Why Are Unions Against the Right-to-Work? August 30, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: AFL-CIO, Dr. Robert Owens, Right-to-Work, Teamsters, union agenda, unions
1 comment so far
I come from a union family. I grew up in a union home. The good pay and benefits gained by one of America’s greatest unions provided for my room and board every day that I lived at home. My father and my uncles were all proud union members. My brother and some of my best friends spent their entire careers as union workers and the unions are providing them with generous pensions and great benefits. I myself was at one time the Vice President of an International Union. For all of this I am grateful.
The right to organize is a time honored American tradition and one that I believe is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Peaceable assembly is the hallmark of American union organizing.
Some of the things we take for granted were won for us through the organization of labor in unions. Unions helped establish the concept of the weekend. Unions helped establish fair wages and relative income equality. Unions helped end child labor. Unions helped to stablish widespread employer-based health coverage. Here are a few others that can be attributed either wholly or at least partly to the impact of unions in America’s workplace: Paid Vacation, Sick Leave, 8-Hour Work Day, Overtime Pay, 40 Hour Work Week, Worker’s Compensation, Pensions, Holiday Pay, and Military Leave. That’s a pretty long and impressive list isn’t it?
I will always be the first among any to say that Unions have had a beneficial impact on American life. I will also say that the contest between the rights of workers and the rights of employers has swung like a pendulum back and forth several times and whenever it swings too hard to the employer side it is unions and organizing that gives workers the best chance to redress the balance.
Having said all this I believe I stand on solid ground when I say that I am not anti-union.
This brings me to the question that serves as the title of this column, “Why are unions against the right-to-work?”
That unions are universally opposed to right to work laws is well documented in the media. Listen to the two largest American Unions. From the AFL-CIO web site, ““Right to work” is the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people.” On their web site the Teamsters put it this way, “Right to work is wrong for working people.” The supporters of the union war against right to work legislation say such things as: “This type of deregulation cripples the right to organize a union.” “Right-to-work laws require workers and their unions to cover the costs of non-union workers who benefit from union contracts. These laws are proven to drive down wages and weaken workers’ unions by undercutting bargaining power.” And “The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working families.”
This debate has been going on for a long time. James Sherk of Heritage Foundation laid out the union’s objections and the rebuttal of Libertarians quite well back in 2014:
Myth: Right-to-work laws prohibit unions.
Fact: Right-to-work laws make union dues voluntary. Without right-to-work laws, unions negotiate contracts that force workers to pay dues or get fired. Right-to-work laws protect workers’ freedom. The National Labor Relations Act also protects the right of workers in right-to-work states to unionize. Unions currently represent 4.4 million workers in 24 right-to-work states, including highly unionized Nevada, Iowa, and Michigan.
Myth: Right-to-work laws undermine unions.
Fact: Right-to-work laws make unions work to earn workers’ support. In the long run, this can strengthen union locals. Without right-to-work laws, unions can take their members’ dues for granted and provide lower quality representation. Gary Casteel, the Southern region director for the United Auto Workers, explains:
This is something I’ve never understood, that people think right to work hurts unions. To me, it helps them. You don’t have to belong if you don’t want to. So if I go to an organizing drive, I can tell these workers, “If you don’t like this arrangement, you don’t have to belong.” Versus, “If we get 50 percent of you, then all of you have to belong, whether you like to or not.” I don’t even like the way that sounds, because it’s a voluntary system, and if you don’t think the system’s earning its keep, then you don’t have to pay.
Myth: Right-to-work laws allow non-union members to “free ride” on the benefits of union representation without paying its cost.
Fact: Unions voluntarily represent non-members. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the National Labor Relations Act allows unions to negotiate contracts covering only dues-paying members. As Justice Brennan wrote in Retail Clerks v. Dry Lion Goods (1962), “‘Members only’ contracts have long been recognized.” Unions represent non-members only when they act as “exclusive bargaining representatives,” which requires non-members to accept the union’s representation. In that case, the law requires unions to represent non-members fairly. They cannot negotiate high wages for their supporters and the minimum wage for non-members. Unions can avoid representing non-members by disclaiming exclusive representative status.
Myth: Representing non-members costs exclusive representative unions a lot of money.
Fact: Unions often spend little on representational activities. When unions choose to act as exclusive bargaining representatives, they often spend relatively little on processing grievances and negotiating contracts. Often union contracts have employers cover these costs by allowing union stewards to do union business while on company time. As a result, many union locals spend very little representing workers—either members or non-members.
Federal filings reveal that in 2013 United Auto Workers Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Kentucky, spent just 2 percent of its $560,000 budget on representational activities. Boilermakers Local 107 in Brookfield, Wisconsin, spent 5 percent of its $2.0 million budget on representational activities. Machinists Lodge 2515 in Alamogordo, New Mexico, spent 23 percent of its $645,000 budget on representational activities—almost all of which constituted payments to its officers.
Myth: Right-to-work laws provide no economic benefits.
Fact: Companies consider right-to-work laws a major factor when deciding where to locate. Organizing victories bring in a lot more money for a union in jurisdictions with compulsory dues. Consequently, unions organize more aggressively in places without right-to-work laws. Companies in turn want to know they can avoid being targeted by union organizers if they treat their workers well. Right-to-work laws make that more likely. Economic development consultant’s report that roughly half of all major businesses refuse to consider locating in jurisdictions with compulsory dues. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that between 1990 and 2014 total employment grew more than twice as fast in right-to-work states as in states with compulsory dues.
Myth: Right-to-work laws lower wages.
