Posted on

Don’t tell me your pronouns — I can guess!

A leftist shtick that been going on for some time in universities, government offices, and other haunts of the chronically offended is the idea of choosing one’s own personal pronouns — and expecting the world to actually use them.  Under this scheme, it would be politically correct for me to self-identify as:

e.m. cadwaladr
he/him/his

The main point of this bold new level of wokeness is that a man who wants to entertain an essentially psychotic delusion that he’s a woman may now style himself:

Higgly-Piggly Doe
she/her/hers

If someone does not go along with such a man’s mentally aberrant state and address him according to his delusional identity, the offending person can be prosecuted in some localities.  Nor is this game limited to mere conventional gender dysphoria sufferers.  There are now sixtyish new pronoun sets, just as we are told there are sixtyish new genders.  I do not know what genders “zie/zim/zir” or “ey/em/eir” denote.  These words sound vaguely Yiddish to me — though they lack the Yiddish language’s quirky charm.  The new pronouns are always uttered with a certain peevish militancy that precludes them having charm of any kind.

Now, I am an eccentric to the core myself.  I spell out my pseudonym in lower case for no better reason than that I do.  However, people usually don’t notice and address me as E.M. or Mr. Cadwaladr, and this tells me nothing other than that they lack my interest in unorthodox typography.  Colleagues butcher my real name with predictable regularity — and yet I fail to run to the police or collapse in a mortified swoon.  My habitual retort is, “Well — I’ve been called worse things than that.”  I smile, and they smile, and the world continues to spin about its axis without any interruption.  I feel no need to slink away in tears to the nearest safe space — no need for a therapist to help me through the heinous crime against the all-important “me.”

Unfortunately for the fringe majority of us who would like to just get on with our lives, there are a certain number of people out there who live to make indignant spectacles of themselves.  They want their special pronouns recognized as a baby wants something soft and comforting in his mouth.  Being adult in size, if in no other respect, these people cry loudly and discordantly and will not be pacified with the ordinary pronouns our language has assigned to individuals with their particular sex organs.  They want choice!  They want the recognition that the world stubbornly refuses to give them!  They want what they want, and they want it now — no matter how inconvenient or how utterly ridiculous it is.  And if they don’t get it, they will cry or wag their arms like Trigglypuff or call you a Nazi for the benefit of their fellow deeply aggrieved, intersectional, walking, squawking, semi-literate, life-sized anime creatures.

You do not meet such people often, thankfully — though they occasionally turn up to family gatherings, much to everyone’s discomfort.  If you’ve never met one and just have to satisfy your curiosity, almost any Starbucks or similar café will prove a likely habitat for frequent sightings.  Even the barista may offer just the specimen you are looking for, complete with falsies, androgynous attire, and hair of a color not seen since Troll dolls declined in popularity in the 1970s.  But be warned: coffee shops lack the protective physical barriers one finds in more conventional zoos.  Don’t wear a red ball cap of any kind.  It is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.  Well — a pink-haired, effeminate, attention-seeking bull that utterly abhors itself.

I do not wish to be rude or unkind, but when a person of sex gender dresses in hot pants and purple lipstick, it is simply a non sequitur to believe that that person isn’t trying to draw the world’s attention.  I try not to stare at retarded children or people who have obvious deformities — but I have no qualms about staring at those animated tragedies made not by the hand of nature, but by themselves.  People have, I suppose, a certain right to be bizarre — but the rest of us have at least an equal right to snicker or to disapprove.  Sick of mind these colorful human parodies may be, but you and I have no obligation to celebrate the sheer flamboyance of their psychosis.

Generally, I try to leave the aggressively aggrieved alone, but should anyone ever absolutely insist I call him “zie” or “ey,” or “he” when she is clearly female, I am prepared with a response:

“Alright,” I will say, “I’ll take your word for it.  I will do my best to remember, every time I see you, that you consider yourself to be something nature doesn’t — but I do have one condition.  As you can see, I’m a person of average height at best.  I’ve always thought that being a little taller would have gotten me more respect and helped my self-esteem.  For the sake of fairness, since I’m remembering your special self-identity, would you mind crouching a little in my presence — just to acknowledge that, inside, I feel taller?”

This is just a bitter fantasy, of course, but even a racist, misogynist, homophobic white man can dream. I know from hard experience that you cannot win an argument with someone who’s insane.  An argument requires some mutually agreed upon set of standards — some grasp of that unforgiving, iron-clad thing we call “reality.”  Not everyone has that grasp.  Shout and protest as they might, the truth is not within them.

I would like to think these people would straighten up if they just got laughed at a few times, took an honest look in the mirror, and learned to think of themselves as something a little more substantial than a Pokémon’s ugly cousin.  I have a sad hunch, however, that most of them have departed so far from reality that they’ve forgotten its address.  Mass insanity has always been a pretty implausible notion for me until now — but here it is, front and center, in all of its diverse and fluorescent-dyed glory. No amount of normal coffee or cold water in my face has been enough to wake me from this nightmare.  I just can’t be woke.  The alien invasion has commenced, and the aliens are far more disturbing than anything in Area 51 and far more dangerous than mere Mexicans.  But I’ll be damned if I’ll learn new words for these refugees from the indoctrination archipelago.  The language of my ancestors still suffices.

A leftist shtick that been going on for some time in universities, government offices, and other haunts of the chronically offended is the idea of choosing one’s own personal pronouns — and expecting the world to actually use them.  Under this scheme, it would be politically correct for me to self-identify as:

e.m. cadwaladr
he/him/his

The main point of this bold new level of wokeness is that a man who wants to entertain an essentially psychotic delusion that he’s a woman may now style himself:

Higgly-Piggly Doe
she/her/hers

If someone does not go along with such a man’s mentally aberrant state and address him according to his delusional identity, the offending person can be prosecuted in some localities.  Nor is this game limited to mere conventional gender dysphoria sufferers.  There are now sixtyish new pronoun sets, just as we are told there are sixtyish new genders.  I do not know what genders “zie/zim/zir” or “ey/em/eir” denote.  These words sound vaguely Yiddish to me — though they lack the Yiddish language’s quirky charm.  The new pronouns are always uttered with a certain peevish militancy that precludes them having charm of any kind.

