Month: January 2018

Women’s rights are universal, not political – the left kidnapped the cause, making it exclusive, not “inclusive”

“The march in Washington took on the feel of a political rally when US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and US Representative Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats, urged women to run for office and vote to oppose Trump and the Republicans’ agenda.”  Washington Post, 1/21/18 (Celebrities join march for women’s rights, encourage voting)

I agree with most of the principles of women’s rights, especially equality on all levels. Most people in the U.S. do abide by those principles, even the President.

By turning the women’s movement into a leftist movement of the Democratic Party, it becomes not “inclusive”, but in fact “exclusive”. The idea that emerges is that women who do not support the “Party” (the Democratic Party) are not deserving of the same rights (in fact, the idea floated is that if you support the President, as a woman you definitely do not deserve any rights at all). This is the legacy of President Obama, the Great Divider. He championed the concept of “us or them”, either his disastrous ultra-leftist views or extremism on the right. As it turned out, there were 60 million people who voted otherwise, and an enormous legion of people who eschewed both the left and the right. But women’s rights should not be political.

Women’s rights are universal, not political. Yesterday, in Los Angeles, the marches for women were replete with political speeches against the current administration and any policies the Democratic Party does not support. Those issues have nothing to do with Women’s Rights.

In fact, and most importantly, many of the men who have been caught up in sexual harrassment cases (like Harvey Weinstein, a very high level high roller in the Democratic Party, and also Michael Oreskes, Chief of the news division of National Public Radio (who actually managed NPR’s coverage of the sexual harrassment narrative at NPR in recent months), and other TV and Screen stars) were high level members of, or supporters of the Democratic Party and extreme liberal views, proving that women’s rights transcend party lines. By co-opting the movement, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has isolated at least half the women in the world. Now how is that “inclusive”?

The “women’s movement” as defined by the Democratic Party, has been designed to include many issues irrelevant to the woman’s movement itself, such as BLM, anti-Trumpism, and illegal immigration. By swelling the ranks with many people with other axes to grind, it makes it appear the movement is bigger than it might be, and also part of the Democratic Party’s platform, but also in doing so it robs the women’s movement of its absolute purity and righteousness, and obscures the universality of women’s rights. Actually, the women’s movement needs to reach all women, not just liberals. Women’s right’s advocates have said that already, only the Democrats, so worried about economic success of the administration, have sought to piggyback on the opportunity of opening Pandora’s box of sexual harassment (and much to its chagrin, many of the casualties have been their very own male “treasures”).

Hypocrisy has come to reside in the left, to infect it really, and it is very scary and tragic. It is one of the chief reasons I abandoned the Party some years ago, because when I saw the ideological table, I was shocked to find the Obama wing of the Democratic Party sitting right next to the most extreme right wing acolytes, both adamant that their own speech is the only permissible speech, that only their own ideas were worthy of protection, and that everyone and everything else had to be suppressed, stopped, destroyed, even questioning the wisdom of free speech, and seeming to support China’s totalitarian system and Palestinian terrorism.  College campuses have become infected with this rot, and Obama’s political correctness has produced calls for many unconstitutional restrictions on speech. There is a name for that – fascism.

DACA in the U.S. – a Legal, Not a Political Issue – the Demise of the Great Divider’s Agenda

DACA covers immigrants who were brought to the US illegally by their parents when they were children. The key operative word here is “illegally” (not “undocumented” as the Obama administration used to love calling them, to take away the notion they were in the US illegally). Truthfully, the only thing the government has to consider is that people covered by Obama’s illegal DACA executive order are in the United States illegally. While the very ultra-liberal San Francisco Federal Court (no surprise that all of the plaintiffs from other jurisdictions chose that jurisdiction to hear the case, a blatant example of forum shopping) cast the question as Constitutional, the administration’s discontinuance of DACA is not unconstitutional, it is simply a legal question of US immigration law, one that has been kicked down the road for almost 20 years. And the clear legal question is simply that persons in the US illegally, which all DACA persons are, are subject to deportation. There is no current law that allows them to stay, aside from Obama’s Executive Order. The District Judge here was just buying time until the Democrats can twist a DACA solution out of the Republican Congress before the DACA program ends. It is judicial activism at its very very worst.