Fact: Workers have the same or higher buying power in right-to-work states. Opponents often deride voluntary dues as “right-to-work for less.” Average wages in right-to-work states are indeed slightly lower than in non-right-to-work states. This occurs because almost every Southern state has a right-to-work law and the South has a lower cost of living. Studies that control for differences in costs of living find workers in states with voluntary dues have no lower—and possibly slightly higher—real wages than workers in states with compulsory dues.
Myth: Right-to-work laws divide Americans.
Fact: Americans overwhelmingly support right-to-work laws. Recent Gallup polling finds Americans support right-to-work laws by a 71 percent to 22 percent margin—better than 3 to 1. Independents support right-to-work laws 77 percent to 17 percent, Republicans support them 74 percent to 18 percent, and Democrats support them 65 percent to 30 percent. Polling also shows that union members themselves support voluntary dues by an 80 percent to 17 percent margin. Voters also reward politicians who support voluntary dues at the polls. Not a single Michigan legislator who voted for right-to-work laws in 2012 lost in the next general election. Right-to-work laws remain controversial primarily among union officers—not the general public.
The arguments against right-to-work laws do not withstand scrutiny. Right-to-work laws give workers a choice over where their money goes. This freedom forces unions to earn their members’ support. It also attracts businesses and jobs. The law should not force anyone in America to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
I have a few questions for union members who follow their unions lead and oppose right-to-work. Can anyone join? Is it open to all people at all times or is union membership restricted in any way? If membership is restricted isn’t this a restraint of trade? Are union wages artificially high because they only allow so many people to compete for jobs?
Personally I believe every citizen deserves the right to work and the right to organize and I don’t believe they should be mutually exclusive. Unions should not need government coercion to exist and workers shouldn’t need to bust unions to work.
Now here’s a wild idea in the current atmosphere of confrontation and battle that is drowning America why don’t we have a civil debate about this and then let the voters decide.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Appoint America’s Sheriff to Head the Border Patrol August 28, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: Border Patrol, DEA, DHS, Dr. Robert Owens, ICE, Pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sheriff Joe Arpaio
1 comment so far
Now that President Trump has done the honorable thing and pardoned America’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio after the political prosecution designed to ensure he lost his latest bid for reelection he should appoint him to head the Border Patrol.
Discharged from the Army in 1954, America’s Toughest Sheriff moved to Washington, D.C. where he joined the police force serving in the nation’s capital for three years. He moved to Las Vegas, Nevada in 1957 where he served for six months until he was appointed as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the forerunner to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He served in the DEA for twenty-five years seeing service in Argentina, Turkey, and Mexico. Eventually he was promoted to the chief of the DEA’s Arizona branch.
President Trump this patriot has said he is still ready to serve. Let’s use his many years of law enforcement experience to show us how the border can be secured.
Sure the Resist 45 left wingnuts and their AntiFa Blackshirts are up in arms over the pardon. But let’s face it if you could walk on water the Progressives would spin it as “Trump Can’t Swim!” If you could turn water into wine they’d bellow, “Trump encourages alcoholism!” So why not give America a great leader who could really secure the border and at the same time give the Progressives whether they’re Progressive Democrats or Never-Trumper Republicans apoplexy?
If you think the Border Patrol doesn’t need a new chief right now how about appointing Sheriff Joe to head DHS?
Mr. President you said that you would appoint the best. America’s Sheriff is one of the best. Let’s use him to help Make America Great Again.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
A Convention of the States What Are They Afraid Of? August 23, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: Article Five, Convention of the States, Dr. Robert Owens, Governor Abbot, the Texas Plan
1 comment so far
The Founders had one great fear; that a time would come when the Federal Government would overstep its bounds and come to dominate the individual States. Can anyone reading this dispute that this is such a time?
Look at our State governments. They are so addicted to Federal money they can’t exist without it. And they can’t get it without enough strings attached to turn them into little more than marionettes. They prance upon the stage masquerading as independent actors. In reality almost every step, every hand movement, every program, policy, and mandate is choreographed in the imperial capital.
The Founders saw this coming from more than 200 years away. And they made a provision for it.
Article V of the Constitution states:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
In January of 2016 Governor Greg Abbott of Texas issued call for a Convention of the States. He advanced what is known as the Texas plan asking for the consideration of the following amendments to the U.S. Constitution:
- Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
- Require Congress to balance the federal budget.
- Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
- Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
- Require a seven-justice supermajority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
- Limit federal powers to those expressly delegated in the Constitution.
- Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
- Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.
This call for action has inspired outrage and fear. Why?
Ever since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 changed the election of Senators, originally been elected by State legislators, to popular election the States have had no representation in Washington. This changed the relationship and nature of our federal system. The House was created to represent the people. The Senate was created to represent the States. Now with the popular election of Senators every State hires lobbyists to represent their interests. They’ve lost their voice.
The amendments by the governor of Texas would go a long way to redressing the balance. We need to do something to rein a runaway federal behemoth that’s smothering all of us under its stifling regulations.
The Progressives have been vocal in their resistance to the idea of a Convention of the States. They contend that they don’t want anyone messing with the Constitution. This is especially ironic since it’s the Progressives and the evolution of a Living Document that have brought us to this point. They’ve used the courts and the bureaucracy to change the Constitution without amending it.
President Woodrow Wilson, the quintessential Progressive, openly declared the Constitution an impediment to the kinds of reforms the Progressive Movement wanted. So he urged judges to interpret the Constitution in such a way as to loosen its limits on federal power. And he tried to use the bureaucracy to regulate freedom into serfdom.
The Progressives have been complaining for years that amending the Constitution is too hard. That is why we need a Living Document that can change with the times. That is why we needed to change that which was written in stone to that which is written in the sand.
