Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Who is Mad Dog James Mattis? Patriot, Neocon, Deep State or ????




Nothing quite invokes the adoration of the Republican base than a military hero and a military man named Mad Dog is red meat for the GOP base.  Secretary of Defense James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired 4 Star Marine general, is worshiped by the GOP base as a tough guy.  The Republican social media world is driven by memes and definitely not history or geo-political knowledge.  I had never heard of Mattis until after Trump won the election and his name was tossed out as a candidate for Secretary of Defense.  His colorful if not creepy quotes are indeed legendary.

Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis: 7 memorable quotes

Mattis memes were flying fast and furious on social media after Trump defeated Clinton and the GOP base couldn't get enough of memes like this that indeed promoted the cult of Mattis lovers.





Mattis the Marine clearly has devoted his decades of military service to cultivating  a Patton-esque tough guy image.

In reality, Mattis is more of an enigma who effortlessly promotes his public persona depending on his goals and audience.  On one hand there is the tough guy, simple soldier persona but on the other hand there is erudite and ambitious student of history who reportedly hauled his 6,000 books to his various military deployments.

Mattis however is far more than a reader of history, he's a player in a playpen that is generally disdained by GOP base that worships the 'simple soldier' side of Mattis. Mattis has indeed devoted his life to clawing his way to the top by associating with individuals and institutions that promote globalism, global governance, global institutions, the US Empire and a world ruthlessly controlled by US imperialism and hegemony.

Populists, nationalists and sovereignty lovers are always dissing the secretive Bilderberg meetings but as a high ranking member of the global elites, Mattis earned himself an invite, here.

Henry Kissinger is viewed as the daddy of the US Empire, endless wars and interventionism.  He's on the board of Center for the National Interest, an organization founded by neocon Irving Kristol (father of Trump hating Bill Kristol) that also publishes The National Interest.  In July 2018, Mattis was honored by The Center for the National Interests and his speech spewed gobs of love for Kissinger, here.  Mattis said:
I cannot come before you without expressing my admiration for the two chairmen of the Center for the National Interest: Dr. Kissinger and General Boyd.

I read a recent article calling Dr. Kissinger the “grand consigliere” of strategy for our nation’s leaders. From his service as a U.S. Army sergeant in World War II, where he and the greatest generation laid the bricks of America’s post-war foreign policy, to his legendary tenure as architect of much of that policy, ushering in d├ętente during the Cold War as national security adviser and secretary of state, few can claim greater insight or influence on world history in the last century.

In a “strategy-free” time, in a city where advisors with delusions of adequacy are numerous, I am enormously grateful for Dr. Kissinger’s strategic mentorship over many years, and it builds our confidence that CFTNI counts him in their ranks. I have felled entire forests taking notes on our many conversations.
Henry Kissinger is an evil war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of millions.  Yet, this psychopath with a long history of documented murder and destruction is viewed as an American icon and is applauded for engineering a foreign policy that murders innocent folks for defense contractor profits and the US empire.  Much has been written by responsible journalists about the crimes of Henry Kissinger and an engine search will provide more documentation.

The Ivy League’s favorite war criminal: Why the atrocities of Henry Kissinger should be mandatory reading

While most Americans who advocate for constitutional limited governance absolutely do recognize that organizations like the Bilderbergs and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are evil globalist initiatives that promote global governance, industrial feudalism, corporatism and rule by a handful of the elites, few understand that there are many organization that are similar, such as The National Interest.

The Atlantic Council is another organization that is coming under fire since it was disclosed that Facebook is taking orders from this evil organization on who and what to censor.

Facebook Censorship And The Atlantic Council

Facebook Censorship, Mad Ben Nimmo and the Atlantic Council

Facebook Partners with The Atlantic Council on Censorship

Mattis received an award from The Atlantic Council in 2010 and he's all gussied up in his finest and formal military attire.



Understand this:  Mattis has never been anything but a globalist, a neocon, a warmonger, an elite and a defender of unspeakable evil. He's got the awards from nasty organizations to validate it.  Believe me, defending the Constitution and America has never been on his agenda. As with most men without a conscience, power and climbing the ladders of power is and always has been a burning ambition. 

Mattis didn't earn those 4 Stars by defending America and the Constitution or upholding his oath of office.  He earned them by serving the Deep State and its interests.

As much as I detest Mattis and his faux patriotism along with cultivating the image of a simple and loyal soldier that serves his country, Mattis is not nearly as dangerous as other nutjobs in Trump's administration.  In fact, he's turning into a voice of sanity when compared to John Bolton.

While Mattis is an ambitious dude who has obviously played his cards well in getting what he wants out of life and career, he's not a flaming psychopath like Bolton who is lusting to bomb, bomb and bomb Iran and maybe even Russia and North Korea, as well as anybody else his demented imagination perceives as an enemy.

As Secretary of Defense, Mattis has nowhere else to go except to hang out with his defense contractor pals who control the MIC funded think tanks in America.  He's not going to be president and is at the apex of his long career.  At this juncture, legacy is all that is left.

To be sure, Mattis is no dummy and in fact is very smart, something his long and upward moving career prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  He understands the world far more deeply than Trump because of his military and NATO experience but this no way implies that Mattis is right.  While Trump obviously respects Mattis for his achievements, these men are opposites.  Mattis the deep thinker is likely to think an issue to death while our shoot from the hip president and his notorious outbursts are likely to drive a man like Mattis nuts.  What Trump has that Mattis lacks are incredible instincts and a 'talk outloud' attitude.  Trump may be a bit crazy but in a crazy world sometimes crazy is all that is left that will work, as in the case of North Korea where 2 supposedly crazies managed to lay the groundwork for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

I'm sure that Mattis was duly horrified by Trump's Tweet war with Kim Jung-un. Mattis operates under the cover of stealth, organizations, bureaucracies and the chain of command, all things that Trump really has no use for.  As a speaker it would be hard to find anybody more scripted than Mattis as he methodically and boringly reads prepared speeches; he's not an extemporaneous speaker so getting into his head isn't easy; he discloses little. Of course, being severely scripted is probably how Mattis survived decades in DC and walking away with 4 stars. 

