Chatting Sexual Harassment With Lib Relatives

By: Lloyd Marcus

After spending the last four months moving from Florida and settling into our new home in West Virginia, Mary and I are on the road again. We are flying to campaign for Judge Moore in the Alabama senate race. Moore’s Democrat opponent, Doug Jones, is a horrible deceitful man. Jones supports slaughtering babies even up to the point of birth. Jones supports Planned Parenthood trafficking baby body parts for profit. American loving Alabamians, you must get out and vote against Doug Jones. Jones is an anti-America and Trump-resistance operative disguised as a good guy. http://bit.ly/2njPaK3

We drove 3 hours to Baltimore the day before our flight to fly out of BWI. This gave me an opportunity to visit and chat with several relatives. Most of my black relatives believe Trump is racist. They reject truth/facts, clinging to their emotion-driven loyalty to Democrats.

Sexual harassment is a hot topic. I wanted to get my liberal Democrat relatives’ thoughts regarding sexual harassment. Each of them believe sexual harassers should be punished. They also believe much of what is now labeled “sexual harassment” is simply men being men and women being women in the workplace. In a word, “biology”.

A Trump hating black female relative said she fears that labeling everything sexual harassment will create an extremely threatening atmosphere in the workplace. A woman accusing a man of sexual harassment is like dropping a nuclear bomb on his head. It is impossible for a man to defend himself without a majority thinking he is guilty. My female relative believes fear of sexual harassment allegations will impact men hiring women.

This same relative is a retired Baltimore city police officer. She said being a rare female black officer had its challenges. She witnessed female cops being sexually harassed. My relative said she instructed fellow cops how to treat her. She won their respect. She has lifelong friendships and fond memories of her career in law enforcement.

Folks, we instinctively recognize sexual jerks. Mary and I attended a great church in which members greeted each other with a hug. Mary stopped allowing a member to hug her because she felt he was a sleaze. I would hate to see that church abandon it’s warm greeting because of a jerk to two.

Leftists always launch bogus narratives. If we dare disagree or submit facts proving their narrative untrue, Leftists attack; calling us intolerant, haters, racists, sexists and homophobic. For example. Leftists say women “never” lie about sexual harassment. If anyone dares to say a woman should have proof before destroying a man’s life, Leftists launch a shock and awe campaign to brand that person a supporter of sexual assault. That person shuts up, runs and hides.

The investigation video of a woman accusing a cop of sexual assault was posted on youtube. The beautiful sophisticated young woman gave an extremely compelling tearful account of the officer ordering her out of her car and fondling her private parts. The cop’s dash-cam confirmed that he gave her a traffic ticket without her leaving her car. After showing the cop’s accuser the dash-cam video, the investigator asked why she tried to destroy the officer’s life. She replied, “He stopped me unfairly.”

A relative recalled his ugly divorce. He said, “I fought her in court as the mother of our kids (not disclosing her adultery). She fought me like I was Mike Tyson”. She lied, accusing him of abusing their kids. Despite any evidence of abuse, my relative was screwed; the judge ruled against him.

This was interesting. My liberal Democrat relatives thought 20 year old sexual harassment allegations were laughable; not to be taken seriously. Therefore, the 38 year old allegations against Judge Moore did not impact my relatives’ opinion of him. LOL…they hate Moore solely because he is a Republican.

Surprisingly, my Democrat relatives disobeyed political correctness; verbalizing thoughts that would cause Leftists to high-tech lynch a conservative. A Democrat male relative brought up the mixed messages women send in their dress and behavior that we males are not suppose to notice. He said during praise and worship in church, he has seen women twerking in stiletto high heels. http://bit.ly/2zL595W It is pretty challenging for a guy to keep his mind on God when a woman is flip flopping her derriere in the next pew.

My Democrat male relative’s comment about women sending mixed messages is valid. Psychologists are sounding the alarm about sexualizing little girls’ bodies and fashions. http://bit.ly/2jIpKAZ Radio talk show host Glen Beck said he was shocked and frustrated by how hard it was to find tops for his daughter that did not expose her bellybutton.

A relative has coached kids football for 30 years. He said he has watched cheerleaders’ dance routines become progressively raunchier; twerking and so on, with female parents cheering the little girls on. “Git it girl! That girl is gonna be something when she grows up!” He dared mention to a female parent that he thought the cheerleader routines were getting too sexy. The parent accused him of being a dirty old man. This shut him up.

When Mary and I ran an arts center, we allowed local Hispanic dance groups to practice there. On numerous occasions, we were shocked by the sexy dance moves the kids were taught. The more the girls well executed the sexy dance moves, the more female parents excitedly cheered them on. Mary and I were cautioned to keep our mouths shut; told that it was a Hispanic “cultural thing” that we did not understand.

My 89 year old dad shared with me that back in his dad’s day, it was exciting to see a woman’s ankle when she stepped up onto the streetcar. Today many women dress leaving little to the imagination. Male relatives educated me about a new street term, “camel’s hoof”. I feel a little embarrassed just mentioning it. The term refers to what young guys say they see when women wear skin tight pants.

A relative said he believes over sexual exposure has a numbing effect on men. Has over sexual exposure sparked more people needing deviancy to become aroused?

The consensus of my liberal Democrat relatives was women cannot have it both ways. Women cannot flaunt their sexuality and become outraged when men notice. Again, my relatives said “real” sexual harassers should be punished.

My wife said a woman has the right to walk down the street nude and men do not have a right to touch her. I said, “I agree. As a black man, I have a right to attend a KKK rally and yell, ‘Where are the white women?’ My behavior would be unwise.”

Like ambulance chasers, suddenly TV lawyers are soliciting sexual harassment cases. All I am asking is that we not allow ourselves to be manipulated by those who exploit the issue of sexual harassment. Let’s deal with every allegation fairly and honestly.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”
Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist


#FakeNews: Is Jay Kaganoff really Jay W. Cobb?

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Screenshot from one of Jay W. Cobb’s now-deleted article

“[Jeff] Flake was a Tea Party conservative before there was a Tea Party. And when the Tea Party arrived, he watched in despair as it made something ugly out of his cherished principles.” – Jay W. Cobb

Jay Kaganoff wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post yesterday urging “fellow conservatives” to call on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.

The “conservative” writes in part:

“Those of us on the right could use a reckoning, too. Obviously, Donald Trump has no business being president; I opposed his candidacy and I oppose his presidency, so I don’t need to reiterate that further. The same is true for Roy Moore. But I’ve been thinking about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and I think it’s time conservatives seriously reconsider our continued support for Thomas in light of his past.”

But who is Jay Kaganoff? Why is the Washington Post parading him about as if he was some type of conservative spokesperson? After researching and finding precious little information about Jay Kaganoff (and a hat tip to J. Michael Waller for his tweet that got the wheels turning), we smelled a rat. Continue reading


Life Down on the Democrat Plantation – Part II of II

By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal

Life Down on the Democrat Plantation

“The more things change, the more they stay the same”

Life Down on the Democrat Plantation – Part I of II

As already said, but it bears repeating, engineered poverty is nothing new – it’s right out of the old Marxist playbook: the Democrats have “minorities” while the Marxists had the “proletariat.” The Democrats have “White privilege” and “Wall Street,” while the Marxists had the “Capitalists” and “Bourgeoisie” (who were likewise characterized as “privileged”). The business model of the Democrats-Marxists can’t countenance free-market Capitalism and the upwardly mobile middle-class that it engenders, for without a working majority (electoral majority) of minorities / proletariat, their agenda fails. The Democrat-Marxist business model requires producing and increasing the supply of the “oppressed.”