It was supposed to be hard to amend the Constitution. That was one of the checks and balances written into the original document to help maintain the limited government it was written to establish and maintain. So instead of seeking to amend the Progressives have depended on federal judges especially Supreme Court justices to amend the Constitution through court rulings and precedence in a leftward direction.
For generations this unconstitutional judicial amendment process has continued step-by-step inch-by-inch until today government officials at the local, state or national level can seize private property in disregard of the 5th Amendment’s protections. They can listen to and record everything we say in contravention of the 4th Amendment. They disregard the14th Amendment’s provision of equal protection under the law allowing government-imposed group preferences and quotas under the name of affirmative action. Our celebrated equal rights have been sacrificed on the altar of diversity.
It’s a lie repeated enough to be accepted as true that the federal courts are merely interpreting the Constitution rather than re-writing it when they discover new rights that aren’t there and disregard ones that are.
The claim of the Progressives that this dishonest process is necessary because it’s so difficult to formally amend the Constitution is exposed as a lie by the success of their own movement. When their movement was young, before they invented the Living Document and the judicial interpretation process of change the Constitution was amended four times in just eight years. In all it has been formally amended 27 times.
So why is it so threatening to some people to call a Convention of States to propose amendments to the Constitution?
Let’s look at this logically. Why is this so threatening?
From a legal standpoint it isn’t some radical invention of the Altright. The Constitution lists a convention of states as one of the ways that amendments can be officially proposed. True it has never yet been done. But does that mean it is suspect or dangerous? Remember it takes two-thirds of the States to call a Convention and any proposed amendments put forward will need the votes of three-fourths of the States to be ratified. What’s so radical about that?
Here are my questions for those who fear a Convention of the States: Would you rather have the Constitution changed by a 5 to 4 vote of the Supreme Court? Would you rather have the Constitution changed by the rulings of a lone federal judge? Would you rather have the Constitution changed by the rulings of the Ninth Circuit? Would you rather have it changed by the unilateral actions of a president? Or would you rather have it changed by the administrative rulings of faceless bureaucrats in federal agencies?
Many express the fear that a Convention of the States would repeat History. The original Constitutional Convention was called by Congress to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Instead the Framers locked themselves in and wrote the Constitution in secret. Then they presented it to the States for ratification. The congress under the Articles eventually agreed to its own dissolution when public opinion showed a majority wanted the new government as proposed. This is the basis of the fear even if many do not know the whole story.
This fear overlooks the fact that it takes the votes of two-thirds of the states to call for a convention. And it takes three-fourths of the states to actually pass an amendment. Therefore, nothing could happen that was not the expression of the overwhelming majority of the representatives of the people.
Instead of a radical assault upon the Constitution
Gov. Abbott’s proposed amendments would restore constitutional protections that have been eroded and/or erased by unelected federal judges, by imperial presidents, and by unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies.
We the People are being kept out of the process. Why? What are the Progressives and their media machine afraid of?
Though the Progressives consistently portray themselves through their media megaphone as the champions of the people, using the tactics of judicial overreach, legislative slight-of-hand, and bureaucratic fiat they continuously work to remove decisions from the hands of citizens. Instead they deliver us like lambs to the slaughter to unelected federal judges and faceless bureaucrats with civil service job protection and golden parachutes.
Is it any wonder that the Progressives don’t want us to have a convention that could possibly restore the Constitution as the guarantee of limited government, individual liberty, and economic opportunity for all?
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
From the You’ve Got to be Kidding Me Department August 21, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: altleft, Altright, antifa, blackshirts, Dr. Robert Owens, Impeachment, President Trump, RINOs
3 comments
And now for something completely different:
It’s starting to feel like we’re living in a Monty Python episode. I keep waiting for the Secretary of the Department of Silly Walks to show up on CNN or one of its fellow fake news networks telling us that we need to impeach President Trump because of his hair.
Rush Limbaugh summed it up perfectly (as usual) when he said, “Black people and white people who were never slaves are fighting white people and others who were never Nazis over Confederate statues erected by Democrats — and somehow it’s all Donald Trump’s fault.”
The altleft AntiFa Blackshirts with their ski masks, bottle of urine, profanity, and violence pretend to oppose the altleft neo-fascists and the media megaphone plays along pretending one side is right and one is left. Nazis are national socialists. Both sides are socialist agitators using the time honored tactics of social disruption in an attempt to gain power.
Unfortunately for America the AntiFa Blackshirts are the bully boys of the Democrat/Media complex so they continue to get treated with kid gloves. Their crimes are covered up and their real message of hate is glossed over.
They seek to defend free speech by not allowing anyone who disagrees with them to speak. They seek to erase our history so they can rewrite it into an anticolonial screed straight out of Hollywood. To them America is the greatest threat to mankind. To them our very founding was blemished by hypocrisy and hate. To them the very discovery of the Americas by Europeans was an act of bigotry and enslavement.
If they have their way their violent imposition of Saul Alinsky’s Amerika will finally fulfill the promise/threat of Obama to fundamentally transform our nation.
During my career as a college professor I’ve been involved in the establishment of Dual Enrollment Programs wherein high school students could take one class and gain high school and college credit through a local community college.
While doing this I’ve reviewed text books on American History that have more space given to Malcolm X than to George Washington. I’ve seen Political Science teachers give assignments such as “Watch Michael Moore’s mockumentary Fahrenheit 11/9 and then write an essay exposing how many ways President Bush lied to get us into the Iraq War.” What I’ve seen designed and implemented over the last few decades has been the substitution of indoctrination for education and the triumph of political correctness.
The Progressives have captured the media, Hollywood, academia, and public education. They’re rebelling now because enough Americans in enough of the right places voted to bring some real change. We voted to regain control of our borders, to put America First in trade and foreign affairs. We voted to roll back the bureaucracy and allow free enterprise to Make America Great Again. We voted to drain the swamp.