The world is rapidly changing from a US unipolar world where the US and its bombs rule the planet to a multipolar world where other nations do indeed have the power to challenge the US Empire and fight back.

On some level, Mattis understands this and he is extremely reluctant agitate Russia into a war, least of all in Syria.  While Mattis was reportedly fired by the Obama regime over his opposition to the Iran deal (JCPOA), he defended it as Trump's Secretary of Defense which of course royally pissed off the neocons in Trump's administration. I blogged about the JCPOA, here, and believe that Trump made a huge mistake by withdrawing from it.

Everybody with half a brain cell understands that Assad did NOT gas his own people.  Yet, Trump ordered that Syria be bombed twice.  In April 2017 Trump ordered Mattis to bomb Syria and Mattis hurled 59 Tomahawk missiles (at a cost of roughly $2 million each) into Syria.  An airbase was damaged and there were a few death; it was also reported that Russian and other important aircraft had been removed.  In April 2018, Trump again ordered Mattis to bomb Syria. There were no deaths and not much damage.  It's clear that the DOD heavily coordinated with Russia to avoid engaging the Russian military.  The neocons were FURIOUS at Trump and Mattis and wanted substantial devastation in Syria. They didn't care if Damascus, a city of 1.75 million, was leveled.

The NYT penned a piece titled 'Trump Talked Tough. But His Strike on Syria Was Restrained'.  Restrained it was.  The neocon WSJ wrote a blistering piece attacking Trump for giving in to the Pentagon.

Trump Bowed to Pentagon Restraint on Syria StrikesPresident was dissuaded from more robust action, in first test of new national-security team
President Donald Trump deferred to his Pentagon chief’s caution and tempered his preference for a more robust attack on Syria over allegations it used deadly gas on civilians, the first hints at the direction of his revamped national-security team.
The neocons and Deep State are not happy with Mattis or Trump.  As for Trump and his clearly undefined foreign policy, there are reasons for concern that Trump will take a neocon turn.

Making Bolton his National Security Advisor sickened antiwar activists such as myself.  Trump recently hinted that Mattis may leave and said he was 'sort of a Democrat'.

Trump says Mattis is 'sort of a Democrat' and that the defense secretary 'may leave' the administration

It's my view that a Mattis departure would constitute a huge victory for the neocons and not because Mattis isn't himself a well documented neocon but because Mattis is sufficiently sane to NOT explode the world into bigger and more destructive wars.  The neocons do not share the restrained views of Mattis and would without the slightest hesitation envelop the world under mushroom clouds.  Raining death and destruction upon humanity is done by the neocons without any concern for human death and suffering.

Also, Mattis is not a Democrat, he's just a man who understands history, military capabilities and he's served Republican and Democrat masters.  He's as non-political as anybody in the beltway can be. Who got America into WW I, WW II, Korean War, Vietnam War and the Balkan Wars?  All liberal, progressive Democrats: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Clinton. The cumulative death tolls of those Democrat wars is over 100 million folks.

While I'm no fan of Mattis, what Trump needs right now is MORE Mattis and not less because Mattis as Secretary of Defense is proving himself to be the least lethal option.  God forbid that Bolton and gang should ever takeover the US military and/or control Trump foreign policy decisions.  Yes, Trump could definitely do a whole lot worse than Mattis who presently is the lone voice of sanity in his neocon heavy administration.

Finally, Trump ran as an antiwar candidate which earned him the votes of Libertarians, antiwar activists, Paulites, Constitutionalists and independents.  Trump didn't intend to be a neocon president and frequently tweeted as much.  However, the foreign policy that he campaigned on could very well turn out to be a lie.

"These 'Freedom Fighters' Fly Planes Into Our Buildings" - A List Of All The Times Trump Warned Against Attacking Syria

As the neocons concentrate power in the Trump Administration, Mattis is definitely slated for the chopping block and this is very bad for peace and a more peaceful foreign policy.  I'm hoping that Mattis will continue to fight the insanity even if it results in a forced resignation (resign or be fired), something I believe could happen after midterms.  At least I would acquire a whole new level of respect for Mattis for doing the right thing at the right time by refusing to join the neocon mob.  Despite a long history of serving nefarious folks and their grand schemes, Mattis has one whopper of an opportunity to seal his legacy.

If Trump turns neocon, ditches Mattis and Bolton-izes his brain, I'm through with him.  He will just be added to my column of evil rat bastards.

And just maybe Mattis does indeed have a conscience after all......

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Trump's Report Card: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (Oct. 2018)



Say what you want about President Trump but the dude loves America, the American people and in a very big way.  I don't think that the American people ever felt so loved by any president and nobody is more overtly affectionate for them than Trump.  His commitment to Making America Great Again and/or Keeping America Great is solid even if there are legitimate concerns.  When it comes to strategy and tactics, the scrappy street fighting president excels and he seems to effortlessly crush his enemies, especially the Dems and the media.

THE GOOD

I know of no president who has accomplished so much so fast on the economic front.

On domestic policy, I give him an A for the tax cuts and reduced regulations that are propelling the Trump economy.  At the very heart of Trump's economic and tax policies is making America a great place to park and utilize capital.  Trillions of dollars in corporate profits that were sitting in foreign banks can finally be repatriated back to the US at a low tax rate.  This is CAPITAL, the life blood of market economies.  Major corporations want to do business and expand in America.  Now they can and they can do it with attractive tax policies and a reduced regulatory burden.  Low taxes and low regulations are what the Democrats view as a capital crimes.

The shinning crown of Trump's economy is the lifting of all Americans to better opportunities and prosperity.  Hispanic and African American unemployment are at historic lows and worker wages are rising.  What's not to love?

Trump has also renegotiated bad trade deals that hurt American workers and discriminated against American businesses.

