12/21/16

Family Christmas Traditions

By: T F Stern | T F Stern’s Rantings

Christmas is just around the corner and having little children around reminded me of how special this time of year is.  A child can express awe, excitement and joy so much easier than grown ups.

William had taken James, our ‘almost two year old’ grandson, out for the afternoon this past week to enjoy the cool weather and have some one on one time.  While they were out we decided it was time to bring the Christmas tree in from the garage where it’s been stored all year.

It’s an artificial tree with the lights already in place making things so much easier, except there’s a row in the middle that no longer works.  I’ll get around to replacing it some day; at least that’s what I said last year, or was it the year before?

James came in from the cold all bundled up with a hood covering his Astros’ ball cap.  As he turned from the entry way he noticed the tree situated in the middle of the living room directly in front of the window, most of the tiny lights sparkling brightly.

He walked over to it, eyes wide open and took it all in, floor to ceiling.  The magic of Christmas landed on him as he gazed and then gazed some more.

“Wow”, he breathed out a hushed reverence for the singularly majestic tree which wasn’t there when he’d left; but somehow appeared in the room as if sent by angels.  “Wow!”

I had my cell phone/camera in my pocket but it didn’t dawn on me to capture the moment; guess that one will have to be stored in my mind along with so many other magic moments.

When I was a young boy one of our family Christmas traditions had to do with writing a letter to Santa around the first week of December.  We’d use our best penmanship skills while making sure to list each item on our bucket list that Santa needed to know about prior to his visit on Christmas Eve.

These letters were put on a plate on the dining room table along with some cookies and a glass of milk before we went off to bed.  Our parents explained that we’d know Santa had visited during the night to read the letters if all the cookies were gone along with the milk; more importantly, we’d know Santa read our letters because his magic mittens would cause the paper to catch fire, leaving only burnt fragments singed on top of the plate.

The next morning we’d marvel that Santa had come, just as our parents said he would.  The cookies and milk were gone and sure enough, the letters had turned into a pile of ashes leaving a scorch mark on mom’s fine china.  “Oh boy, I’m gonna’ get that bicycle, cowboy boots, the erector set, the Lincoln Logs, the rocket that you have to fill with water and pump it till it shoots off, the submarine that really sinks in the bathtub and comes back to the surface; all the neat stuff that was on that letter…and Santa knows about it now.

There were other family traditions; one in particular wasn’t so great.  Mom and dad loved to make oyster stew on Christmas Eve. How they came up with that is a mystery, or is that a misery?  They actually looked forward to putting a bowl of oyster stew on the table, lighting the candles and having us prepare for the coming of Santa.

I couldn’t even look at a bowl of oyster stew without my stomach turning, much less place a spoonful in my mouth.  Mom and dad decided that children weren’t sophisticated enough so we were served Tomato soup instead.  I wasn’t thrilled with Tomato soup either; but at least I could look at it without barfing.

Last on today’s list of family Christmas traditions has to do with the hanging of stockings for Santa to fill with candy, oranges, apples, nuts and small toys. These were placed on the end of our beds just prior to light out along with a warning, “Go to sleep or Santa won’t come”.

That worked pretty well until we reached our teen years.  By then we’d figured out that Santa needed to put toys together in the living room and didn’t want little children disturbing the process.

One night while contemplating life there in the darkness of my room I heard dad coming down the hall.  As he entered the room, carefully hanging the stocking on my bed and turning to leave, I surprised him, quietly greeting him, “Good night, Santa”.  I’ll never forget the smile and wink my father returned as he realized I’d left a part of childhood behind.

May your family find simple traditions that make Christmas memories, memories that will last a lifetime and beyond is my hope and prayer.  Merry Christmas!

This article has been cross posted to The Self Educated American, a publication whose banner reads, “Standing Fast By the Judeo-Christian Heritage, Limited Government and the U.S. Constitution”.

12/21/16

The Modern Day Bitter Clingers

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

With the results of the Electoral College votes in, supporters of Hillary Clinton must realize that their favored candidate has lost, again—this time irrevocably. The left’s resistance to a President Donald Trump hung on the twin thin reeds of a recount under Green Party candidate Jill Stein and the fight to convince individual electors to be faithless.

