DEMOCRATS PLAY POLITICS WITH IMMIGRATION—DANGEROUS GAME

The Democrats are playing politics with the immigration laws. Their motivation is political—with their eye on the 2020 elections—they are determined to avoid handing President Trump any wins on policy—even if their inaction  harms the nation.  So in the fraught area of immigration they persist in their intention to avoid any actions to amend -the 1980s era “Flores settlement”  (and court interpretations of same) — which in its present form incentivizes illegal immigration, human trafficking, and lands  innocent children in often mortal danger.  This now outdated law as presently interpreted states that a family unit—-i.e. a person accompanied by a child— once they enter the USA they can not be detained and can not be returned to his/her own country without a judicial review of his/her claim of asylum.  According to the Flores interpretation, asylum seekers are arrested then within a short period released—-ostensibly to return for a hearing regarding their claims. Most asylum seekers are not fleeing for their lives, or fleeing from tyranny, or from political oppression.  . Most are economic immigrants seeking a better job and a better life in the USA.  

The current law is the legal loophole that is used by the drug cartels, the coyotes, human traffickers, child abductors and tens of thousands of poor unemployed and disadvantaged South American migrants  —and now others crossing our porous  southern border from Africa, the Caribbean, Europe and the Middle East) seeking jobs and better living conditions in the USA. All these folks need is a small child to come with them as they cross the border.  One need not be too imaginative to see how such a legal requirement could be misused to the danger and harm of youngsters. 

The NY Times* recently (June 26, 2019) published a gruesome picture of the bodies of a man and his 23 month old child laying face down in the muddy water of the Rio Grande.  The two who drowned attempting to cross from Mexico  into Texas.  

According to his wife, the drowned man, Alberto Martinez, had been waiting on the Mexican side of the border for a chance to claim asylum and enter the USA.  He grew impatient, said his wife.  Leaving her behind, he took his innocent 23 month old child Angie, who he placed on his back, slipping her under his shirt and entered the river.  He used little Angie as his “ticket’ across the border as he attempted to swim to the US side. 

He didn't make it.  His calculation was simple—- he needed little, innocent 23 month old Angie with him in order to avoid a long detention or being sent back into Mexico.    He—like so many others took advantage of innocent children —and was lured on by the legal morass of US immigration laws that would permit him at the moment he set foot on US soil with his daughter in his arms to remain in the USA,. The only requirement his guillible, easily duped “captors” make is that he promise to reappear for his court date. He like ten of thousand of others were set free to forget about court proceedings and meld into the illegal immigrant communities— established and growing in every state in the Union. 

The out-dated immigration laws and legal interpretations which  incentivize these migrants to make dangerous and foolhardy decisions are the real culprits.  But more culpable  are the politicians—the Democrat in the US Congress— who will not even admit  that there is a crisis on our southern border,  and then even worse refuse to address these problem with a simple  revision of exiting immigrant laws.  The Democrats in Congress who sit on their hands and warm a Congressional seat are to blame for these two deaths (and for the many hundreds of others who die annually).  Were they to act—they could end the crisis. 

*Perhaps the Times remembering the electrifying though tragic picture of another little migrant —-5 year old  Syrian (?) boy, Alan Kurdi who drowned during an attempted Mediterranean crossing and whose tiny body washed up on a European beach. That picture  elicited a wave of sympathy for migrants—though that emotion was short-lived.  The sympathy encouraged immigrants to attempt dangerous crossings and many more died in these crossing attempts.  Mrs Angela Merkel’s guilt ridden Germany was to welcome about a million Arab migrants.  Today after the realization of the difficulty of settling people who were unprepared culturally, linguistically or economically for life in Europe—that sympathy has evaporated,  The borders have closed.  The migrant movements have decreased to a trickle.   

It is the Democrats with their leader Nancy Pelosi who are to blame for this tragedy. 

TRUMP CALLS OFF IRAN ATTACK—RENEWS CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP

PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED OFF IMMINENT ATTACK ON IRAN

PROVES HE IS NOT A TOOL OF THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT

THAT IS WHY HE WAS ELECTED.


