determine from muscle attachment scars and other indices such as  the structure  of the pelvic girdle (and many other bones)  if an individual was a  male or female. A male skeleton—even wimpy males—will be strikingly different than that of a female.  Males do not have ovaries or a uterus and no surgeon can generate such organs for transgenders .  Males can not bear children. These transgender —gender bender folks—are sadly only transvestites taken to the extreme as a result of exaggerated plastic surgery.        

Yes some disreputable surgeons and physicians (who ignore their Hippocratic Oath—“to do no harm”-) will dose a male (or female) with massive hormones which can mimic those of the female.  (These expensive procedures  have to be continued for life).  The body will respond to these chemicals.  But the results are only superficial.  The person who undergoes this treatment begins to take on the “appearance” of a female, such as changes in subcutaneous fat distribution, suppression of facial hair, and development of mammary glands, but the individual continues to have the genitalia of a male.  Additional surgery (more irresponsible physicians) can alter these genitalia by removal (or additions in a female) but they are not functional as in a “real”, natural, whole, xx chromosome—woman (or xy man).  

So the thought police in the UK are active in response to those who would deny biology and the biological imperative of sex determinism and absolutism.  Yes I am absolutely sure that the Sun—not the Earth is the center of the Solar system—and that males cannot be made into females.  The rest of us must resist such stupidity and abiological extremism.

The author J. K. Rowling jumped into the fray in London tweeting the following: 

“Dress however you please.

Call yourself whatever you like.

Sleep with any consenting adult that will have you.

Live your best life in peace and security.

But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”

I might add —don’t try to undermine the imperatives of science...don’t slap Mother Nature in the face —-we do so at the peril of survival of the human race.

ON TYRANNY AND 63 MILLION VS 66 MILLION

Today December 20, 2019, in a NYT Opinion piece entitled: The Tyranny of the 63 million, by Michele Goldberg berates the Republicans who have “fetishized” the 63 million votes cast by Trump supporters in the 2016 election.  What seems to stick in her craw beside her rabid  hatred for Trump and “old white men” and the “structure of the American democracy which gives disportioncate power to a declining demographic” old white guys —is the fact that the old white guys  refer to the 63 million as “the people”.   The Times’ rabid,  man-hating author object to the idea these are the voters who would in effect suffer disenfranchisement as a result of the Democrat hysterical rage, impotence  and low progesterone driven drive for “impeachment”.  Goldberg reminds the reader  that Clinton won far more votes—almost 66 million vs Trump’s 63 million as if she deserved to win and did not. 

But what Ms Goldberg does is ignore our National Geographic reality.   Our nation is physically expansive and geographically  diverse.  Those who live beyond the coastal urban bubbles with its huddled masses of very recent immigrants—where this  author seemingly resides— have different values and ways to pursue “life, liberty and happiness”.  They  have different economic exigencies.  They have just as much right to their government’s attention as those who live within the coastal megopolis on our east and west shores. They send their children to fight our wars and pay their taxes and are not less deserving. 

The Founders wisely understood these facts as well as being aware of the dangerous potential for political instability in attempting to  govern a regionally  large, economically and culturally diverse nation based on the overwhelming voter assent from  only a tiny percentage of its national area.  They wisely devised a fair system which insures that any elected president would have to have wide geographic appeal.  Ms Clinton did not pass that test.  

Much of the dissatisfaction and resulting political turmoil of the last election is based on the misperception about the fact that Mr. Trump did not win the popular vote.  But that is not how our President is chosen. 

Had Ms Clinton been elected based the popular vote—think of it—she did win 3 million more votes out of the 129 million cast, or 2 more votes out of every 100 cast.  But her plurality was not evenly distributed over the nation.   She would have been elected as a result of her popularity in only a few counties around New York City and Los Angeles.  Why should those urban areas, uncharacteristic of the nation as a whole both culturally and economically have such a powerful effect on who we chose as our chief executive?  Her mandate to govern would have been very limited.  Most of the nation was opposed to her and her policies. 

On the other hand President Trump won 304 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227.  He turned the nation red by winning 2,649 counties vs Clintons 503, or  a better than 5 to 1 ratio.  Her support—as is all the Democrat support—concentrated in the densely populated coastal urban centers  and in the parts of our southern border regions and California where 22 million  illegal immigrants in this nation tend to congregate. 

The problem of illegal voting among those 22 million is underplayed and underreported by our main stream media, but it does not take a mathematic genius to calculate the possibilities for voter fraud among 22 million non citizen individuals who in many border states have permanent residences, drivers licenses, electric bills,  and many other evidences  of residence—- except a birth certificate or naturalization document.  Three million illegal votes cast out of 22 million is only one out of every seven illegal immigrants taking the opportunity to vote illegally as a way of supporting the political party that is likely to continue its support of their precarious illegal residence in USA, 

ON IMPEACHMENT, DEMOCRATS AND “HYPO-CRATS”

PELOSI GANG COMMITTING CRIME THEY FALSELY CHARGE PRESIDENT WITH

Will Rogers  (1875-1935) one of America’s  beloved and most original  humorists and commentators said of politicians: “once a man turns to politics he is just about useless for honest work.”

