Category Archives: Security

Drifting Anchors in Political Agendas

As of this moment, we have a federal government shutdown. The consequences of this are more opportunities to cast aspersions on President Trump, and to discuss the main reason for this shutdown.

In case anyone has been put to sleep over the reasons for this shutdown, it’s these basic ideas. President Trump wants it, therefore the Democrats don’t. If they stop his ideas on immigration, they believe this will gain them more political juice to win the next round of elections in 2020. uncontrolled_immigration

Opinions from various sources argue anything they believe will win an argument. Some politicos claim a wall built on the border to Mexico is immoral, stand ins say, there shouldn’t be borders, while others insist we need a wall to keep out people from coming in without authorization and without our knowledge.

No matter your opinion on the need or the possibility of improved national security, there are those who care nothing more than to see President Trump fail. Regardless of national or individual consequences, there are people who not only want to Trump to fail, they would like to see him in prison. It’s gotten to that level of hatred.

LET’S REVIEW

Nineteen years ago two fishermen plucked an exhausted, frightened five-year-old tied to an inner tube out of the waters off the coast of Ft. Lauderdale.

President William Clinton with the aid of Janet Reno, blocked the immigration and asylum of this 5-year-old Cuban child.

April 22, 2000 — In a pre-dawn raid, armed U.S. federal agents seize Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives. Elian is reunited with his father a few hours later. But it will take two months before Elian and his father would go back to Cuba–two months of court procedures and demonstrations and counter-demonstrations in Miami.

June 1, 2000 — A federal appeals court upholds the U.S. government’s authority to deny Elian a political asylum hearing.

Prior to and at the beginning of the 2000’s top liberal Democrats espoused hawkish immigration policies. The decline of membership in industrial unions, long an electoral bulwark for Democrats, weakened the party’s dependence on working-class whites. The Democrats have learned their strengths at the ballot box lay in courting groups of identity politics, social justice cause people. They’ve assumed that they already “own” the minority vote.

After meeting with President Trump to try to resolve the details of the final spending bill of the 115th Congress, soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California stated, “Democrats will stand fast against the immoral, ineffective border wall.”

Likewise, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York threatened to shut down the government if funding for a border wall is part of the legislative package.

SHIFTING SANDS OF POLITICS

us_border_homeland_security_patchIn 2006, 80 U.S. Senators, including Senator Schumer, along with Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, and several others supported a bill that authorized 700 miles of fencing on our southern border, called the Secure Fence Act. They also voted to support a barrier in 2013. All 52 Democrats, plus Senators Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Angus King, I-Maine, voted in favor of the 2013 bill, which died in the House.

In 2013 Senator Schumer helped create a bill that was part of a bill that had $8 billion earmarked for a wall, with an additional $42 billion for securing the border in other ways.

Hillary Clinton, who was critical of President Trump’s plan during the 2016 presidential campaign, also supported fencing along the border and bragged as recently as November 2015 about her previous votes as senator on the issue.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman asked Clinton about securing the border from illegal immigrants, Clinton said: “Well, look I voted numerous times when I was a Senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in and I do think you have to control your borders.”

Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s 1994 campaign aired a television ad, with shadowy figures, accusing Republican rival Michael Huffington of being soft on illegal immigration.

“While Congressman Huffington voted against new border guards, Dianne Feinstein led the fight to stop illegal immigration,” th e ad declared. In her own voice, Feinstein boasted of seeking more border guards, lighting and fencing. Today, Senator Feinstein is a very vocal critic of California’s chorus of complaints about President Donald Trump’s border security agenda and crackdown on illegal aliens.

President Bill Clinton took steps in the mid-1990’s with Feinstein’s support, to increase border security in California. They were effective, making crossing into California so difficult that the flow shifted eastward into Arizona.

WHY THE CHANGE?