THE DEMOCRATS’ POST-ANTEBELLUM ANTIFA – the White League and KKK. Street-thug enforcers. From Wikipedia: The White League, also known as the White Man’s League, was an American white paramilitary organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing. Affiliated with the Democratic Party, its first chapter was formed in Grant Parish, Louisiana and neighboring parishes, made up of many of the Confederate veterans who had participated in the Colfax massacre in April 1873. Chapters were soon founded in New Orleans and other areas of the state.

The plantation owners of the old South kept their slaves illiterate, while providing their most basic needs – food and shelter – just enough that they would keep working and keep reproducing. A dynamic not unlike today’s union-run urban schools producing functional illiterates; Section 8 / public housing and EBT cards. Instead of “stick” bullwhips, today we have “carrot” welfare.

Blacks are given a subsistence existence, and are expected to bring home the cotton votes, and to keep producing new generations of Dependency Class voters. Here mention must be made of three documentaries that provide insightful glimpses into life of the Democrat Plantation: “Waiting for Superman”  and “Runaway Slave”  being directly on point, and “There’s No Place Like Utopia” (though somewhat broader in scope, its coverage of Detroit and Newark alone earns it inclusion here).

“The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Indeed!

Of course the Democrats won’t admit to this; the Democrats claim that they “are fighting” to lift people up. Such was the promise made with the enactment over fifty years ago (under the LBJ administration) of the “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” programs – programs that have only (exponentially) expanded since. Yet while poverty rates were declining before those enactments, since then they’ve leveled off. Note that on the chart below poverty rates were rapidly declining, breaking below fifteen percent around 1965 – about the time of the “Great Society” enactments – and then within a couple of years of the “Great Society” started to (essentially) flat-line within a range of about eleven to fifteen percent. Note too that there are now millions more “living in poverty” than when the “Great Society” started.

In the 1950’s and early 1960’s de jure discrimination was finally eliminated; its legacy effects were (attempted) to be addressed (and redressed) through the enactment of the “Great Society” / “War on Poverty” programs and through de facto reverse discrimination through “diversity” nee “affirmative action” preferences given to non-Whites by academia, government and corporate America. The decades wore on, a Black President was elected, and it became increasingly awkward trying to logically explain-away the static Black underclass and the continuing “need” for the welfare state and diversity-affirmative action.

Thus, “White Privilege” was manufactured (recall that this term did not come into general usage until the Obama administration). Derivative of that came the pretense of “implicit bias,” i.e., that White people are all (or almost all) unconsciously, and so inherently biased (thus we also started getting the “check your privilege” conditioning on college campuses). “White privilege” and its accompanying baggage is a convenient concept for Progressives, because it cannot be objectively measured either as to “baseline” or “progress,” and so is perpetual. The “privilege” / “implicit bias” memes, distributed with the help of a complicit media, provides rationalizing boob bait for “useful idiots” – “useful” both for inciting “useful idiots” into believing, and for diverting attention from, and explaining away, the Great Society’s succeeding only in halting the decline in poverty rates that had been occurring beforehand (see chart below).

What would poverty rates be today if the pre-Great Society trend-line had held? Much lower, perhaps next-to-nothing.

Certainly it would have been unrealistic to expect those programs to have produced success in their early years. But just as certainly one should expect substantial success after a half-century! One would expect, if the Democrats were true to their word, that they’d be the first to decry this failure and be pursuing other remedies that might prove effective. But no, they reflexively double-down seeking expansion and more funding for the status quo.  So one must surmise that the Democrats are pleased with the results thus far, and want more of the same.

In what should be unbelievable, but is not because we’re living it, the Democrats have managed to convince a solid majority of today’s plantation dwellers that they’re helpless without the Democrats, and that the Democrats are not just their friends, but their advocates, protectors and, ultimately, their saviors! Thus we get cadres of “useful idiots” demonstrating under the BLM banner, and millions of poor, undereducated souls who been propagandized to believe that their only hope to lift themselves out of poverty is to vote for their Democrat oppressors. Aiding that evil misrepresentation are today’s successors to the “house Negroes” of lore – Black “civil rights leaders” and politicians who live high by helping the Democrats maintain the pretense, by providing a “blackface” to it.

THE “CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS.” From the Wikipedia entry on “House Negroes”: African-American activist Malcolm X commented on the cultural connotations and consequences of the term in his 1963 speech “Message to the Grass Roots”, wherein he explained that during slavery there were two types of slaves: “house Negroes” who worked in the master’s house, and “field Negroes” who performed outdoor manual labor. He characterized the house Negro as having a better life than the field Negro, and thus being unwilling to leave the plantation and potentially more likely to support existing power structures that favored whites over blacks.

The Democrats and their allies undermine and demoralize the very people they claim to help – but they cannot plead ignorance of problem or their root causes, nor plead unavailability of solutions. Root causes and solutions have been known for decades.

The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.

There is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future – that community asks for and gets chaos.

– Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Decades ago, the late Senator (and scholar) Daniel Patrick Moynihan cited the breakdown of the family, precipitated by the perverse incentives of the “Great Society” as the catalyst for increases in Black poverty. Amazingly, Senator Moynihan was a New York Democrat (!), albeit of the old school – he would be shunned, if not expelled, from today’s Democrat Party (the radical Leftists have succeeded in purging the Democrat Party of moderates  – today there is no Truman or JFK or Moynihan to be found within its ranks).

The Progressives of Hollywood and the music industry peddle a false narrative of the authentic “Black culture” being “the hood” and crime and drugs and victimhood, when actually that sort of culture is a classic type of dysfunctional underclass culture that has burdened mankind (of all races) for millennia. Query too: was this the “Black culture” that existed since the Civil War, or is it a more recent phenomenon of, say, the post-Great Society era? As a consequence of this “Black culture,” far too many gullible youth, particularly males without positive role models in their lives, absorb this and are inculcated with the idea that Black masculinity entails not education and a work ethic and achievement, but “ho’s” and spreading their seed among as many of them as they can – that, and gangs. Meanwhile, the girls, who could be a positive influence and demand more of the men in their lives, are conditioned to believe that pumping out illegitimate babies, early and often, is both acceptable and viable (since the Great Society programs will fund it all).  Through the Great Society, the Democrats have succeeded in erecting a sort of cultural apartheid in the United States of America.