And Will Roger’s humor is so true.  Try to find an honest politician...it’s a like searching for a needle in a haystack.  Take the Democrat’s impeachment charges against President Trump.  Their false claim repeated ad nauseum by each and every one of them is that they are pursuing impeachment to “support the Constitution” and the idea “that no one is above the law.”  But their actions and procedures suggest otherwise.   Having failed at multiple attempts at a palace coup d’etat their final  “Hail Mary Pass” is a last desperate attempt to undermine the President’s popularity by dragging him through the impeachment process just before the 2020 election so as to improve their election prospects.   This is a blatant misuse of power for political gain.  But has no one noticed that this crime is the very same one they are trying to pin on the President? 

The proximate cause of the impeachment charge is related to the  now infamous telephone conversation between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.  The Democrats claim President Trump misused his power as chief executive  to encourage the Ukrainian leader to investigate corruption in the Ukraine and the activities of former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter.  They claim the call was a base act of bribery, and an attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election, by digging up dirt on Biden, a probable opponent of Mr. Trump in 2020. 

Although I do not agree, the President in my view, had a perfect right to ask a favor or even pressure the head of Ukraine before he released military grant funds and other favors to the Ukraine.  Furthermore, it’s  not possible to make a valid interpretation of the President’s motives when he is acting as our chief executive.  If however,  he had asked Zelensky to deposit money in his overseas bank account—that would be a different case.  No,  The democrats have no valid case here. Their first attempt at a palace coup d’etat via Mueller resulted in a “No collusion” verdict.  They failed there.  Now they impose on our nation another ploy to unseat a President and disenfranchise 63 million American voters. But here again they will fail because there is “No bribery”.   

More importantly their undemocratic and dangerous efforts to politicize the impeachment process must be punished at the polls and in the 2020 election. We as a nation can not afford to have this crime agaisnt the nation stand.  Their efforts to misuse the impeachment process is more threatening to our democracy than any single President or candidate. 

But I am very disappointed that no one has exposed the hypocrisy of the Democrats.  As Will Rogers observed, these politicians have proved they are useless for honest work.  What they HAVE committed out in the open and on TV is exactly what they are falsely charging the President with. They misuse the sacred impeachment power vested in the House of Representatives by the Framers in a base attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election. 

They are actually openly committing the crime that they falsely charge the President with.  

That is blatant hypocrisy.  

Democrats are “hypocrats”

\

        

POPULISM IN USA AND UK. THE PEOPLE FIGHT BACK

This week we experienced two related events in the English speaking world.  In the UK, Boris Johnson, the Conservative leader, won an astounding Parliamentary victory, winning more than three hundred seats in the Commons which gave his party an 80 seat advantage.  That margin is enough to insure Johnson will have a full term and  be able to lead his nation out of the binding coils of the EU since the June 2016 referendum.  In that vote  52% of the British population favored leaving.  But powerful forces of resistance to change in the hide-bound government bureaucracy held up the implementation of the people’s will for three years.  The overwhelming Tory vote this week will finally make that break from bondage  come to pass in January.

What caused the delay?  After the June 2016 UK  referendum, as the votes were tallied, the government-establishment-media powers in London could not believe the vote.  They disparaged what they described as the rise of “populism” as if doing what is popular in a democracy is somehow evil.  These bureaucrats satisfied and flush  with their lot over the last decades in the de-industrialized and globalized world they created—they remained blissfully unaware of the hardship and despair  those polices had created outside of their well paid high-tech bubble in London. The progressives, the government bureaucrats, the elites in academia and the press conspired to obstruct, resist and overturn the legitimate vote of the majority to leave the EU.  The deep state, the forces of stagnation, those with cozy relations and well-paying jobs conspired to undermine the referendum vote and  stymie any exit deal.  The powers of the bureaucratic state are many and varied.  It took more than three years, two general elections and a great deal of political maneuvering to achieve a government which will satisfy the directive that 52%of the nation favored: exiting the EU.   