Democrats now argue, sanctuary city policies make communities safer by allowing local law enforcement to focus on community policing with cooperation from undocumented residents. Democratic leaders say they won’t support any bill that includes a dime of funding for Trump’s wall. Notice how the shift toward border security is identified with President Trump. The Democrats hope preventing funding will solidify their base, and their base is expanding.

The League of Women Voters, a group whose mission is to “Empower Voters” has challenged proof of citizenship on federal mail voter registration forms in Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia.

Despite support for the measure, a federal appeals court has blocked the requirement, allowing people to vote without providing proof of citizenship.

The League of Women Voters argues that “this action has illegally kept voters from the polls, caused confusion, and threatened the lawful voter registration efforts of the League and other groups.”

In July of 2018, the Department of Elections issued voter registration forms to illegal aliens to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the 2018 election.

California has implemented a law providing for the automatic voter registration of motorists who obtain or renew driver’s licenses. Some 605,000 undocumented immigrants who live in California were granted driver’s licenses in 2015, the first year they have been able to enjoy that benefit, officials said.

The law known as AB60 took effect on January 2, 2015. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) expects a total of about 1.4 million people will get their license under the law by late 2017. While it’s true that undocumented residents living in California can obtain driver’s licenses, the state has not passed any laws that also provide them the right to vote. The New Motor Voter Act was passed in an effort to improve voter turnout, and while this law does automatically register citizens to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses, that action only applies to citizens who have already attested and/or documented an eligibility to vote.

The bottom line, incremental alterations to federal laws have already begun in heavily populated Democrat controlled cities. These changes have included sanctuary cities, voting rights afforded to previously banned residents, and laws against the rights outlined in the Constitution for ordinary citizens to protect themselves. It’s not sufficient to oppose another political party, there’s an all out effort to dominate politics through the ballot box, legislative, and judicial decree. Meanwhile the average citizen will be left less secure, and eventually powerless to defend themselves or their property.

border_wall_rush_by_illegals

 

The End of Another Year & What Have We learned?

Head_Platon_Glyptothek_Munich.jpg2018 is almost at an end. Maybe it’s time to review where we are, and what we think we must do.

There are a number of issues routinely discussed in the USA, and not necessarily a lot of agreement.

Lets take a look at a few.

How about one that seems to be ignored, but is indicative of how inept we can be at solving a known problem. No, I’m not talking about the national debt, although that’s certainly a priority issue. Here’s a localized problem that should be an embarrassment considering how much we send to other countries, let alone waste through poor governance.

Flint Michigan Toxic Water:  Flint Michigan lies along the Flint River, 60 miles (100 km) northwest of Detroit. Flint was a busy manufacturing town up until the 1980’s. General Motors was a leading employer in that area. When the fortunes of GM changed, area manufacturing closed down and a lot of ancillary business connected to automotive production also ceased to exist. The financial impact made its way to the city water decisions on saving money. By 2014, Flint wasn’t able to pay the cost of obtaining water from Detroit, a city that also was struggling. They were getting the water from Lake Huron. The city made a decision to route the municipal water from the nearby Flint River. They said it would only be temporary and like dopamine fools, people believed the city officials. (This is how toxic Flint’s Water is) It’s 2018 and the water is still being supplied from the lead and toxins contaminated Flint River. Read this CNN article for a timeline of the crisis.

In March 2016, Flint began to rip out and replace some of the hazardous pipes under a “FAST Start program.” That program continues.
Kristin Moore, a Flint city government spokeswoman, said that 6,264 pipes have been replaced as of April 18, 2018. However, an estimated 12,000 Flint residences still have lead and galvanized service lines that need to be replaced, she said.
“The pipe replacement work is expected to be completed by 2020,” Moore said. “However, the mayor is hopeful that the project can be completed even sooner.”

Climate Change: We might as well go from a local problem to a global one. It lays before us like a rotting pumpkin. Some suggest we should leave it alone, while others say it needs to be cleaned up. There’s probably more discussion on this topic than any of the others I’ll mention. Rightly or wrongly, when it comes to climate change, there’s going to be lively debate on social media any time this topic is discussed.

