The Trump Travel Ban and The Distortion of Facts About Immigration

Every day since Donald Trump has placed a moratorium on travel  from 7 Arab speaking countries, the political left has been distorting the facts about immigration and asylum in this country.  They make it sound as if it is a "right" because, as many of their signs said: "No human being is illegal".  Others point to the inscription -- "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" -- on the base of the Statue of Liberty as proof that there should not be any limitations on entry into the U.S.. Some of our politicians even pictured "Lady Liberty" crying over the travel ban.

However, I find this all to be a bunch of bull.

First of all, where were all these whiners when Barack Obama, by executive order, ended the "wet foot dry foot" policy that had allowed Cubans to legally enter on the basis that they were escaping human rights abuses in Cubs?

More importantly, we have always placed restrictions on immigration and refugee status going all the way back to 1790.  Today, we have specific and complex quotas regarding entry, including quotas for refugee migration by different areas of the world.  In fact, under the current law, only 4,000 refugees may enter from Europe and Central Asia.  This includes Western Asia, which makes up many of the countries on which Trump has imposed a travel ban.


I think many of the "liberal" protestors would be shocked to learn that, in 1965,  then President, Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed into law, a ban on gays entering the U.S. The reasons given was that: (1) they were "mentally defective" and (2)  they had "constitutional psychopathic inferiority".   It wasn't until 1990, that that ban was lifted when a Republican President signed into law a repeal of the homosexual exclusion.

Additionally, there is the theatrics of showing the Statue of Liberty crying.  Lady Liberty was never a symbol of immigration.  She was a gift from the French people in celebration of 100 years of liberty.  Her name given by her sculptor was "Liberty Enlightening the World".  She has a book in her left hand with the year 1776 inscribed on it. There are broken chains around her feet.  And, that famous torch symbolized a beacon for the rest of the world to embrace the freedoms and liberty that this country enjoys.  The inscription at the base of the statue was added to raise funds to create a home for the magnificent statue.  Those words were never the original intent.

Lastly, the ban is temporary and preventative.  Those claiming that there has never been a terrorist who has come here from any of the 7 countries that encompass the ban defies reason.  I'm quite certain that if a terrorist act resulted due to someone coming from any of those 7 places, the same people would be all over Trump for not taking the proper steps to have prevented it. 

References:

‘Lady Liberty is crying,’ Democrats declare in wake of Trump’s visa, asylum executive order: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/28/lady-liberty-crying-democrats-declare-wake-trumps-/

'No human being is illegal': linguists argue against mislabeling of immigrants: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/illegal-immigrant-label-offensive-wrong-activists-say

Statue of Liberty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

Immigration Act of 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1990

History of U.S. Immigration Policy: http://www.fairus.org/facts/us_laws

Obama ends 'wet foot, dry foot' policy for Cubans - USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/12/obama-ends-wet-foot-dry-foot-policy-cubans/96505172/

How the United States Immigration System Works: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

World More Doomed...Thanks to Trump!

On Thursday, January 26, a group of supposed atomic scientists based out of the University of Chicago announced that their Doomsday Clock was moved 30 seconds forward to just 2-1/2 minutes to Midnight.

All because of Trump. They claimed:

"...even though he has just now taken office, the president's intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse."

Also, claiming:

"This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a U.S. presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change."

So, there you have it!  A bunch of self-appointed scientists, and obviously "not" politically motivated, have declared that the election of Trump has brought us closer to the end of the world.  Of course, this same group have been all over the place in predicting the world's end as noted by this chart:

Are we now supposed to go back to the 1950's and have our kids hiding under their desks as weekly air raid sirens blast?  Or, similarly, running to bomb shelters or practicing "duck and cover" every time we hear those sirens?  Don't forget the Conelrad radio and TV alerts.  Damn that Trump!

Let's not forget though, that this same group moved the "clock" forward from 6 to 3 minutes before midnight while our 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Barack Obama, was in charge.

References:

The Doomsday Clock Is Reset: Closest To Midnight Since The 1950s: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/26/511592700/the-doomsday-clock-is-now-30-seconds-closer-to-midnight

Source of Chart: Wikipedia: Doomsday Clock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

Duck and Cover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_cover

CONELRAD: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONELRAD

2009 Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize

Contrasting Views: Obama and Trump on Voter Fraud

Update to original blog: Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

Original blog continues:

At his very last news conference, President Obama said this: "This whole notion of voting fraud — this is something that has constantly been disproved."  In addition he remarked this is the only advanced democracy that makes it harder, rather than easier, to vote.  Both those claims are false.  There are plenty of stories where the dead vote and vote multiple times.  Note this report from CBS2 in Los Angeles:



In addition, PEW Research Center found that 24 million voter registrations were significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.  That 1.8 million dead people were still on voter rolls, and that 2.75 million people are registered to vote in 2 or more states.

As far as it being harder to vote in the U.S.; many "advanced" countries require photo I.D.'s.  For example, photo I.D.'s are  required in Canada, in the United Kingdom, Mexico, and Germany.