In that same year, on the other side of the “pond” and only four months later, another manifestation of massive popular discontent and the rise of powerful resistance forces took place in the USA.  In November 2016,  the people overwhelmingly elected President Trump in a broad sweep of the Electoral College vote:Trump  304 to Clinton’s 227.  Mr Trump turned the nation GOP-red by garnering over 2600 counties across the nation to Clinton’s less than 500,  or a more than 5 to one ratio.  As in the UK, the centers of dense population favored the left and those densely populated districts Clinton won more votes ( about 3 million out of the @129 million cast).  For example, in the City of New York alone,  Ms Clinton won five of the six urban counties, while Donald Trump won one.  In the densely populated City center  Clinton took an estimated 2 million more votes than Mr Trump.  That vote count was 2/3 of the popular vote plurality she won in the nation.  She accomplished a similar feat in parts of Los Angeles, California.  So her popular vote majority—often touted by her defenders as a win —was restricted to  very small densely populated counties of the nation and areas admittedly unrepresentative of the nation as a whole   

As in the UK Brexit referendum, in the USA 2916 election the entrenched powers of government were left in disbelief at the results .  The sore losers reacted by claimIng “foul”.  The Clinton team had used the phony charge of Russian interference during the campaign and this charge was taken up by the sore losers.  The media giants so closely allied with established government took up the cry as well.  On the day after the election the Washington Post printed a piece predicting: “The road to impeachment begins”.  

The powers that be—just as in the UK Brexit, would not accept the manifest will of “the People”—in this case the election of Mr. Trump.  Candidate Trump was the choice of 63 million American voters.  But the opposition ignored the dictates of the Constitution, protocols for the smooth passage of pier from one party to another and the sanctity of a valid election.  What began—was three years and more of political, and  in  some instances,  treasonous political“resistance”. 

Prior  to the election the  FBI secretly and illegally instituted a domestic spy probe into the Trump campaign. These actions were characterized by the apparent deep bias of the investigators, spying on candidate Trump, then President-elect Trump and even President Trump.  The charges of Russian collusion, fed by a scurrilous dirty tricks political document, paid for and  initiated by the Clintons during the campaign was taken up by the FBI and and presented as verified intelligence to the FISA court to get a warrant to continue spying in the Trump campaign—then the President elect and then  after being sworn in the President himself. The fake charges led to the  now debunked Mueller Investigation. Subsequent charges of phony claims of obstruction of justice for firing James Comey the inept, mendacious, biased and bumbling head of the FBI. biased and ineffective director James Comey.  Recent revelations (Horowitz) have revealed how valid his dismissal was.   After a near two year investigation, when the Mueller investigation finally revealed no evidence of Russian collusion—by “any American”. the resistors turned to other means to unseat a legitimately elected head of state.    The latest trumped up (no pun) charges were cooked up by a deep state CIA operative working in collusion with Adam Schiff ( D-Ca) of the Intelligence Committee (a man congenitally unable to overcome the childish mendacity of a ten-year old). The whistleblower and Schiff colluded on the complaint making a claim of “bribery” based  on Mr Trump’s telephone call to the newly elected President of the Ukraine.  President Trump encouraged  the newly elected leader to investigate corruption in that nation which may have involved the 2016 US election.  

All these events were directed at the President with the intention of somehow delegitimizing, or exposing him to charges upon which he might be released from office or impeached.  Eventually, the powers of the Deep State, allied with the nation’s intelligence agencies and the complicit and biased media were partially successful. 

Today (Dec 13,2019) the House of Representatives’ Judicial Committee voted to bring two articles of impeachment against President Trump —(a form of inditement) which will be voted on by the full House, probably next week.  President Trump, who completed another major trade deal this week ( NAFTA had been completed and awaits House approval and his new trade deal with China) and has headed a the economy booming and unemployment at in lowest levels in decades as well as  kept a reasonably peaceful world order will be only the third American President facing impeachment. This last one is very obviously frivolous and based—not on high crimes and misdemeanors—the Founders included in the Constitution but base political opportunism—and an attempt to alter the outcome of the 2020 election.  Just the charges they are leveling at the President. 

In democratic nations where  “people power” actually exists voters will eventually prevail.  And as in the UK,  when the people had a second chance, —theY had enough of the stalling and denial of voter rights-when they voted in the UK on December 12, in a decisive win for the Brexiteers they voted out those on the left who would have denied the validity of the Brexit vote and committed the nation to continued unhappy  existence as a EU member.

The people in the USA will also have a chance again in 2020 when they enter the ballot box and cast a secret vote    They can  either reward those on the left who have attempted all along to delegitimize, to undermine and to impeach (disenfranchise the voters) their choice for President. One who has brought a booming economy, the lowest of low-unemployment, and a sense that he is attempting to address the needs of all those middle class workers with traditional values who have been ignored for the last decades by the Democrats.  The Democrat Party has accomplished nothing for the average working  class  citizen.  Their maniacal,  frenzied, hate-driven, ill-conceived and manically persistent attempts to overturn a legitimate election only to assuage the discontent of the malcontent fringe-left of the coastal urban ghettoes has been a fool’s effort. These misguided, dangerous precedents of politicizing the impeachment process for base partisan advantage  must be punished at the ballot box. 