This glamorizing of “Black culture” is not just craven Hollywood executives peddling whatever will make a buck, for it also reflects a general attitude amongst Progressives of what “Black culture” not only is, but should be. Whenever non-Progressives decry the rising illegitimacy rate – much less propose program reforms to dis-incentivize it – the Progressives in academia, politics and the media go nuts. This even though studies show that the single greatest contributor to, and predictor of poverty is single-parenthood, i.e., illegitimacy. So too do the Progressive usual suspects go nuts when “workfare” is proposed to help build and promote a work ethic. In August 2017 two (brave!) university professors – Amy Wax from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Larry Alexander of the University of San Diego Law School – wrote an Op-Ed (“Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture”) – calling for the return of a cultural embrace of 1950’s like “bourgeois” values. You know, things like completing an education, getting married in a committed relationship, then having children, and working hard to achieve upward mobility. On cue, Progressives reflexively denounced this piece, including labeling it as promoting “White culture” or “White privilege.”

(Let us somewhat digress for a moment.) Which begs the question for our self-ordained enlightened Progressive betters: If such traits that are proven to promote strong families, healthy in mind and spirit future generations, and economic upward mobility are a matter of culture (in this case “White culture”or “bourgeois culture”); and

Under your lauded “multiculturalism” other “cultures” are to remain bound within their own pre-existing strictures, and not mix-and-match (shall we say) “cultural best practices” – what you might derisively refer to as “reverse cultural appropriation” – as that would “dilute” the genuine culture of that group; and

As what you portray as authentic “Black culture” (or “Hispanic culture”) involves low educational aspirations, illegitimacy and static mobility (government dependency), and those are being realized on a widespread basis; then

Does not the higher poverty rate amongst Blacks and Hispanics signal that America has achieved the multi-cultural state that you say you want, and claim is our societal lodestar?   Is not rising wealth inequality evidence that we’re becoming more multi-cultural?

Just askin’  (End of digression.)

Outside of family life, educational attainment is the single greatest enabler of future upward mobility. Yet the Democrats fight tooth-and-nail to prevent Black children from having school choice, and to prevent school choice creating competition that would force the unionized public schools to improve or die. A national scandal is our urban schools pumping out – “graduating” – millions of functional illiterates who are thus doomed to a fate of a low standard of living and no prospect of rising out of it.  At the same time, the Progressive entertainment media and academia peddles a message of hopelessness and insurmountable victimhood (e.g., “White Privilege”); that “authentic” “Black culture” eschews educational ambition as “acting White.” In this they’re taking young Black children, who are too young to know any better, and deliberately engineering them into the Dependency Class.

In many senses – while they will vehemently deny it – the Progressives act more consistently with the premise that Blacks (and Hispanics) are inferior, incapable of grasping or adhering to the same rigors or standards of other people than they do with the principle that “all men are created equal” and so can and should be held to equal standards and, on average, can and should achieve equal prosperity. The Progressives’ actions speak louder than their words, and again, in this form of prejudice they are not unlike their Antebellum plantation-master predecessors.

Certainly there are “useful idiots” within the Progressive orbit, who sincerely believe that all men are created equal, and have (gullibly) swallowed the victimhood mantras about “legacy of slavery” and “White privilege” and “implicit bias” and so on. Or are just Marxist-inclined, and so believe that our whole economic system is exploitive, and that Black have it worse due to the legacies mentioned above. The “useful idiots” largely mean well, but are fundamentally and severely misguided (and with each passing year, much less decade, such ignorance becomes less and less excusable – eventually reality has to intrude, and it is not unreasonable for us to expect such folks to “wake up and smell the coffee”). But the more astute of the Progressives know better, and know “cause and effect” and solutions that would fulfill the dream that the “Great Society” was supposed to fulfill. They want power and wealth, leveraging those on the way to their long-sought revolution “fundamental transformation,” and for them the “idiots” are “useful” – just as perpetuating poverty and dysfunctional and counter-productive morays, and dysfunctional and counter-productive government programs, is “useful.”

Today’s Democrat Party remains in power by treating the symptoms of Black poverty – through the myriad welfare programs – while vehemently promoting and protecting the root causes of that poverty, thus perpetuating it.  In so doing it has exploited poor Blacks that the Democrats (and Progressives generally) are their protectors and benefactors, even as the Democrats (and Progressives generally) are the reason that they are in the situation they’re in – as will their children and following generations, if the Democrats have their way.

There was a shared dream on the part of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. – directly descended from our Declaration of Independence – of a society-wide recognition and practice of the principle that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.”  That principle is one of the reasons this nation is divinely inspired.  Yet that dream has not been fully achieved, much less enjoyed by Blacks in America.  But the obstacle(s) holding back the final, blessed consummation of that dream is not “White privilege” or “implicit bias” or “income inequality.”  No, it is the Democrat Party specifically, and Progressivism generally.

While it is not for us to judge, or to know, it seems a fair estimation that those Antebellum plantation-masters’ eternal souls now reside in (shall we say) the warmest of climates. This writer submits to you that it also seems a fair estimation that our modern Progressives-Democrats, pursuing electoral power and its resultant wealth, leveraging those to pursue their revolution – by exploiting millions of Blacks, today in far greater number than there were slaves during the 1800’s – will likewise find their eternal souls residing in the warmest of climates.  That would be social justice.

Mr. Wigand is the author of Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracywhich is available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.  Comments or questions for Mr. Wigand may be sent to: [email protected]— he will make every effort to personally respond to every email.


Life Down on the Democratic Plantation – Part I of II

By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal

Life Down on the Democrat Plantation

“The more things change, the more they stay the same”

These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. (Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957)

I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years. (Regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

– Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). Democrat. Senate Minority Leader 1953; Senate Majority Leader 1954 – 1961. Vice President 1961-1963. President 1963-1969. Oh, did we remember to mention that he was a Democrat?

We’re now over fifty years in and, so far, Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s prediction has proven true – Blacks are such reliable Democrat voters that Democrat politicians typically ignore them until election season, and even then only give them lip service.  This has resulted too in Republicans largely ignoring Blacks, as the Democrat-Progressive brainwashing has been so complete that they don’t see an opening.  This dynamic is a huge asset for the Democrat Party. You’d think that in return for enacting the Great Society / War on Poverty legislation that greatly expanded the welfare state, Democrats would hold LBJ up as a hero.  But they don’t talk about him much.  Actually, it’s almost as if he never existed.  Perhaps the above quotes have something to do with it, since with the benefit of hindsight we can see – unequivocally – that he let the cat out of the bag. The plantations of the Antebellum South were owned and operated by Democrats, and contrary to the media-presented perception, not that much has changed — the Democrats of today operate welfare plantations and use those to exploit Blacks still.  Not for their labor as on the old plantations, but for their existence as a reliable voting block.

Ultimately, for any political party, an inherent aspiration is to grow, to gain influence and, it hopes, political dominance (if not control). This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, when it is motivated by a sincere belief that one’s party’s positions are better for the country. The Democrat Party – the political arm of Progressivism – is consumed with this aspiration, and more – and with evil motivation.  As with all forms of Collectivism, Democrats ultimately seek totalitarian control – with the existence of any other political party (if allowed at all) is merely for purposes of maintaining the pretense of an operating “democracy.” In turn, maintaining absolute control in an operating democracy requires maintaining an absolute majority of voters; whether through legitimate voters or fraudulent voters or a combination of the two (space here does not permit a recounting of the Democrats’ long embrace of voter fraud as a “legitimate tool” to electoral victory).