Now there is an uproar over Trump's claim that 3 to 5 million votes in 2016 were cast fraudulently.  We don't know if he is right or wrong.  There has never been a study to determine the extent that voter fraud may exist nationwide.  Mostly because we, as a country, don't require voter I.D.'s along with a photo I.D.  Maybe, as Trump suggests, an investigation should be done, and perhaps we should institute photo voter I.D.'s .  Why are the Democrats so adamantly against photo I.D.'s for voting?  Could it be that they know voter fraud does exist, and that it benefits Democratic candidates.

References:

Obama: Reports of voter fraud are 'fake news': http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/314887-obama-reports-of-voting-fraud-fake-news

How do I vote in the UK general election? What you need to know: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/06/how-do-i-vote-general-election-polling-what-need-to-know

Election Requirements in Canada: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Sid Miller says voters in Mexico must have a tamper-proof photo ID with hologram, thumbprint: True: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/aug/26/sid-miller/sid-miller-says-voters-mexico-must-have-tamper-pro/

Voting in Germany: https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/germany/moving/voting

Trump Vows 'Major Investigation' of His Claim of Voting Fraud: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-voting-fraud-false-claim-investigation.html?_r=0

Ballots cast by dead voters in Colorado: report | TheHill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297697-ballots-cast-by-dead-voters-in-colorado-report

Pew Center: Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf

Democrats, stop fighting voter ID laws - The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/05/30/democrats-stop-fighting-voter-id-laws/?utm_term=.b42ad5f34caa

A Tale of Two Stories: Obama's Job Approval

Democrats were ecstatic that a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Barack Obama left office with a 60% approval rating; placing him 4th behind Roosevelt, Clinton, and Reagan.

Similarly, the Gallup organization gave him a 59% approval rating at the end of his second term.  However, in the  "average" of polls over his two terms in office, the results were not as bright.  On average, his rating was 47.9%,  placing him 4th from the bottom with only Ford, Carter, and Truman having lower ratings.

 I don't know why Barack Obama was able to lift his rating from below 50% before 2016 and then, in the last year, gain 10 percentage points.  From a weak economy to violence on our streets and significant world disorder (especially in Syria), nothing saw a marked improvement to warrant that change.  Certainly, the results of this year's elections, nation-wide, didn't reflect a strong approval for either Obama or his Democratic policies.  If that were true, Hillary Clinton would be President.

References:

President Obama is leaving office on a very high note: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/18/obama-climbs-to-60-percent-approval-in-final-presidential-approval-rating-post-abc-poll-finds/?utm_term=.bb54d801599e

Obama Averages 47.9% Job Approval as President: http://www.gallup.com/poll/202742/obama-averages-job-approval-president.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Is Trump the True Purveyor of Hope?

Recently, Michelle Obama said this: 'We are feeling what not having hope feels like'.   I don't know who the "We" really is in that statement, but the suggestion is that Trump's presidency provides no hope for our nation.

Hope is a fleeting thing.  It's personal.  What you "hope for" may last for years, or may be fulfilled in just days. or never fulfilled.  Your particular "hope" may not be what someone else is hopeful for.  Democrats always sell hope like some type of "snake oil" that will cure all your ills.  In 1992, the soon-to-be President, Bill Clinton, ran the following ad. In it, he proclaimed the he would "bring hope back to the American Dream".

Whether, either individually or collectively, that "nondescript" promise of  "hope" ever came true is up to each individual that lived through that time.


When Obama ran for President, he, like Bill Clinton, also ran on a slogan of "hope".  Actually, "hope and change". Maybe, Michelle should look at the results of a recent poll about the last eight years:

"...only 30 percent feel they are better off financially now than before Obama became president.  One-in-five says they’re worse off (22 percent), and nearly half feel their family’s financial situation is about the same (47 percent)."

Understand, when 47% say their family financial situation is "about the same", they are saying that things are the same as 2009, when the country was in recession. Where's all the hope in those findings?

The fact is, Obama never fulfilled the most personal "hope" that most Americans have: jobs and better income for themselves and their family.   I think Trump may just be the best "hope" for those who haven't benefited financially during the 8 years of Obama.

References:

Michelle Obama: 'We are feeling what not having hope feels like': http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/michelle-obama-home-oprah-interview/

Fox News Poll: Positive ratings for President Obama as he exits: Despite that...only 30 percent feel they are better off financially now than before Obama became president.  One-in-five says they’re worse off (22 percent), and nearly half feel their family’s financial situation is about the same (47 percent): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/15/fox-news-poll-positive-ratings-for-president-obama-as-exits.html?refresh=true

Michelle Obama's suggestion Trump is end of 'hope' for America gets pushback: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/17/michelle-obama-suggests-trump-is-white-house-is-end-hope-for-america.html

pb

Obama's Economy in One Chart

At almost every opportunity, Barack Obama touts his record on the economy.  In fact, at his final press conference as President, he said this:

As I was preparing to take office, the unemployment rate was on its way to 10 percent. Today it is at 4.6 percent, the lowest in nearly a decade. We've seen the longest streak of job growth on record, and wages have grown faster over the past few years than at any time in the past 40.