 Or as in the UK, they could vote the impeach-frenzied Democrats out of power in the House and restore some level of sanity and decorum to the peoples’ House of Representatives again. 

DEMOCRATS VOTE TO DISENFRANCHISE 63 MILLION AMERICANS

It’s Friday December 13 2019/. I just read that the House just voted to Impeach President Trump.
It is not a surprise.  They have been attempting to undo the 2016 election and disenfranchise the 63 million voters in this nation that they simply disagree with since before the election.

The Horowitz report just out documents how the Deep State and the Obama Administration attempted to put their thumbs on the election scale  to deny Trump the election.  The facts are laid bare by the IG report of FBI malfeasance and yes spying.    Is was not the Russians who  interfered with the election.  The Russian collusion charge was only a means of obscuring the real culprits.  The Democrat resisters and the Deep State were working in tandem with the media  to undermine a legitimate election —since day one.  The Mueller Report after nearly two years and $40 million dollars spent  could find no evidence of Russian Collusion. Thus to unseat this President it took three years of unrelenting scurrilous effort.  All failed until now.  Today the Democrats make their Hail Mary Pass to take down a legitimately elected President who holds on to close to 59% of his support.  The pass will fall flat to the ground—embarrassing and uncaught.

Instead of  honoring our democratic policy of majority rule, or our Constitutional rights to elect our leaders—the Democrats have gone off the rails and politicized a powerful option that our Constitution reserves only for terrible crimes of the executive branch.  None of these circumstances were met.  There are no impeachable crimes—-only the crimes the Democrats have been committing against our nation for three years of inaction and resistance.

One can only hope that the rational people of our USA—who can see the thrust of  events over the last three years as a concerted and persistent effort to deny the rights of 63 million Americans to legally elect the person of their choice—understand the threat this poses to the nation.

When it is time to vote again.  We must all reject the Democrat policies of these last years.  Elections are sacred.  When the polls close the people must rally around the leader the Constitution has designated.  Yes to loyal opposition.  But denial of legitimacy, scurrilous attacks and unending investigations as well as phony use of the powers of impeachment must end.

A nation so divided against itself can not stand.  A wise President said that at another time in our history. He opposed the powers that would undermine our institutions and tear us arpart.  Like those times we are at war.  The Democrat Party of the present which now espouses such undemocratic behavior must be defeated at the polls to send a message that such behavior is  not politically profitable.

Our nation’s very survival depends on it.

HOROWITZ VS BLUMENTHAL ON “SPYING”. YES FBI DID IT.

In March 2018 the Justice Department  Inspector General—Michael Horowitz took up an investigation of the July 2016 FBI “Crossfire Hurricane” probe into the Trump campaigns alleged ties with Russia and how the FBI conducted this sensitive report.  His report came out recently and the Senate hearing on his findings was televised Wednesday (December 11,2019).

The President has charged that the FBI investigation was biased and that the Obama Administration’s FBI  was tapping his phones during the campaign.  (Trump Tweet “They are spying on my campaign” ) That claim was “poo pooed” roundly by the press and the media when Mr. Trump made the charge.

During the Wednesday Senate Hearing the Democrats’ Sen Richard Blumenthal (D CT) attempted and succeeded in getting Horowitz to respond to that charge—that the Obama FBI were spying on candidate Trump as early as July 2016.  (See  “ Horowitz tells Blumenthal there was “no” FBI “spying” on Trump campaign. CT Mirror Wed 12-11-19 Anna Radelat)

The dialogue went like this.

Blumenthal: “Did you put spies in the Trump  campaign?”

Horowitz: We call them “Confidential Human Resources (CHR) ..We did not find evidence that the FBi sought to place CHR in the Trump campaign.”

Blumenthal: So the answer is “no”.  Horowitz nods .

The media world giddily greeted the answer as confirmation of their past false allegations. They all agreed with Blumenthal and reported that the IG did not support candidate Trump’s charge that the FBI was spying on his campaign.  That was of course a lie the Democrats, as well as the Yellow Press wanted to get out there .  Senator Blumenthal was effective as an interlocutor.  He is very familiar with this kind of half truth and inuendo which obscured the truth (Recall that he is the person who during the Vietnam War era served in safe splendor, state side in Washington DC  a US Marine Reserve officer, but who continued to claim that he served overseas in Vietnam—until the NYT nailed him on it. ).

