Friday, August 4, 2017
The Problem With The Press - How Agenda "Journalism" Fuels Animosity
Was anyone aware that May 3rd was World Press Freedom Day? Yeah, much like useless holidays such as National Donut Day or the ever intrusive, OCD invading National Hug Day, it blew by without any incident or warning. I wasn’t even aware that it even occurred. And even more shocking is that it is a day that was declared by that worthless, anti-western civilization, Star Wars Bar, Legion of Doom known as The United Nations. They made this declaration back in 1993. This year’s theme was Critical Minds for Critical Times: Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies. That word…Inclusive. The only time I want to ever see or hear that word is when I’m booking a trip to a resort in the southern hemisphere. One with white sandy beaches and salt water so clear you can see to the very bottom. That’s it. Inclusiveness in the political sense is typically a battering ram to Christian values and Conservative ideology. It basically means, “Suck it up and deal. Include our lifestyles that do not agree with you, which may make you unsettled, and take it! You rigid, crotchety prude!” Because inclusivity never travels in the other direction. Islam is never demanded to embrace the LGBTQ lifestyles or even women’s rights. It never can be a request to have Atheist groups, whom exert continuous energy battling Christianity each moment of every day and in any venue they can, either by conducting meaningless atheist Faux-prayers opening City Council meetings or placing devilish statues in City Parks. That type of inclusion doesn’t exist. And they want this inclusion to be focused in modern media.
The U.N decided to end the oppression of journalism and the promotion of a free press. This is the same U.N. that has Iran as the leader of the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). That’s right, the nation that leads the world in executions and recently ordered the hanging a 26-year-old female rape victim. I guess we should place quite a bit of weight and credence into this celebration of journalism! Why not close up the businesses, shut the shop doors, and go out for some ½ price manhattans. We can wear fedora’s & trench coats, looking like 1960’s war correspondents meets Ron Burgundy so we can all to celebrate National World Press Freedom Day! I bet China is really doing up the festivities! Maybe they let you get one legitimate google search result for your next blog, which will be taken down 40 seconds after it’s published! GO FREE PRESS!
In the news media’s quest to understand why they are completely despised and hated, they lamented as to what they should do in order to remedy this on World Press Freedom Day. Although this was back in May, the writer of the piece, Eve Peyser reposted it recently on Twitter, as an additional reiteration to the others in the news media to “take the high road”.
From Vice News - “It's World Press Freedom Day! According to the UN, today is an opportunity to "celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom" and reflect on the "media's role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies." So as we celebrate all the important work journalists are doing in the US, under an administration that is increasingly hostile to the media, let's reflect on one of the worst practices in journalism today: calling the president a Cheeto.
Presumably, bloggers and comedians get a kick out of likening Trump to the orange cheese snack because of his affinity for fake tanning. The issue isn't only that this has become the predominant way to insult the president, but moreover, that it's everywhere.
As VICE senior politics editor Harry Cheadle pointed out earlier today, the First Amendment is one of the things that makes this country great. The fact that we can post a video of the president motorboating Rudy Giuliani's tits or call him a snack food without fear of retribution should not be taken for granted. But with that power comes responsibility, and perpetuating the easiest and most overused descriptor of the commander-in-chief isn't living up to that responsibility.
To be clear, I don't mind making fun of Trump's physical appearance—after all, he certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with mocking the way others look—but I do mind lazy writing. There are better ways to roast him. So let the press be free, but also, let's all do better. Let's retire the Cheeto insult and challenge ourselves to truly stretch our imaginations, to dig further down into the well of insults for one of the most insultable men on the planet and see what we can find. There are plenty of presidential owns still waiting to be slung, and others long forgotten waiting to be resurfaced. For a start, here's one:
And then they post a Tweet by Trump himself that states:
‘Amazing how the haters & losers keep tweeting the name “F**kface Von Clownstick” like they are so original & like no one else is doing it...’”
This backhanded, self-righteousness under the guise of constructive criticism is dumbfounding, because the media still believes that they can select whatever story they deem important. They try to hide it under the premise of their "prestigious journalistic credibility”. They do this, while actually running cover for the progressives in lieu of true journalism. It’s then up to the American People. We are responsible for sharing all of this information back and forth, as it ricochets throughout social media under the waves of their media sewage flow.
They continue to BANG that “Gorky Park Russian Hair metal gong” over and over on this Trump/Russia witch hunt, while completely ignoring the DNC House of Representative’s IT scandal of the Awan Brothers. A family who were able to read every single email, paid at the top tier of their pay range, and Debbie Wasserman Shultz was even going to keep one of the brothers on the payroll while he was high tailing it back to Pakistan. And a part of that story, that's not being focused on, is the Car Dealership (Cars International A - LLC- C.I.A LLC), is a big deal. I don't hear a lot of people talking about it, but it's a money laundering scheme to the Middle East. They didn't even have freaking cars. They borrowed some from nearby dealerships & borrowed capital from an Iraqi DR with ties to Hezbollah. Yeah, no biggie...Not to mention they borrowed money from a Congressional Credit Union to purchase homes to each other and profit off of the sales. Then, they wired those funds to Pakistan, which was why there was an arrest. Where is all that money going and why is it going over there? The Mainstream Media couldn't care less! But, “Jared Kushner might have met with a Russian!” Oh my!