Of course, the implication of that statement is that he, and he alone, saved the country.  That, without him, we would still be in recession.  But, guess what?  From the Federal Reserve's perspective, we pretty much still are.  The primary job of the Federal Reserve (our central bank) is to keep our economy stable and growing at a reasonable clip.  When the economy is overheating, the Federal Reserve increases its prime lending rate (the Fed Funds Rate) to make borrowing more expensive, and thus, retard economic (buying) activity.  On the other hand.  When the economy is in recession, the Fed Funds lending rate is lowered to stimulate economic activity by making borrowing cheaper and more attractive.  With that in mind, note this chart of Fed Funding rates (prime interest rates) over the last 65 years:

Click on Chart to Enlarge or Select Link Below

What this clearly shows, is that the Federal Reserve has kept its lending rates at the lowest levels in the last 65 years; and, for an unheard of period of time.  Still, almost 7-1/2 years past the end of the recession, rates are still below any other rates on the chart.  More importantly, this graph refutes Obama's claims of job and wage growth.  If those claims were really true, the economy would be firing on all cylinders and the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise interest rates to keep the economy from overheating due to too much buying activity.

However, just like most of Obama's claims, there are few facts to support them.


References:

Transcript: Obama’s end-of-year news conference on Syria, Russian hacking and more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/transcript-obamas-end-of-year-news-conference-on-syria-russian-hacking-and-more/?utm_term=.3e6ad3f0b6fd

Source of Chart: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

Video: Federal Funding Activity Explained:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK91Lq2Jz2Q

pb

Obama's Land Grab in Nevada

I live in Nevada, and what most of America doesn't know is how much of this state's land is controlled by the federal government.

When Obama took office, 81% of Nevada was designated as federal land.  By the beginning of 2016, he extended that percentage to 84.9, a nearly 4% increase in land that can't be used for anything other than viewing, although 99.999% of the nation's people have not, nor will ever see it.

Now, in another parting shot, and as a gift to the environmentalists, the President has stolen another 300,000 acres by federalizing an area called the Golden Butte; just outside of Las Vegas.  That is the equivalent of an additional 470 square miles added to the ridiculous amount already possessed.  To put that into perspective, the sprawling city of Los Angeles is slightly larger at 503 square miles.  As a result, there can be no oil/gas drilling or mining (in a state known as the "Silver State") because it was designated as not only federal land but also a national monument.

With the result of this last election cycle, Democrats should be "soul searching" to determine why they have lost so much power both federally and nationwide since Barack Obama took office.  One  reason could be this constant pitting of environmentalists against the average American.  In just 8 years, Obama has "federalized" more land than any other President before him. All in an attempt to shut down drilling.

References:

Obama designates monuments, protects federal land in Utah, Nevada: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/1228/Obama-designates-monuments-protects-federal-land-in-Utah-Nevada

More than half the West is federally owned. Now some states want that land: Almost exactly two-thirds of Utah land—66.5 percent—is federally owned, making it second only to Nevada’s 81 percent: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/almost-half-the-west-is-federally-owned-now-some-states-want-their-land-back/?utm_term=.e325d7a23f91

Here's how land is used by the federal government in Nevada: http://www.reviewjournal.com/trending/silver-state/heres-how-land-used-the-federal-government-nevada

Los Angeles in Square Miles: https://www.google.com/search?q=square+miles+los+angeles&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
 
pb

Laughable: Obama Esclates War With A Defeated Al Qaeda and ISIS is Contained

It was only a year ago, that Obama claimed that ISIS was contained.  In addition, over the years, he has stated that Al Qaeda was, essentially defeated.  Listen to this collection of comments from him and Biden over the years.



Unfortunately, he is wrong on both fronts.

First, there this "heat map" from his own National Counter Terrorism Center that shows that the supposedly "contained" ISIS is operating in 3 times as many countries than it was just two years ago:

Then, there's this late November story from the New York Times: "Obama Expands War With Al Qaeda to Include Shabab in Somalia." (see link below)

The simple fact, is that ISIS is not contained and Al Qaeda is not defeated.  Apparently, any beliefs to the contrary only exist in Obama's mind.

References:

Video Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCX80P-wrOk

"Heat Map" Source: http://www.weaselzippers.us/287506-heat-map-shows-isis-operating-in-3-times-as-many-countries-as-2-years-ago-spreading-worldwide/

Obama Expands War With Al Qaeda to Include Shabab in Somalia: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/obama-expands-war-with-al-qaeda-to-include-shabab-in-somalia.html

After Years of Dissimulation, Obama Finally Sticks it to Israel

I personally find President Barack Obama a disgusting person.

With the elections over and with only a month left in office, only one day before Hanukkah and two days before Christmas, he stabs Israel in the back on a day when most Americans aren't paying attention.  For the first time in decades, the U.S. did not defend Israel, and allowed the  United Nations Security Council, through U.S. abstention, to condemn Israel's settlement activity in the so-called "Palestinian Occupation" areas. In addition, they will allow the "Council" to issue a cease and desist order for any expansion of settlement activities.   I believe he's been waiting 8 years to literally screw Israel, but didn't do so because he, and then Hillary, needed the American Jewish vote.  After all, he won 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 against John McCain.