Late last night President Trump did something almost unheard of, he acted independently-“presidentially”—against the advice of his military and foreign policy advisors to end an attack in progress.  Think back to President Obama and the more egregious example of George Bush jr....both of whom were tools of the military establishment, and who were led around by the nose by Pentagon brass and hidebound by establishment protocol...Not President Trump.

Yesterday (June 19-20) one of our drones—the size of an airliner— was shot down by Iran—in what clearly appears to be Iranian air space.  It was downed about six miles into Iran’s recognized  international border—not over land, but over the Straits of Hormuz.  This is an area—not in dispute—but only marked by navigation instruments.  Navigators on US planes could make mathematical errors and find themselves in the wrong place—over the border. But the undisputed fact that the drone’s location sensors were turned off (a violation of international flight rules) and that it was accompanied by another US plane (also with tracking instruments turned off) —a manned aircraft with 35 aboard—points more to USA spy mission than an accidental incursion.

The Iranians had a choice—but they chose to shoot down the drone and not the manned aircraft.  They showed restraint.  It was correct for Trump to show similar restraint in his response by courageously calling off what was clearly a typical  “knee-jerk response” attack that was expected from the US military and encouraged by the neocons and war hawks in DC.

Now Trump has again pulled a rabbit out of his hat showing his ability to be flexible and to act courageously.  With this act he opened an opportunity—-a monumental near 40 year old historic opportunity—for meaningful dialog with Iran.

Let’s hope that both sides can make that leap.

TRUMP PLAYS WITH FIRE WITH IRAN- DUMB AND DANGEROUS

Pat Buchanan, wrote a piece today in WMD Commentary (June 18, 2019) “War with Iran would be Trump’s War”. In which he correctly warns such a conflict would be both a political and economic disaster.  Being fought in and around the Persian Gulf— the waterway through which the world’s oil flows— an Iran war would cause a worldwide recession and trigger forces which would surely endanger any chances Trump had for reelection.  Candidate Trump rightly excoriated the neocons and those who got us into wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Breaking that promise would diminish his base support.  

Trump’s game with Iran—one of “maximum pressure” is an attempt to force Iran into a “new and better” deal on “nuclear technology and disarmament”—and their “footprint”in the region—-though they have no nuclear weapons.   But that strategy can go only so far.  Trump pressure has put great stress on the Iranian economy and as in Newtonian physics (Third Law)  Trump pressure has engendered an equal and opposite response—-more “maximum” resistance from Iranian leaders.  The “pressure” gambit now appears to have moved into a phase which is a looser for Trump.  

Iran is not Iraq. We knew at the time ot the Iraq invasion (for nonexistent  WMD) that Iraq was a paper tiger.  (Perhaps that was one good reason why it was singled out for US invasion.)   But even as a “paper tiger”  Iraq  cost us trillions upon trillions of tax dollars, and a decade in which or governments ignored domestic and infrastructure needs.  There were as well the thousands of our own young dead and wounded.  The fact that we are still stuck there after all these years and that we have gained nothing.  The war generated only greater national debt and sad additions to our lists of war dead and wounded.

Iran is not a paper tiger and a war in thee times larger, mountainous and sophisticated Persia would be far worse than what we experienced in Iraq.  

So for those in the Trump camp who think that they can pressure Iran into a “better deal” they had better be very careful as they pursue that now passé  strategy—since they are in effect carrying around a lighted cigarette while looking for a leaky gas canister in a closed garage. The conflagration would end their careers and repeat a horrible and costly disaster for this nation.  

The “pressure strategy” is over...diplomacy is needed now.  But that requires President Trump to dump unrepentant neocon John Bolton and to begin to think about normalizing relations with Iran... Now that development would make him a shoo in for reelection! 

NO MORE SUPERQUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR DEMS—NON ENTITIES FROM NOW ON

NO MORE SUPER QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR THE DEMOCRATS- FROM NOW ON NON-ENTITIES WITH NO QUALIFICATIONS AND NO PAST HISTORIES. 

