Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Joseph McCarthy was right after all

Joseph McCarthy
Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator who stormed into office during the 1946 mid-term elections which saw the republican party take over Congress for the first time since 1930.

He would become famous in 1950 for claiming that he suspected there were over 50 Soviet/ Communist sympathizers in the FDR and Truman White House. Considering that liberals had control of much of the country, and the minds of millions of Americans, he was laughed at and scorned to an early death.

The media still talks about McCarthy in a negative way, even though he has essentially been vindicated. Unfortunately, he would not be vindicated for another 41 years, or until the Soviet Union fell.  Once this happened, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Vinova Accords.

In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Venona Files.

The Venona Files showed (proved) that not only was McCarthy right about there being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there was over 300 spies.

Still, you don't hear much about this outside the conservative sphere. You will never learn this in the liberal public school systems. You will never learn about this by the liberal media. For this reason, many people still view McCarthy as a bad man who falsely accused people of being Communists. When, in truth, the evidence, if we so choose to check it out, shows that McCarthy was right.

In effect, we should consider McCarthy a hero rather than a villain. He would go on to serve as a Senator until 1957, until he died an untimely death. Some say he was ridiculed so much that he was driven to alcoholism, and died of hepatitis.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Democrats out of touch with reality

The best way to describe democrats is by saying they are out of touch with reality. Here are some examples.

1.  Muslim Ban. They call Trumps ban on immigrants from seven countries a "Muslim ban." It's not a Muslim ban: 80 terrorists have come into our country from those countries. So, it's about security. It's a temporary ban on immigration from those countries until we can come up with a strategy for properly vetting these people to make sure terrorists are not going to enter our country. There are 40 other countries that are about 50 Muslim nations, and this is only seven, so there's no way you can call it a Muslim ban. If anything, it's a terrorist ban.

2.  Travel ban is unconstitutional. They are activist judges. Rather than deciding on the Constitutionality of the travel ban, they made their decision based on their opinion. They decided the morality of the ban, rather than the Constitutionality. This is not what they are supposed to be doing here. They aren't supposed to use any information other than the law. Is the law (or, in this case, executive action) legal or illegal? It cannot be illegal in this case, because the Constitution only applies to American Citizens. The people coming (or trying to come) into our country from other nations are not even citizens. So, it's impossible for the travel ban to be unconstitutional. Plus, by holding it up, terrorists are entering our nation and putting our nation at risk. Do democrats not care? Do democrats want terrorists to enter our great nation?

3  Taxing wealth. Democrats talk often about taxing wealth. They say that the wealthy "need" to pay their "fair share." But you cannot tax wealth. The only thing you can tax is income, and many wealthy people do not make income. This is why they want Trump to release his tax forms, because they will probably find that he doesn't make income, and they will tromp on this. They will say, "See, he's a greedy rich person who doesn't pay taxes; he doesn't pay his fair share." That's what democrats do, they twist the truth to their own benefit.

4  Public schools. They keep talking about how our public school system is getting worse because we aren't funding it well enough. "What we need to do is throw more money at it," they say. Well, prior to the 1960s, hardly any federal funds went toward education, and the U.S. had the #1 educational system in the world. Since the progressives took over the school system under the guise of, "We have to do something," we have gone from #1 in many areas to as low as 17. And no one calls them on this. The truth is that taxpayers put forth $536 billion per year just to fund Kindergarten through 12th grade, and this is more than is spent on national defense, according to the Department of Education. From 1991-91 to current, the federal share of K-12 spending increased from 5.7-8.3%.  Despite this increase, Education in our country has not improved. According to CBS News, the U.S. spent $15,171 per student in 2010, which is above every other developed nation. As, per example: Switzerland spent $14,922, Mexico spent $2,993. The average was $9,313 per student. As a percentage of GDP in 2010, the U.S. spent 7.3% on education, higher than any other developed nation. The average is 6.3. While it might make people feel good to keep increasing this funding, it has not resulted in better education. The problem is the system is broken. You keep throwing more money at a broken system and nothing improves (money just gets wasted).

Russians hacked the election. The Russians hacked emails of democrats like John Podesta. they hacked his emails and they ended up on Wikileaks. They made the democrats look really made. They made the people aware of how crooked they are. There were CNN reporters giving Hillary questions prior to the Clinton-Trump debates, for example. The Russians did not hack the elections. In fact, it's impossible for them to hack the elections, because the polls are not even connected to the Internet. There has not been a shred of evidence to prove this story. In fact, even the media admit that the leaks coming from Washington were so juicy they had to go with it, despite a lack of evidence. If anything, this proves media bias. They did not drop this story until Trump called their bluff and claimed that Obama tapped the trump tower. If true, this would be the biggest scandal in U.S. history. However, if proved false, would prove the story of Russian hacking to be nothing more than a hoax. So, the media had no choice but to drop this story.