With that thought in mind, as an initial mental exercise, let us first consider where today’s Democrat Party would be if it was stripped of the welfare class: the working poor who get government “benefits” and non-working welfare class – which we’ll refer to as the (government) “Dependency Class.”

Well, without the Dependency Class, the Democrat Party would be left with some wealthy billionaires, union leaders, academics, so-called “journalists,” the Weinstein-Spacey sect (the entertainment industry), and party apparatchiks (e.g.,, government bureaucrats) – and dedicated radical Leftists and actual revolutionaries who have taken Saul Alinsky’s teachings to heart and burrowed into the system to effect revolution by subterfuge.  The radicals / revolutionaries reside within and among the billionaire class (most notoriously, George Soros), academia, government and labor union leadership – though they travel under the banner of “Progressive” rather than Marxist / Communist / revolutionary, etc. (That said, the rise of openly Socialist Bernie Sanders’ influence within the Democrat Party indicates that the radicals, post-Obama, are feeling their oats and are feeling more emboldened.)  The radicals are the overlords of the Democrat Party (and Progressivism generally) – they are the folks who, behind the scenes, determine strategy and tactics while, in true Alinsky style, keep the actual goals, the ultimate goals, hidden both from the public (which they realize would overwhelmingly oppose them if it knew), and also from the rest of this Democrat “base.”  We’ll refer to these overlords as the “Democrat Elite.”

That remainder of the Democrat base, meanwhile – those we might call “mainstream Progressives,” are in fact classic “useful idiots”  – people who, whether out of naïveté or indoctrination (or both), are “pure of heart” in believing that they are pursuing “social justice” and “fighting climate change” and generally “making a better world.”   Like puppet-masters, the Democrat Elite manipulates and maneuvers the “useful idiot” segment of the Democrat base to pursue things that (superficially) appear to “right wrongs” and to promote an intentionally malleable conception of “social justice.”  These cadres of “useful idiots” are, unwittingly, advancing the opposite of what they seek – an evil Collectivist design aimed at neutralizing our country and bringing it under the rubric of an (inevitably) totalitarian “global governance” scheme.  Thus, in recent years, targeting different demographics of “useful idiots,” we’ve witnessed Progressivism creating AstroTurf cadres of “useful idiots” such as “Occupy”; the “Women’s March” and their “pussy hats” (therefore rendering them “pusseful idiots”?); “Resist”; “Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter” (BLM).

BLM, for purposes of this piece, warrants a quick mention highlighting its targeting of “useful idiot” Blacks while actually advancing a wholly different, Democrat Elite agenda.  The Progressive media has been (shall we say) less than diligent in reporting BLM’s  wealthy White financing –presumably a combination “useful idiots” believing that they’re funding “social justice” or making amends for being “White” and enjoying “White privilege” and Democrat Elite (like George Soros who, arguably, is the head financier for the Democrat Elite) who know exactly how BLM is being used to advance a separate agenda.  Fewer still are aware that behind the curtain of BLM, running the show, resides a cadre of (shall we say) “classic” Communist revolutionaries.  The Progressive media portrays BLM as some organic, spontaneous group of downtrodden Blacks pursuing the noble cause of redressing legitimate grievances borne of an inherently racist society, the “legacy of slavery,” and “police brutality.”  And in that targeted demographic “useful idiots” line up to provide camera fodder for the narrative – from demonstrators chanting “hands up, don’t shoot” to NFL football players taking a knee during the national anthem.  There’s a lot of advertising industry in all of this: Occupy, BLM and Women’s March are created to attract specific demographics, with each intended to get the targeted consumer (i.e., “useful idiots”) to “buy” the product.  That product in turn, for the Democrat Elite, is useful for creating a media narrative of widespread discontent and oppression, to create a perception among millions of Americans that they are part of an oppressed class, a new (de factoproletariat.  This is straight out of the Gramsci, Alinsky and Gorz Communist revolutionary playbooks.  Indeed, Communists have successfully engineered takeovers by manipulating a country’s democratic institutions to assume control and “fundamentally transform” the country into a Communist state, and went on to brag about it – “And not a shot is fired” (it is highly recommended that you, at a minimum, read the short Introduction dated 1999 – the parallels to today’s America that will be immediately apparent will, by that resemblance, shock you).

Anyway, shorn of the Dependency Class, this base of useful idiots+Democrat Elite would leave the Democrats with a wealthy and influential presence, to be sure. But one that electorally would be (nearly) irrelevant for, in the end, vote totals determines who wields political power – and the total voting population of the useful idiots+Democrat Elite comprises, at least on a national basis, a marginal niche group.

This presents the Democrats with a dilemma. A thriving, growing middle-class enjoying upward mobility, and married women wanting that for their children, are far less inclined to vote Democrat than are members of the Dependency Class. For political power the Democrats must have a large and, ideally (and from their standpoint) ever-growing population of the Dependency Class (hence the Progressives, back in the 1960’s, first positing the notorious Coward-Piven Strategy). For the Democrat Party, upward mobility is a long-term death sentence.

The concept of weaponizing demographics to increase poverty is nothing new. Progressivism is a close relative of Marxism, and the latter’s success has always been dependent upon a proletariat – masses living at best at subsistence levels, and shorn of hope for a better future. Without this Communist agitators knew there could be no revolution, and without this Democrat “community organizers” know that they cannot enjoy an electoral majority. The Democrats also recognize that free enterprise lifts more people out of poverty than any other economic system – so free enterprise and the prosperity it generates presents an existential threat.

The Democrat plantation owners of the Antebellum South relied on slaves in far greater numbers than themselves to harvest cotton, and so maintain the owners’ wealth and power. It was not a capitalist system involving a voluntary exchange of goods and services between citizens, but involuntary, forced labor (and reproduction) in return for an existence of mere subsistence – food enough to not starve, and housing (of a sort). The Democrat plantation owners of today – the Democrat Elite – are not so different. Engineered dependency has replaced the bullwhip, and technically today’s slaves are “free” – but, as we’ll see, the end result is not all that different.

THE GOLD CARD: March 16, 2016. PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — “House lawmakers are looking to tighten the rules on where Rhode Islanders on public assistance can use their cash cards. The measure would ban the use of EBT cards at casinos, liquor stores and strip clubs.” http://wwlp.com/2016/03/18/bill-to-ban-ebt-cards-at-casinos-strip-clubs-liquor-stores/ See also: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/11-things-you-didnt-know-you-could-buy-with-food-stamps/

On the new, Post-Antebellum Democrat Plantation, votes are the produce, the new cotton that produces its electoral bounty, and thus the power and wealth enjoyed by the Democrat Elite. To maintain this electoral business model, the Democrat Party requires a large, growing, and hopefully majority-producing inventory of cotton pickin’ voters! The Democrat Party can’t afford to long permit a thriving economy or generalized upward mobility. It needs a Dependency Class that is unsophisticated, uneducated, and in dire enough straits to be susceptible to the siren calls and agitation of street-level “community organizers” and uptown Democrat pols.