Here is a person that sat for years in a church run by Reverend Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League called a "Messenger of Intolerance".  Not just because of his anti-Israel rhetoric, but also because of his rhetoric against Jews in general.  So, its a little difficult to believe that Obama sat for years in that church, listened to that hate-speech, and, wasn't equally anti-Israel; or perhaps even anti-Semitic.  Yet, still Jews voted for him.  I guess they believed him in 2008, when he said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."  But, that was a lie.

Barack Obama does not want Jerusalem as the capital.  If he had, we would have established an embassy there. Then there's this other parting shot following the death of former Israeli leader Shimon Perez.   In releasing a transcript of Barack Obama's memorial speech, the White House intentionally struck out  the word "Israel" in this screen shot of that text:

Clearly, the intent was to declare that Jerusalem was even a part of Israel.

So good was Barack Obama's deception as a friend of Israel, the New York Times felt compelled to write an article titled "Israel’s Unsung Protector: Obama".  Written last April, the "Times" said this:
President Obama, in contrast with his predecessors, has completely shielded Israel from such [U.N.] resolutions." In fact in 2011, the Obama Administration protected Israel by vetoing an almost identical U.N. resolution against Israeli settlement activity that U.S. has now abstained on.

The reality is that Obama will leave office with Israel left in an untenable position.  Because of this vote, they might find themselves in international court subject to fines and sanctions.  Israeli officials could be subject to arrests as criminals in defiance of a U.N. resolution.  And, quite possibly, this non-action by Obama might lead to another Israeli/Middle East war. 

Lastly, Democrats might ponder this latest Obama action as to why they have totally lost power in the last 8 years under this President.

References:

US abstains as UN demands end to Israeli settlements: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/politics/israel-official-rips-obama-un-settlements/

Mitt Romney says Barack Obama rejects Jerusalem as capital of Israel: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-rejects-jerusalem-capital-israel/

Jewish Voting Record for President: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

White House corrects Obama speech transcript listing Jerusalem in Israel: http://www.jpost.com/International/White-House-corrects-Obama-speech-transcript-listing-Jerusalem-in-Israel-469215

Israel’s Unsung Protector: Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/opinion/international/israels-unsung-protector-obama.html

2011: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution denouncing Israeli settlements: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/18/AR2011021805442.html

ADL: Jeremiah Wright: Messenger of Intolerance: http://archive.adl.org/nr/exeres/af8dd36d-7995-443d-847f-4aaa7def18b1,db7611a2-02cd-43af-8147-649e26813571,frameless.html

Mitt Romney says Barack Obama rejects Jerusalem as capital of Israel: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-rejects-jerusalem-capital-israel/

Possible Fraud: A Record High School Graduation Rate

It was just two months ago that Barack Obama took a victory lap by declaring a record high school graduation rate of 83% for the 2014-2015 school year.  This was the fifth straight year of record graduation rate increases.  All since he took office.

In making the announcement, Obama said this:

"When I took office almost eight years ago, we knew that our education system was falling short. I said, by 2020 I want us to be No. 1 across the board, so we got to work making real changes to improve the chances for all of our young people ... And the good news is that we've made real progress."

Obama never explained what "real changes" were made to have increased graduation rates; starting with the 2009-2010 school year.  And, how, so quickly, the impact was seen in just his first year-and-a-quarter in office.  But, perhaps a report from the Office of the  Inspector General (OIG) for the Chicago Public School system (CPS) explains the "why" of such a rapid increase in graduation rates.  Understand that this is despite the fact that the President's own Education Department, through a testing program called "National Assessment of Educational Progress (also known as the Nation's Report Card)," found that "most" high school seniors weren't prepared for college or -- more importantly -- even a career!  Implying that "most" seniors should not have graduated.

Now, back to that OIG report.  According to OIG investigations, CPS personnel "systematically" used transfer codes to falsely claim that dropouts were transferring to non-CPS schools or being home schooled in the years 2009 to 2014.  It also said that this practice was done "...so as to avoid any negative impact on schools’ attendance metrics or graduation rates caused by reporting dropouts."

Now, I don't know if the Chicago "deceit" is an isolated situation; or is widespread; or something in between.  But, it is certainly coincidental that the false reporting began in 2009, and the supposed record graduating rates started at the same time Obama took office.  Also, from Obama's own Education Department this year, 19% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate.  You can conclude what you want from this statistic, but the implication is that our school systems are simply graduating uneducated people and overstating graduation rates.

President Obama's focus always seems to be on quantity and not quality.  Hopefully, Trump's Education Department will do just the opposite.

References:

The High School Graduation Rate Reaches A Record High — Again: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/17/498246451/the-high-school-graduation-reaches-a-record-high-again

Office of Inspector General Chicago Board of Education: Annual Report FY 2016: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3238391/Chicago-Public-Schools-inpsector-general-report.pdf

Most High School Seniors Aren't College Or Career Ready, Says 'Nation's Report Card': http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/27/475628214/most-high-school-seniors-arent-college-or-career-ready-says-nations-report-card

U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Literacy: Illiteracy Statistics and Demographics: http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

Russian Hack: Obama Orders an Investigation?