6 They believe there is a limited supply of money, and if one person (or country) is rich, it comes at the expense of everyone else.  For example, if Donald Trump gets rich, hundreds or thousands of people are trapped in poverty as a result. If the United States is the wealthiest nation, it comes at the expense of other nations. It is under this belief that they think the U.S. is the cause of the world's problems, not the example of exeptionalism. This is why they believe it's important to take from the wealthy and give to the poor (redistribute wealth). This is why they want to keep our borders open, to allow the impoverished from other nations to come in and get a piece of the pie. The problem is this is not true. The truth is, prior to the United States, 98% of the people of the world were impoverished. The United States (and this is what American Exceptionalism is) showed the world that, when natural rights are protected, when the government is limited, EVERY person has a chance make something of their dreams. The U.S. Constitution, therefore, created an environment where any person can rise up and become something. Every person has an opportunity to get rich. However, they are going to have to make the effort, they are going to have to dream and dream big, and they are going to have to be willing to relocate. It's not guarantee that they will succeed, but at least it's the only system ever created whereby anyone can become rich. Of course, democrats will say it's an unfair advantage, but even the poor can rise up if they are willing to make the effort.

7. History begins the day you are born. This is how many millennials think. This is a direct result of liberals controlling our public school systems. They do not teach about what life was like prior to the founding fathers. Sure, they teach history, but they don't teach about American exceptionalism. So, as a result, most young people today think history began the day they were born. This gives them a warped view of history, causing them to miss out on many of the lessons that have already been learned.

8.  They want diversity, but they don't want diversity of thought. They love colleges like the University of Michigan, where you will see people from many nations together in one place. That's fine. The problem is that they are opposed to free thought. The reality is, if you are, say, a Trump fan, and you speak up, you will be mocked and ridiculed. You will be an outcast. The reality is that there is very little diversity in their world at least not if you have an opposing view. 

9. Choice. They are all for choice. They want you to be able to choose to kill an unborn baby, they want you to be able to choose what sex you are, they want you to be able to choose to marry someone of the same gender, they want you to be able to choose to live with your parents until you are 40 years old. But, you are not allowed to choose anything that opposes their political stance. You cannot choose to pray in public schools. You cannot choose to accept vouchers to send your kids to the best schools (assuming the schools in your area are not acceptable to you). You cannot choose to not have healthcare (thanks to Obamacare). The reality is, while they say they are for choice, they are actually opposed to it.

10.  They say they are for free speech, while directly opposing it when the free speech comes from those who disagree with them. If you oppose global warming, they mock you. They say things like, "Do you  believe in gravity?"  If you want to reform social security to assure that it will be around for another 100 years, they say things like, "Do you want to throw grandma off the cliff?"  If you attack their programs, policies, or beliefs, they call you names: "Racist, homophobe, offensive, hateful." The reality is that conservatives want to help the poor and down trodden just as the liberals do, but conservatives have a different approaches to doing so.  Conservatives trust in the free market, for one thing. Conservatives believe people are smarter, closer to the problem, and better capable of making the best decisions than elites in Washington.

11.  Taxes make more money for the government. Democrats believe the best way to fund government programs is to raise taxes. However, the reality is, at least according to the Laffer Curve, raising taxes makes money for the government up to a certain point. Once this point is crossed, revenue from taxes starts to decline. Here's an example. If taxes are 20%, rich people say, "Fine. I will just pay it. It's not worth the trouble to not pay it." Now, if taxes are 40%, they start to say, "Let's see if we can find ways to get around paying it." Here's some more evidence. Harding/ Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut taxes, and the result of all four instances was a near doubling of the national income over the ensuing 10 years. This never once even came close to happening when taxes were elevated (i.e. when taxes were 90% after WWII).

12.  Trump is the only person to impose travel bans. It's not true.  Even Obama did this. Obama banned people from Iran from coming here. Many presidents have banned immigrants from entering the U.S. Obama did it 10 times. Clinton did it 12 times. They requested bans because they decided they could not guarantee those coming in from certain countries were not terrorists. They needed time. they needed help. The best example was a complete ban on immigration from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 1920s, Coolidge signed a bill banning all immigrants from entering the U.S. This ban stood until Johnson became president in the 1960s. The ban was in place because there was a massive uptick in immigration from the 1880s to 1920s, and we wanted to make sure they had time to assimilate. It was also done because terrorists were coming into our country from Europe. They were radical, left wing socialist terrorists. So, it has been done before, and it is Constitutional. That is the reality.

Monday, March 13, 2017

J. Edgar Hoover and James Comey: Too Much Power by FBI Directors?

J. Edgar Hoover
Michael Goodwin, New York Post Columnist, just made an interesting claim on the Fox News show "America's Newsroom," to Shannon Bream. He said that no president will ever fire an FBI director for fear of what he might reveal about the president. 