On the foreign policy front, Trump scored big with the American people on his summits with Russia (Putin) and North Korea (Kim Jung un).  The American people don't want to be enemies with Russia and they definitely applaud Trump's work in working to achieve a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

Domestic policy and the peace initiative summits were spectacular wins for Trump. The Dems and the media groaned, called Trump Putin's puppet and even attacked his North Korea confrontational strategy.  Bill Clinton gave NoKo $5 billion dollars and 2 nuclear reactors.  I'm sure that money was spend on producing nuclear weapons.  Trump on the other hand opted for the unthinkable - totally denuclearize the Korean peninsula.  Now, North Korea and South Korea are working together, along with China, to achieve peaceful and productive relations that will benefit the region.  It seems to be working and denuclearization is becoming a reality although it will take time.

THE BAD

Trump has always sucked on civil liberties and his commitment to liberty slashing legislation and NSA surveillance is troubling, especially considering that Trump himself was in fact a victim of surveillance during the 2016 campaign.  Fourth amendment protections and privacy have vanished in Police State USA but it also happened post 911 and long before Trump even thought about running for president. Still, there is little to zero motivation in DC to dismantle America's colossal electronic surveillance net that literally gobbles up everything in the electronic universe.

Trump could enormously benefit by ending the stupid War on Drugs or at least instructing his DEA to declassify marijuana, a scientifically valid medicine, as a Schedule 1 Drug (same as heroin).  The top 5 lobbies against marijuana legalization are: police unions, prison guard unions, private prison corporations, big pharm and the beer-booze industry.

For more information on this issue:

How Trump Can Win Millennials and Minorities on Marijuana

Moving on to other bad issues with Trump is the fact that he is surrounded by some dangerous neocons like John Bolton, National Security Advisor, Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN (just announced her resignation) and other warmongers.  Thus far, Trump has been reluctant to explode the world into more war but that hardly indicates a committed peace agenda.

THE UGLY

The ugly is really ugly.  Trump's raw and absolutely hatred of Iran should concern all of us.  I totally opposed his shredding of the Iran Deal known as the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).  Iran agreed to NOT enrich uranium or build nuclear bombs in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.  Iran is in FULL COMPLIANCE.  It's NOT enriching uranium or building nuclear bombs. Trashing the Iran Deal was dangerous and foolish.  Meanwhile the US refuses to lift sanctions. We reneged on the deal and for no valid reason.

This feeds into the paradox of why do US presidents function as Saudi stooges because every US administration literally genuflects before the terrorist House of Saud and Saudi Arabia.  Let us not forget that 15 of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudi nationals. The Saudis expect the US to fight their jihad against its 1400 year old theological enemy - Shiite Islam - and we have no business even being involved.

It's time to set the record straight on Iran and we need to start with Islamic terrorism and who is really guilty. Neither Iran nor Iranians nor Shiite Muslims are responsible for any acts of Islamist terrorism. All Islamist terrorism has been committed by Sunni Salafist Wahhabists who practice the most vile, deadly and intolerant form of Islam ever to exist. Wahhabism was spawned on the Arabian Peninsula and is the religion of Saudi Arabia, here.

Americans desperately need to learn the truth about Islamic terrorism and Iran, a nation unjustifiably accused of terrorism.

Iran is NOT a terrorist nation. Saudi Arabia is the Kingpin of Islamist Terrorism.

Also, it's important to understand what the JCPOA is and isn't.

Trump, Iran and the JCPOA - What it is and what isn't it.

Obama's foreign policy legacy is mixed but mostly bad because he expanded US wars and interventions.

Obama was NOT a man of peace & he exploded the world into more wars

Still, Obama did 2 things that I liked.  He negotiated the JCPOA and opened the US Embassy in Cuba to facilitate a new era of improved relations with Cuba.

The issue of Iran isn't just a US-Iran issue.  It's an issue that holds the potential to explode the world into a global nuclear war.  Nuclear armed Russia and China side with Iran and Syria.  Everybody knows that the US is supporting jihadists, ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria because we are puppets of Saudi Arabia who is using us to depose Assad.  Assad runs the most tolerant nation in the entire Middle East; Syria is where the Shiites, Sunnis, Alewites, Christians, Druze, Kurds and other factions actually manage to get along.  With the US helping the Saudis churn Syria into a Wahhabist cesspool of intolerance, hate and a Saudi styled jihad factory, any sane person would have to question the logic and motivations of American Saudi stooges. They are NOT on the side of America or American values.

Finally, if Trump really wants to Make America Great Again, he absolutely must ditch neocon foreign policy and forge a new foreign policy.   America has morphed into a global bully - do as we say or we'll bomb the shit our of you.  Of course the takeover of American foreign policy by neocons and the military industrial complex has bankrupted America and left Americans with nothing but a big pile of debt (over $20 trillion that can never be repaid).

Trump's best strategy would be to endorse free trade with all nations because peaceful trade always results in across the board prosperity for all people and that is the magical recipe for PEACE.  We need for peaceful and voluntary trade to replace a foreign policy of 'murdering for defense contractor profits'.

On the issue of Iran, Trump has not only erred grievously but he has missed one whopper of an opportunity for peace and peaceful trade.  At the heart of this nightmare lies our subservience to Saudi Arabia, a vile and evil terrorist nation that is NOT worthy of our respect, loyalty and blood.

It's not too late for Trump to change his foreign policy trajectory, be a great president and truly Make America Great.




Saturday, October 6, 2018

Is the Judge Kavanaugh fiasco all about Roe v. Wade? Let's discuss abortion!




The abortion issue is never a pleasant topic to raise because emotions run high on all sides and its downright incendiary. With Brett Kavanaugh ascending to the Supreme Court, abortion is back on the table. The pro-choice folks are terrified that Roe V Wade will be overturned and the pro-life folks want it overturned. 

Here's the simple truth:  legal abortion will never be outlawed in America.  Even if R v W is overturned, the issue is automatically bounced back to the states where it is 100% probable that no state would outlaw all abortion under any circumstances.  It's such a political hot potato that legislators don't even want to deal with the issue and would prefer that it be decided in a ballot referendum.