Now, I am an eccentric to the core myself.  I spell out my pseudonym in lower case for no better reason than that I do.  However, people usually don’t notice and address me as E.M. or Mr. Cadwaladr, and this tells me nothing other than that they lack my interest in unorthodox typography.  Colleagues butcher my real name with predictable regularity — and yet I fail to run to the police or collapse in a mortified swoon.  My habitual retort is, “Well — I’ve been called worse things than that.”  I smile, and they smile, and the world continues to spin about its axis without any interruption.  I feel no need to slink away in tears to the nearest safe space — no need for a therapist to help me through the heinous crime against the all-important “me.”

Unfortunately for the fringe majority of us who would like to just get on with our lives, there are a certain number of people out there who live to make indignant spectacles of themselves.  They want their special pronouns recognized as a baby wants something soft and comforting in his mouth.  Being adult in size, if in no other respect, these people cry loudly and discordantly and will not be pacified with the ordinary pronouns our language has assigned to individuals with their particular sex organs.  They want choice!  They want the recognition that the world stubbornly refuses to give them!  They want what they want, and they want it now — no matter how inconvenient or how utterly ridiculous it is.  And if they don’t get it, they will cry or wag their arms like Trigglypuff or call you a Nazi for the benefit of their fellow deeply aggrieved, intersectional, walking, squawking, semi-literate, life-sized anime creatures.

You do not meet such people often, thankfully — though they occasionally turn up to family gatherings, much to everyone’s discomfort.  If you’ve never met one and just have to satisfy your curiosity, almost any Starbucks or similar café will prove a likely habitat for frequent sightings.  Even the barista may offer just the specimen you are looking for, complete with falsies, androgynous attire, and hair of a color not seen since Troll dolls declined in popularity in the 1970s.  But be warned: coffee shops lack the protective physical barriers one finds in more conventional zoos.  Don’t wear a red ball cap of any kind.  It is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.  Well — a pink-haired, effeminate, attention-seeking bull that utterly abhors itself.

I do not wish to be rude or unkind, but when a person of sex gender dresses in hot pants and purple lipstick, it is simply a non sequitur to believe that that person isn’t trying to draw the world’s attention.  I try not to stare at retarded children or people who have obvious deformities — but I have no qualms about staring at those animated tragedies made not by the hand of nature, but by themselves.  People have, I suppose, a certain right to be bizarre — but the rest of us have at least an equal right to snicker or to disapprove.  Sick of mind these colorful human parodies may be, but you and I have no obligation to celebrate the sheer flamboyance of their psychosis.

Generally, I try to leave the aggressively aggrieved alone, but should anyone ever absolutely insist I call him “zie” or “ey,” or “he” when she is clearly female, I am prepared with a response:

“Alright,” I will say, “I’ll take your word for it.  I will do my best to remember, every time I see you, that you consider yourself to be something nature doesn’t — but I do have one condition.  As you can see, I’m a person of average height at best.  I’ve always thought that being a little taller would have gotten me more respect and helped my self-esteem.  For the sake of fairness, since I’m remembering your special self-identity, would you mind crouching a little in my presence — just to acknowledge that, inside, I feel taller?”

This is just a bitter fantasy, of course, but even a racist, misogynist, homophobic white man can dream. I know from hard experience that you cannot win an argument with someone who’s insane.  An argument requires some mutually agreed upon set of standards — some grasp of that unforgiving, iron-clad thing we call “reality.”  Not everyone has that grasp.  Shout and protest as they might, the truth is not within them.

I would like to think these people would straighten up if they just got laughed at a few times, took an honest look in the mirror, and learned to think of themselves as something a little more substantial than a Pokémon’s ugly cousin.  I have a sad hunch, however, that most of them have departed so far from reality that they’ve forgotten its address.  Mass insanity has always been a pretty implausible notion for me until now — but here it is, front and center, in all of its diverse and fluorescent-dyed glory. No amount of normal coffee or cold water in my face has been enough to wake me from this nightmare.  I just can’t be woke.  The alien invasion has commenced, and the aliens are far more disturbing than anything in Area 51 and far more dangerous than mere Mexicans.  But I’ll be damned if I’ll learn new words for these refugees from the indoctrination archipelago.  The language of my ancestors still suffices.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Posted on

The Lies of the 1619 Project

The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America — that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it?

First, it’s hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites. The Project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times. She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. She’s doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America. And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.

Second, Hannah-Jones had dedicated her career to writing about racial inequality. She had previously stated that whites are as racist today as our forefathers, but that we’ve adapted over time to cover our racism with a “sheen of deniability,” and that from Jamestown to today, racial inequality is an intentional act by whites against blacks. So, Hannah-Jones came to this Project with a particular point of view. By reading her prior work, one can easily surmise the conclusion of the Project without reading a word.

Third, the major premise of the Project is based upon a lie. It claims America was birthed in slavery in 1619 when the first 20 African slaves disembarked at Jamestown. It claims America was not a nation, “conceived in liberty,” as Abraham Lincoln intoned, but instead a white, racist state begat through the original sin of slavery. However, Jamestown was founded by a British company over a decade before the introduction of slaves; its purpose was to search for gold and establish trade to enrich its owners, not give freedom to anyone. America was born in 1776 when we declared our independence to free the American people, including blacks, from British rule.