Perhaps IG Horowitz—if he was to be perfectly candid would have answered Blumenthal this way:

“Well Senator Blumenthal there would have been no need to “tap Mr. Trump’s telephone in Trump Tower, or place a “spy “ or a CHR on his team.  You see  Senator Blumenthal —that was why the FBI was so persistent in getting the FISA warrant (many times over) for Carter Page.  The FBI had a phone tap on Carter Page’s telephones, they monitored his emails, and had listening devices placed in his home and office  and we had a CHR tailing him—so the FBI could listen in on all of his conversations especially those with Mr. Trump and anyone else on the campaign he spoke  with.

Thus there was no need to tap Mr Trump’s phones—the FBI  could listen to Trump via Carter Page’s phone—.

Bluementhal murmurs “ahhhh. My time is up”

So that is how candidate Trump thought his phones were tapped —when he happened to tell Carter Page in a telephone conversation that he (Trump) was suffering from a boil on his rump and could not sit to take the call.   And the next day he reads in the NYT that he has a carbuncle in his rump.   You just think someone js tapping your phones.

Trump was right the FBI was listening in to his conversations/-/illegally.

CARTER PAGE: CONDUIT FOR FBI SPYING OF TRUMP

CARTER PAGE CONDUIT FOR DOMESTIC SPYING BY FBI 

Carter Page’s name has cropped up frequently in the press over the last number of years of turmoil in Washington DC.  Most of us simply do not understand why he is referenced so frequently or what we should know about this person.

Here it is in a nutshell.  

Carter Page is an American citizen—a former US Naval officer—an investor in petroleum and gas futures—and an advisor to the Trump election campaign in 2016.  Carter Page who hails from Poughkeepsie NY —was spied  on by the FBI using techniques only reserved for foreign agents WITHIN the USA.   Page was targeted to gain access to other American citizens who could not be spied on—but were the real targets.  For by listening in on Page’s  telephone calls and secretly reading his emails and other communications the FBI could record the comments of all those with whom Page communicated. They could spy on all the other American citizens he communicated with.  Carter Page was NOT the actual target of the spying investigation—it was all those other people  who Page might have met with.  Who were they? 

So who were the  REAl TARGETS I?  Donald Trump, and his inner circle.  

This normally illegal domestic spying scheme on Page by the FBI (our Constitution forbids spying on our citizens ) could take place only if a special secret court gives the OK to do it.  The court is known as the FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court)   The agency seeking a warrant (formal permission) must submit a written document listing the reasons and facts about the application  to the FISA court judge who may then give permission (or not). 

The FBI seemed to have picked Page as a target for investigation only because of his work in Moscow for an American firm and his own business interests involved Russian firms.  Page was the crack in the wall through which they could sneak their listening probe. 

In regard to the FISA application regarding Carter Page, why did they target him?  Page had worked for Merrill Lynch’s energy and power division in Moscow.  Page, as chief operating officer for ML worked on transactions with leading Russian energy companies such as Gasprom. Page joined with parter James Richards and former Russian Gazprom executive Sergei Yatsenko to form their own company:Global Energy Capital. His business interests were centered in the energy field in the Middle East and in Russia.  His contacts in Russia were useful to the CIA and he became a trusted intelligence source for that agency in the early 2000s.  

The recent Inspector general report (Horowitz) on the origins of the Russian Collusion Investigation revealed that Page was so critical to that investigation getting the inside information they thought would expose Trumps, that an FBI agent actually altered a warrant application to spy on Page by removing a reference of his status as an accredited informer for the CIA from the warrant application so as to strengthen their case to spy on Page.  If Page was an trusted informer for the CIA, why target him?   He was the FBI’s main opening into spying on the Trump campaign and later after Trump was elected on the transition team.  The FBI upper echelon of Trump haters were apparently so desperate to get such access that they actually descended into the illegality of altering documents and facts to achieve their illicit goals.  The hid information by omission that would have nullified their FISA application.  They renewed it with the same omissions several times over. 

So when you read the name “Carter Page” you must understand that Page was the tool by which rogue elements in our government used to try to upend a political campaign and then after the election to take down a duly elected President.   You must understand that spying on Page was only a ruse to get information on a political enemy and later on the president elect   

The Democrats so self righteous about Trump not “being above the law” Like to  ignore serious law breakers on the other side. 

ON BUTTIGIEG, BIBLES, AND THE M4 CARBiNE

What buoys boy-wonder Buttigieg’s poll numbers?

Mayor Pete has a score of Democrat presidential candidates both envious and angry with his recent polling success.  Pete Buttigieg is the kid mayor from tiny South Bend, Indiana,  a college town rife with unsolved racial and police problems.  Mayor Pete has who has been checking off all the required boxes in his zeal to leap-frog from small town mayor to US President left the problems of South Bend  stewing, as he simply took off  to campaign for President across the nation.  The young mayor has had considerable recent success.  The potential Democrat primary voters seem enthralled. The kid from South Bend is loquacious, quick on his feet, fast with a verbal riposte and  other Harvard and Oxford  educated.  He and his team work hard to promote the image of a no frills regular guy from the mid-west who claims  to hold values compatible with the average Democrat voter.  But does he? 