The America of today is definitely NOT the America of 1973 when R v W was decided by the Supreme Court that declared abortion a Constitutional right in its infamous 7-2 decision.  I'm not debating that legal issue but I do believe that there is nothing in the Constitution to support abortion as a Constitutional right. However, it's been a 'done deal' for 45 years.  American women will never VOTE away that right.  Any attempts to outlaw all abortion under any circumstances is a ballot box loser that politicians profoundly understand. The wrath of female voters isn't some that politicians want to endure.

What is left of the issue?  A lot. On the pro-life side many subscribe to the theory that human life begins at the precise moment of conception.  Therefore, anything that harms, kills or evicts that bundle of cells from a female body is murder. Many radical pro-lifers even oppose birth control pills and the morning after pill because they believe that they have the potential to effectively kill a human life.

On the pro-choice side, especially with the more radical pro-choice advocates, there is little to zero tolerance of anything that restricts a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy from the moment of conception and all the way up to delivery.  Many believe that it's morally OKAY to murder any unborn fetus at any stage during pregnancy.

This of course brings us to the next issue.  What is human life?  Are the unborn human beings?   Well, science has its own definition as cells evolve.  When the sperm meets the egg and fertilization occurs, there is a bundle of cells called a zygote which then proceeds to the blastocyst phase.  The blastocyst proceeds to the embryo phase that proceeds to the fetus phase.

When R v W was decided, the 7 who voted to declare abortion a federally mandated constitutional right (6 white male justices and 1 black male justice), they agonized over the trimesters and at which point does the unborn become a human being.

The 1973 New York Times headline reads: High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months, here.   Since 1973 there have been many court cases that have chirped in on R v W and it's been modified and tweaked.

Where do the American people stand on the issue of abortion?  The majority of Americans are not radicals.  While they overwhelmingly reject that notion that human life begins at the precise moment of conception and do in factor support early legal abortions, they also oppose late term abortions.  Many support fetal heart beat laws.  Most outright reject 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Sonograms and science have affected public perceptions of abortions.  While many were led to believe that a pregnant woman was carrying nothing more than a blob of unidentifiable cells, now they can actually see the unborn - a tiny human with a body, head, legs, toes, arms and fingers.  These tiny creatures are not blobs. They are unborn babies and human beings.

While I absolutely do not believe that R v W will ever be overturned because the political blowback would be unbearable for Republicans, I do believe that SCOTUS may slowly hack away at late term abortion rights and grant these decisions to the states.

In 2003, Congress passed and Bush signed the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  Partial birth abortion is an especially gruesome and barbaric procedure; I won't go into it here but it is easily engine searched.  However, the radical pro-choice folks went nut and dragged the issue back to SCOTUS who in 2007 upheld the federal partial birth abortion act.  Therefore, we have seen some reigning in of abortion rights.

Frankly, the American people do no have to stomach for butchering the unborn.  Moreover, an unborn baby being slaughtered in utero is just horrifically repugnant to most American although it is NOT repugnant to the radical pro-choicers. Another disturbing problem with late term abortion is the issue of fetal pain.  Fetuses and especially late term fetuses have fully evolved central nervous systems and can actually feel the pain of being butchered in the womb.  Yes, it's gruesome.

On the flip side of abortion radicalism, I've know pro-lifers who demand that every woman who ever had an abortion be executed for murder.

Meanwhile, the American people seem to embrace the issue rationally and in a manner that doesn't please the radicals on each side.  They generally and overwhelmingly support legal early abortion but oppose hate term abortion.

America's south is very religious, very Evangelical and very pro-life.  Yet, voters in Mississippi rejected a ballot initiative to define life as beginning at the precise moment of conception.

Mississippi voters reject 'life begins at conception' initiative

When Judge Roy Moore was defeated by a Democrat in an Alabama senate race to replace Sen. Jeff Sessions who became Trump's Attorney General, the Republicans lost a key senate seat.  Why?  Judge Roy Moore was a 'life begins at conception' believer who opposed all abortion under any circumstances and also opposed gay marriage.  Moore got slaughtered by the female and youth vote and I blogged about his defeat, here.  It's probably true that most of the women who rejected Moore would be extremely reluctant to have an abortion but it's also a right that damn few women would vote to take away from another woman.  On the abortion issue women tend to believe that the issue is between God and the woman because they haven't lived her life or walked in her shoes.  Accordingly, they are extremely reluctant to pass judgment.

Americans tend to lean more Libertarian on the social issues because they subscribe to the 'live and let live' attitude.   American politics are already messy and divisive enough!

Going forward, it's accurate to assume that neither the radical pro-lifers or the radical pro-choicers will prevail.  Early legal abortion will forever be the law in America.  At which point the fertilized egg, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus become a unborn human being worthy of legal protection will be the debate of the future.  Science will chirp in and Americans will make decisions.

Finally, I do support life and hope with all my heart that America evolves into a culture of supporting life.  As an antiwar activist, I'm highly critical of the Warvangelicals who scream I SUPPORT LIFE while cheering our damn wars that slaughter millions, including women, children, babies and the unborn.  You can't support both life and unjustified non-defensive wars.  It's an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, the American people seem to be the voice of sanity and logic and it's really sad that the radicals get all the attention.  Radical pro-lifers are not representative of conservatives and Republicans anymore than radical pro-choicers are representative of the Democratic base.  There are  Democrats who oppose late term abortions.

American politics has grown vile and hateful.  Every Democrat that is attacking Kavanaugh knows full well that abortion in America is safe.  Attacking Kavanaugh as a sexual predator, rapist, gang rapist and alcoholic and all without one iota of proof, evidence and corroboration is utterly outrageous and a total disgrace to the SCOTUS confirmation process, even for the dastardly Dems who apparently delight in trying to ruin the life and career of an innocent man.

Abortion rights in America will forever remain a high contentious and explosive issue which is precisely why abortion will never be outlawed.








Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Why vote Democrat in Midterms when Trump says America is WINNING? #WalkAway






President Trump tweeted October 2, 1018:

THE ONLY REASON TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IS IF YOU’RE TIRED OF WINNING!

