Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Mentors must ALWAYS strive for PERSPECTIVE - especially on IMMIGRATION! - by CL

Yesterday, Steve McCann wrote a very thoughtful piece on American Thinker - 

Trump, Refugees and the American Left

You can read it here:

I wrote a comment emphasizing PERSPECTIVE. It is easy to get caught up in the human drama of refugees and not see the consequences of our misguided compassion:

As a beneficiary of the same Displaced Persons Act as you, Steve (which I fully disclose on my website) - I feel a certain kinship with your experience, but I feel that your compassion has clouded your perspective.
The DP Act of 1948 allowed 400,000 immigrants over 4 years - and we were vetted intensely in Germany - not at the American border. Keep in mind that this immigration within 4 years was infinitecimal compared to the immigrant INVASION since 1965 - 65 million - the largest invasion in all of human history! Besides, we were mostly Christians arriving in a Christian country. All of us needed sponsors who were responsible for our upkeep and welfare. Our green cards required us to report to the USPO annually every January. We claimed no rights to change America - we became assimilated into America!
Interestingly, even our Presbyterian retired couple who sponsored us introduced us to the local Lutheran church that we started to attend. In all aspects, since that time I and my entire family of kids and grandkids now are Americans - PERIOD!
Compare and contrast that with the 1965 Act - its sheer size is unassimilable!
History shows that this clash of cultures ALWAYS leads to WAR - ALWAYS!
Don't believe me? Read these articles - http://crushlimbraw.blogspot.c...
The ultimate irony in my life is that we escaped war - only to see our new country set up the conditions for a civil war - which in some form has already started. All driven by politics without vision!
Diversity + Proximity = WAR - always!

What does all of this mean for the average American? When we see the protesters (many professional and paid) appear at every airport screaming against the Trump executive order on immigration, the obvious intent is to convince us yokels to tell our leaders to stop this ill advised government action.
What are the consequences?
Yes, there is severe inconvenience for some people. So, should we cease and desist and return to what we consider situation normal - and not do anything, ever?
What would be the consequences of that?
As I have already illustrated from history - we or our children and grandchildren will be in a civil war. Also, when you combine the cost of welfare, education and health care for immigrants, immigrant criminal gangs - all paid for by US taxpayers - might it be logical, reasonable and common sense to stop this runaway train of immigration?
Here is the hard to accept truth - if we don't STOP ALL immigration NOW - we will pay in blood and treasure a much higher price than the inconvenience suffered by some people now!

(There are almost 300 article archived here on Immigration - and you can word search specifics for yourself.)

On Boycotting Radical Islamic Nations - by Nonie Darwish

§  The interviewer seemed shocked to hear that I do not have any Arab or Muslim friends who are protesting President Trump's ban, and that many immigrants of Islamic origin support the ban and are fed up and embarrassed by what jihadists are doing.
§  The lesson America needs to know is that the West is not doing Muslims a favor by constantly treating them as children who should be shielded from reality. They hungry for the truth: that their educational system and mosque preaching are full of incitement, are abhorrent, hate-filled and the foundation upon which violent jihad is built.
§  Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims.
§  Muslims need to look at themselves in the mirror and see the world from the point of view of their victims. Instead, the West is sacrificing its culture, values, laws, pride and even self-respect.
§  It might compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees but it is reckless compassion. Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?
§  Some "tough love" is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.
Early this morning an Arabic radio station in the Middle East called asking my opinion about President Trump's ban on refugees and citizens of seven Muslim nations. The radio host, who sounded angry over the ban, was a Christian Arab. She was surprised to hear that I supported the ban and think that it should have taken place the day after 9/11.
She then asked me if I knew any Arab American activist who was against the ban because she wanted to interview someone against the ban. She seemed shocked to hear that I do not have any Arab or Muslim friends who are protesting the ban, and that many immigrants of Islamic and Middle East origin support the ban and are fed up and embarrassed by what jihadists are doing.
She said that all she sees on CNN and other channels are riots that portray almost all Americans supporting Muslims and against Trump. I am upset over the success of the leftist propaganda all over the Middle East. It brings back memories of the life of the hate indoctrination and misinformation I lived under for most of my life.
What would Muslim countries do to the West, I asked, if 19 American terrorists flew airplanes into Arab capitals and their government and military headquarters? What did she think Arabs would do if every week or so American terrorists would conduct synchronized killing sprees all over the Muslim world, gunning Muslims down, blowing them up with homemade pressure cookers, ramming into crowds with trucks? There was silence.
She then started calming down and said that of course she is against terrorism, "but". I asked: "Do you see what jihad did to your Christian community in the Middle East?" She was silent for a minute, then it occurred to me that she might be afraid to continue the conversation because her bosses were probably Muslims.
I was sure she was going to hang up on me, but to my surprise she asked me to please hold. Then she was back, live from the studio, and started interviewing me and asked the same questions on air. I poured my heart out in Arabic to the Arab listeners.
The lesson here is that Arabs are hungry to hear the truth; this Arab station, instead of rejecting these ideas, ended up putting them on air. The lesson America needs to learn is that the West is not doing Muslims (especially the reformists) a favor by constantly treating them as children who should be shielded from reality.
Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims. Muslims need to look at themselves in the mirror and see the world from the point of view of their victims. Instead, the West is sacrificing its culture, values, laws, pride and even self-respect. Muslim culture needs a wake-up call telling them that, sooner or later, non-Muslim nations will close their doors to any kind of Muslim immigration if the jihad culture continues. That will also be a strong message to Muslims already in the West who still believe in jihad.