Even the Project’s claim that the blacks at Jamestown were enslaved by whites is based upon a half-truth. It states, “The pirates had stolen [the slaves] from a Portuguese slave ship that had forcibly taken them from what is now the country of Angola.” But these Africans were likely captured and enslaved with considerable assistance from blacks. In 1619, the Portuguese allied themselves with the Imbangala, a fierce African tribe that lived by marauding other villages and enslaving other Africans. The Portuguese used the Imbangala to attack, defeat, and enslave the neighboring Ndongo tribe. The Portuguese then sold the enslaved Ndongo to the Americas.

Concerning the African slaves disembarked in Jamestown, Hannah-Jones writes, “They were no longer Mbundu or Akan or Fulani. These men and women… Just a few months earlier… [t]hey were free.” Yet, it’s highly unlikely that they had been free. The Mbundu were part of the Ndongo kingdom, which had a large slave population. About a third of the population of the Akan states were slaves or serfs. By the late 19th century, slaves still constituted about 50 percent of the Fulani Emirate. In African society, which was based upon the caste system, the upper castes did not sell their sons and daughters to the Portuguese, they sold their slaves.

Slavery was not introduced to “America” by whites at Jamestown. The Native American tribes here had a long history of enslaving each other and once blacks arrived, they enslaved them too. Some American blacks owned slaves. In some parts of the south, a greater percentage of free blacks owned slaves than whites. Only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Slavery was not unique to America; it has existed throughout the world since before recorded history. In 1619, although slavery had been banned in Europe, it flourished in Africa.

Although America abolished slavery over 150 years ago, it still thrives in Africa. Africa has the highest rate of enslavement in the world with nearly 10 million enslaved today. There are more than three times as many people in forced servitude today as were captured and sold during the 350-year span of the transatlantic slave trade. The truth is America’s short-lived experience with slavery pales in comparison to that which has existed for millennia around the world and particularly in Africa. Slavery is “endemic” to Africa and is a part of its DNA — not America’s.

Contrary to what the 1619 Project would have you believe, slavery and racism do not define what America was in 1619 or what it is today. America was born in freedom in 1776 for most and then born again with a new birth of freedom in 1865 for all. After segregation was ended and the full panoply of civil rights ensured to all black Americans, America has fulfilled the promise of its original charter — that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” God Bless America!

Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi

The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America — that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it?

First, it’s hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites. The Project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times. She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. She’s doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America. And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.

Second, Hannah-Jones had dedicated her career to writing about racial inequality. She had previously stated that whites are as racist today as our forefathers, but that we’ve adapted over time to cover our racism with a “sheen of deniability,” and that from Jamestown to today, racial inequality is an intentional act by whites against blacks. So, Hannah-Jones came to this Project with a particular point of view. By reading her prior work, one can easily surmise the conclusion of the Project without reading a word.

Third, the major premise of the Project is based upon a lie. It claims America was birthed in slavery in 1619 when the first 20 African slaves disembarked at Jamestown. It claims America was not a nation, “conceived in liberty,” as Abraham Lincoln intoned, but instead a white, racist state begat through the original sin of slavery. However, Jamestown was founded by a British company over a decade before the introduction of slaves; its purpose was to search for gold and establish trade to enrich its owners, not give freedom to anyone. America was born in 1776 when we declared our independence to free the American people, including blacks, from British rule.

Even the Project’s claim that the blacks at Jamestown were enslaved by whites is based upon a half-truth. It states, “The pirates had stolen [the slaves] from a Portuguese slave ship that had forcibly taken them from what is now the country of Angola.” But these Africans were likely captured and enslaved with considerable assistance from blacks. In 1619, the Portuguese allied themselves with the Imbangala, a fierce African tribe that lived by marauding other villages and enslaving other Africans. The Portuguese used the Imbangala to attack, defeat, and enslave the neighboring Ndongo tribe. The Portuguese then sold the enslaved Ndongo to the Americas.

Concerning the African slaves disembarked in Jamestown, Hannah-Jones writes, “They were no longer Mbundu or Akan or Fulani. These men and women… Just a few months earlier… [t]hey were free.” Yet, it’s highly unlikely that they had been free. The Mbundu were part of the Ndongo kingdom, which had a large slave population. About a third of the population of the Akan states were slaves or serfs. By the late 19th century, slaves still constituted about 50 percent of the Fulani Emirate. In African society, which was based upon the caste system, the upper castes did not sell their sons and daughters to the Portuguese, they sold their slaves.

Slavery was not introduced to “America” by whites at Jamestown. The Native American tribes here had a long history of enslaving each other and once blacks arrived, they enslaved them too. Some American blacks owned slaves. In some parts of the south, a greater percentage of free blacks owned slaves than whites. Only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Slavery was not unique to America; it has existed throughout the world since before recorded history. In 1619, although slavery had been banned in Europe, it flourished in Africa.

Although America abolished slavery over 150 years ago, it still thrives in Africa. Africa has the highest rate of enslavement in the world with nearly 10 million enslaved today. There are more than three times as many people in forced servitude today as were captured and sold during the 350-year span of the transatlantic slave trade. The truth is America’s short-lived experience with slavery pales in comparison to that which has existed for millennia around the world and particularly in Africa. Slavery is “endemic” to Africa and is a part of its DNA — not America’s.

Contrary to what the 1619 Project would have you believe, slavery and racism do not define what America was in 1619 or what it is today. America was born in freedom in 1776 for most and then born again with a new birth of freedom in 1865 for all. After segregation was ended and the full panoply of civil rights ensured to all black Americans, America has fulfilled the promise of its original charter — that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” God Bless America!

Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Posted on

A recess that Nancy Pelosi is going to hate

Can you imagine what Democratic townhall meetings are like this summer?  The representative hosting the meeting will very likely face an angry mob ready to hang President Trump.  The mob will either say “do something” or “do more” or stuff that we can’t print on a family blog.