Ironically, the efforts led to more popular votes for Trump, and more electors choosing not to vote for Hillary. Five electors from Washington state went against Hillary, and three more tried, but were forbidden by state law, while only two Republican electors chose someone other than Trump. PJ Media reports that in Detroit, officials could not recount in 392 districts due to “discrepancies.” Those discrepancies include having more votes tallied than voters, and 95 percent of the vote in Detroit went to Hillary. So the recount also exposed apparent Democratic chicanery.

The excuses Democrats have made for why Hillary lost are endless, as the left circles the wagons and decides whether to blame themselves—or others, like the Russians. To date, some of the many possible culprits for the failure include: FBI Director James Comey’s last-minute investigation into the Anthony Weiner laptop emails, the Clinton Foundation scandal, Hillary’s classified emails on an unsecured server, her failure to campaign in Michigan, her lies about Benghazi, the Project Veritas videos, the Clintons’ treatment of women, the hacked John Podesta emails, her collusion with the Democratic National Committee to take the nomination away from Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Obama’s failure to control our borders, Obamacare, and Hillary’s and Obama’s failed foreign policy. And, of course, one cannot discount the impact that Trump’s more energetic campaign had on the upset win. Or, as Bill Clinton called it, Trump’s ability to connect with “angry, white men.”

Joe Klein writes for Time Magazine that “[Trump] is, without question, the most expert news manipulator in American history.” This is absurd. The news media have never been so openly hostile to a candidate, and Trump won in spite of that, not because he “manipulated” the media to his advantage.

The exact cause of Trump’s win is unknowable. It is likely made up of many of the above mentioned factors. Yet in the recriminations game, some Clinton loyalists are forming a circular firing squad, blaming long-time advisor Huma Abedin, who one anonymous Clinton insider said got too used to the limelight and being a “celebrity.” A Clinton insider said that “The real anger is toward Hillary’s inner circle…They reinforced all the bad habits.”

Liberals also continue to incessantly blame Russia for the Trump win. President Obama claimed in what may well be his final press conference on December 16 that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin to “cut it out” and stop hacking, and that Russia did, reports The Hill. “No, they did not stop. They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly,” argued DNC interim chair Donna Brazile on ABC’s This Week. Maybe Obama didn’t scare Putin quite as much as he thought he did.

Actually, by December 20, the White House story had changed. Now, according to NBC News, President Obama called the Russians on October 31 from his Red Phone, which is a direct line between Moscow and Washington to be used only in a time of crisis, “to reinforce Obama’s September warning that the U.S. would consider any interference on Election Day a grave matter. This time Obama used the phrase ‘armed conflict.’” If Putin had “cut it out” back in September, why was that call necessary?

The conspiracy theory that Russia aimed its resources at defeating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is “hyperbole” at best, and at worst, a false narrative, argues Jonathan S. Tobin for Commentary Magazine. “Other than a couple of quotes from speeches that had gone unreported, there was nothing that was directly linked to Clinton,” he notes of the hacked Podesta emails.

What the hacks did reveal was extensive collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media, as well as how the DNC had played favorites in the primary, putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary’s benefit, and to the detriment of Sanders.

“Assume the Russians were behind the hacking and even that Vladimir Putin personally directed these efforts,” Tobin writes, “there is no reason to believe it altered the outcome, let alone that it was a result of collusion with the Trump camp.”

The Election Results Deniers continue to press onward with this particular conspiracy theory because it provides a convenient bogeyman whose influence cannot be confirmed or discounted—and is based upon the word of anonymous Intelligence Community (IC) sources. The fact that the IC refused to present their evidence to Congress, even in closed session, plus the Obama administration’s record of dishonesty and a lack of transparency, contribute to the skepticism. Yet Trump is apparently expected to state unequivocally that he accepts this phony consensus that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have supposedly determined that the Russians hacked the election for the purpose of electing him president.

But when Hillary’s team questions the FBI’s motives, that’s perfectly okay. “Comparing the FBI’s massive response to the overblown email scandal with the seemingly lackadaisical response to the very real Russian plot to subvert a national election shows that something is deeply broken at the FBI,” argued Clinton campaign manager John Podesta in a Washington Post op-ed.

