WaPo, Jared Kushner and the Russians

It may well be a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.510471cb7bf8

I don't know if this is a true story or not, but the radical left media has told me so many half truths and outright lies that I now question anything they say of a negative nature as it relates to Trump or republicans. If this is true as they are reporting, Jared Kushner ought to do jail time. If on the the other hand, it's another one of their bullshite hit pieces with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, the "reporter" who wrote it and the editor who approved it to run ought to both be fired, publicly shamed and be permanently banned from ever holding a position of public trust. (So I guess that would leave them to being ditch diggers, used car salesmen or politicians.)

But what are we, the American public, to do? When the major sources of information to the general public are biased and not honest brokers of information we are left to flounder. 

I personally have been turning to alternative sites such as "SOFREP", "Louder with Crowder", "The Daily Wire" and "The Drudge Report" to name a few, for my news and opinions. Especially so since the Murdock boys have decided they want to be invited to the "in crowd" events in Washington and New York and thus initiated the neutering of Fox News. But I realize my sources are probably as biased to the right as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc. are to the left. (But at least my sources don't piss me off and make me yell at the TV or the computer.)

I guess I don't really have any cogent points, I'm just frustrated that our media sources have so prostituted themselves to their chosen political positions that we the consumers are left woefully ill informed as we try to make decisions about our future. A cynical person might even think that this was being done by design so that the REAL powers could continue to operate in the shadows while we flailed about in our designed ignorance.

Or so it might seem to an old farm boy.

Classical American Rights vs Socialistic Grasping

What is a "RIGHT" in America? What are the characteristics of a "RIGHT"?

These seem like pretty straight forward questions until you start looking at some of the things people are claiming as rights today.

So let's start by considering things that are uncontroversial: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom from Illegal Search and Seizure, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, these are all well documented in America. 

What do these rights have in common?

Each of these rights are independent of anyone other than the individual. My freedom of speech, or religion or right to keep and bear arms or any other enumerated right places no requirement or demand upon anyone else's rights. So my freedom of speech does not require YOU to do or give up anything. Nor do any of the other rights as outlined in the constitution. So I suggest to you that RIGHTS are given to each of us in America in specific and the world in general (though in most of the world some if not all of these rights have been seized from the individuals by those who claim dominion over them) at birth and require nothing of anyone else other than respect.

Now let's take a look at the "rights" being claimed by leftists: the right to health care, the right to "affordable" housing, the right to a government funded abortion, a "living" wage (read as at least a $15 hr minimum wage).

What do these and the other "rights" claimed by the left have in common?

Each and every one of them puts a claim on someone else's time or treasure. Health care requires time and effort from the health care professionals. If you are claiming a right to free health care you are a claiming time and effort of the health professionals without your need to compensate them. That is tantamount to slavery, which I'm pretty sure we outlawed 150+ years ago. But now the "liberal" left wants to say it's ok if it's for health care.

Or how about a mandatory "living" wage? Isn't that placing the governments gun to the head of an employer and forcing them to pay more for someone's labor than the value of their effort/input might justify? 

Or government funded abortion? Isn't that having the government take money from your pocket at the point of a gun (don't believe me? try not giving it to them.) to then pay for someone depriving an unborn child of THEIR life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (That winds up being a double dip into other people's rights.)

So I put it to you that these newly claimed "rights" the left are espousing are not rights at all, but rather they are merely a new tactic they are trying in an old struggle they've been waging. That is, it is another attempt to move the country away from its individualistic self-reliant heritage to their desired socialistic state. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" I believe is how they put it.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

PS: I'd like to thank Neal Boortz for helping me clarify my thinking on this subject.

The Tyranny Of If

So, when was it that the word “if” became a statement of fact? Did I blink? Was there a memo that I deleted, thinking it was junk mail? Was there an announcement on television that I missed while watching AppleTV?

It seems that the word “if”, when included in any statement about a conservative by the mainstream media, liberals or left wingers of any stripe, constitutes a statement of fact and thus justification to run about wildly decrying the end of the nation. (As if they were really concerned about destroying the nation. They seem to only be concerned with the destruction of the nation if they aren’t the ones destroying it.)

I don’t seem to recall any democrat or leftist being concerned about “if” statements when they were aimed at Bill Clinton (“if” Paula Jones is telling the truth, for instance) or Barack Obama (“if” he was not a natural born citizen), or “if” the main stream media is colluding with the Democrat Party in an effort to defeat Republicans. 

It seems as though the word “if” when put into a statement about a liberal or leftist means “wholly unsubstantiated and of no credence” while being placed in a statement concerning a conservative means “wholly factual and beyond reproach”.