I have come to the conclusion that the Democrats did learn something from the 2016 PRESIDENTIAL election. They learned who not to nominate for the upcoming 2020 presidential elections.  In 2016 they chose to support a candidate whom they touted as the “most qualified candidate for US President ever fielded for the highest office in the USA by any party in the nation’s history”.  On the face of it this was perhaps close to the truth. The 2016 Dem candidate served eight years as the bed partner of a US President, where she wad privy to “pillow talk” Eight years later she was handed a Senate Seat to warm, which she occupied for six years.  Then after losing the nomination for the 2008 election she made a deal with President Obama to support him for his promise to offer her the position as Secretary of State, a position she held without distinction for eight years.  In 2016 who could even come close to in her decades of “experience”?  But she also was supported by a powerful and massively funded family slush fund—the Clinton Foundation, the media honored her, the polls predicted her election, the political elite paid her homage. The Obama Administration conspired and colluded with a foreign agents  to undermine her opponent, the Deep State conspired to tilt the vote in her favor.  She out-spent her opponent two to one.  But when the People Spoke at the ballot boxes they rejected the super qualified Democrat candidate.   The Democrat candidate lost in a devastating  Electoral College rout taking only 25 % of the EC votes to her opponent’s 75% or only 227 votes  to  Mr. Trump’s 304 votes.  

The Pary and the candidate went into deep depression and have never quite recovered their composure or their senses.   So continuing to reel from defeat after the passage of more than two years the wise leaders of the Democrats thought that this time around they would try something different.  They would forget—“super qualified” —-and offer the nation a bunch of non-entities (George Will calls them “doofus” candidates) for the Democrat voters to choose from.  

And what a  group of “American Lilliputians” has the Party put on display for 2020.  One must ask how these under and un-qualified, undistinguished individuals had the  effrontery, the chutzpah, the gall to crawl  out form under the respective rocks to make the claim that they consider themselves ready to be a Democrat candidate to lead a nation makes one tremble with fear for our homeland.  

These so-called “candidates for president” eschew any characterization related to “actual qualifications to lead a nation” and base their claims of bona fides on what part of the new 2020 Democrat demographic or client base they could possibly represent.  Thus their “qualifications”  for higher office are based on nothing more than the fact that they lack external genitalia, or perhaps have  XX chromosomes,  or can claim their membership in a national group characterized by regular illegal entry into this nation, or claim that their skin color recommends them for higher office, or even their membership in a sexually dysfunctional minority group .  One—a  lily-white Lilliputian—was so hypocritical as to misuse and manipulate affirmative action policies of our elite institutions of higher learning to her personal benefit  (shouldering aside an actual deserving minority member in the process).  

And finally, a most recent addition to the “doofus candidates crowd” is an elderly male, white guy, scarred with past scandals, who was part of the last Democrat Administration, and  was passed over for higher office many times before.  He is known to have  used his position as VP in the last administration to alter legislation which permitted a  family member- his son- to consummate  several lucrative deals in China and the Ukraine.  

God forbid that our nation will ever fall to the level in which any one of these “doofus” types ever enters the Oval Office.

  

FLIPPING JOE BIDEN GAGS ON HYDE AMENDMENT

“FLIPPING” JOE BIDEN SEALS HIS FATE: PLACES  PRO-ABORTION MILLSTONE AROUND HIS NECK 

BIDEN TOO WEAK TO OPPOSE PRESSURE OF RADICAL FRINGE IN DEM PARTY

ABANDONMENT OF HYDE WOULD FORCE CATHOLICS AND 140 MILLION OTHER PRO-LIFE TAX PAYERS TO PAY TAXES FOR WHAT THEIR CONSCIENCE DICTATES IS AN ACT OF IMMORALITY

I read today (JUNE 7, 2019)  that nominal Catholic, “Uncle Joe Biden”, has flipped his stance on abortion—yet again.  Joe came on stage at a rally in Atlanta (yesterday)  with his toothy white Cheshire Cat smile and proceeded to  flip-flop his position again on the subject of abortion.  Turning belly up to the fringe radicals in his party,  former VP Biden  joins the rest of the wild-eyed radical fringe Democrats who have all abandoned support for the Hyde Amendment as if it was some major barrier to a “women’s right to choose”.  It isn’t!  

The Hyde Amendment does not limit abortion rights.  Rather, it simply and rightly protects the rights of the millions of American taxpayers from being forced to pay for and be party to what is for them an unconscionable act.  