There has never been an official CIA or presidential declaration that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC and Hillary's Campaign email servers.  Instead, we get a story from the Washington Post that a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed by the CIA and that the hacking was in fact done by the "Russians" at the behest of Vlad Putin to give Trump his win.

So, if the CIA is already sure that the Russians did it, why did Obama publicly order an investigation into the hacking on the very same day that the "Post" reported that fact.  At the same time, he announces that he wants to have the results of that investigation on his desk before he leaves office.  Also, why back in late November, did the White House insist that the hacking didn't sway the election?  These facts alone, call into question the whole Russian-hacking story. Are we dealing with more fake news?  It certainly makes the President look as if he was the last in his administration to know.  Last I heard, the CIA still reports to Obama and he would have been briefed well before a "handful" of senators.  Is it also possible, that it is a "false flag" operation, as claimed by Ambassador John Bolton, and that Obama could be behind the hacking and not the Russians?

One thing is certain.  The DNC and the Hillary campaign emails were hacked because of the lack of strict security on the servers.   Can't blame the Russians for that!

References:

Washington Post: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.c3ac526d25f5

Obama Orders Investigation Into Election-Related Hacking - Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-09/obama-orders-investigation-into-election-related-hacking-attacks-iwhy9nww

Nov. 26: White House insists hackers didn't sway election, even as recount begins: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849

Bolton: Russian hacks could actually have been by Obama administration: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-russia-hack-a-false-flag-232490

Why Obama Secretly Likes the Trump Win

While I don't have any data to prove it, my perception is that President Obama was the most public President in my lifetime.  It seems as if not a day went by when he wasn't in front of the cameras giving a statement; signing an executive order; giving a news conference; meeting with some world leader; handing out an award; or giving a speech over some liberal agenda item that was near and dear to his heart.  Honestly, he truly enjoyed the attention and the limelight.  You could see it in his face and in his mannerisms; especially in front of an assemblage of adoring supporters.  Sure, there were times when he was somber; as during a statement following a mass shooting.  But, for the most part, being before the cameras and the press was always something he seemed to enjoy.

If Hillary had won, and the Senate, and maybe the House went Democrat, the former President nay have little to say about what was going on in Congress or the Presidency. His legacy would protected under a figurative third term.  Basically, the on-camera limelight would be dimmed; if not gone.  For someone who thrives on a very public lifestyle, that could be depressing.

But now with Trump's victory and both Houses of Congress remaining Republican his public persona may have a revival.  Now he has a major political challenge to confront and respond to. He can stay firmly ensconced in the limelight.  I can just see it.   Every media agency will fight over interviews to get his opinion on what Trump or his right-wing Congress is up to.  In essence,  he will be in seventh heaven.  It will be like a reprise of Sally Fields Oscar acceptance speech when she said "you like me...you really like me!"

Don't believe what Obama said a few days ago when he stated that he won't be a constant critic of his successor.  Instead, take this statement as fact:

"As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I'll examine it when it comes."

Essentially, with those words, I am certain he will find himself with a constant need to "defend" "our values and ideals".  The "our" in that statement isn't the American people.  The "our" is him. I also think that the fact that he will remain in Washington D.C. after he leaves office is more proof that he wants to maintain an on-camera presence.  It's an obsession with him. Just mark my words!

Reference:

Obama: I'll push back on Trump if needed to defend US ideals:  http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/20/obama-ill-push-back-on-trump-if-needed-to-defend-us-ideals.html

Obama may be a rare ex-president who stays in Washington: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-may-be-a-rare-ex-president-who-stays-in-washington/2013/11/29/81ba049c-5912-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

Obama Calls for the Control of the Internet and Communications

During a recent press conference with Angela Merkel, President Obama blamed the rise of Trump on the Internet and "communications" (Newspapers? Radio? TV?); claiming that these technologies need to be controlled because they are "disruptive".  Disruptive to who?  Him?  The Democrats?  Or, to those that call themselves globalists, who believe in open borders; a unified world government; and a single global currency?

The fact is, that Obama, once again, wants to control conservative talk.

Of course, he is talking about Fox News. In 2010, he said they had a "destructive" viewpoint.  In May of 2015, at a conference at Georgetown University, when talking about the fact that the media must be controlled, he said this: "I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad..."  Just recently, he went after them again when he claimed that Hillary Clinton's loss was due to the fact that Fox News is in "every bar and restaurant".  Really?.  Most bars I've gone to have sports on, and most restaurants play music, not Fox News.  He really needs to get out more often and see what the real world is like!

I suppose that this blog as well, needs to be controlled.  And, what about talk radio? Also I'm certain that he thinks Brietbart, Mediaite, and a whole host of other conservative websites must be sternly dealt with. In fact, any form of communications that doesn't show Barack Obama in a "good light" should be eradicated; or at least converted to a liberal format.  Since he has been in office, he has used his appointees on the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission to shut down conservative speech of any kind.

But now he's even gotten Facebook and Google involved in limiting free speech.  Both run by Obama and Democratic supporters, they are now in the process of cleansing the internet of supposed false/fake news. The question here is, who elected them the arbitrators of what constitutes fake news.  And, where is the line drawn between opinion pieces and so-called fake news.  Facebook and Google never had a problem allowing searches and stories when Harry Reid falsely claimed that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years; for which Politifact give dirty Harry a full "pants on fire" rating.

