Time for a Complete Halt on All Immigration

By Selwyn Duke

Immigration today, immigration tomorrow, immigration forever? In recent times there has been much controversy over President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign-trail suggestion that we temporarily halt immigration from Muslim nations (which has been modified). The Left claims such a notion is "discriminatory,” un-American and even, most ridiculously, unconstitutional. Yet there’s a simple way to avoid this debate altogether:
Institute a moratorium on all immigration.

This is a serious proposal — and a necessary one. Consider: with the U.S. having a replacement-level fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, immigration is the only reason our population is increasing. As to this, our numbers have swelled from 100 million people in 1915 to 200 million in 1968 to 320 million today. And it’s projected they will reach approximately 400 million just after 2050.

Obviously, such growth involves strain on natural resources, social services and infrastructure. Yet while the Left purports to care about the environment, it also pursues open-border policies with jihadist-like zeal. But when will enough population be enough? When it stands at 450 million? A half billion? A billion? The Left likes to push "family planning.” But what about national-family planning?

In addition, more than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force, and  HYPERLINK "http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx"
the real unemployment rate is far higher than the government’s fraudulent figure of approximately five percent. Moreover, recent years have seen companies  HYPERLINK "http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/14/disney-it-workers-file-lawsuit-claiming-company-replaced-them-with-h-1b-visa-workers/"
replacing American high-tech workers with foreigners (often forcing our countrymen to  HYPERLINK "http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/13/exclusive-claim-carnival-forces-u-s-workers-to-train-foreign-replacements-before-christmas/"
train their replacements, as salt in the wound). What rational case can be made that the U.S. needs more people?

Actually, there is one rational, if nefarious, case: the desire for political power. Since the institution of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, 85 percent of our legal immigrants have come from the Third World. Upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat. In contrast, the Republicans derive approximately 90 percent of their votes from European-descent Americans. Do you see the rational case, or at least the rationale, now?

This post-1965 immigration model, along with  HYPERLINK "https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html"
oft-offered-amnesty to illegal migrants, has ushered in great demographic upheaval. Where our country was almost 90 percent non-Hispanic white in 1965, it’s now just 61.9 percent so. This is precisely what is being spoken of, by the way, when you hear the media and politicians talking about the "demographic changes” that are pulling the nation left.

Don’t be fooled by Donald Trump’s Nov. 8 victory, either. The President-elect campaigned as a nationalistic populist, not a conservative, and for a variety of reasons he possessed great cross-over appeal; in addition, Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. There is a reason California, where Ronald Reagan once reigned supreme, could not be won by him today. There’s a reason Virginia and North Carolina (of all places) are swing states; and why Illinois, which went GOP six elections in a row 1968 through 1988, is now a presidential-election Democrat bastion. And a big part of it is spelled i-m-m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n.

Power-mad, anti-Western politicians are well aware of this, mind you. Barack Obama  HYPERLINK "http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/09/obama-hints-immigration-will-drown-conservatism/" saidlast year that immigration was making America "more and more of a hodgepodge of folks" and that he was "hopeful" this would drown out conservatism. Andrew Neather, ex-adviser to former British prime minister Tony Blair, was even more blunt in 2009 when he  HYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html" admittedthat the massive Third World immigration into the U.K. was designed "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." And Swedish multiculturalist and social engineer Mona Sahlin, commenting on the planned Islamization of her land, HYPERLINK "http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5161/mona-sahlin" saidin 2001, "

he Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back."

This is also why Obama has intensified the demographic warfare via illegal migration, most notably with an alleged amnesty plan that would legalize foreigners, " HYPERLINK
"http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obama_amnesty_plan_legalize_foreigners_take_over_the_host_push_citizens_into_the_shadows.html"
take over the host” (us) and "push citizens into the shadows.” Part of this scheme appears to involve "seeding” red states with Muslim migrants and other foreigners, who then will break the ice and create communities that will attract even more newcomers from their nations. Goodbye, Main Street, U.S.A. — hello, Hodgepodgeville.

By the way, what do you call people who, lusting after power, invite foreigners into their own lands to overwhelm their countrymen? Any thoughts?

Note that the 1965 immigration act wasn’t billed as a culture-ender and nation-render. In fact,  HYPERLINK "http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration"
writes the Center for Immigration Studies:
Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following [when pushing the ’65 legislation]:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."

Every claim above is the precise opposite of what came to pass. Our immigration did increase from a historical norm of approximately 250,000 a year to 1,000,000, we have been inundated with immigrants from one country and area (Mexico and Latin America) and from the most "populated and deprived nations,” and our ethnic (and racial) mix has changed radically.
Note, too, that in delivering his apologia, Ol’ Teddy tacitly admitted the above would be negative developments — he didn’t just dismiss such concerns as "racist.”

In fact, those concerns stemmed from a widely recognized truth: a nation demographically unstable is an unstable nation. For if such changes lead to balkanization, it will not long be a "nation,” properly defined as an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family. (The "Sioux Nation” was not a "country,” per se; it was thus named because all members were Sioux.) "E pluribus hodgepodge” is not a recipe for national success.