This is the very business model of the Democrat Party – a burgeoning underclass of Blacks (and, increasingly, imported Hispanics) – who are resentful of their state, have been indoctrinated to believe that the cause of their plight is “privilege” and “racism” and, ultimately, that they are victims (if not helpless victims). And, most importantly, that the only solution for them is vote Democrat – the party that will at least provide “social justice” by redistributing wealth and thus provide a basic existence via EBT, Section 8 and Medicaid.

Life Down on the Democratic Plantation – Part II of II

Mr. Wigand is the author of Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracywhich is available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions.  Comments or questions for Mr. Wigand may be sent to: [email protected]— he will make every effort to personally respond to every email.


Conservative Dupes in the Russia-gate Probe

By: Cliff Kincaid

Rush Limbaugh has interviewed former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy about how Robert S. Mueller’s Russia-gate investigation has turned out so badly for President Trump and his associates. That’s funny. Back in May, McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote an article for National Review appearing under the headline, “Robert Mueller: A Solid Choice for Trump-Russia Investigation ‘Special Counsel.’”

Here’s what McCarthy, described as one of the nation’s most prominent voices on legal and national security issues,  said: “Bob Mueller is a widely respected former prosecutor, U.S. attorney, high-ranking Justice Department official, and FBI director. He is highly regarded by both parties…He is a straight shooter, by the book, and studiously devoid of flash.” Using “Bob” seemed to imply they are friends or associates.

Limbaugh himself said that Mueller “has perhaps the best and the cleanest reputation in all of official Washington. He is Mr. Integrity. He is Mr. Cultured. He is Mr. Mannered. He is Mr. Sophisticated. There isn’t a soul in Washington who dares utter nary a negative word about Mueller.”

Seven million dollars later, there has been a lot of flash, leaks, a few pleas, some indictments, and Trump’s presidency is on the line. McCarthy, a buddy of Limbaugh who also appears on his radio program, now thinks Mueller is building a case for impeachment. They didn’t recognize Mueller as the hatchet man for the Deep State that he really was.

Clearly, McCarthy was fooled bigly. So were many others. It is an indictment of the “conservative media” that failed to do their digging into Mueller’s real record.

Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but I said from the beginning that Mueller was going to take down Trump. How did I know? Did I have insider information? No. But I did have access to the objective facts about Mueller’s disastrous tenure as FBI director. All that a journalist had to do was review history and consult knowledgeable sources. These facts included implicating the wrong people in the post-9/11 anthrax attacks, working with the Muslim Brotherhood to purge FBI materials of the truth about radical Islam, and failing to reform the FBI’s internal security system after Russian spy and FBI agent Robert Hanssen was caught.

Mueller is the ultimate symbol of what has gone wrong with our system of government. In an honest world, he should have been forced into retirement in disgrace.  Instead, he is running a Star Chamber proceeding targeting our elected president.

McCarthy’s May 17 column declared, “Democrats are so Trump-deranged that I suspect, despite Mueller’s solid reputation, they will claim the fix is in if impeachment does not appear to be on the horizon in short order. But most people will give Mueller a chance. And he deserves that.”

This is how conservatives, led by National Review, rolled over and let things get out of control.

I knew where it was heading. My June 9 column was titled, “Trump Should Say ‘You’re Fired’ to Special Counsel.” I wrote, “Since Mueller can’t indict Trump, his investigation could produce impeachment charges against Trump, which would be filed by the House if the Republican majority disappears in the 2018 elections.”

This has been the plan all along. Charges of impeachment, based on obstruction of justice and even sexual harassment allegations against Trump, will be lodged. For now, the process continues. “House Overwhelmingly Rejects Trump Impeachment Vote,” said the Daily Caller on Wednesday. The vote was 364-58.

Mueller and his Deep State allies understand that the impeachment process is at an early stage and that clueless conservatives can be counted on to keep saying (to themselves) that there is really nothing to worry about.

By the middle of June, McCarthy seemed to be having second thoughts about the work of honest “Bob” Mueller, the “straight shooter.” He wrote an article under the headline, “Mend, Don’t End, Mueller’s Investigation.” McCarthy was now saying, “The alarm bells that led to Mueller’s erroneous appointment cannot be un-rung. But legal surgery needs to be done, lest Mueller’s amorphous mandate lead to Scooter Libby 2.0, or worse, another Iran-Contra epic — a fiasco that seemed to have a longer run than Phantom of the Opera.”

It looks like Mueller had a case of Trump-derangement syndrome. Perhaps that stemmed from Trump’s open disgust with the U.S. intelligence community, also known as the Deep State. It appears that Trump understood that the U.S. was losing in the world because our CIA, FBI, NSA, and other agencies were seemingly unable or unwilling to defend America and its interests. America’s enemies had been winning and growing more powerful under former President Barack Hussein Obama. Why? This is the area that cried out for an inquiry.

Now, in December, however, McCarthy has concluded that something has gone wrong in the investigation and that the “straight arrow” Mueller is now targeting Trump personally for charges of obstruction of justice and is making a case for impeachment.

Once again, because of his prestige, background, and credentials, he made news.  “Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy is also saying this is now an obstruction of justice investigation and the ultimate goal is to impeach President Trump,” said Sean Hannity on his Fox News show. Yes, but McCarthy and other legal experts and scholars had assured us that Mueller was honest and a straight shooter.

Patting myself on the back, I wrote last May that Mueller had fooled a lot of people and that his appointment was good news for the Swamp but bad news for Trump. I noted the evidence that Mueller had badly mishandled the anthrax investigation after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and that he was being criticized for a cover-up in the case and sued. That same month, May 2017, I wrote a column under the headline, “Special Counsel Mueller Will Get His Man,” explaining more of the corruption surrounding Mueller’s tenure as FBI director. I cited evidence that Mueller purged government materials of information that identified the nature of the Islamic terrorist enemy. I said Mueller was determined to get Trump and would pursue the president.

Here’s what I wrote: “Those who say there is no evidence of a crime in Russia-gate miss the whole point. Mueller will produce evidence of a crime out of nothing if he has to.” I predicted a flimsy “obstruction of justice” charge against Trump, based on Mueller’s probe of Michael T. Flynn. This is exactly what we are seeing come to pass.

My column explained, “Mueller’s job is to damage and destroy a President elected by the people. His job is to protect his friend, former FBI director Comey, who used a spurious document, the ‘Trump Dossier,’ to conduct an inquiry that has turned up nothing.” This was apparent from the beginning.

Another motive is to divert attention away from the other problems in the FBI that we have seen on display in such incidents as the Las Vegas massacre (where the FBI seems to have no clue on motive), left-winger James Hodgkinson’s planned massacre of Congressional Republicans (the FBI blamed it on “anger management” problems), and FBI involvement in the attempted assassination of Pamela Geller in Garland, Texas (an FBI undercover agent was among the Jihadists).