The establishment cannot allow any of this to take place just as they cannot allow President Trump to succeed. If we need to bring in a professional Business man to clean up the mess the professional politicians have made what do we need professional politicians for? The perpetually re-elected hacks in Congress will continue to thwart every effort by President Trump to implement his promises. The Bureaucracy will continue to leak and stonewall. And their AntiFa Blackshirt bully boys will continue their assault on every expression of the America we voted for. Their goal is impeachment and their witch hunt won’t end until they have scalps to show for all their effort.
Their media carries on a day after day 24/7 assault upon President Trump. The bought and paid for perpetually re-elected hacks battle the President’s agenda, our agenda in every committee, in every vote, in every speech, tweet, and soundbite. And all the while their AntiFa Blackshirts attempt to take control of the streets and violently suppress any public support for President Trump or the America his supporters want to see restored.
This should be no surprise if you have read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He laid out the goals and tactics long ago. President Obama did his best to apologize, lie, and subvert America into the third world. Now he leads the Resist 45 Movement from his lair in DC. Since his chosen successor lost her bid to seal the deal we’re faced with this insurgency of hate.
If you take the time to listen to their media megaphone you’ll hear how the storm troopers of the left are destroying public and private property, assaulting people, and stifling free speech all in the name of social justice. This reminds me of the conundrum I have always faced concerning abortion; how can a moral wrong be a civil right. In this case I ask myself how can social justice be so harmful to society and so unjust?
Watching the media cartel’s talking heads on any of their endless panels of experts tell me how terrible President Trump is, why I should hate him, and pray for his impeachment I keep waiting for the door to fly open and Wolf Blitzer as Cardinal Ximinez to rush in flanked by his two junior cardinals Jake Tapper as Cardinal Biggles with his goggles pushed over his forehead and Rachel Madow as Cardinal Fang.
I can almost hear Cardinal Blitzer pontificating, “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to Obama…. Our four…no… Amongst our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise….and endless criticism.
As we descend into lunacy….as the theater of the absurd races across our TV screens nightly disguised as news it reminds me of the new old saying, “Obama called me a clinger. Hillary called me despicable. Terrorists call me an infidel. Trump calls me an American.”
I know it’s politically incorrect to us the “M” word but we need to man up and stand up for what we believe. We have to reject the absurdity of the Progressives and let the world know we voted for change and we want what we voted for! Drain the swamp and make America great again.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
North Korean Situation History and Proposed Solution August 16, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: Bush’s Korea policy, Clinton’s Korea policy, Dr. Robert Owens, North Korea, Obama’s Korea policy, Trump’s Korea policy
1 comment so far
Of course the current North Korean brouhaha is all Trump’s fault at least according to the propaganda megaphone and prime time indoctrination machine that is the ABCCBSNBCPBSCNNMSNBCNPR Cartel. But then again according to these Alt-Left AntiFa stenographers what isn’t?
To be effective all current events must happen in a vacuum. That way the spinmeisters can work their editorial magic and make everything fit their narrative.
Therefore in their delegitimizing playbook aimed at the eventual impeachment of President Trump the North Korean nuclear showdown is all because of Trump’s bellicose rhetoric. However current events are the History of the Future and they need to be seen in context to be understood.
Way back in the mists of recorded time, on October 18, 1994 President Bill Clinton facing the reality of North Korea saying it was going to build nuclear weapons acted out the usual Democrat imitation of Nevil Chamberlain. In other words Mr. Clinton gave the tin-pot dictator de jure whatever desired as long as he could wave a little piece of paper and declare it signified “Peace in our time” just before an election.
He briefly described the “Deal” this way, “This agreement [$4 billion in U.S. energy aid] will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective—an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”
Looking for a talking point to help the Democrat machine maintain its traditional hold on Congress Mr. Clinton set the North Koreans on the road to a nuclear bomb. Taking no thought for the eventual repercussions and looking only to immediate political advantage he threw America under the bus.
Even that flagship of the left the New York Times saw this for what it was, political maneuvering, not diplomacy. Here’s how they described it at the time, “The accord struck in Geneva gave the President a chance to proclaim a major foreign policy success just weeks before the midterm election. But Asian diplomats pointed out today that it also placed the United States in the odd position of bolstering the political capital of a man it has regularly denounced as a terrorist, a supplier of missile technology to Iran and a dictator: Kim Jong Il.”
Clinton said, “North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program.”
Here’s what the Times had to say, “What bothers some nuclear experts, from the Pentagon to the International Atomic Energy Agency, is that the North will continue to possess nuclear spent fuel for years, surrendering it only when the new reactors are nearing completion. That leaves open the possibility that if it ever renounced this week’s agreement it could eject all international inspectors and resume the bomb project.”
According to President Clinton, “The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.”
As reported by the New York Times, “‘This means that we are living with a country that flouted the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and will remain in noncompliance for years,’ an atomic energy agency official said today. ‘We wanted to get that fuel out of the country, and out of the country fast.’’’
And, “‘Similarly, some of the agency’s officials are concerned that the so-called special inspection of a suspected nuclear site that they demanded two years ago — a demand that prompted the North to announce it would pull out of the Nonproliferation Treaty — will be delayed for five years or more. “It is not a good precedent to set,’ the official said, ‘if we have to demand a special inspection in Iran or Iraq or someplace else in the world.”’
The Times had a bit more to say about this American Munich, “President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country’s hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.”