The Muslim people are hungry for the truth: that their educational system and mosque preaching are full of incitement, abhorrent, hate-filled and the foundation upon which violent jihad is built. The Islamic commandment to do jihad sacrifices Muslim men, women and children to kill and get killed.
As long as the West continues its appeasement of Islamic jihad, Islam will never reform and the West will lose. So far, the West has continued to extend a lifeline to the religion of Islam; a religion for which the number one enemy is the truth, and which struggles to suppress the truth.
It might be compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees, but it is reckless compassion. Why isn't Saudi Arabia taking refugees temporarily until things settle down in Syria and Iraq? Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies, as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?
Who is really benefiting from the policy of appeasement, the acceptance of Sharia-stricken theocracies and their jihadist, hate-filled education? Some "tough love" is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.
Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of "Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values"

With the Bureaucracy, Trump’s Got His Work Cut Out for Him - By Peter Skurkiss

A major part of the Washington swamp that is suffocating the American republic is the federal bureaucracies. In the opinion of many, the federal workforce is over-staffed and grossly over-compensated. Yet true as that is, it's the least of the problem. The real damage the bureaucrats have been doing to the economy and the freedom of the citizenry is their evolution into an administrative state, and an entity unto itself. This has enveloped America in a type of soft despotism that President Trump must rein in.
Some explanation might be needed. 
Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville to describe the state into which a country overrun by “a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.
Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty and doubt in the general populace.
Here how this happens. Congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law. As is not infrequent, the legislation is vague, and it is left up to a government department or agency to interpret it. From the legitimately passed law, the bureaucracies then formulate regulations which have the force of the original law behind them.  
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, seemed like an utter fool when she said that ObamaCare would have to be passed before we knew what was in it. When she said 'we,' Pelosi didn't just mean the American public or even all those Democrats who voted for ObamaCare without having read the bill. She also included herself and other architects of that monstrosity. 
That's because the ObamaCare law - like many others laws - will come to mean what the relevant bureaucracies say it means. This is done through the regulatory power invested the government departments. In this manner, the passed law is like a skeleton. The bureaucracy and regulatory agencies put the meat and muscle on the bones and breathe life into the legislation. Sometimes a Frankenstein is the result.
Administrations come and administrations go, but the bureaucrats remain. Oh how the liberals and their allies in the permanent bureaucracy love this arrangement. But unfortunately this gives us a class of unelected and increasingly assertive bureaucrats who define too much of the law for the country. 
During the Obama reign, the Federal Register grew by some 18,000 pages. The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated regulations cost the American people $1.9 trillion a year, which is more than 10% of GDP or about $15,000 per household. 
Government regulations have gotten so that businesses and even individuals are almost guaranteed to be violating one regulation (or de facto law) or another. Such an administrative state is what Alexis de Tocqueville had in mind when he defined soft despotism as a 'network of small complicated rules' that while maybe not obvious to the people, breed fear, uncertainty and doubt throughout society. 
President Trump has promised to lasso government agencies and then bring back a constitutional understanding of their limits. Judging his executive actions and cabinet picks like Scott Pruitt (EPA), Betsy DeVos (Education), Dr. Ben Carson (Housing), Tom Price (Health), and Andy Puzder (Labor), the president obviously means what he says.
And it is heartening to know that the president is not the only one intent on draining the federal swamp. The Republicans in Congress are pitching in, too. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Majority Leader, reports on two steps the GOP House has already undertaken, as he put it, to 'target the greatest threat to America's people, economy, and Constitution: the federal bureaucracy." 
One is the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS). When this bill becomes law, it will require regulations that cost over $100 million to receive congressional approval before becoming administrative law. 
The House also passed the Regulatory Accountability Act. This would require agencies to choose the least costly regulatory option to achieve their goals. This bill would also prohibit significantly costly rules from going into effect if they are being challenged in court. Furthermore, it would end the 'Chevron deference,'  a doctrine that stacks the legal system in favor of the bureaucracy by directing judges to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules. 
These two bills are systematic changes to the way bureaucracies will be allowed to operate, and hence, if passed, they will be far-reaching both in time and scope. 
Rep. McCarthy also promises that the House will soon begin repealing specific Obama regulations using the Congressional Review Act. This law allows a majority in the House and Senate to override any regulatory rule finalized in the past 60 legislative days. Given the pace of President Obama's regulatory frenzy as his term wound down, this is a target-rich environment.
But still there is yet another abuse from the administrative state that some informed critics call the biggest, but least talked about, threat to liberty. This is the use of what are called administrative subpoenas.
Just what are administrative subpoenas? Under U.S. law, they are subpoenas issued by a federal agency without prior judicial approval or oversight. Critics say that such subpoenas violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution while proponents claim they provide a valuable investigative tool.
No doubt administrative subpoenas can aid in the enforcement of law and regulations. But more to the point, they are also an open invitation to abuse of businesses and even the citizenry by bureaucrats, to the point of hardening the soft despotism of the administrative state.  
To get an idea of the type of abuses that administrative subpoenas can lead to, I refer you an article in Wired magazine appropriately titled "We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena." This title is a takeoff of a scene in the Humphrey Bogart classic The Treasure of the Sierra Madre with the analogy being the Mexican banditos after Bogie's treasure are our present day government bureaucrats.  
Legislation will probably be required to tame the abuse of administrative subpoenas. To date, there seems to be little action on this front. In a way, this is understandable. There is so much on the plates of President Trump and the Republican Congress that priorities have to be set. But in the not too distant future, the question of administrative subpoenas will have to be faced, and this begins by first creating an awareness of the problem. 
And this reform should not be done on the basis of individual cases, as can be accomplished by President Trump's department heads. Legislation is needed so as to 1) cover all federal agencies in one shot and 2) constrain future presidential administrations that may not value The Bill of Rights as much as this present one does.  
Taken all together, the 2016 election has been such a shock to the Democrats and their soul-mates in the liberal media that they still have not fully grasped the ramifications of a president like Donald Trump and a Republican Congress behind him. Perhaps the Womyn’s March in the nation's streets last week is a harbinger of the hysteria to follow. Fine. The dogs can bark to their hearts' content, but the Trump caravan will move on. And with just a pinch of luck, the taming of the bureaucratic state will begin in earnest.
Peter Skurkiss is a writer in Stow, Ohio.