Of course, our immigration policy was once quite different. Not only were far fewer immigrants admitted, but for many decades prior to ’65, policies ensured that the U.S.’s demographic balance would be maintained. Such a model is now called "discriminatory.”But consider: with millions of ethnic Chinese flooding into Tibet, overwhelming the natives, anthropologists may scream, "This is cultural and demographic genocide!” When the same thing happens to Western nations?
Then it’s called "diversity.”

That’s not the only hypocrisy here. While reporting last year on white techie types displacing Hispanics in San Francisco’s Mission District, fake-news paper The New York Times disparagingly  HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/us/high-rents-elbow-latinos-from-san-franciscos-mission-district.html?_r=1"
termed the phenomenon "bleaching out the Latino culture.” Yet fake-news station MSNBC has  HYPERLINK "http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/26/ann-coulter-on-the-browning-of-america.html"
talked about the "browning of America” — favorably. Apparently, some demographic changes are more equal than others.

Of course, suspending legal immigration is currently still a minority view, in the grip as we are of immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. But with the Trump phenomenon having moved the dial on what’s politically possible and palatable, it’s time to start talking about it — and moving that dial a bit more.

Talk-show host Mark Levin has rhetorically asked, "Is the purpose of immigration law to change the demographics of the nation?” Today, in America, it is. But with patriotic movements already having struck a blow against the Establishment — in Europe with Brexit and in the U.S. with Trump — it’s time to do the same with immigration. Establishment immigration policy must go.


"mailto:selwynduke@optonline.net" Contact Selwyn Duke,  HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/SelwynDuke" follow him on Twitter or log on to  HYPERLINK "http://www.selwynduke.com/" SelwynDuke.com

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1323 words, total size 10 kb.

'Not Russia': Who really was Wikileaks' DNC Deepthroat?

Robert Romano

Former United Kingdom Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray is back, and he is getting more specific about who Wikileaks' source(s) were for not only the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails released in July, but also the John Podesta emails released in October.

"Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks," Murray is quoted as saying in a bombshell interview with the Daily Mail published Dec. 14.
https://ct1.publicaster.com/ClickThru.aspx?pubids=6812|830728|6687959|5&digest=ZB0ecKQTTc6TGr4IGC5jUQ&sysid=1

This is getting interesting.

Instead, Murray says his source — described as an intermediary for Democratic Party leakers who were "disgust[ed] at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders" — met him in a Washington, D.C. park near American University in September.

Murray's account appears to directly contradict the Dec. 9 report by the Washington Post of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assessment that alleges the Wikileaks emails were actually hacked by Russian intelligence agencies to help President-elect Donald Trump win the election. The article quoted a senior U.S. official saying, "It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected… That's the consensus view."

These two accounts — disgruntled Democrats leaked the DNC and Podesta emails on one side and the Russians hacked the DNC on the other — cannot both be true, right? Or can they? Murray also offered this caveat, "Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." In other words, both could be true, in fact.

So what the heck is going on here? Let's consider the following chain of events.

The Associated Press reported in Sept. 2015 that Hillary Clinton's private email server that contained classified information might have been penetrated by the Russians. But that there was no evidence that the hack had succeeded or that it had even originated from Russian intelligence. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton's Democratic presidential campaign, said: "We have no evidence to suggest she replied to this email or that she opened the attachment. As we have said before, there is no evidence that the system was ever breached. All these emails show is that, like millions of other Americans, she received spam."

In March 2016, Wikileaks published a searchable archive of 30,000 of Clinton's private server emails based on publicly available sources from that "were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request."

By May 2016, it was reported by the popular political blog Gateway Pundit that Moscow had actually succeeded in penetrating Clinton's missing emails, said to total 20,000. Allegedly, the Russians had piggybacked onto Clinton's server by monitoring the renowned hacker known as Guccifer, now imprisoned, and supposedly the Russian government was actively considering whether to release them or not. To date, this trove of emails has not been released yet by anyone, if it even exists.

On June 12, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told ITV in an interview that "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great, WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead… We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication, that is correct."

Just two days later, on June 14, the Washington Post published its story on the DNC hack, it said, by Russia, "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach."

The hack of the DNC was ongoing and the supposed Russian fingerprints were identified, not by intelligence agencies, but by the private Internet security firm Crowdstrike, which published its findings a day later on June 15.

The same day, on June 15, the Wordpress blog by Guccifer 2.0 appeared, taking credit for the DNC hack described in the Washington Post story, and taunting Crowdstrike. The blog posted some of the documents as proof of the hack. Critically, Guccifer 2.0 claimed, "The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon."

Here, Guccifer 2.0 was associating itself with Wikileaks, not the other way around. Wikileaks never confirmed that Guccifer 2.0 was the source of either the DNC or Podesta emails.

By this time, it must be noted that Assange had already made it known publicly in the June 12 interview referenced above that he had emails related to Hillary Clinton. Was Guccifer 2.0 falsely taking credit for Assange's upcoming release against Hillary Clinton?

Within hours, the same day, on June 15, it was revealed that metadata in one of the files posted by Guccifer 2.0 was modified by a user whose name in Cyrillic was "Felix Edmundovich," an apparent reference to a founder of the Soviet-era secret police. This was used by many observers as more confirmation that somehow the Russians did it. This seems sloppy by Guccifer 2.0 but okay, let's play along.

But it raises some plausible questions.