And, “American and North Korean officials plan to sign the broad accord on Friday, and almost immediately the United States will begin a remarkable new foreign aid program: it will provide for the North, with which it has never signed a peace treaty ending the Korean War, supplies of heavy oil to keep factories running and homes heated.”
And not only did the United States agree to provide oil Bill Clinton arranged for something else, “The accord calls for a consortium of nations, led by South Korea and Japan, to provide the North with two light-water nuclear reactors, designed in a manner that makes it far more difficult for the North to convert nuclear waste into atomic weapons.”
I wonder what the Kim dynasty has done with those reactors?
Along come George II and what does he do? He inaugurates the Six Party Talks between the United States, South and North Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. These talks went on and off for years eventually producing nothing but more time for North Korea to improve upon their first nuclear test which happened on the second Bush watch.
The Obama Administration courageously followed a policy of strategic patience, essentially a commitment to denuclearization as a precondition for talks, conducted in close alliance with Seoul and the other members of the Six-Party Talks. The talks continued to drag on as Mr. Obama kicked the can down the road.
Now the latest model of a crazy Kim struts around like a bantam rooster with a bad haircut on the world stage. He overtly threatens us with nuclear war and President Trump stands up to him.
To the corporations once known as the mainstream media this is provocative. Standing up for yourself is not the progressive way. We are supposed to cower in the corner and apologize for being who we are. That is not the American way. At least it wasn’t before the Clinton – Bush – Obama era.
As stated earlier: To be effective all current events must happen in a vacuum. That way the spinmeisters can work their editorial magic and make everything fit their narrative.
However, nothing happens in a vacuum. We must consider the context for a text without a context is a pretext.
So how are we supposed to deal with North Korea short of turning them into a sea of glass?
I propose that we pull our troops out of South Korea. With a population twice as large and an economy almost four times the size of the stunted North the South should be able to fend for itself after 67 years of American protection. Then we tell China that unless they reign in their protégé we’ill help South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan to build their own nuclear weapons. Then we step aside and let the Asian Tigers figure out how to bell the cat in Pyongyang.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Smoking Gun August 14, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, Impeachment, James Comey, Robert Meuller, Special Counsel
1 comment so far
Even the leftwing magazine The Nation is beginning to report the truth. There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by the Russians. It was instead an inside job perpetrated by staffers who were outraged at the collusion between the Clinton campaign and the former head of the DNC disgraced Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The writers in The Nation went so far as to say, “In addition, the experts found forensic evidence proving the initial documents published by the hacker Guccifer 2.0 were forgeries intended to finger Moscow.”
Citing details the extensive findings by “qualified experts working independently of one another.”
Nation went on to provide further details and conclusions regarding the alleged hack that was one of the original reasons for the birth of the Trump – Russian collusion fantasy.
“Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent,” the experts said.
“Before Guccifer posted them, they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language.
“Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source — claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation.”
“To put the point simply,” the experts concluded, “forensic science now devastates this narrative.” In other words as the title of their article points out the original DNC hack that exposed the crooked way in which the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was a mere show a rigged operation with a foregone conclusion. The hack wasn’t a hack. It was leak an inside job, by a DNC staffer not by Russia.
If this wasn’t enough to show the Big Lie of the Trump – Russian collusion fantasy Wanda Carruthers of Newsmax reports Marcel Lehel Lazar, known as Guccifer, arrested in 2014 and serving a seven-year sentence in Romania.
Gruccifer was sentenced for hacking Sidney Blumenthal, an ally of former 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Lazar is best known for inadvertently discovering that Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time, was using a private email server.
According to Lazar another hack last year of the Democratic National Committee’s mail system supposedly by Gruciffer 2.0 was not conducted by Russians, but rather was done by U.S. government agencies, Lazar suggested. He said “The Russians are more skillful than this to let tracks in the documents [point] to them. So, this is made by the other guys who wanted [to point] to the Russians.”
According to the Special Counsel Law there must be an underlying crime for the appointment of a Special Counsel. The evidence is pouring in that the underlying crime, Trump – Russian collusion fantasy is just that, a fantasy. We know that the leaker James Comey choreographed events to ensure the appointment of his fellow-traveler, Robert Mueller as the Special Counsel.
These are nothing more than tactics used to advance the strategy of de-legitimizing President Trump and eventually his impeachment and removal thus reversing the results of the 2016 election. This will be the canary in the coal mine, people will never be indicted for collusion with Russia they will be indicted for other crimes supposedly unearthed (or generated) by the Special Counsels team of Clinton supporters and other democrat operatives.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Victory in Afghanistan August 11, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.1 comment so far
After sixteen years of war, thousands of American deaths, tens of thousands wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars poured down an insatiable whirlpool of corruption it is time to achieve victory in Afghanistan.
What would victory for the American people look like in Afghanistan?
A complete withdrawal of all American combat troops as quickly and as safely as possible.
After 9-11 the entire world supported our invasion of Afghanistan to punish Al-Qaeda and the Taliban that sheltered them. We accomplished that goal in a few weeks. Sixteen years of nation building later after squandering the support of the world, wasting American lives, treasure, and trust everyone in the world knows the moment we pull out the Taliban move in and our Afghan puppets will be on 747s filled with American tax-payer cash on their way to Switzerland.
Now the generals want more troops and more equipment. Here’s a news flash; generals always want more troops and more equipment. That is what they do. President Trump has surrounded himself with generals. They may be good administrators. They may even be good warriors. However, they miss the political and diplomatic reality that we cannot win in Afghanistan. No one ever has. That is why it is called the Graveyard of Empires.
Yes we could move in enough troops and equipment to pacify the nation, although there would always be partisan fighters in the remote mountains, there always are. But unless we’re committed to turning the country into a permanent colony with a massive and expensive garrison force as soon as we leave it will revert back to what it has always been, an ungovernable area bounded by nation states that the civilized world has decided to call Afghanistan.