Should Cash Be Abolished? - By Frank Shostak

At the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, Joseph Stiglitz the Nobel Prize-winning economist argued in favor of phasing out currency and moving toward a digital economy.
The view expressed by Stiglitz is similar to that of former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff who has been arguing for many years that there is an urgent need to remove cash from the economy. It is held that cash provides support to the shadow economy and permits tax evasion. Some estimates suggest this could be up to $700 billion in the US.
The Governor of the Bank of England — Mark Carney — has expressed similar views in support of the removal of cash.
Yet another justification for its removal is that in times of economic shocks, which push the economy into recession, the run for cash exacerbates the downturn — i.e., it becomes a factor contributing to economic instability by facilitating a cash-induced savings surge rather than an increase in demand.
Other arguments go further, including the position that in the modern world most transactions can be settled by means of electronic funds transfer. Money in the modern world is an abstraction, or so it is held.
But is it true that money is an abstraction?
The Emergence of Money
Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit might not have been able to find a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not have been able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit.
The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved as being the most marketable commodity.
On this Mises wrote,
There would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, money.1
Similarly, Rothbard wrote that,
Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media — in almost all exchanges — and these are called money.2
Since this general medium of exchange emerges from among a potentially wide range of commodities, money is, as such, a commodity.
According to Rothbard,
Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.3
Moreover, according to Mises, “an object cannot be used as money unless, at the moment when its use as money begins, it already possesses an objective exchange value based on some other use”4
Why? According to Rothbard:
In contrast to directly used consumers’ or producers’ goods, money must have pre-existing prices on which to ground a demand. But the only way this can happen is by beginning with a useful commodity under barter, and then adding demand for a medium to the previous demand for direct use (e.g., for ornaments, in the case of gold).5
In short, money is that for which all other goods and services are traded. This fundamental characteristic of money must be contrasted with those of other goods. For instance, food supplies the necessary energy to human beings, while capital goods permit the expansion of infrastructure that in turn permits the production of a larger quantity of goods and services.
Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, people settled on gold as money — gold served as the monetary standard. In today’s monetary system, the core of the money supply is no longer gold but coins and notes issued by the government and the central bank. Consequently, coins and notes constitute the standard money, known as cash, that is employed in transactions. Goods and services are sold for cash.
At any point in time individuals can keep their money either in their wallets, under their mattresses, in a safe deposit box or stored — deposited — in banks. In depositing money, a person never relinquishes ownership. No one else is expected to make use of it. When Joe stores his money with a bank, he continues to have an unlimited claim against it and is entitled to take charge of it at any time. Consequently these deposits, labeled demand deposits, form part of money.
At any point in time part of the stock of cash is stored, that is, deposited, in banks.
Thus if, in an economy, people hold $10,000 in cash, then the money supply of this economy is $10,000. But if some individuals have stored $2,000 in demand deposits the total money supply will remain $10,000: $8,000 cash and $2,000 in demand deposits with banks. Should all individuals deposit their entire stock of cash in banks then the total money supply would remain $10,000 — all of it held as demand deposits.
This must be contrasted with a credit transaction. Credit always involves the creditor’s purchase of a future good in exchange for a present good. As a result, in a credit transaction, money is transferred from a lender to a borrower. Such transactions include savings deposits. These are in fact loans to the bank. With these deposits the lender of money (the depositor) relinquishes to the bank his claim over the money for the duration of the loan. These simple credit transactions, however, — i.e., loans which are not created by the banks as multiples of funds on deposit — do not alter the amount of money in the economy. If Bob lends $1,000 to Joe, the money is transferred from Bob’s demand deposit or from Bob’s wallet to Joe’s possession.
These savings deposits — to be contrasted with demand deposits — therefore should not be included as money.
The Digitization of Money
Does the digitization of money change this?
Electronic money is not money as such but a particular way of using existing money. For instance, by means of electronic devices Bob can transfer his $1,000 to Joe. He could also transfer the $1,000 by means of a check written against his deposit in Bank A. Joe in turn will now place the check with his bank, say, Bank B. After the clearance, the money will be transferred from Bob’s account to Joe’s demand deposit in Bank B.
Note that all these transfers, either electronically or by means of checks, could take place because the $1,000 in cash physically exists. Without the existence of the $1,000 nothing could be transferred.