Some groups claim humanity is plunging headlong towards catastrophe and possibly even a future in which a tiny band of survivors cluster around the last remaining habitable territory near the poles.

Other groups claim that climate change will not be too bad so there is no need to stop using fossil fuels. They point to beneficial effects such as ‘global greening’ in which plant growth is boosted by the extra carbon in the air.

The answers may lay somewhere in between.

The United Nations IPCC publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous,  report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval of the published review of which they are supposedly authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially useful energy.

Does this make climate change data or predictions, incorrect or a hoax? That’s not as easy to answer as one can presuppose.

150 years ago Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered ‘carbonic acid’, known today as carbon dioxide. It was one of a number of “perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors” to absorb radiant heat. About 40 years later, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first suggested, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause the global temperature to go up, particularly in the Arctic. Therefore, according to these ideas and the last 150 years of a rise in global temperature measurement, in combination with a rise in CO2, the science of climate change has become the “hot topic” of discussion.

The Climate-gate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually attempted to cook the books to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.

One of these scientists included Dr. James Hansen, a former NASA climatologist who is known by some as the “father” or “grandfather” of the climate change myth, as it was his “Model Zero” that first introduced the concept of global warming. Hansen, Philip Jones, Michael Mann, et al. were all involved in trying “to lower past temperatures and to ‘adjust’ recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.” The leaked emails bore that out. The emails also revealed how this cabal of scientists would discuss various ways to stonewall the public from seeing the “background data on which their findings and temperature records were based,” even going as far as deleting significant amounts of data. They would engage in efforts to smear “any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.”

Michael Mann has used Canada’s courts to sue one of his major critics of anthropogenic global warming. Dr. Tim Ball has on several occasions caused people to pause and review the underlying facts and purposes of a government proposition they can tax the environmental reprobates and credit the appropriate parties. It’s a perfect “crisis” for any government to use more authority and gain added revenues. All the while, taking credit when it isn’t due, and shifting blame whenever things aren’t favorable.
The use of ‘science’ as a tool for social manipulation is thoroughly confusing to most people until they understand the motive behind the deception.

It has been 28 years since Channel 4 in the UK produced >The Greenhouse Conspiracy.  It covered all the things that were wrong with the AGW theory. They are still valid, but now time-tested. Unfortunately, most people still don’t understand how it disproves the theory, despite all the efforts to educate people about the misuse of science. The bureaucratic technocrats, including those funded by them, who created and promote the deception, rarely respond to scientific challenges. Why bother when the public doesn’t understand?

Health Care: The debate over U.S. health care reform and the future of the Affordable Care Act dominated headlines in 2017, and has slowly diminished attention. The problems with healthcare in the US has continued. It’s a mixed message to the public by government politicos. On one hand, they say we need universal, “government managed” health care, but this type of care has been available since the inception of medicare.  The evidence for government managed health care has proven to be an empty promise. The Veterans Health (a very small percentage of the US population) has gone through numerous exposes on its mis-management. Medicare is definitely limited coverage, and about the only people who seem to have the right amount of health care coverage are those with a lot of money or high up government officials.

There’s no doubt that health care costs in the U.S. needs to be controlled. It’s not going to be corrected by elimination of private insurance, and corporate medical health organizations. The government has for decades, along with insurance, pharmaceutical lobbyists, and the legal industry, have been manipulating the health care industry. There’s a lot of shifting of responsibility, making it more complex for the care giver as well as the patients.

Government Spending: This is the 800 gorilla in the living room, and he’s growing into a 1 ton monster.