We could call it the summer of impeachment, as we see in this article by Adam Shaw:   

In California, Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., was immediately grilled about impeachment at a town hall this month. When she said she broadly favors impeachment, she was met by “rousing applause” according to Politico.

“People said, ‘Well, this might be risky, you might not get reelected,’” Porter said. “I said, ‘I am here to do what’s right.’”

In New Jersey, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., faced a more hostile reception when she said she opposes impeachment at this time and reportedly was interrupted multiple times as she made her point. The crowd accused her of playing politics, according to Politico, and threatened her with a primary challenge.

“Don’t be last to speak up. You’ll be challenged,” one woman told her.

And don’t underestimate their ability to challenge you.  Just ask a fellow named Joe Crowley who didn’t take a young woman named Ocasio-Cortez seriously.

Ultimately, all of this will head to Speaker Pelosi’s office.  She will face a very angry mob in her own caucus.  They will get more and more irrational as they come to terms with President Trump’s reelection.   

Nancy Pelosi is not singing “See you in September” this summer.  

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Can you imagine what Democratic townhall meetings are like this summer?  The representative hosting the meeting will very likely face an angry mob ready to hang President Trump.  The mob will either say “do something” or “do more” or stuff that we can’t print on a family blog.

We could call it the summer of impeachment, as we see in this article by Adam Shaw:   

In California, Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., was immediately grilled about impeachment at a town hall this month. When she said she broadly favors impeachment, she was met by “rousing applause” according to Politico.

“People said, ‘Well, this might be risky, you might not get reelected,’” Porter said. “I said, ‘I am here to do what’s right.’”

In New Jersey, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., faced a more hostile reception when she said she opposes impeachment at this time and reportedly was interrupted multiple times as she made her point. The crowd accused her of playing politics, according to Politico, and threatened her with a primary challenge.

“Don’t be last to speak up. You’ll be challenged,” one woman told her.

And don’t underestimate their ability to challenge you.  Just ask a fellow named Joe Crowley who didn’t take a young woman named Ocasio-Cortez seriously.

Ultimately, all of this will head to Speaker Pelosi’s office.  She will face a very angry mob in her own caucus.  They will get more and more irrational as they come to terms with President Trump’s reelection.   

Nancy Pelosi is not singing “See you in September” this summer.  

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Why do elected officials embrace the same Islam that wants to destroy them?

I am truly puzzled by what is going on in this increasingly dark world.  On the one hand, all kinds of Islamic associations and groups in places such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Sweden demand not only to be treated like everyone else, which they are, but granted special privileges — such as application of sharia law.  Yet Muslim governments — even in those semi-moderate countries such as Turkey and Egypt — systematically discriminate against non-Muslims. I fail to see the justice of this in the 21st century…or are we still wallowing in the Dark Ages?

The solemn duty of all majorities, all people in power, is to serve as protectors of all minorities and the powerless.  The list of people who need fair treatment and are entitled to it is indeed long and is not limited to religious minorities.  Women, even to this day, are among the most disenfranchised groups in the world — sadly, most shamefully, in Islamic lands.

While Western European countries (E.U.) and the United States are going above and beyond to cater to new arrivals, the Muslim migrants, and illegal aliens, they can do a lot for U.S. citizens, the veterans, the poor, and the needy, who are completely neglected.

Elected officials: Are you listening?
Elected officials: Do you care?
Elected officials: Are you doing anything?

It is beyond belief that America, the greatest superpower on the planet, is gradually losing its own power to political correctness.

This is an important question that it is in everyone’s mind: what did we learn from the 9/11 attacks?  Answer: Absolutely nothing.  America had the opportunity of a lifetime to learn from this tragedy and from its European allies and stop this mess of Islamic immigration before it got out of control.  On the contrary, president after president started to appease the 7th-century mentality of pro-sharia Muslims, and they started to bring even more Muslims from countries such as Somalia and Kenya to resettle them across the U.S.  In other words, like Germany, America too committed cultural suicide.

Hiding behind religion, Islam started to infiltrate in every place of our government with the aim of replacing liberty with 7th-century Islamic barbarism.  Its goal: To bring Western civilization under the rule of Islam.

It is foolish to believe that politicians are out there strictly to serve the good, whatever that may be.  It is prudent to keep in mind that society produces politicians by the truckload but Lincolns and Washingtons with great rarity.

Islam by no means is a religion.  It was started by Muhammad as a cult and spread like a wildfire with violent jihad as its engine.  To understand how quickly Islam spread around the world, we must see the timeline of Islam.

Fourteen hundred years later, the civilized world, by its own sheer stupidity, brought these Islamists inside their gates, hoping they could learn and behave like humans in no time at all.  What a gigantic mistake, and now we are stuck in quicksand and unable to move.

If they only knew that true Muslims do not and cannot believe in freedom of choice or any man-made law, such as the U.S. Constitution, perhaps they would have stopped them from invading the civilized world.

Islam means “submission”: everything is up to Allah, as clearly and repeatedly stipulated in the Qur’an.  The raison d’être for the Muslim is to be unconditionally submissive to the will and dictates of Allah.  Everything a “good” Muslim does is contingent upon the will and decree of Allah, he is indoctrinated to believe.  A Muslim is, first and foremost, an Ummahist — a citizen of international Islam.  Thus, it is crucial for Muslims to donate money to pro-Islam politicians in order to advance the cause of Islam — something the Western mind completely ignored while it became America’s historical failure.

Islam is a belief of a backward people in a primitive and barbaric age.  It is hooked in time and place.  It harbors the ambition of taking the 21st-century world back 14 centuries and ruling it by its dogma of violence, intolerance, injustice, and death.