Now, if Bob pays for his groceries with a credit card he in fact borrows from the credit card company such as MasterCard. For instance, if he buys $100 worth of groceries using MasterCard, then MasterCard pays the grocer $100. Bob, in turn, after one month or earlier repays his debt to MasterCard in whole or part. Again, all this could not have happened without the existence of cash. After all, what exactly has been transferred?
The fact that cash per se was not used in the above example doesn’t mean that we don’t require it any longer. On the contrary, the fact that it exists enables various forms of transactions to take place via sophisticated forms of technology such as electronic or digital transfers. These various forms of transfer are not money as such but simply a particular way of moving money. The underlying commodity being used as the medium of exchange is still cash — just the means of transferring that cash is different in a digital world.
Importantly, the digitization of the process of transferring money has been conflated in popular usage with “digital money.” As the above logic demonstrates, they are two different things.
The Removal of Money — the Case of India
Any attempt to totally remove cash — i.e., money — implies the destruction of the medium of exchange and, ultimately, the market economy. The recent experiment in India to remove large denomination notes has caused serious havoc. Toward the end of last year Prime Minister Modi surprised his country by announcing the banning of 500 and 1,000 rupee notes, with some estimating that around 86 percent of all cash in circulation in India was no longer considered as legal tender.
Any policy directed at phasing out cash in order to stop the shadow economy has the effect of preventing individuals from employing their economy’s medium of exchange. This, however, is unlikely to succeed as individuals will always find various other goods or services to serve as money.
If legal tender notes were to be banned then people would simply use something else. The argument that removing cash will eliminate tax evasion and crime is doubtful. Tax evasion would be reduced if the incentives for it — high taxes based on big government — were removed.
But what of the claim that the existence of cash allows “panic withdrawal” during economic crises which therefore exacerbates those crises?
The fact that during an economic crisis people run to withdraw their money indicates that they have lost faith in the banking system — perhaps for good reasons — and would like to have their money back. The recent Greek “debt crisis” is a textbook example, and indeed bank depositors were quite correct in their assessment of the state of their banks.
Here it is necessary to consider the multiplication of “money” in a modern, fractional reserve banking system. In the modern world, banks are allowed — indeed encouraged — to lend multiples of funds on deposit,  i.e., create money out of nothing. When this happens it is indeed likely that a mass withdrawal of cash deposits can result in a magnified effect on the economy through forced shrinkage in the credit system and the resulting collapse of the economic activities that relied on that artificially created money.
What is important to note, however, is that the problem in this case is not the existence of cash but rather the artificial creation of additional money by the commercial banks through fractional reserve lending — mostly with the support of governments. Cash doesn’t cause crises — central bank-enabled fractional reserve lending does.
Irrespective of the level of technological advancement of the economy, the essence of money can never change — it is that against which we exchange goods and services. It is only the (erroneous) definition of money as an empty abstraction that makes it possible to conclude that cash can be phased out of the economy with some hypothetical benefits. This is, in effect, what Stiglitz was suggesting in Davos.
There are other issues associated with the digitization of money flows which warrant comment.
First, there is the problem that the mandatory switch from physical money to money held as deposits within banks will deprive people of the privacy they may wish in the allocation of their financial resources.
Second, once all cash is transferred to the banking system, there is the real risk that control over that money is progressively ceded to that system and to the governments which thrive upon it. Political or consumption activities that are unpopular with government and/or commercial interests — especially in an environment of growing powers of the “security state” — could result in retributive action via restrictions on access to those monetary balances.
Third, in a purely digital world it would be impossible to withdraw physical money should people believe that their bank (or the banking system as a whole) was at risk of collapse. This could potentially lock people on board a sinking ship, or at least remove the ability of people to make their own judgments and vote with their monetary feet.
The compulsory switch to purely digital cash could well become yet another facet of the growing tendency toward the further centralization of state power and the decline in individual liberty.
1.Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Classics, 1980), p. 45.
2.Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money? (Novato, Calif.: Libertarian Publishers, 1963), p. 3.
3.Ibid., pp. 27–28.
4.Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 131.
5.Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?, p. 9.
Note: The views expressed on are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Frank Shostak is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a frequent contributor to His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies.