Federal, State, Local, and Total US government spending

Amounts in Trillion$ FY 2018 FY 2019
----------------------------------
Federal Spending     4.11  4.41
Intergov. Transfers  -0.72 -0.7
State Spending       1.81  1.87
Local Spending       1.93  1.99
Total Spending       7.12  7.56

Where’s the money being spent?
2019-budget-spending-chart

“World stock markets staggered Monday towards the end of their worst year since the global financial crisis a decade ago, rocked by rising interest rates, the global trade war and Brexit, dealers said.”

“London and Paris wobbled in holiday-shortened trade on New Year’s Eve — but nursed dizzying double-digit annual falls after an exceptionally volatile 2018.”

All that is what may concern some investors, but what should concern everyone, is the rapid year upon year increase of government debt. This is a crisis that can be averted, but the distress in shrinking the exorbitant spending habit of the federal government is more painful than the withdrawal symptoms of a heroin addict. Massive protests would ensue if someone’s favored group or program either was shrunk or defunded. As evidenced by the growing outspoken demands by a younger generation, they want to see universal health care, free college tuition, and basic income for all. Where this all will be created from, isn’t their problem. They just believe the “wealthy will pay”.

“They’ve got to keep the government-funded,” and where or how we obtain that funding isn’t important. That kind of thinking is a train wreck waiting to happen.

“Every dollar the government spends, even if borrowed, has to come out of some existing person’s pocket and therefore pre-empts the use of that dollar somewhere else in the economy—not in the future, but here and now.”

“The government can obtain its borrowed money by selling Treasury bonds to either American citizens or foreigners. If it borrows from domestic sources, it is getting money that Americans would have either invested somewhere in the economy or spent on goods and services. Government borrowing simply diverts the cash from other uses, just as if its spending were financed by taxation.” Economists call this the “crowding out effect.”

What’s necessary to understand, there will be a point where there’s not enough money to pay the interest and the required expenditures. This usually results in runaway inflation in order to “devalue” the debt.

US_debt_history

Growing Government Encroachment

“As we look into the future, contemplating artificial intelligence, automation, driverless cars and robots in our homes, big data — our data — is providing the foundation for this new world. Smart technology is just another part of the food chain, foraging personal data from our lives, without our permission or full comprehension of the implications.”

“The scale of hacking at numerous corporations around the world and the data exchange between Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, gives us an idea of how fierce this battle has become. Big data are today’s gold. Our personal and national sovereignties are at stake.”

Whistle Blowers are most often hailed as heroes, but not when it comes to blowing the whistle on a major government, most particularly, the United States. The U.S. will hunt you down, in almost any country in the world. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have been identified as either traitors, or a high security risk. Most problematic for those advocating their arrest and need for a trial, are the things they’ve revealed. Snowden disclosed the unrestrained eavesdropping by the NSA, and Assange opened the curtain of secrecy on how third-party military contractors conduct themselves in some situations with non-combatants.

Even more problematic for the “pure democracy” the politicos have tried to portray, were the devious conduct of the National Democrat party co-opting their support of  Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton. This caused enough backlash from the Clinton campaign, they began a series of intrigue and rumors to the point where we are still investigating the 2016 election results, blaming the Russians and the Trump campaign in concert of subverting the election. All of the facts disclosing this “palace intrigue,” came through Wiki Leaks led by Julian Assange. Mills_Snowden_holidays_2018

This national anxiety over either the Russians, Trump, Assange, or Snowden, are misplaced. It’s one huge disinformation campaign. Private & government ambition and technology have raced ahead of law, policy and norms.

This is not just a national problem. It’s a global problem seeking global solutions. Stricter data protection regulations and the breaking up of monopolies may be excellent starting points. Of course the clever government sponsored ideas on making the Internet Fair, are nothing more than a way of twisting the debate to furthering federal control of a public resource. The Chinese have that control within their borders, the U.S. government will continue to posit arguments through surrogates to wrest this control from private entities. What’s most amazing is the naive public view that government is inherently more trustworthy than a corporate entity.  Amazon and Google have gone to great lengths to be willing to share any data on a proactive basis. Forget privacy, it’s an illusion.