A Democrat responds to Trump's tweet on his Twitter page.

Replying to @realDonaldTrump
America isn’t broke, we’re being robbed. Top 1% own 40% of net worth, earn 20% of all income, pay effective tax near 15% and each have $10+ million. I’m not opposed to capitalism. I’m opposed to wealthfare. Don’t tell me taxpayers needed to give them tax cut #ReasonsToVoteBlue

The Trump economy is performing well according to all available data and it's a boat that is lifting all Americans including African Americans and Hispanics.

African-American unemployment hits lowest rate in history

ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE, HISPANICS DOING VERY WELL IN TRUMP’S ECONOMY

Last week, the Census Bureau announced new household income numbers, which showed that median income for Hispanic households grew by 3.7 percent, adjusted for inflation, last year. That’s more than double the increase seen by all households. More Hispanics moved into the upper-income brackets, and fewer remained in the lower ones. That’s welcome news as the nation celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month.

Contrast this to the Obama economy. It took until 2015 for Hispanic household incomes to finally get back to their 2006 levels. For the population as a whole, household incomes remained flat between 2010 and 2014, as President Obama rolled out one job-killing policy after the next.

In addition to rising incomes, there are more job opportunities than ever today for Hispanics.
LOL, this is the president that the Dems and liberals continue to call racist, Hispanic hating and well a whole lot of things I wouldn't repeat here.  Anyway, African Americans and Hispanics are doing quite well in the Trump economy, much better than they ever did in the Obama economy, and primarily because of lower taxes for businesses and individual as well as less regulation.  America is once again business friendly and optimism is running high as evidenced by the stock market and consumer confidence continuing to reach new highs.

Let's get back to the guy who rejects Trump's economic achievements and urges folks to vote Democrat.  The dude is clearly upset with wealth inequality but capitalist nations will never have income equality.  That's something that is promised in socialist shitholes like Venezuela where folks are literally starving, can't find basics like medicine and toilet paper and where 2 million have left the country to escape the misery and impoverishment of socialism and a statist controlled economy.

The Democrat Trump hater says he's not opposed to capitalism, just wealthfare.  I'll give him that point.  I also agree with him that Americans are being robbed.  I oppose corporate welfare and corporate subsidies but his definition of 'wealthfare' is probably different than mine because he seems to have convinced himself that the poor and middle class can only be economically empowered  through higher taxes and wealth distribution.

I even agree that the economic system benefits the rich way more than it benefits the poor and middle class.  However, that is not because of capitalism but it is the direct result of corporatism, oligarchy, fascism and all the special interest pay to play games that go on in DC, the District of Crime. 

The Democrats demand a statist economy that is highly taxed, highly controlled and highly regulated.  That is clearly a recipe for disaster; it's been tried and it's failed.  Trump is succeeding where the Dems failed precisely because he loosened control, taxation and regulation.

Moreover, anybody who oppose corporatism should embrace truly free markets (non-existent in America).  We have corporatism because of the marriage of big business and big government and it's a system that facilitates the takeover of government by the rich for the specific purpose of serving their interests. 

Both of America's corrupt to the core political parties heavily rely on funding from big corporations and rich folks.  The folks who fund the DNC, RNC, Democratic Party and Republican Party are funding their OWN interests by buying government and the favors it doles out.  They could care less about the worker, the poor and the middle class.

Therefore, the fallacy that MORE government, MORE statism, MORE taxes, MORE welfare, MORE regulation and MORE redistribution of wealth will solve wealth inequality is stupidity on steroids.

If you want a better deal for the poor and middle class, you have to deny corporations and the rich the absolute right to buy power by virtue of their enormous wealth.

YET, the Democrats keep selling the same old, same old tired and failed policies. The Trump Administration and Trump economy are far from perfect, let alone free market, but it's a move in the right direction. 

Why in the hell would anybody vote to reverse the economic achievements of the Trump Administration? That's the definition of economic suicide.




Sunday, September 16, 2018

The Democrat Plan to 'Roy Moore' Judge Brett Kavanaugh



By all accounts, 53 year old Judge Brett Kavanaugh has led an exemplary life without the hint of scandal or stain.  The senate confirmed him 57-36 to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006.

Kavanaugh is well respected as a jurist, a human being and a liberal Democrat feminist had nothing but the utmost praise for him.

Leading Liberal Feminist Supreme Court Advocate Supports Kavanaugh
Here’s a noteworthy op-ed from Supreme Court advocate Lisa Blatt urging that the Senate confirm the Kavanaugh nomination. Blatt, a former clerk to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a self-described “liberal Democrat and feminist,” has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other woman. Some excerpts:

Sometimes a superstar is just a superstar. That is the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who had long been considered the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court if Republicans secured the White House. The Senate should confirm him.…

Because I am a liberal Democrat and feminist, I expect my friends on the left will criticize me for speaking up for Kavanaugh. But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them.…

I do not have a single litmus test for a nominee. My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. I have no insight into his views on Roe v. Wade—something extremely important to me as a liberal, female Democrat and mother of a teenage girl. But whatever he decides on Roe, I know it will be because he believes the Constitution requires that result.…

Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh—full stop. It is unbecoming to block him simply because they want to, and they risk alienating intelligent people who see the obvious: He is the most qualified conservative for the job.
WOW that is quite an endorsement. Still, the Democrats are determined to stop his confirmation to the Supreme Court and for no valid reason except to be be jerks and humiliate President Trump.  The Dems plan on taking over Congress in midterms and they want to FORCE Trump to nominate a liberal justice or it's NO CONFIRMATION.

Justice Kennedy's retirement has left the court with 4 conservative justices (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas) and 4 very liberal justices (Gingsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan).  Kennedy was viewed as a swing justice because he sided with the liberal jurists on many issues, especially the contentious social issues.

Sen. Diane Feinstein sent a letter to the DOJ demanding an investigation of Judge Kavanaugh for sexual improprieties that occurred when he was high school and the sole accusation was based on an unidentified victim and and a lack of facts.  The FBI refused to investigate this 'nothing burger' of a case.