Is it a difficult question? Absolutely. Most DACA people are in the U.S. since infancy (though some are not) and if sent back to their parents’ home country would be “foreigners” there, having not been there since infancy. Does that entitle them to U.S. Citizenship? No, there is no law that entitles them to become citizens after having entered the U.S. illegally. The San Francisco Court is making up new law the Court cannot make. Is there any other country on earth that does not deport any who overstay their visa or illegally enter the country? No, every country deports illegal immigrants. The U.S. now has over 14 million illegal immigrants, many in California. There are 800,000 DACA immigrants. Their staying in the U.S. has always been a long-term Democratic Party strategy, because adding hundreds of thousands of voters to their rolls will sway all elections for generations. It is not a question of a difficult moral issue, but rather a plain political choice.

I am in favor of letting DACA people stay (and some other long-term, non-criminal immigrants). However, I would prohibit them, as a condition of staying, from ever becoming U.S. Citizens, and from ever becoming citizens as a parent of American citizens (because of chain migration, their children are American citizens, and they can argue their status is rendered legal, and apply for citizenship), granting some form of permanent Green Card without a path to citizenship, which will never be available to anyone who entered the U.S. after a certain date sometime in the past 5 years, or whichever period is acceptable, as long as it has already expired. It is a fair trade. The reason for the harshness in dealing with DACA people is to ensure anyone who sneaks into the U.S. understands they cannot become a citizen by having U.S. babies, a common canard, and are subject to deportation. There is a line to get citizenship, and they need to get at the back of the line.

It is most curious how the 9th Circuit federal courts treated Obama with gentleness, despite the illegality of most of his Executive Orders (which basically circumvented the U.S. Legislative process, because he knew he could not win if the Congress voted on those issues), yet treat the current administration, doing the same thing, as a pariah. In its last decision killing the temporary order issued by another highly liberal Court in Hawaii, upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court overturned the order because of its over-broadness.  The same would apply here.

President Obama turned the U.S. legal system upside down, and legislated his own socialist agenda through executive order. The thing is, executive orders live only as long as a President is in office. Once he/she leaves, those orders are subject to revocation, and the current administration has set about undoing Obama’s sharp turn towards the fascism of the left, something that is still echoing a year after Obama’s term ended. What the Great Divider (Obama) rendered by fiat (political correctness at its worst, fascism of the left at its worst, reverse racism at its worst, judicial activism at its very worst, Oppeasement of evil, at its worst, withdrawal of the U.S. from a leadership role in the world, at its worst, betrayal of almost every ally, at its worst, fecklessness at its worst) is being undone. Note that North Korea is talking to the South…many will say it is a slap in the face of President Trump, who used strident rhetoric for the first time in two decades against the Hermit Kingdom – but I believe strongly it is Junior using the Olympics BECAUSE of the stridency as a good excuse to dial down the conflict, one of the chief purposes of the stridency in the first place. The best Obama could muster against evil was tutting…tutting! That really helped with Syria, didn’t it? Here we are years down the road from an invisible red line, millions of refugees and nothing to show from Obama’s spinelessness and Oppeasement. Bombing the airstrip in Syria when Assad used chemical weapons was the best example of consequences we’ve had over there in 8 years. I’m done with Oppeasement. Whether with Communist China, Russia, Iran, the Palestinians, illegal immigrants, North Korea or other ills, what we need is less of Obama’s eternal hesitation and spinelessness, and more decisive stridency.

Grave Danger Posed by China’s Trojan Horse – One Belt One Road

I have written before here about the grave danger posed by China’s One Belt One Road initiative – it is China’s Trojan Horse in Europe, Communist Chinese lucre a smokescreen for the Chinese Communist Party’s power grab, continuing battle with the U.S. for influence, and for the Communist Party’s hegemonic designs.