Trump’s Wall Forces Mexican Corruptos To Come Clean -By Christopher Manion (And the American taxpayer pays for this!)

Mexico’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto, is a puppet of the country’s deeply-embedded elites, known in Mexico as los Corruptos.
Last week they shoved him out on stage to broadcast a message to Mexican illegals in the United States.
The message was simple:
Yes, Trump’s simple promise to enforce existing U.S. law has sent the Corruptos into chaos.
True to form, Peña Nieto brays the elite’s century-old canard, fomenting hatred for the Gringos while his corrupt pals make off with billions and wink at their pliant American counterparts.
“Your poverty is their fault! It’s Americans who are your exploiters,” he assures illegals, “not Mexico’s thoroughly embedded criminal ruling class”
Enrique’s venal allies quickly chime in. Former president Vicente Fox screams “Hitler”; even the country’s terrorized Catholic bishops sing along (thanks to the Corruptos, Mexico is the most dangerous country in the world to be a Catholic priest).
Peña Nieto promises illegals that his foreign ministry will protect them, because they are still Mexicans. In fact, anyone with Mexican ancestors who is now located in the United States is always a Mexican – not an American.
This novel geography applies equally to newly-smuggled illegal aliens, anchor babies, Coyotes, resident drug lords, green-card-bearing gang leaders, or fifth-generation “Mexican-Americans.”
For the Corruptos, they are all Mexicans living in “Greater Mexico.” They will always be aliens in the United States.
So does Peña Nieto invite them to come home to the Mother Country?
Quite the contrary: “STAY IN THE U.S.! WE NEED YOUR MONEY!”
Throughout Mexico, millions of communities depend on the “remesas” (remittances) sent home every year from relatives, legal and illegal, in the U.S. Amounting to tens of billions of dollars a year, these funds are Mexico’s only welfare system; the government’s version is so riddled with corruption that it’s virtually nonexistent.
The Corruptos also tax the remittances as soon as they arrive: recipient families must pay off the police chief, the mayor, and the local gang leader(s) – or fear for their lives and their livelihood.
This is the foul sewer of graft that will collapse in ruins when Trump’s Wall goes up to stay.
Peña Nieto laments that illegals in the U.S. are “at risk,” but the truth is darker: they’ll really be at risk if they return home.
Wait – wouldn’t they be safer there?
No way, José. If ten to twenty million illegals return to their family homes south of the border, it could bring down the entire Corrupto cartel.
For generations, the Corruptos have driven northwards millions of their fellow citizens so Enrique and his pals won’t have to take care of them at home.
That’s why Catholic bishops on both sides of the border routinely refer to Mexicans heading north to cross the border as “desperate.”
And who made them desperate?
Not us. After all, they’ve never been here.
Enrique’s pals made them desperate.
The Corruptos oppressed and exploited them as a way of life – that’s why they had to leave!
Moreover, there are tens of millions more Mexicans right there in Mexico who are “at risk” – terrorized by the corrupt multi-party elites that are allied with the drug gangs, the crime-infested military, the murderous Coyotes, and bought-off local officials. All these tentacles of the Mexican Deep State live on bribes, terror, and fraud.
That’s how the Corruptos oppress the common man and drive him north, where welfare benefits, medical care, and education are real – and free, thanks not to the Corruptos, but the American taxpayer.
But wait, there’s more: Enrique saves his biggest whopper for last:
“Mexico doesn’t believe in walls,” he says, barely stifling a guffaw.
A lie? Of course. All of Enrique’s houses in Mexico are surrounded by walls, just like every other house throughout the country.
In fact, any Mexican residence without a wall topped with broken glass and razor wire will be ransacked and gutted within 24 hours.
What’s the bottom line after all the lies?
President Trump’s executive order will deport criminal illegals. America’s “sanctuary cities” will be safe again, but the Corruptos are not going to give them a homecoming party.
Moreover, many other Mexicans, once deprived of illegal work and generous freebies in the U.S., will return to Mexico by choice.
When they get there, they will take Peña Nieto at his word and demand that he “be there for them” as he promised he would.
The Corruptos will suddenly have to provide them with all the benefits that the U.S. taxpayer once paid for.
When that crisis comes to a crescendo ­– and it will– we can expect a popular movement in Mexico to arise, echoing Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. “Make Mexico Great Again” will replace “hagamos una cosa” (“let’s see, how big should my bribe be?”) that has been the Mexican elite’s national motto for far too long.
Trump’s Wall will not only save America from Mexico’s Corruptos, it will save Mexico as well, when it brings the Corruptos down.
By the way, Peña Nieto belongs to the Marxist “Institutional Revolutionary Party.”
Hey, Enrique – tell your pals: here comes the real revolution.
Christopher Manion [send him mail] a Catholic teacher and writer, is president of Manion Music, LLC, which produces copyrighted, royalty-free music collections for telecommunications media and commercial and hospitality sites that use background music or music-on-hold. He writes from the Shenandoah Valley, where he is a volunteer Spanish translator for local law enforcement.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Mentors need to be informed and then stand the flak that follows. - by CL