We must do everything in our power to stop this revolt against humanity and modernity.

I am truly puzzled by what is going on in this increasingly dark world.  On the one hand, all kinds of Islamic associations and groups in places such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Sweden demand not only to be treated like everyone else, which they are, but granted special privileges — such as application of sharia law.  Yet Muslim governments — even in those semi-moderate countries such as Turkey and Egypt — systematically discriminate against non-Muslims. I fail to see the justice of this in the 21st century…or are we still wallowing in the Dark Ages?

The solemn duty of all majorities, all people in power, is to serve as protectors of all minorities and the powerless.  The list of people who need fair treatment and are entitled to it is indeed long and is not limited to religious minorities.  Women, even to this day, are among the most disenfranchised groups in the world — sadly, most shamefully, in Islamic lands.

While Western European countries (E.U.) and the United States are going above and beyond to cater to new arrivals, the Muslim migrants, and illegal aliens, they can do a lot for U.S. citizens, the veterans, the poor, and the needy, who are completely neglected.

Elected officials: Are you listening?
Elected officials: Do you care?
Elected officials: Are you doing anything?

It is beyond belief that America, the greatest superpower on the planet, is gradually losing its own power to political correctness.

This is an important question that it is in everyone’s mind: what did we learn from the 9/11 attacks?  Answer: Absolutely nothing.  America had the opportunity of a lifetime to learn from this tragedy and from its European allies and stop this mess of Islamic immigration before it got out of control.  On the contrary, president after president started to appease the 7th-century mentality of pro-sharia Muslims, and they started to bring even more Muslims from countries such as Somalia and Kenya to resettle them across the U.S.  In other words, like Germany, America too committed cultural suicide.

Hiding behind religion, Islam started to infiltrate in every place of our government with the aim of replacing liberty with 7th-century Islamic barbarism.  Its goal: To bring Western civilization under the rule of Islam.

It is foolish to believe that politicians are out there strictly to serve the good, whatever that may be.  It is prudent to keep in mind that society produces politicians by the truckload but Lincolns and Washingtons with great rarity.

Islam by no means is a religion.  It was started by Muhammad as a cult and spread like a wildfire with violent jihad as its engine.  To understand how quickly Islam spread around the world, we must see the timeline of Islam.

Fourteen hundred years later, the civilized world, by its own sheer stupidity, brought these Islamists inside their gates, hoping they could learn and behave like humans in no time at all.  What a gigantic mistake, and now we are stuck in quicksand and unable to move.

If they only knew that true Muslims do not and cannot believe in freedom of choice or any man-made law, such as the U.S. Constitution, perhaps they would have stopped them from invading the civilized world.

Islam means “submission”: everything is up to Allah, as clearly and repeatedly stipulated in the Qur’an.  The raison d’être for the Muslim is to be unconditionally submissive to the will and dictates of Allah.  Everything a “good” Muslim does is contingent upon the will and decree of Allah, he is indoctrinated to believe.  A Muslim is, first and foremost, an Ummahist — a citizen of international Islam.  Thus, it is crucial for Muslims to donate money to pro-Islam politicians in order to advance the cause of Islam — something the Western mind completely ignored while it became America’s historical failure.

Islam is a belief of a backward people in a primitive and barbaric age.  It is hooked in time and place.  It harbors the ambition of taking the 21st-century world back 14 centuries and ruling it by its dogma of violence, intolerance, injustice, and death.

We must do everything in our power to stop this revolt against humanity and modernity.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

The kindness of socialism

Socialism is the quieter path to Communism. Vladimir Lenin said, “The goal of Socialism is Communism.” According to Tom Perez, Chairmen of the Democratic National Committee, socialist candidates are the future of that party. But anyone who has paid attention lately knows that they are its present.

Almost all of the Democrat candidates for president support socialism. They have not yet openly supported Rashida Tlaib’s claim that the rich did not earn their wealth, which she says should be confiscated and given to the poor. But the wealthy already pay most of the taxes in America. And since the Democrats want to give free everything to everyone, it must be presumed that they know who would have to pay the bill for all that free stuff. 

Socialism is not kind, however. In practice, it has always led to ubiquitous poverty. The wealthy class are devastated, but not to spread the wealth evenly. The wealth that is stolen from the wealthy ends up in the hands of a new class of overlords of society, those who had promised that all would be equal after the victory of the revolution over the unjust wealthy classes.

And when the new overlords are in power, after they have confiscated what did not belong to them, and after “nationalizing” industries “for the benefit of all,” they then assign as administrators of industry, of utilities, and of all departments and institutions of society, those who are more corrupt, inept, and stupid than any capitalist. A capitalist, after all, wants the system  to continue to produce. A socialist only wants to confiscate that which a capitalist created. That is the historical model.

So while socialism pretends to be kinder than capitalism, it really only produces poverty, degradation, and chaos. Socialists do not know how to govern. And in order to maintain control, they find it convenient to exercise totalitarian power. 

They disarm the population. They prohibit criticism of the government. They intimidate, persecute, jail, torture, and execute dissidents and the opposition. They do all they can to control communications, associations, movement, employment, food, electrical power, and whatever else they might control.

But since they are so corrupt, inept, and stupid, while they are robbing their compatriots blind, they allow infrastructure, industry, and the economy, all of which they have taken over, to crumble, leaving the population to sink out of prosperity into a mean daily existence centered around finding a morsel of food. That is the essence of the kindness of socialists.

Of the Democratic presidential candidates known for the longest as loving the socialist paradigm, Bernie Sanders has said that Venezuela’s is a model society. But to be fair, he said that when finding toilet paper in Venezuela was still possible. Today he might see things somewhat differently. 

If elected as president, any one of the Democrat candidates would do their utmost to arrange America’s economic affairs so as to advance the same Cloward-Piven strategy that has been for decades at the center of the Democratic Socialist movement to bankrupt America. They really have not been trying to hide it.