Greece fell prey to China because it has been the EU’s pauper, and bristled at its treatment at the hands of German/EU austerity in response to Greece’s uncontrolled spending. Hence, China’s offer of billions to Greece was most opportune for the Chinese Communist Party and welcome for Greece – and as usual, any money China “invests” has strings – strings to support its totalitarian system, its political evil, and its continuing assault on Western democracy and any kind of freedom.

In an article published in the Taipei Times on Monday, January 8, 2018 on p. 5 (Europe Wary of ‘One Belt One Road’), the article notes “The former NATO chief said that Greece — a major recipient of Chinese largesse — had in June last year blocked an EU declaration condemning Chinese rights abuses.” Here is the rub – take money from China, kneel to Uncle Xi and his political agenda. The march of the Chinese Communists begins with the infection wrought from within its Trojan Horses. Greece bent over for Uncle Xi. More to come in Europe.

I for one don’t trust France’s Macron to resist China’s Trojan Horse offerings, trading access to a fake Chinese market (there is no Chinese market except for Chinese companies so long as foreign companies are required to partner with Chinese local partners, themselves Communist Party Trojan Horses) for softness on Communist China’s political demands and violations of human rights and every other fundamental French principle. France has been perennially rushing to China to get better market position and to tell the Emperor Xi his clothes are most lovely. I haven’t trusted President Trump with such issues either, the bright light of China’s phantom market a very juicy mirage hard to resist. Trump also is not so enamored with Democracy as he is with Businessocracy, and evening out the playing field with Communist China is a priority – but even that comes with risks of Trojan Horses. There is also the North Korea chess game that China has been playing with the U.S. for 25 years, and playing it very well against the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and continuing with the current administration, though Trump’s unpredictability and bullish attitude has China unnerved. The EU’s stance on North Korea and Iran is disappointing – appeasement at its worst.

Europe does not have the backbone to resist Communist China’s hegemony and political moves, because Europe has no stomach for conflict (its foreign policy is basically “appease, appease, appease”) and is so eager to jump on any advantage over the US with Chinese trade when there are conflicts, such as North Korea or the South China Sea. We do not see Europe sending carriers to the region or supporting the US in its opposition to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions (only softness, weakness and more appeasement). The same can be said of Iran, where Europe has lined up with China and Russia in failing to comprehend the value of a strong hand against a rogue enemy like Iran. Europe’s suicidal embrace of the enemies of democracy is both surprising and disgusting, turning my stomach every time I see it (note the loving comments made yesterday by High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini about Cuba and dictator Raul Castro, like the words of a lover). Consequently, I have no faith that Europe can resist Communist China’s quest to plant as many Trojan Horses as possible around Europe. Let’s remember that Europe failed to act to stop the conflagration in Syria, instead following Obama’s Oppeasement policy there, and the result was millions of refugees flooding Europe, something that will change adversely European culture, society and politics for many generations. Already many people are fearful of travel to Europe, caring about where it is safe…

One Belt, One Road will look bright and shiny to the EU’s infrastructure starved members. But the cost of that infrastructure is political suicide and being indebted to Communist China, a tyrant who demands obedience to its “life with Chinese characteristics.”

The Press Must Be Free – With Responsibility for Reporting Facts, Unless in Editorials

In an article that ran from AP in the Taipei Times on Jan. 1, 2018 (“Journalists came under further threat from governments last year”), it is reported that the press is under assault around the world. This has been true for a very long time, in particular among the world’s worst despotic governments, Communist China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and in other Capitals of such ilk. The article goes on to complain about President Trump. Freedom of the press is sacred in America, always has been, always will be. But in the U.S. at present there is war between left leaning and conservative news organizations, and the current government, signified by manipulation of stories on all sides.