The diminutive Buttigieg, who always appears in a stark starched white shirt at his rallies, is a mere 37 years old, and is the least experienced of the score of candidates he now seems to lead in the polls. His only employment experience after Harvard was with the infamous scandal wracked management consulting and hedge fund firm McKinsey Consulting.  Buttigieg worked there for three years but his client lists are shrouded in secrecy,  as are his sources of present political funding. 

But it is Buttigied’s oft-touted claims about his military career which gives pause to observers, since the apparent  lack of candor he demonstrates in this aspect of his life suggests a tendency toward purposeful misrepresentation elsewhere.  

In reference to his military service, his campaign continues to advertise Mayor Pete as a Naval Reserve officer who “served in Afghanistan”.  That is factual.  But they do not leave it there. At his campaign stops they often display a photo of the candidate, dressed in camouflage and flack jacket, carrying an M4 carbine (the combat weapon issued to US Marines).  The candidate often compounds this by repeating the claim that he “was packing his bags for deployment in Afghanistan while President Trump was preparing to host a TV program”. 

We know that the candidate was a war protester in his college years, who when he focused on a career in politics decided that a short and quick “military career” would be an big asset to his political aspirations. To this end, Buttigieg by-passed a traditional four-year military degree or ROTC for a faster route to his goal.   With his degree from Harvard in hand, he entered the Naval Reserve DOC (direct officer commissioning program) as an officer ensign, by simply signing his name.  No boot camp. strenuous marching or physical effort involved. 

A few months later Buttigieg made good use of his Navy commission  to bolster his slim credentials for his mayoral campaign in South Bend.  He won by a paper thin margin.   Not long after taking office, he volunteered to deploy to Afghanistan.  The young mayor took a year long leave of absence from the drudgery of small town politics and his office, leaving the problems in South Bend to fester unattended by the town’s chief elected official. 

 In Afghanistan, he was tasked with investigating illegal Afghan finances. His “weaponry “was an electronic file and a computer. No M4  carbine was issued to him.  He apparently sat in an air conditioned office inside of the Green Zone in downtown Kabul, Afghanistan for his seven month stint.  This bit of Buttigieg history is a typical form of military-political misrepresentation used by many aspiring politicians over the ages. But the kid from South Bend seems  to get away with it with little comment from the other candidates

Buttigieg also claims to be a committed Christian, who has recently been heard spouting Bible verses and snippets of scripture to his Afro-American audiences in South Carolina rallies.  But like the M4 rifle he never actually fired, the Holy Bible he references at his rallies is simple more political window dressing.  The political accoutrement of feigned Christian religiosity.  Buttigieg  freely and openly espouses a life-style which ignores core Christin tenets,  among them— the sanctity of unborn life.  Clutching the Bible and an M4 carbine as political props for political advancement  is the hall mark  of a hard core, slick politician (with a lower case “p”).  

So why does Buttigieg continue to poll well above the crowd of more experienced aspiring nominees?  Take for example hard working, and real-middle-road Democrat  and true midwesterner: Senator Amy Klobuchar who polls at only 6% and who actually has more than a decade of honest, productive and effective service for her constituents to her credit.    Mayor Pete, at 16%  beats out sincere and authentic Senator Cory Booker who has a stellar career as the hugely popular and effective mayor of  large urban city: Newark, NJ,   as well as a enviable career as a US Senator.  Buttigieg also presently polls above Warren and Sanders in Iowa.  Joe Biden the former Obama VP beats him nationally, but struggles to reach his poll numbers  in Iowa.

What motivates these Democrats ?

My guess is that a significant element (of Mayor Pete’s success) is the deep need of some Democrat and Iowan “wanna be progressives” to burnish  their left-liberal “cred” by open support of the most unlikely candidate. 

Another factor that must be taken into consideration is the powerful support Buttigieg receives both financial and otherwise from the affluent and activist LBGTQ + community.  Buttugieg’s candidacy is a rare  opportunity to advance acceptance of this communities’ lifestyle. These folks are understandably highly motivated to promote the candidacy of one of their own.  

So Mayor Peter Buttigieg comes across as a well-programmed, agenda-driven, fast talking, slick politician with deep-pocket, financial support from restricted urban centers of affluence.  Don’t expect him to hew to any specific doctrine or philosophy.  He’s no Bernie Sanders!  He will morph chameleon-like in support of whatever the polls indicate are popular.  We have watched him evolve in the short few months of the debates from progressive to centrist before our very eyes.   He’s not  the  mid-western average boy next door type he tries to portray.   I suspect  with such traits we should see a lot more of him in the Swamp. 