The public isn’t buying the sore losers’ blame game. A recent Morning Consult/Politico survey found that “46 percent of respondents chose” the option that “said the U.S. can’t be sure who is primarily responsible for the hacking because tracing cyberattacks is complicated and because intelligence groups were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Back during the general campaign, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews argued that Trump’s refusal to say unequivocally that he would accept the election results was “sacrilege.” Hillary Clinton called it “horrifying.” “I’ve loved American democracy all my life,” said Matthews, “and not just because it’s our ennobling way to rule ourselves, and we are the first and the best at it, but because it honors in the end the character and patriotism of those who walk out there and accept the country’s judgment, who risk their pride in the arena of public opinion and when it’s decided, accept the people’s verdict.” Apparently that principle is only meant to apply to Republicans.

Even with the Electoral College having affirmed Trump’s victory, some on the left still hope to derail his path to the White House. Some are dreaming of getting this before the Supreme Court to challenge the results of the election based on Trump’s foreign ties. And if that fails?

Though Trump’s victory was once again confirmed this week, MSNBC, the network committed to discrediting Trump on every show, every day, won’t give up. A recent guest, Anna Galland, executive director of the George Soros-funded MoveOn.org Civic Action, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes about the left’s next likely tactic: “A mass, moral accessible opposition movement, some are calling it a resistance movement, that’s going to stand up and fight back and not let Donald Trump tear apart this country, or enact his extraordinarily extreme policy agenda that he has no mandate to enact.” She added, “We’re not going to stand by while Donald Trump tears apart America…We’re going to keep fighting and going to win.” She said that MoveOn.org’s protest against the Iraq War was a “trial run” with “a million people in the streets…but that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to see.”

So much for accepting the results of our Constitutional election process.

In 2008, President Barack Obama contemptuously described voters from small-town America as “bitter” and “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” With the election of Trump, those on the left who refuse to accept reality have become the modern bitter clingers, the progressives who continue to oppose Trump by any means.

They envision the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution as another way to challenge Trump as president. “Mr. Trump’s companies do business with entities controlled by foreign governments and people with ties to them,” reported The New York Times on November 21. “Experts in legal ethics say those kinds of arrangements could easily run afoul of the Emoluments Clause if they continue after Mr. Trump takes office.” The clause forbids presidents to “‘accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state’ unless Congress consents,” reports the Times. In other words, one possible response to Trump breaking this clause is to impeach him.

No matter how illegitimate, ridiculous, or short-sighted the reasons, the left will continue to oppose a Donald Trump presidency and work to undermine it. The same media that spent eight years building up and protecting President Obama’s phony legacy are now determined to destroy Trump’s presidency right from the start. This honeymoon is definitely over.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

12/21/16

MTV News deleted, re-posted and re-deleted ‘2017 New Year’s Resolutions for White Guys’ video

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Screenshot from MTV’s 2017 New Year’s Resolutions for White Guys; See down-votes

“Try to recognize that America was never ‘great’ for anyone who wasn’t a white guy.” – MTV’s 2017 New Year’s Resolutions for White Guys

MTV has turned full Commie with their offensive, ridiculous 2017 New Year’s Resolutions for White Guys video. At the time of this publishing, the YouTube version had 200 “up-votes” and 33,831 “down-votes.”

Trevor Loudon posted the video on his public Facebook profile, but the video was deleted from Facebook:

Here is Trevor’s link on Twitter:

Since it was removed, Trevor put it on his page again:

And…. it was again deleted from Facebook.

The incredibly condescending and arrogant video declares in part, as transcribed by the Daily Caller:

“We all love Beyoncé,” a participant says, “And yeah, she’s black, so of course she cares about black issues. I’m talking to you, Fox News.” A woman responds, “Feel free to take Kanye West, though. You guys can have him.”