For instance, it is naive to believe that a “philanthropist” like George Soros, with billions of dollars at his disposal and a socialist agenda, does not use the press (like Bloomberg, and Project Syndicate (a supposedly charitable foundation which is instead simply a pro-socialism organization dedicated to promoting socialism and mass migration in the US, and in Europe, on the general theory that tens of millions of migrants who are unfamiliar with free capitalistic systems, such as in the US, would support highly leftist views)) to manipulate the news to suit his agenda. I have complained about Soros-promoted articles (under Project Syndicate) on these very pages because of the canard they continuously promote that America is evil and China is blissful. What’s that about? Free speech is free speech. They have the right to write it, we have the right to criticize it.

That said, of course governments cannot arrest journalists for speaking opinions, and those arrests are the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, like in China, Russia, Turkey (not a democracy these days), Iran or many other tyrannies. The free press is the foundation of freedom and holding the government and its parties and their members accountable for their policies and actions. The more vibrant the press is, the less likely a government can violate the law. In the US, the Constitution and its law fully supports the freedom of speech, whether by the press or anyone else.

In a democracy, when journalists have the right to speak their opinions, and when they promote opposition to the government, of course the government can respond with criticism, not arrests. This article reports Trump is sowing distrust in the media for claiming unfair treatment, but when 80% of the media focus only on leftist criticism of the government there is already distrust because it is one-sided.

In the US, the press is wide ranging, very free, and there is no threat of arrest for writing articles. I am truly sick and tired of ultra-left press like CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, Newsweek complaining about the President criticizing them for “fake news”, when 75% of their coverage is aimed at what many people consider matters of their the reporters’ opinion, not fact.

Reporting in the United States has essentially stopped, and it has been replaced by opinion reporting, which means that there is very little reporting the facts that lets the people decide their own opinion and more of reporters reporting their own opinions, as though that is news – it isn’t. Reporters cannot help inserting their opinions in almost every story. My Blog is an opinion blog, it doesn’t pretend to be reporting. CNN cannot say that, yet almost every article is dripping with opinions, almost as though its reporters have not been schooled in the art of objective reporting. There seem to be no ideals except “kill the other side at all costs”.

Truthfully, I don’t care what their opinion is, I only want the facts, just the facts. People have become so lazy, they want to be told what to think. Editorials are for that, not news articles. And most of the time, Trump’s argument is that reporters, trying to avoid opinionizing, instead report only those facts that support what their opinion would be, essentially showing half the story.

I’ll give you an example. Yesterday, in the Huffington Post, there was an article entitled “Trump Terminated All Members Of HIV/AIDS Council Without Explanation”. The title is designed to heap infamy on the President for supposedly being against the HIV/AIDS Council. But that’s not true. While the bulk of the article is criticism for the firings, in the middle of the article the following sentence is thrown in: “Also of note, during the Obama administration, nearly all of George W. Bush’s appointees were eliminated prior to new appointees being named.” In other words Obama did the same thing, because it is normal for a new President to get rid of the predecessor’s appointees and appoint his/her own members. In fact, the article also states: “One of those members ― Gabriel Maldonado, CEO of the Riverside, Calif.-based LGBT and HIV/AIDS group Truevolution ― told the Washington Blade, however, that “it is common for appointees to be terminated and for folks to kind of want their own people in.” So what’s up with the completely misleading title of the article, and what is Huffington Post trying to pull? This is a very small example of manipulating the media to promote a “fake” critique – you could call this “fake” news. This is basically using freedom of the press to “hide the ball” and sell propaganda for a social agenda, not reporting what happened. I don’t blame Trump for sacking Obama’s appointees. It is totally normal for a President to do. There are plenty of other things to blame him for. But the Huffington Post is guilty of misrepresenting the truth by omission when they know most people read the headline, not the article, especially scrolling through Yahoo News, where the article appeared near the top. It is disingenuous at best, blatant fraud at worst.

I can only name a few reporters out of thousands who have a reputation for being completely honest in their reporting. Truly. That is a very sad fact. I don’t want to know a reporter’s political choices. Objective reporting is a lost art. Reporters should be required to attend the Walter Cronkite School of Objectivity.