He said that FDR and Truman both complained about J. Edgar Hoover. President Truman went as far to accuse him of treason, but never fired him. This is because, said Goodwin, the FBI director has at his disposal access to all the dirt on the President. So, as long as he keeps his job, nothing will be revealed. 

J. Edgar Hoover was the first director of the FBI. He was the 6th director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924, and stayed on to head the FBI when it was formed by the Herbert Hoover administration at the beginning of the Cold War. Truman wanted it to be responsible for  foreign and domestic spying, just like the Russian KGB. 

He remained director until he died at the age of 77 in 1972 

James Comey
After he died, evidence started to come out that he abused his power to influence political figures. It was also determined that he had amassed large political files on political figures, including FDR and Truman. So this gave him lots of power over both FDR and Truman. It would explain why he was never fired, despite claims that sitting presidents did not like him. 

Even President Nixon said he never fired him due to fears that he would use information against him. J. Edgar Hoover historian Kenneth Ackerman denied these claims, but there seems to be enough evidence to support them. 

Goodwin said that James Comey is the most powerful FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover. Evidence of this was when Comey came out and bravely said, "You are stuck with me for another six years."  In a way, one might think he is being very brave, daring Trump to fire him. But, according to Goodwin, it's because Comey has access to leaks and intelligence information about Trump.

Chances are he had similar evidence against Obama and Hillary. In fact, the way he handled the Hillary Clinton email scandal may be evidence of the power he has. He came out with damning evidence showing that Hillary was guilty, but failed to charge her of anything. Then he came out again after wikileaks revealed John Podesta's emails, and then decided once again not to charge her.  He may have just been doing this to show how powerful he was, and to show Hillary and Trump that he cannot be messed with.

That would explain why Obama never fired him.

Interesting. Not surprising, though. 

Friday, March 3, 2017

I think Trump's speech to Congress was first Trump speech media ever listened to, and their responses prove it

I listened to Donald Trump's address to the joint Congress on Tuesday, February 28, 2017. He gave a good speech. To me, however, he basically gave the same speech he had been giving since he announced his candidacy over a year ago now. To me his speech was nice, but nothing spectacular.

After listening to the speech I started reading what people from the various media outlets had to say about it. It seems they basically all rehashed what Fox's Chris Wallace had to say. Wallace said, "Tonight I feel like Donald Trump became the President of the United States."

When comments like this are made, it makes me wonder if these people even listened to his speeches prior to this one. I mean, you have democrats who have been attacking Trump left and right. You have Congressmen who have been protesting him, basically. You have people who voted for Hillary because they are so "offended" by Trump (like my own "liberal friend"). And I often wonder, "Do these people even listen to Trump? Have they even listened to one of his speeches?"

It seemed to me if they did, they might see a Trump they like. He wants to keep our borders secure and keep terrorists out. He wants to cut taxes and regulations and create jobs. These are all things have been done many times before, and they work.

So, when all these people say, "For the first time Trump seems Presidential." It makes me think that this speech was probably the first time they ever even listened to one of his speeches. I honestly think this is true and when they say stuff like this (for the first time, he seems presidential), it just confirms my suspicion. Because to me, a person who listened to many of his speeches, he seemed presidential long ago.

I bet my "liberal friend" has never listened to a Trump speech. If I asked her she would probably tell me she has. But, I bet she hasn't. I'm just saying. I bet all these protesters have never even listened to a Trump speech. I bet if they did, they might find that Trump is looking after their well-being as much as he is for mine.

Just to add to this a second. There are things Trump wants to do that I do not like. I mean, I'm fine with fixing bridges and tunnels and roads. I'm fine with that. But that is the job of the states, not the Federal government. Spending government money to do something the states should be doing is something democrats love. I mean, democrats should love that Trump wants to spend money.

But, I think, rather than listening to his speeches, that they just do whatever the pundits say. The pundits are adamantly opposed to Trump. They are "offended" that he speaks the truth. They are "offended" that he doesn't say things in "politically correct" fashion. The pundits say protest and hate, and so democrats just follow right along hating and protesting.

That is the state of the nation right now. Democrats hate. They are a party of hate and envy.  Trump said during his speech, "We want to create jobs." Everyone in the room stood and cheered. Democrats stood on their hands. Trump said, "We want to keep radical, Islamist terrorists out of the country." Everyone stood and cheered. Democrats sat on their hands.

So, I ask here, "Do democrats want less jobs? Do they want more terrorists into our country?" Is that what I am to make of their response, or lack of response, to Trump's speech? It kind of makes me wonder. Now, I know the answer to my own questions here. I'm asking rhetorically.