What we should have done was take down the Taliban, drive out Al-Qaeda then leave with a note on the fridge saying, “If it happens again…we’ll be back again.”
If we had done that (and avoided the pre-emptive debacle that was Iraq imagine the lives saved, the funds available for making life better at home, and the goodwill we would still have in the world.
When your cut the first thing to do is stop the bleeding. If you are mired in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.
We are mired and bleeding in Afghanistan. We can all see how this is going to end. Eventually we will withdraw and then it will be seen as the mirage of competent leadership it has always been.
Obama called it the good war.
Look at the results so far. Look at the obvious end point. Look at the lost and shattered lives. Look at the bankruptcy of our nation. How is any of that good?
In 1966, in the middle of the Vietnam War, the late Senator George Aiken of Vermont famously recommended that the United States simply declare victory and get out.
I am saying declare a victory for America. Discard the nation bankrupt building policies of the past and bring our troops home. If we need a mission, how about securing our own borders or standing ready when America’s vital interests are actually at stake?
All of this is beginning to feel like Déjà vu all over again.
We are all familiar with the quote from George Santayana:
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Which always reminds me of the impact America’s general Historical illiteracy as summed up in the qualifier to that famous quote:
“History repeats itself because no one was listening the first time.”
This in turn, brings me to the realization that after more than fifty years of daily Historical study, decades of teaching History, and a lifetime devoted to trying to share the insights of History through literature the truth of the matter is aptly summed up by a quote from Aldus Huxley:
“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”
President Trump, prove that to be wrong. Ignore the generals, ignore the neocons, ignore the clamoring agents of the military-industrial complex end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Republicrats Impeachment and the Silent Coup August 9, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, high crimes and misdemeanors, Impeach Trump, Impeachment, Russian collusion, Special Counsel
2 comments
We have a three pronged attack aiming to reverse the results of last November’s election. First comes the Government Party, let’s call them the Republicrats, made up of the perpetually re-elected hacks who infest the capital of the world. Second is the deep state cancer that infects the federal bureaucracy. And third are the one world social democrats masquerading as journalists.
These three give their middle finger to America as they point their index fingers at President Trump. They accuse him of colluding with the Russians to steal the last election. And all the while they’re colluding with leakers committing felonies and endangering American security in an effort to overthrow the President.
A few things to illustrate the problem:
According to Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon:
A new wave of leaks targeting the Trump administration has actively endangered ongoing intelligence and military operations being conducted by the United States and its allies, sparking anger and concern inside and outside the White House, according to multiple conversations with senior U.S. officials intimately familiar with the situation.
The classified leaks, which are being handed to sympathetic journalists by former Obama administration officials who left the government and by holdovers still serving in the Trump administration, have damaged a number of ongoing operations, ranging from American efforts to prevent Russian infiltration of the United States to Israeli efforts against ISIS, sources said.
According to Theodore Bunker of Newsmax:
The FBI has seized smashed hard drives from the home of a Democratic House staffer an aide to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, The Daily Caller reported.
Imran Awan, a longtime IT aide of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is under investigation for allegedly stealing equipment and improperly accessing the House IT network, while working in Congress. Shortly after the case went public, Awan moved out of his home in Lorton, Virginia, renting it eventually to a couple, one a Marine Corps veteran and one a Navy Officer.
The renters told The Daily Caller they found “wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destroy, laptops, [and] a lot of brand new expensive toner.” They called the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which coordinated with the FBI and Capitol Police to seize the equipment.
“It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry,” the unnamed Marine, who spoke under the condition of anonymity out of concern for his wife’s career, told The Daily Caller. “It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over.”
Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has admitted that she violated official information security policy – blaming the chief administrative officer in the House of Representatives for not stopping her, the Daily Caller reports.
According to John Solomon of The Hill:
The National Security Agency and FBI violated specific civil liberty protections during the Obama administration by improperly searching and disseminating raw intelligence on Americans or failing to promptly delete unauthorized intercepts, according to newly declassified memos that provide some of the richest detail to date on the spy agencies’ ability to obey their own rules.
The Hill reviewed the new ACLU documents as well as compliance memos released by the NSA inspector general and identified more than 90 incidents where violations specifically cited an impact on Americans. Many incidents involved multiple persons, multiple violations or extended periods of time.
For instance, the government admitted improperly searching the NSA’s foreign intercept data on multiple occasions, including one instance in which an analyst ran the same search query about an American “every work day” for a period between 2013 and 2014.
According to John Solomon of The Hill:
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is accusing top political aides of President Obama of making hundreds of requests during the 2016 presidential race to unmask the names of Americans in intelligence reports, including Trump transition officials.
Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), in a letter to the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, said the requests were made without specific justifications on why the information was needed.
“We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information,” Nunes wrote in the letter to Coats.
The Obama ‘Demasking’ Scandal is not just growing, it’s surging. Everyday more comes to light showing how the Obummber administration as it headed for the showers did their best to disseminate classified information as far afield as possible. Of course the ABCNBCCBSPBSCNNMASNBCNPR Cartel isn’t going to tell the low-information voters anything about it and of course they won’t do any research of their own. So I guess it’s just between you and I and the millions who care to look.
According to Fred Fleitz of Newsmax:
You wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media, but the scandal of Obama officials weaponizing U.S. intelligence to collect against their political enemies is not just growing, it’s surging.
There have been several damning reports over the last few weeks that Obama officials made hundreds of requests to “demask” the names of Trump campaign and transition officials from intelligence reports. Some of these demasked names were leaked to the press to hurt Mr. Trump politically before and after the election.