But the media is full of false stories.  Do a Google search on NBC and you will find dozens of occurrences by that supposedly major new agency (and Obama Supporter) selectively editing stories to favor a "Democratic" viewpoint. Then, we have the darling of the liberal left, Katie Couric, who selectively edited a documentary on gun control in order to make gun ownership advocates look like uninformed idiots.

The bottom line is that Obama doesn't really want to control the internet and communications on a fair basis.  He only wants to control those aspects that he doesn't like.  Of course, forget about that little thing called the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech.  Even if it is false.  Look at how many incorrect statements our politicians make.  For example, Obama's "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Finally, the rise of Donald Trump could best be explained as the country's rejection of excessive "political correctness" which is constantly encouraged by Democrats and by Barack Obama himself.  The President still can't say the words "Islamic Terrorists".   No major media outlet has even reported on Obama calling for the "control" of the Internet and Communications.  That is a type of abuse, in itself?

References:

President Obama Blames the Internet for the Rise of Trump – Technology Needs “More Control”: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/18/president-obama-blames-the-internet-for-the-rise-of-trump-technology-needs-more-control/

Obama call to change ‘how the media reports’ raises concerns: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/obama-call-to-change-how-media-reports-raises-concerns.html

Obama Says Fox News Promotes ‘Destructive’ Viewpoint: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/obama-says-fox-news-promotes-destructive-viewpoint/

Obama Slams Fox News for Being On In 'Every Bar and Restaurant,' Blames Network for Hillary's Defeat: http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/746353-president-obama-slams-fox-news-for-being-on-in-every-bar-and-restaurant-blames-it-for-hillarys-defeat/

FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-dems-lay-groundwork-to-ban-fox-wsj-political-coverage/article/2603177

FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-that-conservative-media-like-drudge-report-and-sean-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163

Articles: Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html

FCC Commissioner Warns of Federal Regulation of Online Speech: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20896-fcc-commissioner-warns-of-federal-regulation-of-online-speech

Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html

Harry Reid says anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/

Katie Couric Regrets "Misleading" Editing on Gun Doc: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katie-couric-regrets-misleading-editing-898303

Google Search: nbc selective editing: https://www.google.com/search?q=nbc+selective+editing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

pb

Obama: History Will Judge Castro?

Following the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, Barack Obama said this:

"History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."

I don't know what planet this President has been living on but, for him to think that somehow "history" will think differently of Castro in the future is simply ridiculous.

He murdered and jailed dissidents.  Thousand of Cubans both risked their lives and gave their lives to escape his tyranny to get to the U.S..  The regime strictly controls what Cubans read, hear on the radio, and see on state-run TV.  Human rights groups consider him and his regime abusers of its own citizens.  Outside of the Disney Land appearance of a cleaned up Havana that Fidel created for the benefit of tourists, the rest of the country lives in slum conditions and extreme poverty.  Granted they are fed, schooled, and have their health needs taken care of by the Castro regime.  However, most of the tap water is contaminated and undrinkable; putting the island residents at a serious health risk.  Multiple people live in tiny apartments with no inside bathing facilities.  And, most of the buildings on the island aren't being maintained and in near complete disrepair.

Despite all of this, Obama seems to think that history will judge Castro differently.  He is so eager to have the reestablishment of U.S.-Cuban relations as part of his legacy, that he won't even criticize an obvious brutal dictator and human rights abuser.  Is everything always about himself ?

References:

Obama: History will judge Castro: http://nypost.com/2016/11/26/obama-history-will-judge-castro/

Beyond the Tourist Façade Are Cuba’s Victims of Communism: https://panampost.com/editor/2016/05/27/cuba-beyond-the-tourist-facade-are-the-victims-of-communism/

Human rights in Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

Extreme Poverty in Cuba: Welfare in a Broke Country: http://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-in-cuba

Drinking Water in Cuba - Havana Forum - TripAdvisor: https://www.google.com/search?q=drinking+water+in+cuba&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Video: A day in the life of Havana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHBkLj5Bbq4

pb

Democrats Want Trump to Fail

Just recently, I read an article in the Boston Globe written by a progressive named Micheal A. Cohen titled: 'I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly'.  In it, he complained that Democratic policies such as ObamaCare may just go away.  Further on, he states: "What gives me fleeting hope is the knowledge that millions of Americans — a majority even — feel as I do."

What makes his little opinion piece so laughable is the fact that the true spectacular failure for his party was Barack Obama.  Since taking over the White House, along with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, he has overseen the literal decimation of his party's control of the country.  Now, the Republicans are in the catbird seat with control of both the Senate, the House of Representatives as well as the presidency.  In addition, since President Obama has been in office, the Democrats lost 35 state legislatures and 900 state legislative seats. They also lost a net 14 governorships. The Republican party, for the first time since 1920, has dominant control of the  ruling classes.   If that isn't a spectacular fail in only 8 years, I don't know what is.