Judging by today's posts on this archive - it's clear that the war to reclaim the country by WeDaPeople is just starting. Why?

Think about it - the Left quietly worked for over 100 years to claim control of every major institution in the country, such as education, federal and state bureaucracies, major corporations, etc.etc.. (My website summarizes that quite well.)
Do you think they will just give up because Trump was elected?
If you believe that, you're living in a dream world - delusional.

The heavy lifting is just beginning!

Any mentor worth his salt will have to become informed first - and this archive is purposely designed to give you the ammo needed for that. In addition to the general categories - you can word search any subject and gather materiel which will take you hours to read and comprehend.

I can assure you that once you have a good handle on your subject, your confidence in handling it will soar. 

I have learned that fact over the last 10-12 years. Don't get into long winded arguments or dissertations to prove your point - direct them to your sources, many of which are right here. My experience shows that most of them won't read them - they don't want to burst their own bubbles. Make them do their own research - it's the only way they will learn - if ever.

Don't expect to change a lot of minds!

What - You say?

Yes! The main purpose here is to equip those already who lean our direction - but are ill equipped on their information.

I am both a mentor and being mentored continually by the input of authors who write what I read.

I can also tell you that I have changed my mind on a number of beliefs which I once held dear as fact or truth.
Challenging our own beliefs is mandatory - to prevent us becoming delusional.

Take the time and trouble to become strong minded - and you need to be well grounded in the things that matter. I don't know everything, but I dang sure can more than hold my own in things that are important to all of us. In sports, the better prepared team usually wins!

Get strong and give'em hell!