And all this cloak and dagger skullduggery is leading up to one thing, the impeachment of President Trump. Since they’ve known from the beginning there was no collusion between the President and the Russians they have to find another way to thread the needle. The Special Counsel witch-hunt is frantically searching day and night to find anything to call a crime so they can get the ball rolling. And the political savants in Congress are doing their bit too. They’re attempting to pass a bill, hopefully for them, with a veto proof majority that makes it a crime for the President to fire the Special Counsel. This is a replay of the same strategy used to impeach President Andrew Johnson.
In Johnson’s case it was the Tenure of Office Act. The action of President Johnson that led directly to his impeachment was his deliberate violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The Tenure of Office Act was repealed in 1887. In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional even though it had been repealed almost 40 years before.
So here we go again. How can it possibly make sense to pass a law saying that the head of the executive branch is committing a crime to fire someone who works for the executive branch? But that’s where we’re headed. If there is no crime they’ll manufacture one.
According to Joe Crowe of Newsmax:
A bipartisan (Republicrat) bill in the Senate would turn Department of Justice regulations about the president’s ability to take action against a special counsel into law, according to Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.
The bill would also require that an attorney general confirmed by the Senate would be the only official able to fire Mueller, according to Coons.
If for this or any other reason the House impeaches and the Senate removes President Trump we Deplorables out here in fly over country may see this whole election business for a sham. If we dare to elect someone who isn’t one of the self-appointed crooked lawyers whose conflicts of interest are aided and abetted by the special interests the big bi-coastal pajama boys will just overturn our choice and go back to business as usual. Or so they think.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Political Warfare and the Impeachment of President Trump August 4, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Uncategorized.2 comments
Unless I have entered a parallel universe I seem to remember voting for President Trump because he was going to stand strong against the Neo-cons and their thirst for perpetual war.
I don’t know about anyone else but I thought this was an America First foreign policy which did not send us off tilting at windmills around the globe. Specifically I thought this meant we would let the Syrians fight their own civil war, let the Russian inhabitants of Eastern Ukraine live according to our time honored principle of self-determination. They no longer want to be a part of the communist reconstruction of the Ukraine so let them be free.
However, the Deep State has other ideas. These career bureaucrats who think they are the permanent government no matter who we elect have aligned with the Neo-cons. They are driving us over a cliff by imposing sanctions even our allies are against and likely will not adhere to. They are setting up a situation wherein they hope to strip President Trump’s powers and set up a situation where they can impeach him for firing one of his one employees.
This was the same tactic used to impeach President Andrew Johnson. Then because of one vote it failed. Today with McCain and the other maverick turncoats voting with the doppelganger Democrat friends it might succeed.
The Neo-Cons have taken over the National Security Council (NSC) under National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. Proof of this is seen in the recent firing on July 21 of Rich Higgins, a former Pentagon official who served in the NSC’s strategic-planning office as a director for strategic planning.
What was Higgins sin? He wrote a memo that described threats to the administration by globalists, bankers, the deep state, and Islamists. What proscribed advice or intelligence did this memo contain?
Excerpts from the Higgins memo:
Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and slipping away. Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed. … Islamists ally with cultural Marxists because, as far back as the 1980s, they properly assessed that the left has a strong chance of reducing Western civilization to its benefit. Having co-opted post-modern narratives as critical points, Islamists will co-opt the movement in its entirety at some future point. (NOTE! Communist takeover of Russian revolution against the Czars, N Vietnamese against the South, Maoists against the democratic forces against the Chinese dynasty.)
POLITICAL WARFARE ATTACKS—a primer
As used here, “political warfare’ does not concern activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist insurgency model. Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency. Maoist methodologies are described as synchronized violent and non-violent actions. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operations arts and tactics as elements of combat power In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile compete state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state.” Political warfare uses non-violent methods such as participation that undermines the morale or offers to engage in discussions, as a adjunct to violence. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operations, or tactical levels of operation.
Political warfare is warfare. Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes. They run on multiple lines of operation, support the larger non-violent line of effort, are coordinated with violent lines of effort, and execute political warfare agenda promoting cultural Marxist outcomes. They principally operate through narratives. Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives … These attacks narratives are pervasive, full spectrum and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies …
Political Warfare has been described as “propaganda in battledress.”
This memo was discarded and Higgins fired because to sound the alarm is to make yourself a target for the enemies of America First.
Unless and until this political warfare is recognized for what it is their stealth victory through bureaucratic slight-of-hand, media barrage, and prosecutorial witch-hunt we will see the impeachment of President Trump and the end of the America First campaign.
And who voted for that?
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Lock Her Up August 2, 2017
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics, Politiocal Philosophy.Tags: 2016 election, Bernie Sanders, Clinton Crime Family, Donald Trump, Dr. Robert Owens, Hillary Clinton, low information voters, Mainstream Media, propaganda, the system is rigged
1 comment so far
In America today most people choose their favorite brand of the ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBCPBSNPR Cartel based on the charisma of the news reader, and don’t waste their time tuning into other news options.
What are the criteria for their choice of a news outlet? Does the news reader look or sound authoritative? Are they better looking? Do they have a more pleasing voice? Are they a Male? Are they a female? Are they Gay? Are we not sure? Whatever the reason, it isn’t because they say anything different. It often sounds like they all have the same writers and story selectors. The content is no different.
Do you want to hear the story about how the Republican Elite is trying to figure out some way to dump Trump before or after you hear the story about how The Donald is not fit for the highest office in the land or after? Do you want to learn about the latest polls that show everyone hates Trump before or after you hear how Trump the Traitor colluded with the Russians before or after you hear about the insane proposals of the racist homophobe misogynist Trump? Perhaps the line-up of the stories is slightly changed from one news clone to another but that’s about it.