Now, back to Mr. Cohen.  If a "majority" of Americans feel as you do, ask yourself why your party  lies in tatters.  It is this very attitude that has turned the Democratic Party into a political desert.  For almost 8 years, we have had a President who found it too bothersome to work with the Republicans; instead using his "pen" to set the Constitution and true legislative action aside. Now, with the possibility that non-legislative actions may be reversed with the stroke of a Trump pen, you view this as some type of failure.  I, for one, don't think so.  Nor do I believe that you somehow spoke for millions of Americans when you wrote: "They are angry. They are scared for the future. They are holding their children just a little tighter and perhaps looking over their shoulders in ways they hadn’t done before. Like me, these Americans want Trump to fail."

Enough with the stupid melodrama!  

And, what if Trump doesn't fail? More shed blood for the Democrat Party?  Maybe that's why they're "holding their children just a little tighter and perhaps looking over their shoulders in ways they hadn’t done before."  Instead of wishing Donald Trump failure, you, Mr Cohen, should be searching for the answers as to why your Democrats failed so miserably that you even have to worry about a Trump presidency in the first place.

References:

I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/15/don-want-trump-succeed-want-him-fail-spectacularly/Xa0rVn5yjwUp1kjjRMqi6L/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos2

Obama Leaves Democratic Party in Shambles: https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/obama-leaves-democratic-party-in-shambles/

Obama's Legacy: The Total Destruction Of The Democratic Party: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/11/obamas-legacy-the-total-destruction-of-the-democratic-party-n2244680
 

Obama's Latest "Green" Legacy: Destruction of Wilderness Areas.

For decades, Democrats and environmentalists have blocked and drilled for oil and gas in the almost humanly uninhabitable and so-called pristine land known as the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  The fear was that any drilling would disrupt fragile wildlife in the area.  In 2015, President Obama finalized a ban on all drilling in the "Refuge" by expanding the span of land covered by the ban to 12 million acres.

But, this concern over preserving wildlife appears to be gone to the wind (literally) because Obama has  now finalized plans to allow wind farms and solar power plants on millions of  acres of federal land in our Western states.  Already, 60 renewable projects are approved to begin before he leaves office.

The problem with wind and solar is that they, themselves are killers of wildlife.  Birds, by the thousands, die each year by either being burned to death at solar collection farms; or hacked to death in the blades of wind turbines.  Worse, is that many of the birds being killed are protected raptors such as the Bald Eagle.  Additionally,  the abnormal ground vibrations and noise from wind turbines have caused still births and birth defects in animals who either live or are confined near these operations.

Some environmentalists are now seeing the light that "green" energy is not nearly as "green" as they would like.  But, their silence all these years has now resulted in massive wind and solar projects on  once-protected lands.  This is thanks to Obama trying to cement a legacy with the climate change people.  The fact is, that drilling for oil and gas has far fewer deadly affects on wildlife than wind and solar.  I suppose we'll just have to chalk up the lives of the wildlife being killed by these technologies as a small (?) price to pay for saving the planet.  Anyway, those dead creatures can't vote, so what the hell!  Let's just do it and save the planet anyway!

Lastly, here are the Federal regulations for killing a Bald Eagle:

The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment.

Maybe this should be applied to Barack Obama for being "repeatedly" complicit in the killing of these majestic birds!

References:

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

Obama finalizes plans to ban oil and gas drilling in ‘undisturbed’ Alaskan refuge: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/4/obama-finalizes-plans-ban-oil-and-gas-drilling-bea/

BLM sprints to cement Obama's green legacy: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060044896

Windfarms and birth defects: https://wcfn.org/2014/03/31/windfarms-vertebrates-and-reproduction/

Bird deaths at Calif. power plant a PR nightmare for industry: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011853

License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/

Save the Eagles International: US wind farms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought: Contrary to what we are being told, wind farms will cause the extinction of many bird and bat species: http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

Greens Concerned Vast Federal Land Clearances for Renewable Energy Projects Might Harm Nature: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/29/greens-concerned-vast-federal-land-clearances-for-renewable-projects-might-harm-nature/

Federal-lands rule pits green groups against wind, solar firms: Renewable energy firms have been flocking to sites on federal lands. Now pricing by the Bureau of Land Management is about to change toward competitive bidding similar to the system for oil and gas companies: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1027/Federal-lands-rule-pits-green-groups-against-wind-solar-firms

Federal Laws to Protect Bald Eagles - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html
 
pb

Obama Was on the Ballot and He Lost

More than anything, Donald Trump's victory was not about defeating Hillary Clinton, but instead, defeating 8 years of Barack Obama.  Eight years of going around Congress with executive orders.  Eight years of stagnant wages; high poverty; slow economic growth; and more than 28,000 new regulations.  Then, of course, there was ObamaCare.  At a time when we were hearing nothing but bad news about that law, Hillary was proudly declaring that she would build on the success of it.  Trump said he would repeal it.

Then, we see the state of the world that Obama is leaving us with.  The Middle East is on fire.  Russia and China are constantly testing us.  There are now fewer people working in manufacturing jobs than  government jobs.  Crime and murder, after decades of decline, are rising.  Call it the Ferguson effect.  I call it the Obama effect. Having his Justice Department riding rough shod over city police departments, has so negatively affected morale, the police have stopped doing their jobs. 