I guess this is yet another case of he who controls the conversation gets to define the reality. And once again, the left is in control. 

Somehow or another, the conservatives gave up even trying to control the narrative. They relinquished all control of the lines of communication years ago. Leaving only talk radio, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News to try and portray a different perspective. (And now it appears Rupert Murdoch’s sons are more interested in being part of the “in crowd” of media than in offering an alternative perspective.)

This coupled with conservatives leaving academia to the 1960’s hippies has created an all to powerful alliance between the mainstream media, academia, the political left and Hollywood. They have been left unopposed to shape the “impressionable minds of mush”, as Rush has been known to opine, and leave them without critical thinking skills. This then has lead to many young folks who have become like cats chasing the laser pointer light with the leftist coalition controlling the pointer. 

We need to wait until there are proven facts before we run about claiming the sky is falling like our Chicken Little friends on the left. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Update on Muslims On Receiving End

Update

Uh Oh!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-politics-religion-idUSKBN17X17Q

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-man-dies-in-india-after-attack-by-hindu-cow-protectors

OK, I know I shouldn't think this is funny, but come on. Yah gotta kinda laugh a little when a member of the religious group that kills people for not following their beliefs gets killed by a different religious group for not honoring their beliefs.

Now I seriously doubt this truck driver in India was the fanatical type who would behead you for not being a Muslim and didn't deserve to die for trucking a cow, probably to slaughter. I'm sure he was just a working stiff trying to get by like most of the world. But the irony of it is rich.

This, however, is deadly serious. There is a long history of violent conflict between Hindus and muslims in India. In the early 1900s conflict broke out between the 2 groups and lead to the eventual partitioning of India in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan. This same conflict lead to the creation of Bangladesh. Many lives have been lost in this sectarian violence between Hindus and muslims. If this conflict were to reignite in the era of world wide radical Muslim extremism, the Asian subcontinent could burst into flames. An all out Muslim Hindu conflict could prove to be devastating. 

Who would the world call for tech support?

Who would Hollywood support? Which side would they demand we accept unvented refugees from? Would they back the muslims in order to wipe out the competition from Bollywood? Then again, if the muslims were to win, who would there be left to watch their schlock in that area of the world?

Liberals throughout the country will be put in a real quandary trying to decide which minority will receive their blessings. (They will most likely just wait to see which side the conservatives support and chose the opposite. This would probably mean they would back the group that would likely kill them if given the chance.)

All joking aside, this could prove to be an all out blood bath. With India having over a billion residents and nuclear weapons and being surrounded by Muslim nations including nuclear armed Pakistan, that area could become a no go zone for a long time. Especially with the Muslim cult being so death and end times focused.

But don't worry. You would likely not hear about this conflict until tech support went down. The press isn't prone to reporting things that don't fit their "Trump is evil" narrative. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

Where Did The "United" States of America Go?

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article145234709.html

Let me say how my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and of the Fresno shootings and their families. The victims who's only "crime" was being white. I'd also like to say how I'm happy the perpetrator is in custody and not lose to continue with his "hate crimes" not his "random acts of violence" as officials are calling it. (Kinda funny how Dylan Roof's were deemed a hate crime immediately while this guys are random violence. Just sayin.)

But his clearly bigoted and racist acts are not what I want to talk about nor do I wish to discuss his radical Islamist ideology. What I'm concerned with is how we got to the divided country we find ourselves in. One where people think of themselves by their self identified group instead of as Americans. Where did the "United" States go and who/what sent it there, because I want it back.

I would dearly love to lay my hands on the SOB who started this loyalty to this grievance group or that over loyalty to America. That or those bastards have done more harm to America than any outside force in my lifetime.

I remember when peoples ethnicity was nothing more than casual banter to be discussed on St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day or whatever. It wasn't people's driving force, because being American trumped all of the other qualifiers. It didn't mean anything of importance if you were born in another country or if your parents or grandparents were born in another country. We were all Americans first, last and always. 

Since 1776 we have been a nation made up of folks from all over the world. As Bill Murray put it in Stripes: "We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts." Our origins were and are inconsequential. It's where we are now. As long as we have people with more loyalty to some subset or grievance group than to our nation as a whole we will continue to slide into the abyss. The nation that became the envy of the world will slowly (or maybe rapidly) fall apart and the world will lose the one true beacon displaying what a nation can become when being more interested in what its citizenry can accomplish as individuals than what one group or another can get from the government.