Finally, there’s Mueller’s handling of the case of Robert Hannsen, the most damaging spy in FBI history. He had spied for Soviet and Russian intelligence services against the United States for 22 years, from 1979 to 2001, and was caught before Mueller took over as FBI director. But Mueller was responsible for making sure something like this never happened again. He was supposed to carry out reforms to catch infiltrators and spies. The Inspector General said that Hanssen had escaped detection “because of longstanding systemic problems in the FBI’s counterintelligence program and a deeply flawed internal security program” and had recommended a central repository for the receipt, collection, storage, and analysis of derogatory information concerning FBI employees “with access to sensitive information.” By 2007, the Inspector General said that the FBI had “not yet established” such a repository, which could help identify security risks and spies.

This failure may help explain why and how we had an FBI agent with an anti-Trump bias named Peter Strzok reportedly running investigations of Trump and Hillary and having an affair on the side with another FBI employee. He was a security risk on the Mueller Special Counsel payroll. He hasn’t been fired, just reassigned.

Although various conservative outlets carried my columns about FBI corruption and Mueller’s game plan in Russia-gate, I was never invited on the conservative talk shows or quoted in Breitbart about Mueller’s desire to take down Trump. I was virtually alone in warning about what was to come. People like McCarthy and Limbaugh, with their claims about Mueller’s honesty, made what is happening today possible. They were dupes, now with egg on their faces.

The stakes are enormous. The fate of an elected president hangs in the balance. From the FBI point of view, a corrupt agency and corrupt agents are at risk of being exposed and punished.  What I fear is that the same Russian operatives who wrote the “Trump Dossier” are pulling the strings in the FBI itself. Hence, Russia-gate is a diversion from corruption and moles within the FBI. It’s a big mess, as Trump might say.

At this point, it doesn’t look like Trump is willing to fire Mueller and issue pardons for Mueller’s victims. Convinced that Mueller was an “honest” man and a “straight arrow,” Trump may have waited too long. Firing Mueller at this point might make him look desperate and accelerate demands for his impeachment.

In the meantime, conservative defenders of Mueller should explain in detail how and why they went so badly wrong. It would be appropriate for this mea culpa to begin on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.  It turns out that he flunked out of his own fictitious Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. His claim about being right 99.9 percent of the time has taken a huge hit. But he won’t lose his job. Trump will.


The Elusive Jay Kaganoff

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

The Washington Post published an OpEd by Jay Kaganoff on Wednesday appealing to “fellow conservatives” to revisit the decades-old charges of sexual harassment from Anita Hill against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

But there is something quite odd about the author of this OpEd, who appears to be a phantom. According to his byline, Jay Kaganoff is “a freelance writer based in Brooklyn. He has written for National Review Online and Commentary Magazine, among others.”

He must have used another name, because a search of “Jay Kaganoff,” “Jason Kaganoff” and just plain old “Kaganoff” resulted in zero records found on both the National Review Online and Commentary Magazine websites. Continue reading


Trump Declares Jerusalem the Capitol of Israel

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Huge speech and decision. If the Palestinians can have their own capitol, why not Israel? In reality and presently the United States does have a consulate in Jerusalem already. Marine FAST teams (elite security forces) and increased security have already been ordered at most U.S. diplomatic operations in key locations around the world, expecting protests.

Additionally, did you know the Palestinians have an embassy in Washington DC?

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 06, 2017

President Donald J. Trump’s Proclamation on Jerusalem as the Capital of the State of Israel

“My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” – President Donald J. Trump

RECOGNIZING JERUSALEM: President Donald J. Trump is following through on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and has instructed the State Department to begin to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

  • Today, December 6, 2017, President Trump recognized Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jewish people, as the capital of the State of Israel.
    • In taking this action, President Trump fulfilled a major campaign promise of his and many previous Presidential candidates.
  • The Trump Administration is fully coordinated in supporting this historic action by the President, and has engaged broadly with both our Congressional and international partners on this issue.
    • President Trump’s action enjoys broad, bipartisan support in Congress, including as expressed in the Jerusalem Recognition Act of 1995.  This Act was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.
  • President Trump has instructed the State Department to develop a plan to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
  • Departments and Agencies have implemented a robust security plan to ensure the safety of our citizens and assets in the region.

STATUS OF JERUSALEM: President Trump recognizes that specific boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem is highly sensitive and subject to final status negotiations.

  • President Trump recognizes that the status of Jerusalem is a highly-sensitive issue, but he does not think the peace process is aided by ignoring the simple truth that Jerusalem is home to Israel’s legislature, supreme court, President, and Prime Minister.
  • President Trump recognizes that the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties.
  • President Trump reaffirms United States support for the status quo at the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al Sharif.

COMMITTED TO THE PEACE PROCESS: President Trump is committed to achieving a lasting peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.

  • President Trump remains committed to achieving a lasting peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, and he is optimistic that peace can be achieved.
  • Delaying the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has not helped achieve peace over the past two decades.
  • President Trump is prepared to support a two-state solution to the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians, if agreed to by the parties.

*** This proclamation will hurt the peace process? Really? 70 years with of talks and countless deals offered where they were ALL rejected by the Palestinian leadership? It is not clear however what the current talks include with regard to a peace deal, where full sovereignty of Israel is included or borders much less construction of housing of which all anti-Israel types call settlements.

*** How about this timeline that went back to President Truman?

The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology

Compiled by Raymond H. Geselbracht from Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel (Westport, Connecticut, 1997) by Michael T. Benson

[ 1939 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949 ]

May 17, 1939: British White Paper on Palestine

May 25, 1939: Senator Harry S. Truman inserts in the Congressional Record strong criticism of the British White Paper on Palestine, saying it is a dishonorable repudiation by Britain of her obligations.

August 24, 1945: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department’s Near East Agency, writes to Secretary of State James Byrnes that the United States would lose its moral prestige in the Middle East if it supported Jewish aspirations in Palestine.

August 24, 1945: The report of the Intergovernment Committee on Refugees, called the Harrison Report, is presented to President Truman. The report is very critical of the treatment by Allied forces of refugees, particularly Jewish refugees, in Germany.

August 31, 1945: President Truman writes British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, citing the Harrison Report and urging Attlee to allow a reasonable number of Europe’s Jews to emigrate to Palestine.

October 22, 1945: Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Robert Taft of Ohio introduce a resolution expressing support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

November 13, 1945: The British government announces the formation of an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to investigate Britain’s handling of the Palestine situation. The committee begins work on January 4, 1946.

November 29, 1945: At a press conference, President Truman expresses opposition to the Taft-Wagner resolution. He says he wants to await and consider the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.

April 20, 1946: The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry submits its report, which recommends that Britain immediately authorize the admission of 100,000 Jews into Palestine.

May 8, 1946: President Truman writes to Prime Minister Attlee, citing the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and expressing the hope that Britain would begin lifting the barriers to Jewish immigration to Palestine.

June 21, 1946: A Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum to the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee warns that if the United States uses armed force to support the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the Soviet Union might be able to increase its power and influence in the Middle East, and United States access to Middle East oil could be jeopardized.

September 24, 1946: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to the President to warn that the Soviet Union wishes to achieve complete economic, military and political domination in the Middle East. Toward this end, Clifford argues, they will encourage the emigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine and at the same time denounce British and American policies toward Palestine and inflame the Arabs against these policies.

October 4, 1946: On the eve of Yom Kippur, President Truman issues a statement indicating United States support for the creation of a “viable Jewish state.”