Socialism is the quieter path to Communism. Vladimir Lenin said, “The goal of Socialism is Communism.” According to Tom Perez, Chairmen of the Democratic National Committee, socialist candidates are the future of that party. But anyone who has paid attention lately knows that they are its present.

Almost all of the Democrat candidates for president support socialism. They have not yet openly supported Rashida Tlaib’s claim that the rich did not earn their wealth, which she says should be confiscated and given to the poor. But the wealthy already pay most of the taxes in America. And since the Democrats want to give free everything to everyone, it must be presumed that they know who would have to pay the bill for all that free stuff. 

Socialism is not kind, however. In practice, it has always led to ubiquitous poverty. The wealthy class are devastated, but not to spread the wealth evenly. The wealth that is stolen from the wealthy ends up in the hands of a new class of overlords of society, those who had promised that all would be equal after the victory of the revolution over the unjust wealthy classes.

And when the new overlords are in power, after they have confiscated what did not belong to them, and after “nationalizing” industries “for the benefit of all,” they then assign as administrators of industry, of utilities, and of all departments and institutions of society, those who are more corrupt, inept, and stupid than any capitalist. A capitalist, after all, wants the system  to continue to produce. A socialist only wants to confiscate that which a capitalist created. That is the historical model.

So while socialism pretends to be kinder than capitalism, it really only produces poverty, degradation, and chaos. Socialists do not know how to govern. And in order to maintain control, they find it convenient to exercise totalitarian power. 

They disarm the population. They prohibit criticism of the government. They intimidate, persecute, jail, torture, and execute dissidents and the opposition. They do all they can to control communications, associations, movement, employment, food, electrical power, and whatever else they might control.

But since they are so corrupt, inept, and stupid, while they are robbing their compatriots blind, they allow infrastructure, industry, and the economy, all of which they have taken over, to crumble, leaving the population to sink out of prosperity into a mean daily existence centered around finding a morsel of food. That is the essence of the kindness of socialists.

Of the Democratic presidential candidates known for the longest as loving the socialist paradigm, Bernie Sanders has said that Venezuela’s is a model society. But to be fair, he said that when finding toilet paper in Venezuela was still possible. Today he might see things somewhat differently. 

If elected as president, any one of the Democrat candidates would do their utmost to arrange America’s economic affairs so as to advance the same Cloward-Piven strategy that has been for decades at the center of the Democratic Socialist movement to bankrupt America. They really have not been trying to hide it.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Nurse with Terminal Cancer Fulfills Dream of Going on Ride-Along: ‘I Have Unending Gratitude for Cops’

Stephanie Anderson, a former nurse from Eagan, Minnesota, has terminal cancer and is determined to make the most of her remaining days. Anderson, who has a deep level of respect and gratitude for police officers, wanted to participate in a ride-along with her local police department. She put the word out on Facebook, explaining that…

The post Nurse with Terminal Cancer Fulfills Dream of Going on Ride-Along: ‘I Have Unending Gratitude for Cops’ appeared first on The Western Journal.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Posted on

Follow the money if the PLA kills the Hong Kong protesters

Few understand how big an influence Hong Kong money is on the PRC. Over two decades ago I followed that money.

In The Year of The Rat days in the late nineties, as the financial crimes investigator for the House Committee on Rules, I followed the actions of  one of the wealthiest men in the world.  Based in Hong Kong, multi-billionaire Li Ka-shing was one of the most important and richest men in Asia.

His financial empire, Hong Kong based, was an important PRC early indicator of Chinese ruling class money and influence in their emergence into global financial markets. By all accounts it was recognized that the leaders of China in Beijing saw Li as a very smart man. I was told he actually had a financial “hot line” phone directly to the Chinese Communist Party Politburo.

In trying to go direct in following PRC funds illegally flowing into the Clinton Administration, the biggest takeaway in those years was that the Bank of China was brilliant at hiding sources and uses of money.

One of the best money tracking organizations in the world is the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. ”FinCEN” reported that the best we could do in following money was to look at English banking transparency in the Hong Kong capital markets.  Additionally, in those days, individuals in the former Portuguese Colony of Macau, often a Triad center for graft and corruption, also laundered illegal money into the Clinton Administration.

Li Ka-shing’s family now is part of capital flight — his invisible financial hand is being made visible.  This 2015 article is very insightful about Li’s relationship with the truly supreme rulers of China. They are informally known as “the Shanghai Mafia,” in the sense they network each other into very powerful positions.

“He has fallen from the moral high ground,” it said, reminding Li that his huge wealth as head of the Hutchison Whampoa conglomerate had come from his connections to powerful Chinese officials, not from a level playing field in a market economy.

Now that Li is at age 90+, his sons, the oldest and by all accounts the “wicked smart” Victor Li Tzar-kuoi and younger Richard Li Tzar Kai (spelling always drove us nuts) are Canadian Citizens. World financial writers have been sensing that following closely what one of the wealthiest families in the world actually does during this time of testing for HK can bring interesting insights.

I hope the Hong Kong protests ends peacefully, but I have my doubts.  And where it gets very interesting is a current left/right unity of purpose.  The left also follows China’s nasty oppression very closely (except the “Feel the Bern” phony). The numerical range of dissidents killed at Tiananmen, was quoted In The Progressive no less:

No one knows the exact number of deaths. In the aftermath, a government spokesperson understated the figure, saying 300 civilians and soldiers died. Edward Timperlake, late director of technology assessment of the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense, put the number between 4,000 and 6,000.

I do not know what is the smart move to ultimately have China turn into a Chinese version of freedom and non-belligerence, but President Trump has unleashed an economic war plan that could lead to a tectonic shift in the leadership model of the People’s Republic of China and what they choose to do in Hong Kong will be a global seismic event.