At the Atlanta gathering for big-pocket progressive donors, candidate Joe Biden passed over a probing question on his son, Hunter Biden’s embarrassing  financial ties to big money deals in the Ukraine and China,  but then turned to take on a question from another journalist regarding  his position on the Hyde Amendment.

Candidate Biden has been all over the map on abortion—mostly holding a Clintonesque “legal and rare” position  early on,   But that has radically changed last night. His response to the Hyde Amendment question puts him right there among the other candidates for the 2020 nod, such as  Warren, Sanders, Harris and Booker all of whom are full-fledged, pro-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-religious, pro-abortion, no holds barred fringe candidates—described aptly by columnist George Will as “Doofus” candidates. 
. 

To preface his capitulation to the powerful forces in his party who would not countenance a “middle road’ position on abortion, Joe mumbled some weak pablum about having to change his position in support women’s rights in the face of increasingly harsh “proposed state laws” which may restrict access to abortion in some states.  But his statement was a classic Trumpian non-sequitor,   since the Hyde Amendment only restricts the disbursement of Federal funds for abortion and would have no impact on the states which Joe references and which can and do provide that service. 

The Hyde Amendment first passed in 1976 ( supported by Rep Henry Hyde) prohibits the Federal Government, through Medicaid and Medicare, from paying for or supporting abortions or abortion procedures, but with some restrictions such as when the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest..  The concept of the law is a just one.  Before its enactment it is claimed there were some 300,000 federally paid for abortions per year —afterward, these procedures trickled down to a few thousand.  As we all know so well, when a medical procedure is “free” (i.e. “the government is paying for it”)  it is overused.  

Present polls indicate that approximately 40% of Americans are pro-life and who believe that abortions should  very rare, and used only to save a mother’s life.  There are about 140 million American tax payers who are religiously or morally opposed to the taking of unborn life in the womb—and who support the Hyde Amendment.  To abandon Hyde would mean that the government would be taking tax dollars from these folks and then applying those funds to pay for abortion or pro-abortion procedures for Medicare and Medicaid patients.  It would be forcing these tax payers to PAY FOR and support what they consider is an unconscionable act.  

The Hyde Amendment protects the moral and religious rights of those who as a result of their beliefs, their religion, their conscience or moral precepts can not support the taking of innocent life from a mother’s womb.  

Joe is now in the camp of these anti-life , anti-religious folks.

Sorry Joe, but with this act of betrayal you revealed  yourself to be a weak old-man, unable to stand up to the powerful pressures of the radical fringe in your party.  What moral precepts do you hold that you will not give up?  The concept that you were “the last adult standing in the Democrat Party” was the one and only element of your candidacy that may have made you a viable candidate in  2020.  Now try to win the general election with that millstone hanging around your neck!      

HUAWEI: CHINESE TECH TROJAN HORSE. KEEP OUT OF 5G!

I have come  across the name ”Huawei” in the news lately.  I vaguely understood  that it was an entity somehow  involved in  a geopolitical controversy related to USA, China trade.    Not sure even how to pronounce it, I looked it up.  It turns out it is  Huawei Technologies Co, (HTC) a huge Chinese media tech corporation. 

Huawei’s top management and its Chinese supporters in Beijing would like to integrate HTC into the new 5G wifi network. But serious question have recently  arisen concerning security threats arising from such a decision for the western world.  Many in the west see Huawei as a  Chinese technical Trojan Horse.  

From the west’s perspectives Huawei has two problems and both involve security issues.  One is the alleged vulnerability of its software and hardware to security leaks. This, it is claimed by British detractors, stems from its “poor development and testing” regimes. ( See: “Huawie China State Hackers Rigging 5 G Tests Against Nokia and Ericsson”, June 1, 2019 by Sal Doffman)   The second  security issue is the potential for hacking by China’s defense and security networks into our national wifi networks .  This latter problem exits because Huawei has known close ties with China’s powerful defense and spy agencies.  The USA and other nations claim that Huawei surreptitiously collects data for the Chinese government. If that wasn’t bad enough, it also takes subsidies and soft loans from Beijing enabling it to engage in unfair pricing practices which permits it to muscle out western competition. In the same vein, it  is know to have unfair access to closed government procurements, and is heavily protected and promoted by the Chinese government which supports its exports and defends its product’s market share (ibid.). 