ON PELOSI, HATRED AND HER CATHOLIC FAITH

December 5, 2019–New York

PELOSI PROFESSES TO HATE NO ONE——SHE CLAIMS SHE IS A CATHOLIC! —SHE EVEN “PRAYS FOR THE PRESIDENT”  —-AND ( WE ASSUME) ALL THOSE INNOCENT UNBORN  SHE HAS CONDEMNED TO DEATH BY HER ABORTION STANDS

I watched Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi affirm, in front to of cameras today (TV)  that she was indeed going to go ahead with the Impeachment of President Trump.  After she finished her remarks as she walked away, a reporter asked her, as she departed —

“Speaker Pelosi..do you hate President Trump?”

Pelosi turned and faced her  questioner.   Her face was flushed and she seemed angered by the query.

“You know I am a Catholic?” She stammered.

 “”I was raised in a Catholic family where we hated no one..  I am a Catholic. I don’t hate anyone.  I pray for the President.”  Don’t ask me such questions.”

 (Not an exact transcript but near enough, and NOT a Schiff type misrepresentation.)

Well, Madam Speaker would like to have her cake and eat it too. Play to a Catholic audience as well as her radical fringe upstarts on her left.  Have it both ways.  She would like to cloak herself in the moral high ground of her alleged Catholicism, as she hypocritically ignores the most central dogma, precepts and and tenets of that faith, all to advance her political goal of holding her Speakership. .

Pelosi’s embarrassing record on the “right to life issue” is sufficient for Pope Francis  to excommunicate her.

She has a 100 % rating from the NARAl or (National Abortion Rights Action League ) and a (0)% rating from the NRL (National Right to Life ) organization.

She voted against a ban on partial birth abortions.  Voting against a law that would have prevented an abortionist from assisting in a birth then permit the infant to be removed to die alone and unattended on a cold gurney.  She voted against a law that would have restricted the transport of  minors across state lines to have an abortion. She voted against a law that would have forbidden human cloning.  She voted against the “conscience clause” bill that a would protect professionals from being forced to aid in abortions.

She has voted for every pro-abortion —anti-life—statute that came across her desk.

She and her ilk smear faithful Catholics who openly profess their beliefs.  In the modern Democrat Party actual practicing Catholics can not be members  unless they accept the vows of death to innocent life the Party profess, as they support  abortion on demand.

Nancy who likes to claim the President is a liar—joins him here as she ignores the truth about her acts and beliefs .  She is a hypocrite on disclaiming her hatred for the President, as well as her claim about her Catholic faith. .

ON BIRD WINGS AND CLIMATE CHANGE—NEW EVIDENCE OF WARMING

A recent study of thousands of song birds found that they are shrinking in size over the last forty years.  Is this the result of climatic warming? 

It’s very difficult proving certain questions in a satisfyingly conclusive method.  Does tobacco smoking cause lung cancer?   Well we can correlate lung disease with smoking very nicely,but correlation is not causation.  Eventually, we developed enough correlative  evidence to feel confident that indeed there is a causative relationship there...and we have thankfully done so with tobacco use.  

We have similar “proof” problems in  regard to global warming or “rechauffement climatique” (climate reheating) this phenomenon involving a massive and complex atmosphere is much more difficult to make conclusive statements about.  Is it heating?  What are the causes of its “rechauffement”?  Meteorologists and climatologists have carefully recorded temperature data from many sites over the earth’s surface, but not all of them show a clear trend toward warmer temperatures.  Weather and climate phenomena are variable, the atmosphere is complex, many factors can mask the trend lines in our graphs . These data often reveal both spikes of high— and low temperatures. Some sites record periods of excessive high temperature, while others record low readings.  Massive snow storms and unexpected outbreaks of polar air masses which do not fit the hypothesis also may be difficult to understand or explain ‘as warming”.  Though we now have an enormous bank of data which supports the contention that our atmosphere is warming,  these many perturbations in the atmosphere give “the climate deniers” ammunition to claim that what we are experiencing may just be a figment of someone’s over-active imagination.   

But as in the “tobacco wars” of the past, more and more observations and data points eventually help flesh out the case for a glacially slow, but none-the-less certain warming trend in the atmosphere—toward warmer and warmer air.  Warmer air that is almost certainly the result of increasing levels of greenhouse gases such as human-generated carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. 