It is very simple: many in China see that very successful leaders and their families have become extremely wealthy, essentially economic leaches, while preaching and enforcing communism for all others. So much for benefits of Communist equality.  And like Li’s family, they also have explored moving money out of China.

The horrific lesson learned from Tiananmen is that if the PLA/People Armed Police do make a move, I suspect it will be swift and brutal. If history is a guide they will kill the kids, kill the medical teams, kill the relatives identifying the victims, and then burn the bodies and claim minor or no casualties using every denial and deception trick in their book.

I reported on their gross denial and deception, hang-tough position over a decade ago by the PLA Chief of Staff:

Gen Chi stated on PBS, “I can tell you in a responsible and serious manner that at that time not a single person lost his life in Tiananmem Square.”

Consequently, it is now time to see how many Party Leaders and others in the economically rigged upper class families in China have followed  Li’s family odyssey to leave their PRC citizenship behind and  have taken huge sums of money out of China. They should be put on notice right now that if they have anything to do with killing the protesters and if off-shore ill-gotten gains exist, they are vulnerable.

The very simple point is that those giving a genocidal “go” order against the legitimate Hong Kong protesters should be identified and if possible have off their offshore money  legally targeted for confiscation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and those funds   then used to establish a trust fund for Hong Kong victims. The ICC already has authority:

The Fund’s mission is to support and implement programmes that address harms resulting from genocide, crimes of humanity, war crimes and aggression. To achieve this mission, the TFV has a two-fold mandate: (i) to implement Court-Ordered reparations and (ii) to provide physical, psychological, and material support to victims and their families. By assisting victims to return to a dignified and contributory life within their communities, the TFV contributes to realizing sustainable and long-lasting peace by promoting restorative justice and reconciliation.

It may soon be a time to see the full power and reach of the International Criminal Court emerging,

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

  • the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

  • the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Photo credit: Studio Incendo

Few understand how big an influence Hong Kong money is on the PRC. Over two decades ago I followed that money.

In The Year of The Rat days in the late nineties, as the financial crimes investigator for the House Committee on Rules, I followed the actions of  one of the wealthiest men in the world.  Based in Hong Kong, multi-billionaire Li Ka-shing was one of the most important and richest men in Asia.

His financial empire, Hong Kong based, was an important PRC early indicator of Chinese ruling class money and influence in their emergence into global financial markets. By all accounts it was recognized that the leaders of China in Beijing saw Li as a very smart man. I was told he actually had a financial “hot line” phone directly to the Chinese Communist Party Politburo.

In trying to go direct in following PRC funds illegally flowing into the Clinton Administration, the biggest takeaway in those years was that the Bank of China was brilliant at hiding sources and uses of money.

One of the best money tracking organizations in the world is the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. ”FinCEN” reported that the best we could do in following money was to look at English banking transparency in the Hong Kong capital markets.  Additionally, in those days, individuals in the former Portuguese Colony of Macau, often a Triad center for graft and corruption, also laundered illegal money into the Clinton Administration.

Li Ka-shing’s family now is part of capital flight — his invisible financial hand is being made visible.  This 2015 article is very insightful about Li’s relationship with the truly supreme rulers of China. They are informally known as “the Shanghai Mafia,” in the sense they network each other into very powerful positions.

“He has fallen from the moral high ground,” it said, reminding Li that his huge wealth as head of the Hutchison Whampoa conglomerate had come from his connections to powerful Chinese officials, not from a level playing field in a market economy.

Now that Li is at age 90+, his sons, the oldest and by all accounts the “wicked smart” Victor Li Tzar-kuoi and younger Richard Li Tzar Kai (spelling always drove us nuts) are Canadian Citizens. World financial writers have been sensing that following closely what one of the wealthiest families in the world actually does during this time of testing for HK can bring interesting insights.

I hope the Hong Kong protests ends peacefully, but I have my doubts.  And where it gets very interesting is a current left/right unity of purpose.  The left also follows China’s nasty oppression very closely (except the “Feel the Bern” phony). The numerical range of dissidents killed at Tiananmen, was quoted In The Progressive no less:

No one knows the exact number of deaths. In the aftermath, a government spokesperson understated the figure, saying 300 civilians and soldiers died. Edward Timperlake, late director of technology assessment of the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense, put the number between 4,000 and 6,000.

I do not know what is the smart move to ultimately have China turn into a Chinese version of freedom and non-belligerence, but President Trump has unleashed an economic war plan that could lead to a tectonic shift in the leadership model of the People’s Republic of China and what they choose to do in Hong Kong will be a global seismic event.

It is very simple: many in China see that very successful leaders and their families have become extremely wealthy, essentially economic leaches, while preaching and enforcing communism for all others. So much for benefits of Communist equality.  And like Li’s family, they also have explored moving money out of China.

The horrific lesson learned from Tiananmen is that if the PLA/People Armed Police do make a move, I suspect it will be swift and brutal. If history is a guide they will kill the kids, kill the medical teams, kill the relatives identifying the victims, and then burn the bodies and claim minor or no casualties using every denial and deception trick in their book.

I reported on their gross denial and deception, hang-tough position over a decade ago by the PLA Chief of Staff:

Gen Chi stated on PBS, “I can tell you in a responsible and serious manner that at that time not a single person lost his life in Tiananmem Square.”

Consequently, it is now time to see how many Party Leaders and others in the economically rigged upper class families in China have followed  Li’s family odyssey to leave their PRC citizenship behind and  have taken huge sums of money out of China. They should be put on notice right now that if they have anything to do with killing the protesters and if off-shore ill-gotten gains exist, they are vulnerable.