When I have a chance encounter and what passes for conversation with so many Kool-Aid drinking low information voters i.e progressive induhviduals the conversation usually goes like this:
Me: What do you think about _______ (fill in the blank)?
Progressive Induhvidual: Repeat what ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, etc. has said recently stated as if this was their independently arrived at personal opinion.
Or if they are a Conservative Induhvidual: Repeat what Fox, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, National Review, etc. has recently said.
It’s almost impossible to find anyone who has actually read any books on topics of importance such as economics, politics, sociology, or the History that ties them all together.
Several times a year I attend meetings that are filled with nothing but PhDs, professors, and university administrators. All content experts in these very subjects as well as many others. The results are basically the same. The death of critical thinking has led to a deafening silence in the area of actual personal opinion, a dearth of dialogue, and a collapse of conversation. The American people, who at the time of the Founding saw blacksmiths discussing with candle makers the pros and cons of constitutions and the meaning of liberty or carpenters debating with plumbers the need for a free economy versus the need for public works. Just read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers, look at the level of thought and speech and ask yourself, “How do the public debate, and newspaper articles of contemporary America match up?” Today the public debate takes place at about a 3rd grade level compared to the graduate school of those earlier days.
What happened? Back then there weren’t public schools. Churches and families educated their own. Today after generations of highly funded and severely structured public education we’ve successfully dumbed ourselves down to the lowest common denominator.
Look at the late great Bernie Sanders revolt which was contained by the elite in the Democrat Party and the Trump Revolution which overwhelmed the elite in the Republican Party it’s obvious that we tax paying entities who inhabit flyover country whether of the right or left have had enough of the bi-coastal elite that’s driving us over the cliff into the third world. Since their empty pantsuit blew the election and she can’t carry the water for the donor class all the way to the bank obviously the elite controlled media has dropped their camouflage of objectivity and is all in to make sure Trump is destroyed.
At least there was one pseudo surprise in the Hollywood scripted replay of Primary Colors the Distaff Edition. After all of the frothing at the mouth Bernie supporters did. After they were so brave that they booed or turned their backs at the Democrat Party Spectacle in Philadelphia on their anointed queen. Low and behold their fearless leader fell into line and surprise surprise supported the mistress of manipulation. Then just as evidence surfaced that yes, the entire primary exercise was rigged from the beginning the mind-numb robots of the left who chanted and cheered for Bernie stood in line to cast their rationally considered and highly principled vote for the very person who engineered the fix, takes her money and marching orders from the crony capitalists, and is arguably the most corrupt person to ever run for the presidency. After the election, Bernie, the man of the people bought his third house and settled in a well feathered bed until next time he’s needed to attack his fellow millionaires and billionaires..
Who could have seen this coming except a blind man in a dark room with no media access?
The pre-programmed electorate combined with the usual fraud, imported voters and all the dead people who never leave the voting rolls of the corrupt Democrat City fiefdoms, marched in lockstep to the polls to hand America lock-stock-and-barrel to the Clinton Crime Family.
However the November Miracle happened and instead of the Sleazy Don following the totally corrupt Donna back into the White House the Donald won.
Enough people swallowed the red pill and were willing to at least take a shot at shaking things up before we’re swept away by the unregulated immigration invasion and state sponsored outsourcing that low and behold we didn’t end up with another perpetually re-elected hack.
An old saying goes, “There are only two things that are certain in this life, death and taxes.” We’ve all been programmed to accept this as an inevitable truism. Death to be sure is natural and inevitable. If you were born you’ll die. Taxes however aren’t a natural thing. They’re in actuality the forced expropriation of funds from the productive taken through the use of the state’s monopoly on the use of coercive force. And so, though they aren’t natural and they aren’t inevitable like death or gravity they may in realistic terms given the overwhelming preponderance of government power be unavoidable.
Our country refused to follow the dictates of the elite controlled media. America refused to become the turf of the Sleazy Donna from Chappaqua whose word parsing motto should be the Bart Simpson anthem, “I didn’t do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can’t prove anything.” We chose not to let the White House once again become Bill’s love nest. We refused to let the George Soros puppet in heels moves into the Oval Office with her rolodex of contributors both foreign and domestic.
So what do we have now? The Cartel and the politicians that follow them around like a children’s pull toy on a string are screeching day and night the Russians! The Russians! They have Comey’s BFF installed as the Special Counsel because of Comey’s leaks. The stage is set for a sequel to the Progressives favorite thriller, “The Witch Hunt of Watergate.”
Ding Dong the Witch is politically dead! But is this like when a queen dies? The Witch is politically dead long live the witch. Waiting in the wings is everyone’s favorite Caucasian Indian from Massachusetts.
What’s a freedom loving constitutionalist to do? How about every time the Progressives issue a subpoena for one of the President’s followers we issue one for a Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or her Pakistani IT money launderer, or Bill Clinton, or Loretta Lynch, or any of the shady characters who actually tried to fix the election. How about a Special Counsel to investigate all the scandals of the Obummer nightmare, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Lois Lerner and the IRS, or the serial unmasking of American citizens for political purposes? How about, “Lock her up!”
Why should we just roll over and take it? Why not take it and roll on instead? We won let’s act like it!
Maybe I’m speaking out of turn or maybe I should remember the ever growing list of questionable deaths that follows New York’s Sixth Crime Family around like a bad odor. If we don’t stand up after the Miracle in November and demand that the swamp is drained when will it happen? When Chelsea gets elected?
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2017 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Dr. Robert Owens Chronicles the History of the Future 