Feinstein has apparently convinced her to publicly come forward and she has.  Her name is Christine Blasey Ford and she's a liberal California professor and an admitted Trump hater who views herself as part of the resistance.

Her 'let's destroy Kavanaugh' hit piece was through the Washington Post, the most notorious Trump hating newspaper on the planet. Ford didn't just claim that Kavanaugh made a sexual advance at her at a teenage party when he was 16 but said in so many words that he forcibly tried to rape her and even kill her.  That's quite an accusation. An excerpt from the WaPo article, here:
While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.
Blasey herself is apparently very confused about a sexual assault incident that happened 35 years ago and she initially claimed that 4 boys were involved.  Interestingly, the sole witness to the event, Mark Judge, denied that it ever happened!  The Daily Caller reports, here:
Ford claims she told no one of the alleged assault “in any detail” until 2012, when she and her husband were in couple’s therapy. The therapist’s notes, which Ford reportedly provided to WaPo, do not identify Kavanaugh by name.

However, the notes report that Ford said she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

The notes say four boys were involved in the alleged assault, a discrepancy Ford attributed to an error on the part of the therapist. There were four boys at the party but only two — Kavanaugh and Judge — in the room, she said.... 
Judge has also denied that the incident described in The New Yorker report occurred, telling The Weekly Standard on Friday that the allegations were “just absolutely nuts.”

“I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge told TWS. 
Feinstein, who has known of Ford’s allegations since July, did not raise the issue during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing earlier this month. Nor did the matter come up during a closed session where sensitive information was discussed, according to a Judiciary Committee spokesperson.

In a statement released Sunday afternoon, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, took issue with with Feinstein’s withholding of the allegations.
What is going on here?  We have a woman in therapy for marital problems who apparently is still upset that some teen boys hit on her when she was 16.   Any female who dated in high school has stories about a horny dude hitting on her but it's hardly something that folks remember as a traumatizing event that still affects them decades later.  Moreover, her initial report to her therapist claimed there were 4 boys involved in the assault.  Is she seeking attention by attempting to make herself into a 'Me Too' sexual assault victim, especially if it destroys the life and career of a man she hates because of his politics?

After the Washington Post hit piece of a story broke, Mark Judge, the guy Ford claims allegedly saved her from being raped and even killed by Kavanaugh emailed the The Weekly Standard: "Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter. Since I have nothing more to say I will not comment further on this matter. I hope you will respect my position and my privacy."

Remember, it was Judge who had previously told The Weekly Standard "It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way."

So the bottom line is that we have a women in therapy decades after an alleged sexual assault by 1 or 4 teenage boys who really can't remember much but who still is determined to destroy Kavanaugh with an accusation that happened 35 years ago at a teenage party, and all while the sole witness denied it ever happened.

And this is all the dirt that the Democrats can dig up on Kavanaugh?  I'll use the words of James Comey in his description of the infamous Russiagate dossier - it's 'salacious and unverified'. 

It's turning into a classic 'he said, she said' but with the added bonus of a witness who said it NEVER happened.  Of course in the 'Me Too' age, a male is automatically presumed guilty even if the facts are false and unsubstantiated. 

This is precisely how the left destroys innocent people and it happens all the time. 



Monday, September 10, 2018

The Tyranny of #Google, #Facebook & #Twitter, And What Needs To Be Done



With conservatives and their views being rapidly purged by Google and social media, I've been wrestling with this issue especially since I'm apparently permanently banned by Facebook.

My Personal Story of Facebook Censorship, Abuse and Getting Banned

However, this isn't about me because I'm a nobody and yeah I don't understand why a big bad Nazi company like FB would even target a nobody like me but they did.  Furthermore, it's definitely about folks like Alex Jones, Peter van Buren and others who are NOT nobodies but who have been targeted for persecution for their political views.  Since I tend to advocate for free market solutions to problems, I have reluctantly defended the right of Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter to operate however they want because it's their right. Of course, I've also opined for competition to break-up these insidious and censorious monopolies.

The best explanation I've found on the issue was written by Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. He seems to understand the situation best and in the context of liberty and the law.  Therefore, I'm reposting his article in its entirety and I've highlighted relevant passages.

The Hi-Tech Threat...It’s real, and it has a solution

A number of conservative commentators, notably Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, have raised the alarm over the so-called Hi-Tech Threat, i.e. the threat to free speech posed by a censorious Silicon Valley liberal elite which seems intent on eliminating all evidence of right-leaning opinion on their platforms. And those platforms have achieved near monopolistic status, with Google controlling 85 percent of the online advertising market, Facebook enjoying similarly hegemonic status insofar as news delivery, and Twitter rounding out the equation with its increasing claim to the title of America’s town square.

Yet these conservative commentators are ostensible champions of the free market: do they really want the government to take over the internet? This is the question “progressives” are asking, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that’s because they don’t understand the Internet, the history of government regulation of the Internet — or, indeed, anything at all.

The reality is that the hegemonic position of the Hi-Tech giants wasn’t achieved due to anything remotely resembling the “free market” – and the solution has nothing to do with a government takeover of the Internet.

The year was 1996 – the very beginning of the Internet Age. Antiwar.com – one of the earliest web sites – was around, but not very active. The big online power was … Compuserve! Remember them? Congress was frightened to death of this new phenomenon, and naturally the first impulse of these slow-witted solons was to try to regulate it in the name of “decency.” And of course they had to do it for The Children! The Communications Decency Act punished purveyors of pornography with two years in jail plus a $250,000 fine for those found guilty of sending “indecent” material over the Internet to minors.

There were no hearings: why debate something that is so self-evidently wonderful? Who could be for sending online porn directly to the computers of America’s adolescents?

After the Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997 for being too vague – and showing, the Court remarked, that lawmakers had no idea about how the Internet actually worked – section 230 of the law remained on the books. This was a special provision written and enacted for the benefit of the corporate entities that were at that moment building the infrastructure that would rapidly become the Internet we know today. The core of the provision is that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The CDA was passed to simultaneously give the impression that Congress was intent on protecting The Children from pornography and that the corporate entities responsible for injecting such filth into people’s homes would be given legal immunity for any undesirable consequences following from that.