The very simple point is that those giving a genocidal “go” order against the legitimate Hong Kong protesters should be identified and if possible have off their offshore money  legally targeted for confiscation by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and those funds   then used to establish a trust fund for Hong Kong victims. The ICC already has authority:

The Fund’s mission is to support and implement programmes that address harms resulting from genocide, crimes of humanity, war crimes and aggression. To achieve this mission, the TFV has a two-fold mandate: (i) to implement Court-Ordered reparations and (ii) to provide physical, psychological, and material support to victims and their families. By assisting victims to return to a dignified and contributory life within their communities, the TFV contributes to realizing sustainable and long-lasting peace by promoting restorative justice and reconciliation.

It may soon be a time to see the full power and reach of the International Criminal Court emerging,

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

  • the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

  • the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Photo credit: Studio Incendo

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Suspect Arrested In Molotov Cocktail Attack On DHS Facility In Florida

(1/2) “Today’s attempted attack on one of our USCIS facilities using a Molotov cocktail is another example of the use of violence in place of debate by those who oppose the proper application of our immigration laws… https://t.co/5o9AehyLo1 — USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli (@USCISCuccinelli) August 31, 2019 But, no, there’s no connection between the […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Posted on

What was Madeleine Westerhout doing at the White House at all?

In retrospect, one wonders why Madeleine Westerhout, the White House aide to President Trump who resigned after drunken indiscreet comments to reporters, was there in her job as “Director of Oval Office Operations” at all. 

According to Politico:

Madeleine Westerhout, who left her White House job suddenly on Thursday as President Trump’s personal assistant, was fired after bragging to reporters that she had a better relationship with Trump than his own daughters, Ivanka and Tiffany Trump, and that the president did not like being in pictures with Tiffany because he perceived her as overweight.

Given Westerhout’s sensitive role as a confidante to the president, the few details the White House shared about her abrupt firing had Washington’s political-media class in a quiet frenzy on Thursday night and Friday.

This was just one incident, and sure enough the press acted as Aesop’s scorpion, unable to help itself to hold off on the stinging even to save itself (or their source), so she was quite the fool to think they’d behave otherwise. It sounds as though she might just have gotten away with it a lot up until now – leaks and mean talk – as both Politico and the New York Times lightly suggest she did.

Five things stand out here about her: She was affiliated with Mitt Romney, who hates President Trump and does everything he can to oppose him from the Republican side. So the NeverTrumpism from her origins ran thick. Two, she was affiliated with Reince Priebus and Katie Walsh, two White House aides who left early because they had leak and loyalty problems with President Trump, too. Three, she cried on election night, which, if true, would be the most damning thing. If she cried, it means she voted for the other side – and given the choice, how could she pick Hillary Clinton even if she didn’t care for Trump much? This goes beyond bad judgment. Two other things: the 28-year-old aide was billed as “immature” by other White House aides who wanted her about, which would certainly explain her impulsiveness and susceptibility to the effects of drinking with journalists, which effectively did her in. Four, she was said to be ambitious for power, which would have natural vectors in sucking up to the press as she tried to do, much to her eternal grief, as well as in her willingness to use President Trump (a guy she hated) to climb to the top.

A sad story. Was she hired because she was young and good looking? If so, what a weakness of President Trump’s.

Someone in Trump’s position requires loyalty, something that cannot be bought, educated, or plastic-surgeried in. And for an employee who basically served as a glorified secretary, it was really the only thing such a person could potentially offer of value. Westerhout, in retrospect, seems to have sent up some red flags and President Trump — and we the people who elected him — deserved better.

 

In retrospect, one wonders why Madeleine Westerhout, the White House aide to President Trump who resigned after drunken indiscreet comments to reporters, was there in her job as “Director of Oval Office Operations” at all. 

According to Politico:

Madeleine Westerhout, who left her White House job suddenly on Thursday as President Trump’s personal assistant, was fired after bragging to reporters that she had a better relationship with Trump than his own daughters, Ivanka and Tiffany Trump, and that the president did not like being in pictures with Tiffany because he perceived her as overweight.

Given Westerhout’s sensitive role as a confidante to the president, the few details the White House shared about her abrupt firing had Washington’s political-media class in a quiet frenzy on Thursday night and Friday.

This was just one incident, and sure enough the press acted as Aesop’s scorpion, unable to help itself to hold off on the stinging even to save itself (or their source), so she was quite the fool to think they’d behave otherwise. It sounds as though she might just have gotten away with it a lot up until now – leaks and mean talk – as both Politico and the New York Times lightly suggest she did.

Five things stand out here about her: She was affiliated with Mitt Romney, who hates President Trump and does everything he can to oppose him from the Republican side. So the NeverTrumpism from her origins ran thick. Two, she was affiliated with Reince Priebus and Katie Walsh, two White House aides who left early because they had leak and loyalty problems with President Trump, too. Three, she cried on election night, which, if true, would be the most damning thing. If she cried, it means she voted for the other side – and given the choice, how could she pick Hillary Clinton even if she didn’t care for Trump much? This goes beyond bad judgment. Two other things: the 28-year-old aide was billed as “immature” by other White House aides who wanted her about, which would certainly explain her impulsiveness and susceptibility to the effects of drinking with journalists, which effectively did her in. Four, she was said to be ambitious for power, which would have natural vectors in sucking up to the press as she tried to do, much to her eternal grief, as well as in her willingness to use President Trump (a guy she hated) to climb to the top.

A sad story. Was she hired because she was young and good looking? If so, what a weakness of President Trump’s.

Someone in Trump’s position requires loyalty, something that cannot be bought, educated, or plastic-surgeried in. And for an employee who basically served as a glorified secretary, it was really the only thing such a person could potentially offer of value. Westerhout, in retrospect, seems to have sent up some red flags and President Trump — and we the people who elected him — deserved better.

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/