The most recent scientific data which points to a warmer atmosphere comes from the realm of ornithology (the scientific study of birds).   The inescapable fact is that birds are critters most intimately adapted to the earth’s complex atmosphere. They live their every  moment of life dependent upon the physical properties of the air.  Many species of song birds (and other classes) fly hundreds or even thousands of miles though this complex fluid as they make their seasonal migrations.  To survive these challenging journeys they must be highly adapted to the physical properties of the air in which they fly to survive.  Even small changes in air temperature can alter the efficiency of flight over these long distances to which the birds must be well adapted to survive. .  Birds are relatively short lived animals, which reproduce annually  and thus are capable of rapid   evolution  over relatively short periods of time.  Furthermore, they are a class of organisms which have been studied in great detail over many scores of years and in which even small changes in anatomy can be detected and documented. 

The Wall Street Journal (by Robert Lee Holts, December 4, 2019)  reported on a study by The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, (published in Ecology Letters, Dec 4, 2019). The investigation headed by Dr Brian Weeks of the University of Michigan and his colleagues measured and analyzed more than 70,000 specimens of 52 different bird species which died in collisions with high rise buildings in Chicago over a forty year period from 1978 to 2012.  Weeks and his colleagues measured the weights and sizes of the birds and the lengths of their wings.  As a result Weeks and his colleagues were able to document changes in songbird size and wing length over at least forty generations. They found that over the period studied all of the species decreased in size while in many of them their wings grew slightly but measurably and significantly longer.  

So what does this mean? It’s a well-established observation  that animals —across almost all classes and genera are larger in northern climates  than those which live in warm climates (See Bergman’s Rule) .   The reason for this is what we may call a— physical imperative—which  has to do with the physical relationship between volume or body mass and surface area.  (Imagine the surface area as related to internal volume  of a large sphere like a beach ball. Compare that to that of a small sphere like a golf ball.  The golf ball has more surface area per unit volume than the beach ball. )    For this reason It may be an advantage to be larger in a cold climate, since a larger body has less surface area per unit body mass, and this smaller surface area aids larger animals in conserving heat energy.  The converse holds for animals in warmer climes.  It is either unnecessary for them to be larger (and an advantage to be smaller) or simply the evolutionary  advantageous lies in the more effective cooling of a body of smaller mass since a smaller body has more surface area per unit volume.  

In the species of birds that are resident or non-migratory, for example the common  Blue Jay which ranges across many states from north to south in North America, we find those in the south are typically much smaller than those in the north.  Another classic example is the size of the Red Fox which also ranges widely over different climate zones. This species is smaller in the south and much larger in the north of its range.  I can attest to the fact that the Florida Black Bear is very much smaller than those of the same species that I have seen in Vermont.

Weeks and his colleagues found in the 52 species of song birds studied, over the 40 years.that all exhibited changes such that  “as the bird’s bodies got smaller, their  wings gradually got longer”.  The changes in weight and wing length were very small, but significant over all the ages, species and sex of birds studied.   The study authors suggest, the bird’s lower body mass may relate to less ability for fat storage, an essential factor on their long migrations. Longer  wings may be an adaptation for this purpose. ( Alternately longer wings (as this author suggests) may be an adaptation to flying long migration flights  in less dense (warmer) air.  Lower density air may reduce wing “lift” and warmer air may require longer wings to maintain lift.) 

Those birds too large, or with wings too short, simply do not make the challenging migration and die.  They do not reproduce.  Those that do survive pass on their genetic pattern to their young.  
The Weeks team, studying over 40 generations of birds,  found that the changes in existential adaptations (to warmer air) resulted in song birds which were smaller and with longer wings. 

The fact  that all the different species of song birds are all changing in the same way consistently over the period of time studied,  the only reasonable conclusion  seems to be that Week’s songbirds are adapting to warmer air temperatures.  Holts WSJ piece (op cit) notes that the author Brian Weeks stated: “We can say with fair amount of confidence that the changes are associated with increasing temperatures. ”

This study is not reliant on the collection of temperature data from points on the globe that have variations in elevation, humidity, wind and other factors including human error that may affect these data.  Weeks study is based upon the the measurable morphological changes in animals which for their very survival are highly dependent upon being perfectly adapted to long periods  of flight in an atmosphere of some given physical characteristics. The changes reported can not be explained in any other way than that the medium in which these critters fly has changed over the last 40 years. It’s average temperature has risen and the animals have adapted to those changes with morphological response to warmer temperatures.   

It’s noteworthy that the WSJ piece also noted that similar studies of birds decreasing in size in Australia and South Africa have been recently reported. 

No question—the atmosphere is warming. 

WSJ author Robert Lee Holts also added a few interesting facts about the frightful mortality of these birds which have been so useful in documenting climate change. 

Holts reports  that domestic cats kill 3 billion birds annually.  Yes that is billion birds!!!

That is a figure based on data from US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. This is a national disgrace!  These are song birds which are protected by international treaties.  The author adds that  Cornell Lab of Ornithology at Cornell University figures reveal that high rise building i n the USA kill another 600 million migrating birds annually.  Another example of human stupidity. .