1. Was Guccifer 2.0 simply trying to make it look like the Russians were responsible for whatever Assange and Wikileaks were about to release?
2. Or, alternately, did the DNC, aware that Assange and Wikileaks were about to do a major dump against Clinton, decide it would be a good time to reveal its own hack, and its Russian origins, to either muddy the waters for whatever Wikileaks was about to release or because it actually believed Wikileaks had been handed information from the Russians?
3. Was the DNC hack the Washington Post reported on and the Guccifer 2.0 disclosures actually staged to preempt and discredit whatever Wikileaks was about to release?
4. Was Guccifer 2.0's public tarring and feathering as Russian hackers a warning to Assange and Wikileaks it would be treated similarly if it followed through on its promise to publish emails related to Hillary Clinton?

These questions are speculative, of course, but why not? Everyone else is speculating about what might have happened based on this supposed link between Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks — even the Central Intelligence Agency. Well, perhaps that link was actually fabricated or, more likely, falsely assumed, if Wikileaks' Murray is to be believed, or Julian Assange himself (see below).

There was never any overlap between what Guccifer 2.0 published, which had very little impact, and the DNC and Podesta emails Wikileaks ultimately published, which were widely discussed. Why did Guccifer 2.0 even need Wikileaks to publish its documents? Many of its documents later appeared on DCleaks.com. And why disclose that it was the source of pending Wikileaks disclosures — making it less likely Wikileaks would use their information if indeed that is where it came from?

A month intervened between the Washington Post story and Wikileaks' DNC email release, and the whole time, Guccifer 2.0 was labeled the work of Russian hackers. If Guccifer 2.0 was really Wikileaks' source, then through publishing the emails, Assange would have knowingly been embracing that narrative — and risking Wikileaks' reputation as an honest broker. Who wants to be perceived or portrayed as a pawn of Russia in the West? The way Guccifer 2.0 was revealed to the world, then, might be one of the clearest indications it had nothing to do with Wikileaks' ultimate releases.

To be certain, by the time Wikileaks on July 22 revealed DNC emails proving that the party was favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary, the assumption that Guccifer 2.0 was indeed Wikileaks' source was widely accepted, primed by the Hillary Clinton campaign, Clinton surrogates and Clinton herself.

But even an article published on Motherboard by Thomas Rid on July 25, considered by many a definitive account showing that Russia was responsible for the Wikileaks disclosures, included this very important caveat: "it is unclear if all leaked documents are actually sourced from the [Guccifer 2.0] DNC breach."

In other words, in July, after Wikileaks had dumped its DNC emails, there was no evidence to support Guccifer 2.0's claim that it was Wikileaks' source — but everyone proceeded with that narrative as if it were gospel.

Later, in October, this same disparity — where it was unclear who Wikileaks' source really was — was noted in Politico by Fidelis Cybersecurity threat system manager John Bambenek: "Some of the most recent WikiLeaks documents contain no 'metadata' evidence to back up the U.S. government's accusations that Russia has been linked to the group's document releases, said John Bambenek, the threat systems manager for the firm Fidelis Cybersecurity... Bambenek said WikiLeaks is a far savvier organization than some of the other groups connected to this year's Democrat-related document dumps, such as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com."

So far, in the narrative on the side of the Russians did it, everyone is still assuming — without proof — that Guccifer 2.0 was in fact Wikileaks' source for the DNC emails released in July, and then again for the John Podesta emails released in October.

Keep that in mind as you read this article or statements like that put out by the Department of Homeland Security on Oct. 7, which stated as a matter of fact, "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process."

Such government proclamations should be treated skeptically, notably, because they do not even represent any consensus within the U.S. Intelligence Community that Russia was actually behind the Wikileaks disclosure.

On Nov. 17, outgoing National Intelligence Director James Clapper told the House Intelligence Committee: "As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided."

"We don't have as good of insight into that," he added.

In an interview on Sean Hannity's radio program on Dec. 15, Wikileaks' Assange called the accusations that Russia was behind its disclosures a "deliberate attempt to conflate" its own releases and the presence of Russian hacking the DNC, stating emphatically, "Our source is not the Russian government."

Hannity specifically asked Assange about Guccifer 2.0 and DCleaks.com, and Assange said, "who's behind these [sites], we don't know." Hannity explicitly asked if Assange knew them, and Assange said, "No," indicating they were in fact not the source for Wikileaks' DNC and Podesta releases.

Meaning, the DNC Deepthroat is still at large. Got it?

The only connection that has been drawn between Wikileaks and Russia depended critically on the Guccifer 2.0 link. Without that link, the whole story falls to pieces. So, everyone saying they know for a fact that the Russians were behind Wikileaks' email disclosures, in all likelihood, really have no idea what they're talking about, because they're still assuming they know who Wikileaks' source was. They don't.

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:44 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1879 words, total size 12 kb.

Soros Funding Fake "Fake News" Campaign

Timothy Birdnow

George Soros is behind the "fake "fake news" campaign.

According to Breitbart:

"The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) drafted a code of five principles for news websites to accept, and Facebook yesterday announced it will work with "third-party fact checking organizations” that are signatories to the code of principles.

Facebook says that if the "fact checking organizations” determine that a certain story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and, according to the Facebook announcement, "there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. Stories that have been disputed may also appear lower in News Feed.”

IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. A cursory search of the Poynter Institute website finds that Poynter’s IFCN is openly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundations as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and the National Endowment for Democracy."

End excerpt.

I love the name "Open Society" here; ironic isn't it! Soros' idea of open leaves something to be desired, as he is trying here to censor people who disagree with his plans.

Soros is really a comic book supervillain.

But this is going to work unless there is a major boycott of anyone signing on to this "fake news" lie. We are going to have to fight this, because leftists control much of the apparatus of the internet, which is what gave us the ability to resist the real fake newsers.

They want to shut our mouths, and if Soros is funding it you know that assertion can't be denied.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Air Claire McCaskill was Against Coal Miners Before She was for them

Brian Birdnow

Dear Senator McCaskill,

You claim to be fighting for the little guys like the coal miner mentioned in your letter. Why, then, have you supported your Party and your President in their efforts to kill the coal industry. I might add, while we are on the subject, that you enthusiastically supported a Presidential candidate who swaggeringly stated that when she was president she would put the coal companies out of business and put tens of thousands of coal miners out of work. Where do you stand on this issue now?

Brian E. Birdnow

Senator Claire McCaskil

That's the question Americans should always be asking their members of Congress—who are you fighting for?

For the record, here's who I'm fighting for...

Billy Hull. He's a retired coal miner with nearly 30 years working at the Peabody Coal Power Mine near Montrose, Missouri, who wrote me a letter earlier this year:

"My Wife and I, married 59 years fall under the Patriot Coal Companies Voluntary Employees Beneficial Association (VEBA.). My wife Earlene is a 2 time cancer survivor and I suffered a stroke in 2012. If we lose our benefits it will be hard for us to afford our medicine cost. Due to the bankruptcy of both Peabody Coal Co. and the Patriot Coal Company the Patriot VEBA fund will be exhausted in late 2016 leaving us without pension and healthcare benefits..."

Mr. Hull isn't alone. He's one of thousands of retired coal miners and their widows whose pensions and healthcare—promised to them decades ago—are in jeopardy. They were made a promise and, through no fault of their own, are about to have the rug pulled out from under them. A handful of my colleagues and I have been trying to fix this crisis for months, with our bipartisan Miners Protection Act. And I figured we'd have some big-time help from President-elect Donald Trump, who's vowed to help these miners.

But instead of seizing the last chance Congress had to fix the problem this year, U.S. House Republicans put a temporary bandage on these miners' benefits and then left town for their Christmas vacations. Meanwhile, retired miners, widows, and their families across Missouri are left in limbo. I don't know who these U.S. House Republicans are fighting for, but it's not working Americans.

Our own Harry Truman—whose Senate seat I hold today—made a promise to these coal miners when he was President. I'm fighting to keep his promise. And I'm fighting for Missouri's working families.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

Some Blowback on my Tillerson Article

Timothy Birdnow

My article about Rex Tillerson's breaking of the Boy Scouts made it to Lifesitenews, a website I have always had respected greatly.

Author Peter LaBarbera adds a few interesting details:

"The Boy Scouts’ shift toward homosexual advocacy was especially bitter for American pro-family advocates since the Scouts—in the 2000 BSA vs. Dale case--had already won their right through the U.S. Supreme Court not to hire adult homosexuals, based on their First Amendment freedom to live by their own moral code.

The BSA has had a problem with sexual predators as homosexual Scoutmasters—exposed through a lawsuit that forced the release of a portion of the BSA’s so-called "perversion files.”
Exxon goes "gay”

Tillerson's corporation, Exxon-Mobil, initially resisted adopting broad homosexuality- and transgender-affirming policies advocated by LGBT activists. This led liberal "gay” groups like Human Rights Campaign to target Exxon-Mobil for protests.

Thus Exxon became a part of the corporate "culture wars” as conservatives would go out of their way to buy the politically incorrect company’s gas, while homosexual activists and their liberal allies would consciously avoid Exxon stations.

However, Exxon now has an 85 percent ranking on HRC’s 2017 "Corporate Equality Index,” the organization’s self-serving guide for scoring major corporations on LGBTQ issues and philanthropy. That score is up from 25 percent in 2013.

Human Rights Campaign charged that Exxon-Mobil shifted its homosexual-related policies only to become eligible for federal contracts--after President Obama issued an executive order mandating that the federal government only do business with contractors that have explicit pro-LGBTQ nondiscrimination policies."

End excerpt.

Yes indeed; I would have included that but had to cut it for brevity (always a problem with these articles.) The Boy Scouts was forced into throwing the door open to homosexuals of all stripes - both as Scouts and Scoutmasters - at a time they were under assault for, drum roll please - homosexual misconduct! The BSA was targeted as the next victim after the Left so successfully injured the Catholic Church by uncovering the pedophilia among priests (and there is more pedophilia in public schools than Catholic, but who worries about facts and details?) The thing is, raising a stink about things that were happening in Catholic schools was politically expedient, and many of the people who would have no problem with men sodomizing young boys were morally outraged at priests doing it. The attack worked, because, well, Americans still have some moral compass and the idea of some trusted authority figure abusing a young kid filled them with horror.

It worked with the Catholics, so why not the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts are an enemy to Progressivism, because they anchor young kids in traditional morality and America's culture and heritage. Progressives hate all of that, and demand changes to remake the world.

So, when homosexual sodomy comes to light in the Scouts the Left demands the BSA open to homosexuals. Makes sense to me!
Even more baffling, though, is the BSA went along with it, in no small part thanks to future Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

My article also appeared at Free Republic and Lucianne, both traditionally strong conservative sites.

Strangely enough, I took something of a beating at both as many people don't see this as any sort of an issue.

This illustrates the triumph of materialism and the victory of neo-conservativism. Most of these posters at both sites would be quite wroth if I were to call them neocons, but that is precisely what they are; economically conservative but socially liberal in many ways. Neocons were Democrats who moved to the Republican party because they didn't like the socialist schemes coming out of the Dems. They didn't agree with the Christian morality of the Republicans, though. And I would dare say most conservatives now think that way. One can no longer argue a moral issue on the basis of morality or tradition; the argument must go to materialistic and pragmatic terms or be dismissed out of hand. It used to be the case that in America you could point to the Bible on matters of morality (not necessarily of science or facts) and nobody could argue. Oh, there was argument, but it was always about interpretation of the text; nobody disputed the text itself. No longer.

Now saying "homosexuality is immoral" and spiritually abominable is sneered at. It doesn't matter that the text is plain as day, we can't make that argument. Nonjudgementalism is now our religion, and Tolerance our god. It does no good to point to history and tradition. I could point out that there is no major religion on Earth that is even neutral to homosexuality; it is condemned to differing degrees by all of them. And there are no good historical precedents except in very decadent cultures and very, very limited examples of nations accepting homosexuality. The best the homosexual lobby can do is point to ancient Greece. But the greatest of the Greek philosophers - Plato - considered it an abomination, as did most other major players in Greece in antiquity. Yes, there was a tradition in a few city states of apprenticing young boys to adults who took their payment in, uh, nontraditional ways, but that didn't last very long (the Golden Age in Greece only lasted fifty years) and it earned the Greeks absolutely dreadful reputations among all the rest of the Mediterranean peoples. Greek pedophilia was an aberration, and quickly succumbed to the higher mores of the surrounding Peoples. How was it that Phillip of Macedon - a hillbilly cousin the Greeks - was able to conquer them so easily? Yes, the Greeks were worn out from fighting amongst themselves but they were likely exhausted from moral turpitude as well.

At any rate, there is no major historical precedent that can be pointed to. Our gay agenda is a worldwide social experiment. Up until the last couple of decades most people understood that homosexuality was quite damaging to society in many ways.

The fiscal conservatives don't seem to see it. They think it does not affect, say, taxes but it does. How much have we spent on AIDS research since the disease broke out among the gay population? Oh, it is true non-gay people get it, but it exploded among homosexuals and continues to be a "gay disease". There are others, such as "gay bowel syndrome" a parasitic infestation caused by repeated tearing of the lining of the anus, for instance. And many diseases that occasionally plague heterosexuals are rampant in the homosexual community, such as syphilis and gonorrhea. All of this is being paid for by tax dollars.

The fact is, moral choices often cost money, especially in our modern social safety net world. Also, how much have we spent on "education" to stop "bigotry" against homosexuals?

I'm not meaning to pick on gay people, just make the point that morality saves money and that immorality on any level does in fact impinge on economics. Would we be in such dire financial straits if people held the old principle of self-reliance? They don't, and that is a moral failing; the attitude is "let's someone else do the work". If we hadn't had such promiscuity in the black community would we have Black Lives Matter now? Would Ferguson have been burnt down if a more moral approach had been followed? Illegitimate children cost Americans plenty. So does crime.

Every liberal economic policy ultimately stems from a moral failing.

Too many conservatives don't believe that or want to face it.

THAT is why what Tillerson did with the Boy Scouts is so important; the Scouts taught the old values and Tillerson guaranteed that the old values would be put away. It may have just been one issue, but like a tapestry if you pull out a central threat the thing falls apart. The BSA cannot still promote the Scout Oath while ignoring one big moral failing. This sort of hypocrisy is glaring to the boys, and they will think any other transgression that is pleasing to them is then acceptable. If you can violate the Word of God on your sexuality, why not on other things? Why shouldn't you take something that isn't yours if you won't get caught? (That, by the way, is the essence of the Welfare State.)

Sadly, I fear we have largely lost the culture war, and young people in America think profoundly differently than we did in the past on these issues. They are going to learn the hard way - and that means through horrible suffering and pain and Divine retribution aka the natural penalty for violating Natural Law. Nobody is surprised to break a leg if they step off a 10 foot embankment, but they are horrified to learn that violating moral law has consequences. With the liberal media and academics telling them there are no consequences they often don't recognize them when they come.

Reading these comments at Free Republic and Lucianne I feel a great sadness, because America is clearly apostate to the Almighty and will have to be chastised. I tremble at that, because the chastisements of God are light if people repent, but heavy when they don't get the message. America has turned her face from the laws of God.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1547 words, total size 10 kb.

Lipstick on Tillerson Doesn't Change He's Still a Pig

imothy Birdnow

In my recent American Thinker article I discussed Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson's involvement in opening the Boy Scouts to homosexual activism, but I also included other problems with Tillerson - such as his Globalist attitudes, and his support for a carbon tax. I did NOT include the fact that Exxon-Mobile donated money to Planned Parenthood (as Tony Perkins pointed out in a competing article that stole most of my thunder) but that was because a. I didn't know it at the time I wrote the piece and b. Tillerson says it was because EM was matching donations to any charity an employee chose to give to, and a number of them gave to PP. Well, he should have been more specific when he launched the matching funds program, but a mistake is a mistake and it happens. I think it's a red flag for Tillerson but am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular instance.

But when you add these things together they form a pattern.

Writing at American Thinker this morning the usually brilliant Daniel Sobieski fights back against critics of Tillerson.Sobieski says:

"Tillerson supported a carbon tax as the lesser of many evils being proposed, like a full-blown cap-and-trade regime. It imposed what some, including Tillerson, might consider an unjustified cost, but it would be a predictable cost that could be dealt with. Speaking at the 37th Oil & Money Conference in England in October, Tillerson opined:

We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions.

One can be sure that a tax-cutting President Trump will rid Tillerson of such a notion. His pro-growth, pro-energy development views will serve us well in an energy hungry world and an America that needs as much energy as it can find to grow. Trump sees that as a key to making America great again. Tillerson notes the need for more fossil fuels."

End excerpt.

What's that I hear? The buzzing of a swarm of mosquitoes coming from the swamp?

The fact is, this is a fine defense if you are trying to save Tillerson's job as head of Exxon-Mobile and have to defend him to the Board of Directors, but it doesn't recommend him much. It amounts to a surrender, an acceptance of defeat even while the battle rages. That is apparently Tillerson's style; he caved on homosexuality in the Scouts despite not having lost the battle, and in fact the Courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts but Tillerson figured it was a pointless fight and waved the white flag. Sound familiar? It should; it's the exact same problem we had with John Boehner, with Mitch McConnoll, with so many of the GOPe types who don't want to stand and fight but rather to surrender and fight - sort of - another day.

it is PRECISELY THE STRATEGY that has gotten us into the current predicament. Our leaders are cowards. When the heat is on they conclude they lost and retreat. Tillerson is clearly what I call a William Hull Republican a man who makes his stand on top of a flatbed truck speeding away from the field of battle.

That's at best; he may actually believe a lot of this crap.

And "a tax-cutting President trump will rid him of these notions"? Huh??? Trump is the man who was a registered Democrat until 2009, the guy who gave money to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008, a guy who supported carbon taxes and gay marriage and who said he isn't concerned with men in pink skirts using women's public restrooms. Sobieski just doesn't get it; Trump needs his people to keep him balanced, not the other way around. Someone whose views are malleable is not a good fit for a Trump Presidency. What is absolutely necessary is for Trump's people to be rock solid conservatives so as to hold their boss's infamously mercurial philosophy to the ground.

Whenever we have taken a chance on someon we have been disappointed. Why? Because the culture of Washington and the high levels of power are awash in Liberalism, and one must swim not just against a stream but up a waterfall to remain even remotely Conservative. It's the natural environment of government. We cannot expect to put a squish in a position of authority and then have them act in our interest. No; they will inevitably move to the left as pressure mounts on them. That is my big fear of Trump. Trump isn't afraid to tangle with people and is not weak, but he lacks a core that is solid enough. I am worried he can be moved and will as he settles into the swampland. A guy like Tillerson will just make things worse. And Trump is a true CEO, a man who will delegate authority. So Tillerson's view will be very important in the new Administration.

How many great candidates did the Tea Party support who immediately turned into Establishment types after being elected? Shoot, Mia Love broke her promise not to support Boehner before she was even seated. Nikki Haley turned RINO as fast as she could after her election. I could go on and on. The point is, we've been repeatedly betrayed, sometimes drastically. People forget that John Boehner was a "take no prisoners" hard right conservative before becoming Speaker, as was Eric Cantor. Ditto John Kasich, who I used to love in the old days.

And Sobieski touches on Tillerson's Russian connection, something I ignored in my article. I ignored it because I didn't think it all that pertinent to my criticisms and knew everyone would be all over that. But there is a point to ponder; Putin gave Tillerson the Russian equivalent of the Medal of Freedom, a high honor. Tillerson isn't just a business partner but a buddy, a real chum. He's too close. Being a corporate head sucking up to a plutocrat to gain access to a market is one thing, but there may be some very hard things involving the Russians on Tillerson's plate and he is going to have to stand firm with them - perhaps firmer than he can muster. What happens if the Russians invade Ukraine proper? Or Latvia? For that matter, with Russian planes buzzing American patrols we could wind up shooting at one another. Is Tillerson going to remain neutral? That's not his job; he's supposed to be the tough guy when it comes down to it. Secretary of State is not a job for a suck up.

I greatly admire Daniel Sobieski but I fear he is wrong on this. He cites exploding liberal heads, but that was guaranteed to happen with a man who both captained the most hated Exxon-Mobile AND was chums with Putin. And liberal heads will explode no matter what; they just will not accept Trump.

The worst thing you can do in this kind of political warfare (and we no longer have a gentlemanly political process but a war of political extermination) is give the enemy half a loaf - or even a quarter. Do we make food drops over enemy armies in wartime? No; we try to starve them out. The GOP has for years tossed partial loves to the starving enemy to show our good will. You can be magnanimous in victory only after ultimate victory; you don't start being a good winner while the battle still rages.

Too few on our side seem to understand that.

ADDENDUM:

American Thinker also has a rather content-free defense of Tillerson here. It concludes with a quote from the Swamprat King himself, James "Mr. Establishment" Baker in praise of Tillerson. If that doesn't turn me off on our supposed "outsider" pick than nothing will.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1339 words, total size 8 kb.

Mail Order Brides for Conservatives?

Dana Mathewson

Uh-oh! Guys, our dirty little secret is out! 😄

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/12/14/vanity-fair-angry-white-men-voted-trump-putin-crush/

Vanity Fair: Angry White Trump Voters Wanted ‘Submissive’ Russian Women
Breitbart News

Vanity Fair has studied the election carefully, and concluded that Donald Trump won because angry American white men fell in love with Russian President Vladimir Putin -- and Russian women

A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP:

I lived with Russians on a kibbutz. Their women are anything but submissive be they Jewish or Christian. And I learned an expression that fits Vanity Fair...

Guvno Chlebie, Neh zigarig. In English that means "Shit is what you understand, not a wristwatch" (in other words, a wristwatch is complex for you to comprehend).

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

A Dying Breed

Dana Mathewson

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/10/wash-post-trumps-election-stole-desire-look-partner/

Wash Post: Trump’s Election Stole My Desire to Look for a Partner
Breitbart News

Stephanie Land writes at the Washington Post that Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election has robbed her of hope for the future, making dating a pointless endeavor

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Boycotts of Target and Kelloggs Working

Dana Mathewson

I'm just full of good news today!

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/13/target-kelloggs-boycott-deters-corporate-bullying/

Boycott of Target and Kellogg’s Deters Corporate Bullying, Says American Family Association
Breitbart News

Many corporate executives are evading left-wing political agendas because they’ve seen how Target Corp. was crippled by a customer boycott when its executives pushed the transgender agenda, says Ed Vitagliano, executive vice president of the American Family Association

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Dyson Does in Doomsayers

Dana Mathewson

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/loose-ends-15.php

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Quote of the Day

Wil Wirtanen

From a message board at American Thinker:

"Suffering is how nature teaches you to quit being stupid"

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Jilly WAr Bucks

Dana Mathewson

Are we surprised?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/stein-spent-nearly-1-million-recount-funds-on-consultants-staff-admin-expenses.html

Green Party nominee Jill Stein spent nearly $1 million of the funds she raised for recount efforts in three battleground states on consultants, staff, and administrative costs

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Clinton Too Easy on Reporters?

Dana Mathewson

WTF?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/13/pro-clinton-operative-thinks-her-campaign-was-too-easy-on-media.html.

Hillary Clinton's campaign team, which literally wrangled reporters during an event in July 2015, should have treated the press more like animals, according to one of her fiercest supporters and political operatives.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

Pickled Troll

Dana Mathewson

Never mind Keith Ellison. Here's the guy who should be running the DNC!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/14/drunken-kim-jong-un-forces-top-military-leaders-to-write-apology-letters-then-forgets-it.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

A political story hiding in a solar co. bankruptcy proceeding

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 3 kb.

Judge Napolitano Thinks Hack was Inside Job

Timothy Birdnow

I've been saying for some time that I suspect our government in the hacking of the DNC e-mails and perhaps the Hillary hack too.

Apparently Judge Napolitano thinks likewise.

Jim Hoft dishes:

"Napolitano told Stewart Varney the US intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks — NOT the Russians.

Napolitano says he has a source inside the intelligence community.


Judge Napolitano: It Is Likely US Intelligence Leaked DNC Emails to Wikileaks – NOT RUSSIA (Video)

Jim Hoft Dec 13th, 2016 11:58 am 10 Comments

Judge Napolitano doubled down today on Varney and Co. that the US intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks.

Napolitano told Stewart Varney the US intelligence community leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks — NOT the Russians.

Napolitano says he has a source inside the intelligence community.
varney-leaks-wikileaks-napolitano

The CIA and FBI examined the exact same data that was produced for them by the NSA. The CIA analysts said the Russians are behind this. The FBI analysts said there is no evidence that the Russians are behind this. We do know this was leaking. This was not hacking. Leaking is the unauthorized exposure of something to a person to whom it wasn’t intended. Hacking is th altering of an operational system… You can’t affect the outcome of the election if you hack Clinton and the DNC. You can affect the outcome of an election if you affect those who register the voters or count the voters."

End excerpt.

I have no evidence to support my suspicion, but neither does anyone claiming the Russians did it. In the end we are all just guessing.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Dems were for the Russkies before they were against

Wil Wirtanen forwards this:

https://howiecarrshow.com/forget-donald-trump-teddy-kennedy-was-moscows-bestie/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Slaying SLU

Timothy Birdnow

This appears on the website of St. Louis University, a Jesuit university and my alm mater.

It is a statement of support for "undocumented students" i.e. invading aliens who are breaking the law.

From the article:

"A statement from the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) included 27 U.S. institutions, while more than 70 presidents signed a separate statement from the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU).

The ACCU statement reads, in part: "Our college and university communities are home to students from around the world who seek to contribute to American society, to the life and mission of the Church, and to their own formation and growth by pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees.”

The AJCU statement notes: "Grounded in our Catholic and Jesuit mission, we are guided by our commitment to uphold the dignity of every person, to work for the common good of our nation, and to promote a living faith that works for justice. We see our work of teaching, scholarship and the formation of minds and spirits as a sacred trust.”

In addition to emphasizing the institutions’ faith-based missions, both statements express support for a federal policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows certain immigrants who came to the United States before the age of 16 to apply for protection from deportation and a work permit."

End excerpt.

Christians are first guided to obey the laws of their country, unless those laws are clearly in opposition to the laws of God. Legal immigration requirements are old, established, and in no way violate the laws of God. Those laws are being broken by SLU and the rest of the Jesuit college system here.

But that is no surprise from a university that invited rioters and looters to invade their campus then signed an accord with them to promote their lawless goals.

SLU is clearly losing students, as this article obliquely hints at:

"Research conducted by both outside agencies, as well as within SLU, indicated that SLU could increase the underrepresented student population by broadening recruitment beyond traditional high school students.

More locally, the enhanced enrollment plan is to include "multiple access points” for first-generation college and disadvantaged students to become Billikens. The new transfer articulation plan will start with St. Louis Community College in the launch of the 2+SLU program, which will operate as a bridge and college completion effort for all area high school graduates. Serving as a dual admission program, students will take prescribed classes at any St. Louis Community College campus. Participating students will be admitted to SLU as long as they maintain a minimum college GPA of 2.75 in at least 10 college courses. A GPA of 3.25 will make a student scholarship-eligible"

End excerpt.

St. Louis University hired a radical president named Fred Pestello, and he has been systematically transforming SLU into the Berkeley of the Midwest. Slu is going to have to suffer in enrollment and alumni donations and force the Board of Trustees to fire this creep before things will improve.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 4 kb.

Plamegate Shows CIA Interfered with Political Leadership in the Past

Timothy Birdnow

A quick thought on the fake news story about Russia getting Trump elected. I must ask; what is the source?

Well, the Washington Post quoted an anonymous source quoting an anonymous source claiming to have seen a classified report, one written BEFORE the election. Funny; no new intel, no solid evidence presented, not even an accuser.

It's coming from the CIA, we are being told, and the CIA is jealous of it's independence and intelligence integrity.

Really?

Anybody remember the Valerie Plame affair?

Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst (not active field agent) who managed to promote a fact finding mission for her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson. The whole thing was a setup, with Wilson sitting in the lobby of a hotel in Niger "drinking sweet tea" and talking to whosoever wandered in. As it turns out, the assignment - ostensibly to learn if Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium in Africa - was wrangled for Wilson by his wife, who was so careful about her covert status she appeared in a "babes of the CIA" calendar.

When George W. Bush stated in his 2003 State of the Union report that Iraq had recently attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium Wilson went public with an op ed in the New York Times attacking Bush and claiming to have ended the discussion.

This led Robert Novak to accidentally divulge Plame's name and leading to a firestorm. His source was Scooter Libby, who would eventually be convicted of a process crime. He turned out to be innocent of the "outing" as the source of the leak was Richard Armitage at the State Department. And this "covert agent" was listed in Who's Who as a CIA agent under her real name.

For more see here.Loo

What does this have to do with CIA and politics?

Discover the Networks points out:

"The left falsely depicted Libby's conviction as a discrediting of America's pre-war intelligence, and used the judgment against him to promote the notion that "Bush lied, people died." But in fact the President had not lied about Saddam's attempt to purchase uranium from Niger. The Nigerian government believed that it had told Wilson that there was substance to the charges about yellowcake uranium. As The Washington Post editorialized, "Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth” in saying he had debunked the Niger story."

End quote.

Sooo...

The CIA commissioned the husband of one of their agents, someone unqualified for such an assignment, to investigate critical information that led to war. They never contradicted him, even though they had plenty of information to at least correct the record.

Look, the CIA KNEW Wilson was a Bush hater, and sent him anyway. They had to know this was going to be used as fodder against the President and his policies. In short, this was a black op. And Patrick Fitzgerald (Current FBI director James Comey's buddy) knew who the leak was but went after Libby anyway. Libby was on Dick Chaney's staff.

The Plame affair stinks to high heaven, and so does this Russian business.

(By the way, James Comey was the guy who started the Plamegate investigations. According to the liberal Mother Jones:

"Comey was confirmed in early December. Schumer called with congratulations and told him that he had a month. That is, a month to do the right thing on the CIA leak case.

Comey took less than a month"

end

Comey has always been a double dealing insider)

There are plenty of other examples of the CIA interfering with the American political system. For example, the CIA was engaged in spying on Congress under Obama, and there was little concern.

There are other examples, and the idea the CIA is pure as the wind drive snow is only being promoted because it helps the left.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 648 words, total size 5 kb.

Obama: No Russian Interference

Timothy Birdnow

Obama himself just dismissed hysterical media allegations of Russian election tampering.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/13/obama-crushes-conspiracy-no-evidence-russia-tampered-votes-election/

Time to put this fairy tale to bed.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.