Indeed one of many arguments I’ve seen on the topic of privacy and the need for controls, are similar to asking the wolf to guard the chicken coop.

Privacy commissioners need the tools and the authority and we all need a transparent process focused on marrying moral and ethical considerations with technological progress.” Oh sure, the people who have repeatedly demonstrated their self-serving ineptitude, should be in charge of the technology they’ve already exploited.

There are other concerns and challenges facing us in 2019. The U.S. routine military interventions around the world should be a cause for concern for all of us. If the situation was flipped around, let’s say China or Russia were inside U.S. borders and using military force to impose their will, what would be the reaction? Might we become a terrorist, or support that type of activity in their homeland? I believe we need a clear written public policy statement which identifies the reasons for our military to engage into a foreign country. It needs healthy debate. We’ve skirted this debate, by having a contemporary President make a televised impassioned speech, then impromptu short international meetings and choreographed public pronouncements. USA_military_interventions_map

What are your concerns going forward? What changes, if any do you think need to at least begin in 2019?

 ——

Same As it Ever Was. . .

This may not be what you want to read or hear from someone, but there’s nothing you or I can do about it. You – me – everyone – are going to die. Having this as a reminder and a terrific conversation starter, let’s go a little further with this, and in the end, it’s all going to make sense. If it doesn’t, I’ll give your money back. Wait! You didn’t pay me. Lesson learned, you get what you paid for…

pair of love birdsThat’s really the first lesson everyone needs, you get what you paid for. Your thinking, that’s another dumb thing, he just said. Well, actually it’s the first smart thing I’ve typed, but you might miss the point.

Whenever you get an offer that sounds too good to be true, it’s definitely not going to turn out the way you expect. Sure, you heard what you wanted to hear, or they’re saying all the right things, however the delivery or the outcome isn’t going to be what’s promised.

Promises made and quickly found to be false.

  • This won’t hurt much
  • Trust me
  • This won’t make you pregnant
  • Hi, we’re from the IRS, and we’re here to help you.

We need to learn how to be critical in our thinking. Although the repeated life lesson is, “don’t trust a promise”, we hear words that we like, and we fall for it, almost every time. That’s how bad relationships start, used cars get sold, and politicians keep their job.

When a politician of your preferred party of choice makes a promise, don’t listen to their words, look at their history of delivery. Here are some examples, which are only applicable when the promise is made. These aren’t their exact words, but it’s what they generally say.

  • I’m going to make your schools better.
  • I’m going to give you good jobs.
  • I’m going to make you safe.
  • I’m going to make things fair.
  • I’m going to get you a tax break.
  • I’m going to really screw over the wealthy but make you a deal.
  • I’m going to protect you from all those bad people outside of our group.
  • I’m going to give you clean water.
  • I’m going to give you clean air.
  • I’m going to regulate all those things that need regulation.
  • I’m going to ban all those things you know need to be banned.
  • I’m going to give you a bunch of free things without concern how they get paid.
  • I’m going to keep you healthy.
  • I’m here for you.
  • And god bless ‘merica …

Does any of that look familiar?

I started out with something that’s known to be true. Then I proceeded to tell you what you probably didn’t want to hear. Well the fact is, everyone lies, some are whoppers designed to sucker you, but to tell their lies they start with something almost everyone accepts to be true. It’s the “mom & apple pie” story we like hearing. Then come the promises. My advice is to not believe them, unless and until they deliver on that promise. Chances are they won’t.

Put on your thinking cap anytime you hear a story that doesn’t fit what you know to be true. Don’t fall for the promises of boyfriend, girlfriend, theologian, politician, soldier, sailor, or salesman. Find out whether something is PROVABLY TRUE, NOT WHAT’S BELIEVED OR SAID TO BE TRUE!

Yes, you’re going to die, but why not live your life on your own terms, and not the promises of someone else?

BlackFace-sheep