At present, the international cyber community is gearing up for the introduction of what is termed the  the new “5G” WiFi network”  Every ten years of so companies that make smart phones and the networks which link them up introduce new technologies, and new protocols, and they introduce new increased transmission speeds with which the instruments operate.  These decade-staggered  iterations are called “generations”.  Today, we are operating on the 4G (fourth generation) wireless transmission.   In the past, you may remember the old 2 G and 3 G days when we could only transmit and receive text messages and a few pictures.  Under 4G, we are able to download complex games, and entire movies in a matter of a few minutes.  Our present network can  deliver as much as one gigabyte per second of data (or 1000 kilobytes/sec) to your phone or tablet.  That is pretty good.  But the new  5G proposed system will have a capacity twenty times that speed or 20 gigabytes per second.   (Some techies even claim 40 gigabytes per second).  With 5 G,  users will be able to download large multimedia files, and as well the system will be able to handle the expected surge of increase new network traffic. It will also reduce to near zero the “lag time” between when the signal is generated and its arrival at  your instrument.  That will permit more effective use of robotics such as self-driving autos and trucks, smart homes, and medical advances.    (See: “Will Millimeter Waves Maximize 5G Wireless?, Scientific American, June 23, 2015, by  Larry Greenmeier)

The problem with Huawei is that it is heavily involved in the new 5 G system technology but it also has deep and disturbing ties to Chinese defense and spy agencies.  These concerns seemed to have crystalized  in the west early last year (2018).  Plans for the introduction of 5G were well underway for installation protocols, when system developers began to question which research and tech companies should be included in the process.  

The concern over Huawei inclusion seems to have initiated  in Australia’s national security agency.  While attempting to assess security risks of the new 5G system for Australia, technical experts proposed two hypothetical questions.  How much damage could a rogue nation or individual do if (it) they had  access to or were involved in the installation of the new 5G next generation mobile technology?   After considerable effort the investigators concluded that the risks were indeed very great.  They concluded that, if Australia were on the receiving end of a cyber attack from an agency which had full access to the new network,  its entire cyber infrastructure (both military and domestic) could be sabotaged.  (See “Trump’s Banning of Huawei Could Be The  Beginning of the Biggest Trade War, by John Naughton, Opinion, theguardian.com, June 2, 2019)   With this information in hand, Australian officials duly notified its “Five Eyes” intelligence partners (USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand) regarding their finding.  President Trump who, early in his administration, put China in his sights regaling its trade policies was first to respond.  

President Trump initially encouraged US intelligence  partners to be more circumspect about allowing  Huawei into the next generation system of wifi or to help develop the system.   Soon after that —in a response to what the President  perceived as a national security threat—the US moved to withhold intelligence from any country that allowed Huawei in.  On May 15 of this year he barred American firms from using devices or parts built by Huawei in their systems. Huawei Technologies was added to a list of companies with which American companies can not do business without official government permission.  There were other results.  Intel—the processor company—has refused to supply processors for Huawei laptops,  Qualcomm—the manufacturer of wireless modems indicated it would abide by the ban on sales to Huawei.   ARM,  the British chip designer  whose processors power 95% of all the devices in the world, announced it would no longer sell licenses to Huawei as a result of the ban. This last was a devastating  blow to the company since designing processor chips from scratch would be a massive and expensive undertaking (Ibid.  Naughton 2019)  

It is difficult to say how this will play out.  But some may suggest that to solve the problem HTC establish some kind of “firewall”between it and the Chinese government agencies.  But concepts such as that ignore the elephant in the room—the fact that China does not playing on the same soccer pitch or with the same rules as the rest of us.  They have their own pitch and their own rules and a business culture that is very different than our own.  Its time that we accept the fact that they do not and can not play by our rules.  When we begin to understand that—as President Trump seems to—perhaps we can work for a more equitable level playing field and greater success in dealing with them.

But until that time we must  not open the gate to the wooden horse sitting outside of our national palisade.