I believe it is every true American's duty to promote OUR nation first and foremost over any grievance group claiming special status. This country didn't develop by catering to grievance groups but rather by offering equal opportunity to all those willing to take a chance and put the effort in. 

This nation offers you the opportunity to pursue your happiness. There are no guarantees of outcome. The Declaration of Independence says we are "created" equal, NOT we shall be "made" equal. We are offered opportunity not outcome as long as the country remains true to its founding ideals. 

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Is Muslim Hindu Violence About To Reignite?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-man-dies-in-india-after-attack-by-hindu-cow-protectors

OK, I know I shouldn't think this is funny, but come on. Yah gotta kinda laugh a little when a member of the religious group that kills people for not following their beliefs gets killed by a different religious group for not honoring their beliefs.

Now I seriously doubt this truck driver in India was the fanatical type who would behead you for not being a Muslim and didn't deserve to die for trucking a cow, probably to slaughter. I'm sure he was just a working stiff trying to get by like most of the world. But the irony of it is rich.

This, however, is deadly serious. There is a long history of violent conflict between Hindus and muslims in India. In the early 1900s conflict broke out between the 2 groups and lead to the eventual partitioning of India in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan. This same conflict lead to the creation of Bangladesh. Many lives have been lost in this sectarian violence between Hindus and muslims. If this conflict were to reignite in the era of world wide radical Muslim extremism, the Asian subcontinent could burst into flames. An all out Muslim Hindu conflict could prove to be devastating. 

Who would the world call for tech support?

Who would Hollywood support? Which side would they demand we accept unvented refugees from? Would they back the muslims in order to wipe out the competition from Bollywood? Then again, if the muslims were to win, who would there be left to watch their schlock in that area of the world?

Liberals throughout the country will be put in a real quandary trying to decide which minority will receive their blessings. (They will most likely just wait to see which side the conservatives support and chose the opposite. This would probably mean they would back the group that would likely kill them if given the chance.)

All joking aside, this could prove to be an all out blood bath. With India having over a billion residents and nuclear weapons and being surrounded by Muslim nations including nuclear armed Pakistan, that area could become a no go zone for a long time. Especially with the Muslim cult being so death and end times focused.

But don't worry. You would likely not hear about this conflict until tech support went down. The press isn't prone to reporting things that don't fit their "Trump is evil" narrative. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

Is Putin Really Obama's Role Model?

This thought has been sliding around in the back of my brain since Inauguration Day. I know most folks will say that's crazy talk and that Putin and Obama didn't like each other, but I'm not so sure that's true. Remember Obama's hot mic incident when he got caught telling Dmitry Medvedev, the out going Russian President and Putin sock puppet, that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "after my election I have more flexibility." That sounds more like a comrade in arms than an enemy.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's start by looking at their beginnings.

Putin was raised in the communist system and trained in the old KGB and prospered in that system. Obama was raised by a socialist/communist mother and mentored by the likes of Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed socialist, as a child. He then trained in the Saul Alinsky inspired organization ACORN and prospered in the halls of academia, which everyone concedes is a hotbed of leftist thought.

Putin then rose to power and ruled Russia as a dictator not an elected leader. Obama was swept into office and he proceeded to rule as a dictator. (He mistakenly thought people loved his leftist policies when I believe most non-blacks who voted for him were trying to assuage their liberal education induced guilt about slavery which has been outlawed in America for over 150 years.) When he no longer had the majority in the house and senate and couldn't ram his policies down our throats through legislation, he did it through extra-constitutional executive orders. (Which the spineless old school Republicans loudly cried about but did nothing to stop.)

When Putin was forced to leave office due to Russian constitutional1 mandates against holding power any longer, he put a puppet in place and has ruled quite visibly from the sidelines ever since. Obama had to leave office due to our Constitution and attempted to put his fellow traveling puppet, Hillary, in place. When that failed, even though they pulled every dirty trick in the book, first to keep Bernie out (Obama and Hillary couldn't control him) and then to try and beat Donald, he has called upon his deep state allies. Even, in an unprecedented move during my lifetime, moving to Washington DC to remain highly visible to his sycophants in the press and to try and rule in absentia through the left leaning permanent bureaucrats in the federal government.

It is widely believed that Putin as killed many of his rivals in order to maintain his grip on power. Obama has figuratively killed those who oppose him. This can be seen from the likes of General Flynn to Bernie Sanders to his attempts on Jeff Sessions and even Donald Trump.

Now I suppose I could be mistaken that Alexandr Putin is Barack Obama's role model, but it sure looks that way to an old farm boy.