One can clearly see why Reason’s headline was:

MTV’s “White Guy Resolutions 2017” Might Just Earn Trump a Second Term

Here is the video. It is not satire:

12/21/16

Obama and Ellison: Separated at Birth

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

“Barack Obama is Louis Farrakhan and Karl Marx rolled into one.” Those were the words of businessman Zubi Diamond at a conference I sponsored back in 2011. That clever line might also apply to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Obama and Ellison seem to be brothers in both ideology and approach. The combination of Black Muslim ideology and Marxism is something that courses through the veins of Obama and Ellison. So why is Obama opposing the Ellison bid?

The answer is that Obama is smarter than Ellison. Obama has watched his words more carefully, and concealed his ideological predisposition when he ran for president, while Ellison is out of the closet about it. He not only has links to the Black Muslims of Louis Farrakhan, but he defended a member of the Weather Underground spin-off, the Symbionese Liberation Army. Plus, he’s an outspoken critic of the state of Israel.

Obama had some of these same associations when he ran for president. But he had the benefit of a liberal media that were willing to lie and cover up for him. Adding another Obama, in the form of Keith Ellison, is just too much to expect, in terms of continuing this media bias and cover-up. Too much is already known about Ellison.

The other factor is that Obama has recently decided to emphasize the Marxism of his brand, as opposed to his pro-Muslim bias, and is promoting his Secretary of Labor Tom Perez as his choice for DNC chairman.

At his year-end press conference, Obama began talking about the “workers,” the cornerstone of the Marxist economic revolution, saying, “If you look at his body of work on behalf of working people, what he’s [Perez] pushed for in terms of making sure that workers get a fair deal, decent wages, better benefits, that their safety is protected on the job, he has been extraordinary.”

Obama is smart to emphasize the workers. He realizes that the Democrats lost the working class, and if the party has any hope of getting back into power in Congress or the White House, these workers have to be tricked into voting Democrat. The winning strategy, he thinks, is promising Big Government, rather than economic growth and better trade deals, as the solutions to their plight.

Obama must be thinking that Ellison, who wears his Muslim religion and black radicalism on his sleeve, is a loser as far as these workers are concerned. He’s right.

Those who believe that Marxism is dead should take a look at Jacobin magazine, which is openly Marxist and got the seal of approval from The New York Times for its cutting edge approach.

One Jacobin writer, Connor Kilpatrick, has written “On the White Working Class,” an examination of the Democrats’ dilemma. In the Rust Belt, he writes, the white working class voters “finally had enough of the Democrats and defected to Trump.” He writes, “While we hear constantly that they’re demographically dying out, white workers without a college degree remain at least 63 percent of the working class and in twenty years will still be a ‘mere’ 49.5 percent. That’s a ton of potential voters—they were 34% of Obama’s coalition—and yet few liberal pundits seemed to take notice.”

Kilpatrick says that the Democrats abandoned these workers, and that today “it’s an open secret that the party’s program is led by the affluent professional class at best and enlightened Silicon Valley billionaires at worst.”

These are the facts that Obama understands: the white working class doesn’t read The Huffington Post, and it is not attracted to the Black Muslim radicalism of Keith Ellison.

By contrast, with the title of Secretary of Labor, Perez has at least the appearance of favoring the working man and woman. The problem is that he is also an elitist with a racial prejudice against white people. A graduate of Brown and Harvard Universities, he was head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice before going to the Labor Department. As noted by The Washington Free Beacon, an investigation into the Civil Rights Division by the Department of Justice’s inspector general revealed that Perez “told investigators that white people were not entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.” The report of the investigation explains this bias in detail.

J. Christian Adams described his book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, as “largely a catalog of the rancid racialism over which Perez has presided.” Adams was an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice.

If this evidence against Perez gets national attention, it will sink any hope the DNC and the Democrats have in attracting white voters. But will the media bring it up?

The DNC choice is a reminder of the old saying that one path leads to a catastrophe and the other to oblivion. No wonder the Democrats have nothing better to do than play the Russian card against Trump.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected] View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

12/21/16

Whose Side is the CIA On?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

John Guandolo, founder of Understanding the Threat, examines the strange background and comments of Obama CIA director John Brennan. He says the agency is heavily infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. But he is hopeful that the incoming Trump Administration understands the problem and will take corrective action. Watch this blockbuster interview and take action. Go to www.understandingthethreat.com.