DELINGPOLE: Donald Trump is Going to Make the European Union History

The more I see of the Donald Trump administration, the more I like its style.
Here’s a perfect example – in which Trump’s prospective new Ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, tells it like it is in an interview with Andrew Neil on the BBC’s Daily Politics show.
Neil asked Malloch why on earth he’d want to be Ambassador to the EU.
AN: I mean you’re clearly not a great fan of Brussels or these bureaucrats like Juncker.
TM: Well, I had in a previous year a diplomatic post where I helped to bring down the Soviet Union, so maybe there’s another union that needs a little taming.
Later, Neil asked Malloch what he thought of the President of the EU Commission.
AN: What do you think of Mr Juncker?
TM: Well Mr Juncker was a very adequate mayor of some city in Luxembourg and maybe he should go back and do that again.
Neil laughed like a man who couldn’t believe his luck. Politicians are hardly ever this frank on TV politics shows. Diplomats even less so because supposedly it’s their job to be discreet, smooth things over, not ruffle feathers. As for the EU – no one of influence, with the exception of Nigel Farage, has ever talked about it so disparagingly on television.
Ted Malloch
Yet straight-talking, EU-despising Ted Malloch is the man President Trump has chosen to represent the US in the European Union. And the reason he did this is because, as Malloch was at no pains to hide, President Trump just doesn’t like the EU:
TM: He doesn’t like an organisation that is supranational, that is unelected where the bureaucrats run amok and that is not frankly a proper democracy.
There’s a revolution going on here and I think even those of us who support Trump and Brexit are being taken aback by the speed of change.
Remember that the European Union was partly the creation of the USA, which saw it as a way of keeping peace in Europe by using France as a counterweight to Germany, with a reluctant Britain as the sensible intermediary. This is why successive US Presidents have colluded to prop up this corrupt, inefficient, anti-democratic institution.
Suddenly, those days are over.
The EU is finished and the new President of the USA is actively speeding its end.

A leak in the pension dam - By Russ Vaughn

For decades, I've watched unions, both private-sector and public-service, collude with the Democratic Party to boost salaries, benefits, and pensions to levels unattainable to the average non-union American worker, all the time wondering, "How the hell are they ever going to keep that going?"  For years, when we encountered one of those big, lumbering, quarter-million-dollar motor homes, my wife and I would joke, "There goes another retired lawyer or doctor."  These days, based on publicly available data, our speculation is that it's likely a retired cop or fireman.
We visited old college friends a couple of years ago at their very nice home on a lush fairway in the desert southwest.  He's a retired public utility worker and union official, while she's a school administrator.  While he was showing me the yard, I spotted a two-story Spanish Colonial-style mansion across the fairway and observed, "Looks like you have some very well-to-do neighbors."  His response was, "That?  Nah, he's a retired fireman."  Today I spoke with my brother in California about this situation, and he informed me that he has seen on open public records that retired fire department captains in his home town are drawing $130,000 per year from the public trough.
Are you beginning to see my concern?
You don’t have to be an actuary to calculate that the American dream many of these generously retired union workers, especially those from the public-service unions, are living is completely unsustainable, assuredly for coming generations, but most likely for current retirees as well.  And that's despite all the desperate attempts by the unions' Democrat cronies to raise taxes, tolls, and public fees to fund the exorbitant salaries, benefits, and pensions of public-service employees and to pressure unionized industries into equally lucrative contracts for their blue-collar workers.
Look at almost any major municipality in the so-called blue states, especially those cities that have been under Democrat control for decades, and you’ll likely find a looming pension crisis; ditto for private sector unions in those same states.  But don't even think about suggesting a reasonable reduction in those salaries, benefits, and pensions to either the totally intransigent unions or their Democrat cronies, who will assure you they have some magical way to accomplish the impossible.  There's a deepening reservoir of impossible-to-keep retirement commitments in those blue states being held back by a dam of desperate and disingenuous Democrat denial.
And now comes what may be a small leak portending that pension dam disaster, which, when it breaks, is going to sweep away generations of American dreams in the fiscal waves and torrents of all that pent up political cronyism and greed.  The Washington Post just reported that an ironworkers union in Ohio is doing the unthinkable: reducing benefits to its current pensioners, some by as much as 60%, to prevent the fund from sinking into insolvency as soon as 2024.  According to the Post, these ironworkers make up only a tiny slice of the more than a million private-sector workers and retirees whose pension funds are predicted to be insolvent within twenty years.  One of the largest, the Central States Pension Fund, which represents some 300,000 truckers, has already tried to reduce pensions but has been stymied in that effort by the federal government, which says the proposed cuts are insufficient to save the fund from insolvency.
It's a good bet that Chicago will be the first major Democrat stronghold to default on its public-service union retirement commitments, but it's a sure bet that it is the entire State of California that is sitting on the nuclear incident of pension plan insolvencies, and when that Democrat unicorn reactor ultimately goes critical and melts down, as it most assuredly is going to do, it will shake this nation.  We can hope it shakes some sense into Democrats and makes unions think twice about getting too greedy, but based on current attitudes, it's not likely.
It will be interesting to see if all those retirees who get their fat pensions drastically reduced will still be voting slavishly Democrat when basic math wrapped around the hard fist of reality smacks them hard in the kisser.