No,  Hillary didn't lose.  Obama did.  Every poll taken with regard to the direction of the country said "the people" believed the country was on the wrong track.  I would expect Trump to do everything possible to reverse the past 8 years of Obama from the face of our government; and hopefully, get this country back on the right track.

References:

Obama's Tattered Middle East Policy | RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/13/obamas_tattered_middle_east_policy_128385.html

Record-High Number of Pages of Obama Regulations Exceed That of Bush, Clinton: http://freebeacon.com/issues/record-high-number-pages-obama-regulations-exceed-bush-clinton/

Seven Years Later, Recovery Remains the Weakest of the Post-World War II Era: https://www.google.com/search?q=Seven+Years+Later%2C+Recovery+Remains+the+Weakest+of+the+Post-World+War+II+Era&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9977000: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/government-workers-now-outnumber-manufacturing-workers-9977000

Reminder: Obamacare Is Still A Giant Cronyistic Disaster: http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/18/reminder-obamacare-is-still-a-giant-cronyistic-disaster/

Polls: Direction of the Country: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

pb

Will More Charging Stations Create Bigger Demand For Electric Cars?

Well,  Barack Obama would probably say yes.  That's why his administration just announced $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for states and private companies to build charging stations along 25,000 miles of 48 electric vehicle corridors in 35 states.  The goal is that no owner of an electric vehicle (EV) should have to go more than 50 miles to find a charging station.  And, there will be lots of signs to guide them on their way.

President Obama claims that the lack of adequate charging stations caused him to miss his goal by more than 50% to have 1 million EV's on our roads by 2015.  Really?  Thus, like the thinking of many climate change alarmists, the only reason people aren't buying electric cars is that there isn't enough charging stations.

Here's the reality.  A ten minute pit stop for a conventional gasoline powered vehicle can buy you up to 400 miles of travel before having to stop again.  Even with the quickest electric charging capability available, a 20 minute pit stop at a fast charge station will only give you another 50, maybe 60 miles before you need to spend another 20 minutes at the next station.  How, convenient is that?

Also, think about this.  When someone spends 20 minutes charging their car, it is unavailable to anyone else.  How would you like to waste 20 minutes waiting for someone getting their charge, and then wait the same amount of time to complete your own.   Then, less than an hour later, you may have to go through the whole procedure again. Of course, this assumes the car in front of you has quick charging capability.  Otherwise, you may be waiting hours for a station to open up.

In my opinion, the President missed his goal of 1 million cars on the road -- not because of the lack of charging facilities -- but because electric vehicles are simply too impractical.

References:

White House, 35 states to boost electric vehicle charging stations: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/03/white-house-35-states-to-boost-electric-vehicle-charging-stations.html

25,000 Miles Of U.S. Highways Designated As Electric Vehicle Charging Corridors: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/03/25000-miles-of-u-s-highways-designated-as-electric-vehicle-charging-corridors/

Quick Charging of Electric Cars: http://www.plugincars.com/electric-car-quick-charging-guide.html

pb

Merrick Garland---if Hillary Wins and the Senate Flips

I have always thought that Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court was nothing but a political move.  While Garland is "supremely" qualified, he is too moderate for either Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's tastes.  Don't be surprised if his nomination is pulled by Obama if Hillary wins, thereby leaving the nomination process in her hands.  If the Senate flips to Democratic control, there will be nothing stopping her from seating a young, far left nominee that will affect the high court for decades to come.

Both Obama and Hillary are very aware of what the Supreme Court means to an extremely liberal administration.  The very left-leaning Obama and his "pen" actions on executive orders have yielded just a 45% win rate in the court. Compare that to an average win rate of more than 60% for all other administrations in the last 50 years.  Obama was so liberal that the 4 liberal Justices on the court sided with their conservative counterparts by handing down a total of 44 unanimous decisions against him.

The Republican Senate probably made a horrible tactical decision by not approving the appointment of Garland; especially since they have known for months that a potential loser like Trump was their party's nominee. Now, there is a distinct possibility that the first liberal court since before 1970, can wind up being more extreme than ever imagined.  At stake will be decisions on gun control, late term abortions, extreme air and clean water rulings, and every liberal direction Hillary Clinton can take us.  When she takes office, she will quickly begin her run for a second term, by showing her suppporters that she means to take care of business for them.  A more liberal Supreme Court will assist by not blocking her actions.

References:

Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/merrick-garlands-instinct-is-for-the-middle/2016/03/16/59a82132-eb91-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?tid=a_inl

What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/

Obama Has Lost In The Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-45-years-of-conservative-rulings-heres-what-a-liberal-supreme-court-would-do/2016/02/19/efa63ad4-d589-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.457a9e4162ae

Obama on Hillary: Now and in 2008

In a joint campaign stop, President Obama said this about Hillary Clinton:

"And that’s why I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman—not me, not Bill, nobody—more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

 Apparently, the President forgot this little video from his 2008 campaign against Hillary:

Reference:

Obama: Hillary Clinton Most Qualified Presidential Candidate Ever: http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2016/07/27/obama-hillary-clinton-most-qualified-presidential-candidate-ever

pb