October 23, 1946: Loy Henderson, director of the State Department’s Near East Agency, warns that the immigration of Jewish Communists into Palestine will increase Soviet influence there.

October 28, 1946: President Truman writes to King Saud of Saudi Arabia, informing the king that he believes “that a national home for the Jewish people should be established in Palestine.”

1947-48: The White House receives 48,600 telegrams, 790,575 cards, and 81,200 other pieces of mail on the subject of Palestine.

February 7, 1947: The British government announces that it will terminate its mandate for Palestine.

February 14, 1947: The British government announces that it will refer the problem of the future of Palestine to the United Nations.

April 2, 1947: The British Government submits to the General Assembly of the United Nations an account of its administration of Palestine under the League of Nations mandate, and asks the General Assembly to make recommendations regarding the future government of Palestine.

May 13, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly appoints an eleven nation Special Committee on Palestine to study the Palestine problem and report by September 1947.

August 31, 1947: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine issues its report, which recommends unanimously (all 11 member states voting in favor) that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date; and which also recommends by majority vote (7 of the member nations voting in favor) that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states.

September 17, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall, in an address to the United Nations, indicates that the United States is reluctant to endorse the partition of Palestine.

September 22, 1947: Loy Henderson, director the State Department’s Near East Agency, addresses a memorandum to Secretary of State George Marshall in which he argues against United States’ advocacy of the United Nations proposal to partition Palestine.

October 10, 1947: The Joint Chiefs of Staff argue in a memorandum entitled “The Problem of Palestine” that the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states would enable the Soviet Union to replace the United States and Great Britain in the region and would endanger United States access to Middle East oil.

October 11, 1947: Herschel Johnson, United States deputy representative on the United Nations Security Council, announces United States support for the partition plan of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine.

October 17, 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: “I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter [the issue of the partition of Palestine, which was being considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine from May 13, 1947 to August 31, 1947] was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it — I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with.”

Ca. November 1947: A subcommittee of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine establishes a timetable for British withdrawal from Palestine.

November 19, 1947: Chaim Weizmann meets with President Truman and argues that the Negev region has great importance to the future Jewish state.

November 24, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall writes to Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett to inform him that British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin had told him that British intelligence indicated that Jewish groups moving illegally from the Balkan states to Palestine included many Communists.

November 29, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly approves the partition plan for Palestine put forward by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem.

December 2, 1947: President Truman writes to former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., encouraging him to tell his Jewish friends that it is time for restraint and caution. “The vote in the U.N.,” Truman wrote, “is only the beginning and the Jews must now display tolerance and consideration for the other people in Palestine with whom they will necessarily have to be neighbors.”

December 5, 1947: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the State Department is imposing an embargo on all shipments of arms to the Middle East.

December 12, 1947: President Truman writes to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, that it is essential that restraint and tolerance be exercised by all parties if a peaceful settlement is to be reached in the Middle East.

February 4, 1948: Chaim Wiezmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, arrives in New York.

February 12, 1948: Secretary of Defense James Forrestal says at a meeting of the National Security Council that any serious attempt to implement partition in Palestine would set in motion events that would result in at least a partial mobilization of United States armed forces.

February 19, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall says at a press conference, when asked if the United States would continue to support partition, that the “whole Palestine thing,” was under “constant consideration.”

February 21, 1948: Eddie Jacobson, a longtime and close personal friend of President Truman, sends atelegram to Truman, asking him to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

February 22, 1948: President Truman instructs Secretary of State George Marshall that while he approves in principle a draft prepared by the State Department of a position paper which mentions as a possible contingency a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine, he does not want anything presented to the United Nations Security Council that could be interpreted as a change from the position in favor of partition that the United States announced in the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. He further instructs Marshall to send him for review the final draft of the remarks that Warren Austin, the United States representative to the United Nations, is to give before the Security Council on March 19, 1948.

February 27, 1948: President Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization.

March 8, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford writes to President Truman, in a memorandum entitled “United States Policy with Regard to Palestine,” that Truman’s actions in support of partition are “in complete conformity with the settled policy of the United States.”

March 9, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall instructs Warren Austin, United States representative to the United Nations, that if a United Nations special assembly on Palestine were convened, the United States would support a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine.

March 12, 1948: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine reports that “present indications point to the inescapable conclusion that when the [British] mandate is terminated, Palestine is likely to suffer severely from administrative chaos and widespread strife and bloodshed.”

March 13, 1948: President Truman’s friend Eddie Jacobson walks into the White House without an appointment and pleads with Truman to meet with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman responds: “You win, you baldheaded son-of-a-bitch. I will see him.”

March 18, 1948: President Truman meets with Chaim Weizmann, the president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization. Truman says he wishes to see justice done in Palestine without bloodshed, and that if the Jewish state were declared and the United Nations remained stalled in its attempt to establish a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, the United States would recognize the new state immediately.

March 18, 1948: The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine reports to the United Nations Security Council that it has failed to arrange any compromise between Jews and Arabs, and it recommends that the United Nations undertake a temporary trusteeship for Palestine in order to restore peace.

March 19, 1948: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin announces to the United Nations Security Council that the United States position is that the partition of Palestine is no longer a viable option.

March 20, 1948: Secretary of State George Marshall announces that the United States will seek to work within the United Nations to bring a peaceful settlement to Palestine, and that the proposal for a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine is the only idea presently being considered that will allow the United Nations to address the difficult situation in Palestine.

March 21, 1948: President Truman writes in his diary regarding the confusion caused by the State Department’s handling of the trusteeship issue: “I spend the day trying to right what has happened. No luck. Marshall makes a statement. Doesn’t help a bit.”

March 21, 1948: President Truman writes to his sister Mary Jane Truman that the “striped pants conspirators” in the State Department had “completely balled up the Palestine situation.” But, he writes, “it may work out anyway in spite of them.”

March 22, 1948: President Truman writes to his brother Vivian Truman regarding Palestine: “I think the proper thing to do, and the thing I have been doing, is to do what I think is right and let them all go to hell.”

March 25, 1948: President Truman says at a press conference that a United Nations trusteeship for Palestine would be only a temporary measure, intended to establish the peaceful conditions that would be the essential foundation for a final political settlement. He says that trusteeship is not a substitute for partition.

April 11, 1948: President Truman’s friend Eddie Jacobson enters the White House unnoticed by the East Gate and meets with Truman. Jacobson recorded of this meeting: “He reaffirmed, very strongly, the promises he had made to Dr. Weizmann and to me; and he gave me permission to tell Dr. Weizmann so, which I did. It was at this meeting that I also discussed with the President the vital matter of recognizing the new state, and to this he agreed with a whole heart.”

May 12, 1948: President Truman meets in the Oval Office with Secretary of State George Marshall, Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett, Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and several others to discuss the Palestine situation. Clifford argues in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state in accordance with the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947. Marshall opposes Clifford’s arguments, and contends they are based on domestic political considerations. He says that if Truman follows Clifford’s advice and recognizes the Jewish state, then he (Marshall) would vote against Truman in the election. Truman does not clearly state his views in the meeting.