California Dreamin’ - By Martin Armstrong

California is a complete black hole. The people do not even realize that government has been so corrupt, that every person in California owes $93,000 at the end of 2016 to cover state employee pensions. Back in 2015, Calpers, the State Pension system, sold out stocks and bought bonds because they thought the stock market would crash. They have been quietly supporting efforts in Congress to seize 401K pension plans and hand them to the States to manage. Their top two corrupt politicians would have had this through if Hillary won.
It would be a win-win for the rest of the country if California seceded and took its two leading politicians with them. Of course, I doubt these two notorious politicians would vote to leave. It would be like the Clinton Foundation having to close shop because Hillary lost her influence to peddle.
Nancy Pelosi is the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, representing California’s 12th congressional district. Pelosi made a fortune trading initial public offerings (IPOs) while she had access to insider information from Congress. Yet she would never allow Social Security to invest for the average person. Pelosi has confirmed how Democrats really do dislike Christians. She recently said: “They pray in church on Sunday and then prey on people the rest of the week.”  The Podesta emails that revealed the Democrats disliked Catholics and Evangelical Christians, seem to be on point about their attitude: Hillary’s staff said Catholics are “severely backward” and further demeaned them saying they don’t know “what the hell they’re talking about.” Yet Pelosi is critical of Trump and calls him a racist because of his restriction on people coming from selected countries in the Middle East? You have Madeleine Albright saying she will register as a Muslim to protest Trump. So Catholics and Evangelicals the Democrats hate and now prefer Muslim? When did religion become a race? They are turning national security into a political football. NSA and taking everyone’s emails is necessary for security but checking people at the border is not?
Then there is Dianne Feinstein. Of course, it was Feinstein who supported the NSA and called Snowden a Traitor. Her Op-Ed justified taking everyone’s emails, phone calls etc claiming 911 would not have taken place if the NSA had full power to do whatever it desired – and did. Our models were showing California would move to secede back then and they too see to be on target. Even Zuckerberg of Facebook said he had personally called President Obama to voice his outrage at the NSA spying and Feinstein’s insane support of activity that everyone has come to see as standard. He said on his own Facebook Page:
“When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we’re protecting you against criminals, not our own government.” 
Then Feinstein’s husband won the contract to sell Post Office Department real estate. Of course, they cover that up claiming Blum Capital Partners, L.P (Richard Blum, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband), won the bid against 7 other competitors. They have never released proof of the bidding. Even the appearance of impropriety is a reason to recuse a judge whenever it may be “reasonable be questioned.” It goes even further: Blum and Feinstein both knew that this transaction has the appearance of corruption and a Federal Judge would be compelled to recuse themselves from such a case if “his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
California Gold Rush
To all my friends in California – it’s time to leave. Florida has good weather and no state income tax. It is the number one state in economic growth and job creation most of the time with over 3% and Orlando, even back in 2014, was the top city in the USA for job growth coming in at 3.7%. California is on target for going BUST in 2021. It already has the HIGHEST taxes in the USA and Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration miscalculated costs for the state Medi-Cal program, which is their excuse, by $1.9 billion last year. This is just an “oversight” that contributed to Brown’s projection of a deficit in the upcoming budget. However, Medi-Cal covers illegal immigrants. There is NO REQUIREMENTwhatsoever to have a citizenship OR a resident status paying taxes.
Hello! Yes call Trump a racist and secede because you want to cover everyone even if they do not pay taxes on the cash they earn. No wonder they do not want a wall. All of Mexico can go to California for free healthcare unlimited.
Only a handful of states, including California, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and Vermont, currently tax ALL retirement income and don’t provide any general income exclusion for seniors. So California has compassion for refugees and is liberal toward everyone but hard working Americans who can never live in peace and should be taxed until they drop dead.
Worse still, California taxes people who retire and move to other states. Yes, you are stamped on your ass when born in California – PROPERTY OF THE STATE. You cannot escape. So it may be best to get out before it is TOO LATE! Under federal law, states are now clearly prohibited from taxing certain retirement income unless you’re a resident of, or domiciled in, that state. California was attempting to tax people in other states claiming they earned their pension in California. The federal law applies to all qualified plans (for example, 401(k), profit sharing, and defined benefit plans), IRAs, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, and governmental plans. So if you sell your home and get out and domicile in a state that does not tax pensions, you are OK on this level. However, the law provides only limited protection for other (nonqualified) deferred compensation plan benefits. This is called “top-hat” plan benefits that are paid over an employee’s lifetime, or over a period of at least 10 years. Stock options, stock appreciation rights (SARs), and restricted stock are not included meaning California is completely free to tax these benefits even after you relocate.
How much longer can this California Dreaming continue? Our computer says 2021. It’s time to leave before they impose an exit tax.
28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Read more at: