Thursday, October 12, 2017

Self-Inflicted Crisis by Bob Warren

For at least the past decade, Americans have been treated to the horrors of “identity politics”.  We are not allowed to characterize ourselves as Americans, but as one of this or that or the other group.  Much of this bastardization of America started with the Civil Rights Act and then accelerated with hate speech laws and rules used to condemn, demonstrate against or violently oppose uncomfortable opposing ideas.  Freedom of speech itself, in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, has been called into question.

In Europe, hate speech laws are used by various governments to punish opposing views.  If you think homosexuality is a bad idea and you say something about it, you will be arrested, fined and even imprisoned as happened to a Swedish pastor who read from the Bible regarding homosexuality.  If you think Islam is dangerous, you will be quickly silenced.  A British citizen who mocked ISIS received a visit from the UK constabulary.  From my perspective, similar ugly things are happening in America.

Rather than try to cover the waterfront, let’s turn to the NFL situation.  Here is the most successful of the professional sport’s industries.  For some utterly unknown reason, they decided to get into the “identity politics” business with all of its grievance and victim minefields.  Missed, or more likely deliberately ignored, was the fan.

Here is my take on the American citizen fan.   During the week, the fan goes to work to serve customers, as that is how he keeps his job.  When he comes home from work, he has family responsibilities like shopping, kids activities, and more.  The opportunities to relax are rare.   When he turns on the news after dinner or before bed, he is besieged with “identity politics”, non-stop complaints about the unfairness of life, the cops, the military, President Trump and America.  Often, the only relief he gets during a seven-day week is to watch a mindless professional football game after church on a Sunday.

With infinite arrogance and in a typically condescending fashion, the NFL decided to impose upon the fans yet another “identity politics” grievance display.  They used the opening ceremonies of all the pro-football games to do this.  Not unexpectedly, angered fans rebelled.  Of course, excuses were quickly made.  (The players weren’t protesting, they were praying was one of my favorites although anybody with a brain knew that was a “crock of sewage”.)  Apologies, explanations, pleas for understanding, confusions and contradictions, embarrassments, insults, on and on were made in what appeared to be a mass panic throughout the NFL, their advertisers, and their sycophants in the media.  All such protestation basically dug the crisis hole deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

I studied and taught crisis management.  One of the key points in a crisis is things are never what they were before.  Good decisions suddenly become bad.  Bad decisions suddenly become good.  It is best to shut up and hold on until you actually see some “light at the end of the tunnel – which may not be a tunnel but the barrel of a shotgun”.   The NFL has a self-inflicted crisis that will make for numerous case studies in every business school in the country.

Is there a way out?  Well, in the short term, the situation is irretrievable.  The entire NFL management team needs to go.  This crisis is too big for a simple apology to the fans and a large scapegoat or group of scapegoats is needed.  (I suspect this mass firing will happen fairly quickly if the fan boycott hits the NFL as hard as I think it will.)  Second, a new NFL Commissioner with broad powers to remove owners from ownership, coaches from coaching, and players from the league will be needed.  You mess with the fans and you lose.  Or, as one rather sage individual has been quoted as saying “Rule #1:  The customer is always right.  Rule #2:  If the customer is wrong, see Rule #1”.

Is the situation irretrievable in the long term?  This is where it gets quite tricky.  A significant if not fundamental bond of friendship has been broken.  You may be able to repair the friendship somewhat, but there will always be a scar to remind everyone of what happened.   Time does heal wounds.  We will see what happens with the NFL.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

DACA - A Perspective

A large percentage of the political class uses the argument that “The children should not be PUNISHED for the illegal behavior of their parents”.  The opposite argument that “The children should not be REWARDED for the illegal behavior of their parents” is conveniently ignored.  To me, this is the crux of the problem.

There is no question that the DACA children, many of who are now adults and many of whom know of their parents illegal actions, have received substantial benefit from the American taxpayers.  From schools, healthcare, housing, food, and welfare, they are far better off than they would have otherwise been.  In other words, they have reaped the reward of law breaking thanks to the American taxpayer.

Supposedly, we are a nation of laws and not of rulers.  At times, this means that tough decisions have to be made to right wrongs, even when those wrongs seem innocent.  By the way, try telling a judge “I didn’t know” as the response is likely to be “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse”.  Sadly, we had a president, Obama, who recognized he did not have the constitutional legal authority to grant some form of amnesty yet, as any imperial ruler would do, he did it anyway.  Moving on:

It is difficult to find out just how many DACA individuals are in the country.  The figures quoted for a total number of such individuals in America is about 800,000 but it could easily be a couple of million.  Nobody knows for sure, but the lower number favors amnesty because the political class will argue that it is but a relatively small number.  If the truth is in the millions, they will just “ho hum” and issue a “we didn’t know” apology that really isn’t an apology at all

The next question is how many work and how many are on welfare.  The numbers again vary quite a bit but about half seems reasonable based on an Internet search of a variety of sources.  Actually, the number could be quite a bit higher but 400,000 working DACA individuals seem reasonable.  However, to be honest, it could be half or less of that number (unless there are actually millions of DACA individuals in the country).

The next question is how many DACA individuals are skilled and how many are unskilled.   I am sure the Bureau of Labor statistics could provide some numbers but the definitions continue to change so providing a number would be misleading.  However, since most of the DACA folks are relatively young, it seems reasonable to assume that most are going to be unskilled.  Thus, they directly compete with American citizen children seeking a first job and entry level unskilled Americans who may try to get off welfare and into the workforce.

The final vexing question is what to do with the DACA individuals.  The conventional wisdom is they can’t be thrown out of the country.  This is, of course, quite untrue as it happened in the past after WW2.  One can argue about the effectiveness of the “Operation Wetback” but not about whether it happened.  At this point, the political class, against the wishes of a large percentage of the American citizenry, seems destined to either grant some form of legal presence for the DACA individuals, all the way from semi-permanent restricted legal status to outright amnesty.  Of course, being the champions of virtue that they are, the political class may just do nothing.

If Congress, in its infinite wisdom or lack thereof, creates a pathway to legality for the DACA individuals, there will almost certainly be wave after wave of future refugees who will eventually overwhelm the country as has happened in California and is now happening throughout Western Europe.  The USA of the future will likely lose its history, its constitution, and its individual rights.  (The seeds of historic destruction are being sown now in places like Charlottesville, Berkeley, Boston, and others.)

By Bob W. CARMA Member

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

FBI's Comey, and Candidate Clinton Rigged From The Start

By Steve Cortes  (Fox News)

Published September 02, 2017
Newly disclosed evidence that then-FBI Director James Comey began working on a statement to reject criminal charges against former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton months before she and other key witnesses were interviewed by the FBI shows that President Trump was right to fire Comey.

The evidence proves that Trump and his supporters were correct to say throughout the presidential campaign that Washington operates on a “rigged” crony system that serves the interests of the powerful and rewards corporate globalists to the detriment of the American people.

As evidence of the rigged system, voters sided with Trump during the campaign in often citing Clinton’s apparent immunity from consequences regarding her unsavory acts as secretary of state, especially her hidden emails on a private server, as well as corrupt Clinton Foundation dealings. 

Given what we learned in recent days about Comey, the investigation he oversaw of Clinton represented the very worst of the rigged process. Instead of acting as an impartial, honest fact-finder on behalf of the American people, Comey behaved like a partisan hack.

The former FBI director’s reprehensible behavior both during and after his tenure surely validates the judgment of President Trump in firing a man totally unfit to oversee our most revered law enforcement agency in our nation.

The new evidence is revealed in a letter sent Wednesday to FBI Director Christopher Wray from Republican Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The letter is a bombshell, and didn’t get anywhere near the media attention it deserves.

The evidence disclosed by Grassley and Graham comes from the Office of Special Counsel, a government agency that investigated whether Comey violated the law when he was FBI director. The investigation was closed after Comey was fired. The new evidence shows that Comey drafted a memo exonerating Clinton of wrongdoing as early as April 2016, even though Clinton was not interviewed until July 2016.

As Grassley and Graham correctly stated in their letter:  “conclusion first, fact-gathering second – that’s no way to run an investigation.”

In fact, after Comey wrote his “nothing to see here” draft absolving Clinton of wrongdoing, the FBI still interviewed a total of 17 key officials. In addition to Clinton herself, State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was appointed by Clinton and served under her, was also questioned. Mills received a very unusual immunity agreement from investigators. 

How is it possible that Comey had ascertained, at such an early date, that the evidence would not incriminate Hillary Clinton? Such a prejudicial judgment certainly reveals a shocking level of bias and a dangerous willingness to engage in partisan politics.

Understandably, President Trump reacted to the new evidence with indignation, tweeting Friday: “Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton long before the investigation was over … a rigged system!” 

Many Americans had already concluded that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was a sham. The majority in a July 2016 Washington Post/ABC News poll disagreed with Comey’s decision to not seek an indictment against her.

The American people were poorly served by an FBI director who shirked his duty as a public servant. They thankfully delivered their verdict on Clinton’s suitability for the Oval Office at the ballot box last November.

Adding insult to injury, Comey’s deceptive practices extended beyond his FBI tenure.  Once he was fired by President Trump, he again showed his true colors by leaking confidential information to the media with the expressed intention of triggering a special counsel investigation

Comey’s pattern of unethical bias, plus his personal ties to Special Counsel Robert Mueller going back many years, seriously tarnish Mueller’s standing.

Donald Trump triumphed in 2016 because he promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington.  Sadly, the swamp has proven resilient, from Capitol Hill to James Comey in obstructing the president’s transformational agenda.

In the end, the will of the people must prevail and smash a rigged system that has stolen the dignity and prosperity of Americans.

Steve Cortes is a Fox News contributor, former Trump campaign operative and spokesman for the Hispanic 100. For two decades, he worked on Wall Street as a trader and strategy.
Reading this article and then opening the “in a letter” hot link in the body of the article—and you see in a quick scan of the letter that Comey was floating for months to FBI reviewers versions of drafts to let Hillary off the hook.  And notice the dates of the witness interviews are all after Comey had been floating the exoneration memo for her.

And finally, notice that Comey didn’t bother to follow proper procedures with the Hillary interview just before he announced that she shouldn’t be prosecuted.  If this looks to us that it clearly stinks—what would an FBI professional assigned to the investigation feel about the Comey pre-judgment documented in the Grassley letter?  Logically Trump was briefed on all of this before he fired Comey.

Ron L. CARMA Member

Monday, August 28, 2017

A Short History Lesson on Robert E. Lee

Robert E Lee was married to George Washington's granddaughter. He worked with Grant during the Mexican-American war and became a decorated war hero defending this country. He believed slavery was a great evil and his wife broke the law by teaching slaves to read and write. After the civil war he worked with Andrew Johnson's program of reconstruction. He became very popular with the northern states and the Barracks at West Point were named in his honor in 1962. He was a great man who served this country his entire life in some form or other. His memorial is now being called a blight. No American military veteran should be treated as such. People keep yelling, "You can't change history." Sadly you can. This is no better than book burnings. ISIS tried rewriting history by destroying historical artifacts. Is that really who we want to emulate?

As they tear down this "blight" keep these few historical facts in your mind. No military veteran and highly decorated war hero should ever be treated as such. This is not Iraq and that is not a statue of Sadam.

IN ADDITION:: Lee was also very torn about the prospect of the South leaving the Union. His wife’s grandfather George Washington was a huge influence on him. He believed that ultimately, States rights trumped the federal government and chose to lead the Southern army.

His estate, Arlington, near Washington DC was his home and while away fighting the war, the federal government demanded that Lee himself pay his taxes in person. He sent his wife, but the money was not accepted from a woman. When he could not pay the taxes, the government began burying dead Union soldiers on his land. The government is still burying people there today. It is now called Arlington National Cemetery.  Do they want to tear that up also?

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Benghazi & Stinger Missiles - From Wikileaks...

From WikiLeaks -

Benghazi & Stinger Missiles

So here's the REAL story. 

Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. 

Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi.  Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan and were used against our own military. 

It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. 

An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA. 

Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers.  This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. 

It was the State Dept, not the CIA, that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't approve supplying these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft.  Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a YouTube video. 

Obama and Hillary committed treason and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of a YouTube video, even though everyone knew it was not. 

Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. 

Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.  So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at Congressional hearings.  Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in...because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.  Forward this until everyone reads the true story.