Section 230 set online speech on a different legal standard from published-on-dead-tree or spoken speech in that the online version is not subject to traditional common law torts claiming defamation, libel, etc. A newspaper, for example, is held liable for defamation because a degree of editorial control is assumed. A distributor, or common carrier, is not subject to the same legal standard because there is limited editing of content, if any. For example, a phone company cannot be held responsible for defamation if a robo-call campaign inaccurately describes some politician as a child molester.

None of these Hi Tech monster companies would have succeeded without Section 230: the risks would’ve been too great for nervous investors, who would’ve been scared off by the prospect of lawsuits eating away at their profits. They wanted some guarantee that their money would not be wasted and that their investment would pay off. So what to do? The solution was readily apparent to their congressional servitors: carve out an exception to the rules!

This is a recurring feature of life in the Oligarchical States of America: the law is for the little people, like you and me. Those semi-divine giants of Silicon Valley such as Mark Zuckerberg are in a whole different class all by themselves. They aren’t subject to the common law – only us commoners are!

Section 230 was made out to be a great victory for free speech, and was fought for by the American Civil Liberties Union: after all, what would happen if online speech was stopped by a bunch of bothersome lawsuits? Of course, that hadn’t happened with published-on-dead-tree speech, but that’s because editors (and lawyers) exercised editorial control – yet “interactive” Internet entities somehow could not have done the same. Oh no, they had to be granted immunity, i.e. special legal privileges.

This isn’t the free market: it’s crony capitalism.

Thanks to this legal immunity, the Hi Tech giants we see dominating the market today were financed to the tune of billions in freshly-printed Federal Reserve Notes. They grew to gargantuan proportions, and their pretensions as social and ideological arbiters grew even faster. They began to take on the characteristics of publishers without giving up their legal status as neutral “carriers.” They began to pick and choose content, rating it, hiding it, giving preference to some of it and outright censoring others.

And their monopoly over the Internet is as nearly complete as it is possible to be: a few Silicon Valley firms, such as Google and Facebook, determine what the overwhelming majority of Americans see online.

With Congress holding hearings on “foreign influence” meant to purge the Internet of dissenting views, and Big Tech eagerly carrying out this appointed task, the danger to free speech cannot be overemphasized.

The political culture of Silicon Valley was supposed to be “libertarian,” because the Internet is so freewheeling and California is so hippy-dippy. Not so! If there is a more authoritarian political culture than the Bay Area it’s probably New York and DC – but not by much. Just ask James Damore! We must stop them before it’s too late.

How do we do so? It’s simple. Repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and replace it with clear guidelines separating out the nature of a public carrier from a publisher or content originator. If Google, Facebook, and Twitter are curating content provided by others they are still publishers in that they are engaged in selecting what to highlight and what to ignore or hide. In that case, why shouldn’t they be subject to the same legal conditions as, say, Antiwar.com, which does aggregate off-site content as well as publish original material?

If Twitter, for example, wants to exile former diplomat and distinguished author Peter van Buren permanently for daring to disagree with and mock a pack of smug self-satisfied “journalists,” then the company has got to give up its public carrier status and lose its immunity for legal liability. Likewise, if Zuckerberg is going to make the Facebook postings of the Ron Paul Institute nearly inaccessible to its audience.

Today the lords of Silicon Valley are enjoying the benefits of an information cartel: due to their political and financial clout, they were able to bend the rules and grow to monster proportions as a result. Now they are reneging on the conditional nature of their legal immunity and actively seeking to control what content the public gets to see. This tyranny must be crushed in the egg, because what the Zuckerbergs and the Twitter tyrants are hatching is going to be one big nasty ugly bird.

It's a damn good article that explains a lot while clearly identify a huge problem and offering solutions.   FB and Twitter really do operative like media in that they are not NEUTRAL purveyors of data AS THEY CLAIM TO BE but do in fact use their immense media bully pulpit powers to promote it's own political views and ideology and all while being legally exempt from the laws and rules that govern traditional media.  Google controls the world's most popular search engine and uses its vast powers to restrict the flow of information.  Google searches these days DO NOT elicit what they once did and censorship of information is accelerating.

All these companies have used their power not just to squash the free flow of information but they have also financially kneecapped those whose ideology they oppose.  Ad revenues of conservative websites have been denied and it's really hurting them.  The goal of course is to use both financial and censorship powers to permanently shut them down.  It's working.

I have a few of my own thoughts.  In the context of the Deep State and its draconian agenda, it's clear that Google, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are indeed Deep State operatives who get their marching orders from the corrupt to the core US media, the CIA (it heavily controls the media), the Military Industrial Complex (DOD and State Department) and other rogue agencies and institutions.  Antiwar folks seem to suffer extreme censoring and expulsion but so do social conservatives and Trump supporters. The left may be currently celebrating that those pesky conservatives and Libertarians are being purged but the smart folks on the left also understand that that it's only a matter of time before the Deep State goes after its own independent wing that tends to lean hardcore Marxist and socialist.

We are expected to be compliant sheep who outsource our thinking and judgment to the elites of government, media, social media and totalitarian institutions like education.  Such an Orwellian and Nazified view will surely kill off all that once was the bedrock of Western Civilization - freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to oppose government and the freedom of We the People to forge our own destiny. When truth and opinions are verboten, we've crossed a dangerous Rubicon and one that will lead to tyranny, oppression and totalitarian control of everything; we may already be there.





Saturday, September 8, 2018

Border Madness - a Freaking Wall Won't Solve Our Immigration Problems But This Will



Anybody who is on social media accepts that it's a freaking lunatic asylum.  Regarding immigration and the the border, we've got lunatic extremists on both sides.  The lunatic left demands a borderless nation and they insist that America should welcome all 7 billion plus folks on the planet and put them on welfare (the social justice socialist warriors).  On the right, its lunatic fringe is advocating for the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants and even the execution of illegal immigrants (yes really, I've heard it) as well as lining the 2,000 mile border with armed citizens to shoot anybody who attempts to cross the border.  That's totally scary stuff and so un-American!