May 12, 13, and 14, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett discuss the different views held in the White House and the State Department regarding whether the United States should recognize the Jewish state. Lovett reports to Clifford on May 14 that Marshall will neither support nor oppose Truman’s plan to recognize the Jewish state, that he will stay out of the entire matter.

May 13, 1948: Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, writes to President Truman: “I deeply hope that the United States, which under your leadership has done so much to find a just solution [to the Palestine situation], will promptly recognize the Provisional Government of the new Jewish state. The world, I think, would regard it as especially appropriate that the greatest living democracy should be the first to welcome the newest into the family of nations.”

May 14, 1948: late morning eastern standard time (late afternoon in Palestine): David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, reads a “Declaration of Independence,” which proclaims the existence of a Jewish state called Israel beginning on May 15, 1948, at 12:00 midnight Palestine time (6:00 p.m., May 14, 1948,eastern standard time).

May 14, 1948, 6 p.m. eastern standard time (12:00 midnight in Palestine): The British mandate for Palestine expires, and the state of Israel comes into being.

May 14, 1948, 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: The United States recognizes Israel on a de facto basis. The White House issues the following statement: “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.” To see a color copy of this document click here.

May 14, 1948, shortly after 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.

May 15, 1948: On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attack Israel.

January 25, 1949: A permanent government takes office in Israel following popular elections.

January 31, 1949: The United States recognizes Israel on a de jure basis.

February 24 to July 20, 1949: Israel signs armistice agreements with Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.


There are only two genders #Science

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

“Cultural Marxism is all about breaking down personal identity to destroy social cohesion. As  gender is central to identity, widespread gender confusion can only accelerate the revolutionary process.” -Trevor Loudon

Cultural Marxism.

There has been a consistent Social-Media-Endorsed meme that there are more than two genders. Well, it is not true. There are only two. The Party of Science (and when this author refers to the “party,” that would be the socialist-hijacked democratic party) wants you to believe that there are more than two genders. They also want you to believe that an unborn child is a “zygote,” and that the earth is warming because coal factories, or something.

Chart of “Genders”

David Horowitz quoted a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society in his book, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model. If you get nothing else from this article, absorb this quote:

“The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

The particularly abhorrent result of sowing gender confusion is how it impacts children, who appear to be at the epicenter of the vile agenda. Children are being taught about unscientific concepts such as “gender fluidity” in schools. Imagine how that could impact malleable minds.

Watch this video from “Now This:”

As observed by the great Melanie Phillips at the UK-based Spectator:

“We can all predict what will happen. Gender fluidity will be actively promoted as just another lifestyle choice. Under the commendable guise of stopping the minute number of transgender children being bullied, the rest of the class will be bullied into accepting the prescribed orthodoxy — that gender is mutable, and any differentiation in value between behaviour or attitudes is bigoted and prohibited.”

But yet the narrative pushes forward.

Revisiting the excellent article by Melanie Phillips mentioned above:

“Gender cannot be at real risk because it is anchored in an immutable reality. What is on the cards is oppression, socially engineered dysfunction and the loss of individual freedom. And it is so-called Conservative politicians who are helping wave the red flag of revolution.”

It appears, based on this informal Twitter poll by Trevor Loudon, that most people agree. Gender is confined to male and female.


Is the Homeland Prepared for NoKo Missiles?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Or China or Russia?

Ever wonder why there is no defense system in Hawaii or other remote Pacific Islands? Unless, we are poised to deploy the new SM-6 which has had remarkable recent test results.

(Is there a defense system for electronic warfare or cyber?)

What if North Korea or Iran launched a nuclear missile aimed at the United States? Could we prevent it from arriving?

That’s the basic motivation behind US homeland missile defense, a complex system of ground-based radars, satellite sensors and interceptor missiles designed to destroy incoming warheads. If the system operated as promised, sensors would track intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) throughout their launch and flight. Interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California would then collide with and destroy the incoming weapons.

ICBM launches have three distinct phases of flight. During the boost phase, a rocket launches the warhead at high speeds above the atmosphere, where it continues in free-fall through the vacuum of space. The midcourse phase begins with the rocket separating from the warhead, which continues unguided and unpowered, hundreds of miles above the Earth. The reentry, or terminal, phase sees the warhead descend at high speeds back through the Earth’s atmosphere toward the ground.

US homeland missile defense (also called “strategic missile defense”) is designed to destroy ICBMs during their midcourse phase, using interceptor missiles launched from the ground (hence the official name, “ground-based midcourse defense,” or GMD).

The process begins with infrared sensors on satellites, which monitor known launch locations for the tell-tale heat signature produced by launching rockets. Once a launch is established, tracking is transferred to radar systems, which help verify the missile’s trajectory. More here.

A target missile launches from the Marshall Islands during a test intercept run. Photo: US Missile Defense Agency

The U.S. agency tasked with protecting the country from missile attacks is scouting the West Coast for places to deploy new anti-missile defenses, two Congressmen said on Saturday, as North Korea’s missile tests raise concerns about how the United States would defend itself from an attack.

West Coast defenses would likely include Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missiles, similar to those deployed in South Korea to protect against a potential North Korean attack.

The accelerated pace of North Korea’s ballistic missile testing program in 2017 and the likelihood the North Korean military could hit the U.S. mainland with a nuclear payload in the next few years has raised the pressure on the United States government to build-up missile defenses.

Congressman Mike Rogers, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee which oversees missile defense, said the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), was aiming to install extra defenses at West Coast sites. The funding for the system does not appear in the 2018 defense budget plan indicating potential deployment is further off.

When asked about the plan, MDA Deputy Director Rear Admiral Jon Hill‎ said in a statement: “The Missile Defense Agency has received no tasking to site the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense System on the West Coast.”

THAAD is a ground-based regional missile defense system designed to shoot down short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles and takes only a matter of weeks to install.

A Lockheed Martin representative declined to comment on specific THAAD deployments, but added that the company “is ready to support the Missile Defense Agency and the United States government in their ballistic missile defense efforts.” He added that testing and deployment of assets is a government decision.

In July, the United States tested THAAD missile defenses and shot down a simulated, incoming intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). The successful test adds to the credibility of the U.S. military’s missile defense program, which has come under intense scrutiny in recent years due in part to test delays and failures. More here.


GREAT NEWS: Trump pulls US out of UN Compact on Migration

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Refugee Rally

The Trump administration has pulled America out of the United Nations global compact on migration citing American Sovereignty.

Ambassador Nikki Haley, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, issued the following statement:

“America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue. But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

From CNN:

“In explaining its withdrawal Saturday, the US said the pact contains provisions that are inconsistent with the nation’s immigration policies.

While the US is proud of its leadership on migration and refugee issues, the global approach is not compatible with the nation’s sovereignty, according to Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN.

Haley said Trump made the decision, and emphasized that Americans should determine their own policies on immigration.

“Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” she said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

The United Nations global compact on migration was adopted in September, 2016.

In response to the news, Editor Trevor Loudon stated, “No nation can survive without the ability to control her own borders. This is a very positive step for America. It is great to see President Trump taking the reigns on this issue.”