The border is freaking 2,000 miles long and it's just not feasible to wall it off because it would be prohibitively expensive and a failure.  Folks would either breach it or find another way in. Most of the folks offering border solutions have never even visited the border or even know much about the border states and what happens there.  They are just angry folks who have embraced extremism with little to no understanding of our border states.

I lived in the Phoenix area for 10 years and the Austin, TX area for 10 years.  Believe me, the folks in AZ and TX know and understand a lot about the border and its neighbors to the south. For starters, most of the border is ugly and desolate; it resembles a parched and arid  moonscape. It's not very hospitable and tumbleweed rules.

However, the border has a lot of vibrant cities.  Take Nogales, AZ.  It's a city that is literally split in 2 - with half being in Mexico and half being in the AZ.  The international border in Nogales is a very busy place with a ton of folks crossing both ways to work or visit or do business on a daily basis.  It's always been that way.  When I lived in the Phoenix area, my snowbird friends would visit in the winter and they all wanted to go to Mexico. I spent a lot of time in the Mexican side of Nogales - great folks, great food, great shopping and always great fun.

In Arizona you can buy a ton of pottery, arts and crafts from Mexico.  Mexicans fill up AZ shops with their creations.  It's a common thing, an appreciation and respect on both sides for folks who produce, create and trade.

TX also has friendly relations with its southern neighbors.  There are lots of ranches and farms on both sides of the Rio Grand River, water is scarce and Rio Grande water supports significant cattle ranching and agriculture operations on both sides. YOU CAN'T WALL OFF THE RIVER without harming the livelihoods of folks who live there.

TX also has some big border cities like El Paso and Laredo which are working and trading hubs with frequent border crossings.  TX and its Hispanic citizens and neighbors have a very long history of very peaceful and productive relations.

What has changed and gone wrong?  Why is immigration such a hot potato issue?  The answer is simple: socialism and uncontrolled immigration to appease the cheap labor lobby.

CA was once a beautiful red state with a strong and prospering middle class.  However, its huge agriculture industry had an insatiable appetite for cheap labor so it massively imported low skilled farm labor.  CA Democrats jumped on an opportunity: make them voting citizens, give them entitlements and the Democratic Party will grow.  It sure did and now CA is a big blue state ruled by socialists and crazies.  It's got the highest poverty rates in America and its once beautiful cities like San Francisco are now the face of shit flowing in the streets, oppressive poverty and miles of impoverished tent cities.




Lesson here:  if you import the third world you become the third world. If you offer the third worlders welfare, you don't get the best, the brightest or the hardest working.  You get an army of folks looking for handouts.  I'm in no way implying that all immigrants are bad or that immigration is a bad thing.  America has enormously benefited from rational immigration.  Under sane immigration policies, the immigrants excelled and so did America.  However, the immigrants who built America didn't arrive with demands for food stamps, Medicaid and other freebies.  They arrived with nothing, got nothing and worked their asses off for a better life for themselves and their families.  This was the real American dream and it worked for everybody, immigrants and citizens.

Illegal immigration is costing American taxpayers over $100 billion a year, here.  It's a nightmare that is compounded by the crimes of illegals and the horrors of savage gangs like MS13.

So what can we do to solve the immigration problem?  We can do lot and we need to get back to sane immigration policies that we once had.  Forget about building walls, this is what we need to do:

1. End birthright citizenship - nowhere in the constitution does it say that if a woman gives birth on US soil that her child is automatically a US citizen.  Pregnant women are notorious for coming here just to deliver an anchor baby and at taxpayer expense. With that anchor baby comes family reunification programs.

2. End family reunification programs because they exponentially increase third world entitlement dependent immigration.

3. End all welfare for legal and illegal immigrants. No immigrant should be allowed to come here and mooch off of American taxpayers.  Immigrants should be served with notice that the welfare pipeline will be ending and they can either leave or figure out how to otherwise survive in America.

4.  Deport criminals who are not dangerous.  However, I recognize that some in the prison system are too dangerous to ever be let loose and should stay in prison if they are murderers or too violent to ever be free.  Yeah, American taxpayers are stuck with them because if deported, they would likely be set free.

5.  We need to consider making it mandatory for employers to use the E-Verify system that is very effective in affirming if a job applicant is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. Employers love cheap labor and they don't care if their employees are illegal.  They also enjoy welfare dependent employees because it shifts the financial cost of hiring to the taxpayers.  This is wrong, very wrong.

6. End the War on Drugs which is a huge magnet for drug cartels and gangs and all kinds of other problems, here and here.  American taxpayers have shelled out over $1 TRILLION bucks on the war on drugs, it's been a big fail and we lost the war decades ago.

If we do all the the above, America and the world will be a better place and so will the immigrants who come here because they will respect our laws, embrace our culture and work hard.  These are the immigrants we want and need.

Using the immigration issue to grow socialism, grow the Democratic Party and grow corporate welfare is wrong and bad for everybody.  America's entitlement system is a magnet to destroy America and all that made us a great nation with a prospering middle class, a middle class that is rapidly shrinking.  As for illegal immigrants who are here that are productively working and obeying our laws, I have no desire to deport them.  Give them green cards and allow them to flourish.

However, I'm in no way implying that unlimited immigration is desirable; indeed we need to set limits.  One of the great things about America is that it's a low density country with lots of open space.  Let me put this into perspective.  India is 1/3 the size of the US yet has 4 times the population (1.32 billion folks in India vs. 323 million in America). China is roughly the same size as the US but has 1.4 billion people and most live in poverty.

How high density do we want to become?  Do we want to become some high density impoverished shithole?  We certainly would with unlimited immigration.




Yes, we need to make decisions to MAGA and we need to do it without hating immigrants and with full knowledge of the issues that cause our immigration problems - BAD IMMIGRATION POLICIES and the welfare state.  Fix the damn problem and welcome good immigrants.

Popular Posts