I remember when the media acted with unwavering scrutiny and vigorous attacks on every detail towards Presidents. They were very tough and vicious towards Ronald Reagan and George H Bush. Then, they went Gaga for Bill Clinton, with his saxophone and his suave knack for thick ankle, plus sized women. Then, the attacks resumed, as they focused laser like rage towards George W Bush. Dirty secret, don’t let there be a dispute over election results. The level of vitriol runs twice as deep with that puzzle piece added into the picture. And then, like the eye of a hurricane, they went on hiatus again for the entirety of the Obama Administration. It seems as though the cycle was that the Media took two siestas, with an awakening each time a Republican became the leader of the nation. They climbed into the hibernation cave for 8 years when a Democrat was manning the wheel. They only came alive long enough to toss out some fluffy, cotton candy cavity and stomachache inducing public relations pieces disguised as journalism. They didn’t even have the decency to add the hashtags at the bottom of the piece, which is the code for a Public Relations Release.
Now, the game has changed. People are ping ponging information on Social Media and bypassing traditional news. It's giving life to stories that the media is actively ignoring. Stories that the collective news industry is attempting to starve and dry out. This is what is fueling the continuing animosity between the public and the media. The failure to report real news and the ability for the public to share those who are willing doing so shows the news media’s sycophantic tendencies in real time, each and every day. It's affirmed and fortified towards a disaffected public that hated a biased media for decades. The public never dreamed they would have the ability and power to circumvent the media’s natural selection of news stories. Thanks to social media and a coalition of truth thirsty justice seekers, you have a stew of validation that fuels the general public’s anger. One unintended consequence of social media communication is the issuance of fake news outlets, click bait stories, and the rise of “Clickservative exploitation”. You now have to really take every media platform, and the stories that they're pushing, with a giant block of salt.
Be aware, the bias of media isn’t simply on the Progressive leftist wing of the political aisle. The GOP primaries should have been an example as to how it resides on BOTH sides. To watch “BribeBart” issue story after story as the primaries began, attacking Rand Paul and Ted Cruz while never criticizing or attacking Trump. You find out later that Trump was paying them! Same thing with Drudge! The way Drudge crafted his homepage was always in favor of Trump over anyone else. And we all know that was where people went to view news, since he blew the stain off of the Clinton blue dress, no pun intended.
The Leftist progressive media is always biased. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It was just hidden under the mask of the three news networks and self-aggrandized newspapers. They couldn’t completely keep it under wraps. Phrases like, “Good Night and Good Luck” and Dan Rather’s “Courage” were indicators during a time of hidden disdain for individualism and conservatism. They’ve resurrected this practice and fashioned phrases such as “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. It’s too bad that Ignorance also resides in darkness, as America is not a Democracy. It is a representative republic. And the Right leaning media has decided to play sides as well. So, you have to sharpen your ability to spot the spin. Learn how to pick out the code words and the way language is crafted by the media, in order to catch the feces as its being flung at you. It's why I am able to turn on TRT World, the Turkish English News Network and even PressTV, the Iranian English News Network and find useful information buried within their propaganda that they’re peddling. Honing that skill allows you the ability to separate the propaganda from the true information that is useful. You'll see stories that US media will NEVER cover it. You’ll realize that the American media is playing a dramatic reality TV show, while the rest of the world is living a different life. We should all take a look out the American Window and see what’s on the other side of the fog that is the Mainstream News Media narratives.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
The Leftwing Tastemakers Kill Off Another President. This Time, It's Donald Trump
The Liberal Left-wing, Social Justice Warriors continually arise from their "Safe Spaces" to lecture and excoriate. They attack us, and everyone who doesn't subscribe to their toxic ideology, at every opportunity. They create campaigns against bullying, while they boycott dissenting opinions out of existence. They've even threatened Insurance and Financial Companies with boycotts over advertising on platforms with differing viewpoints. They preach tolerance, while they force the opposite sex into your restrooms. And if you don't adhere to their "tolerance", they will pull college sporting events from your State. Your State's Legislature must comply with passing their insane legislation, or else...in a tolerant tone, of course. They shout that "love wins", while acting out with actual violence against others who hold opposing viewpoints on college campuses and at rallies. So, it should come as no surprise that the decorum they demand of us towards their stalwarts is not to be applied to those of which they don't agree.
The Twittersphere exploded Tuesday with pictures of a Liberal Jihad. In a photo that would have been mistaken as a clip from an ISIS propaganda movie relegated to Live Leak due to its content, Kathy Griffin is shown holding the bloody, decapitated head of the President of the United States. The comedian (and that's to be debated) was looking to make waves. More correctly, she was looking for attention and a career "bump". She definitely succeeded in the attention department. I'm not so sure about the "career bump", though. Apparently, she said during the photo shoot that they would need to move to Mexico afterwards, due to the outrage that the photo would cause. They didn't need to take a disgusting photo for all of us to be happy that they would've relocated to Mexico.
But, this isn't the first time Liberals lowered themselves to the level of depravity. They've engaged in violent depictions of killing a president for simply being from the GOP before. I'm not even talking about the anarchist style rage from hardcore music groups like Suicidal Tendencies, singing about shooting Ronald Reagan and The Pope in the 80's. Many in the mainstream encouraged violence towards politicians they despised. Remember 'Death of a President,' a movie about assassinating George W. Bush? This is something that the right never engaged in towards to Obama. In fact, any movement towards this type of mockery was dealt with by a warning tone. You were never to act in that manner, or you were considered a racist. During Obama's long eight year term, you could not even have a Rodeo Clown wear an Obama mask without the deafening calls of racism. A Rodeo Clown donned the mask of the head of Obama, which was placed on a broom stick during the rodeo as a voice over the loudspeaker saying, "We're going to stomp Obama now!" That was the extent to which "inappropriate mocking" extended towards the Progressive's Prince. But they pretend and hide under the auspice of terminology called "art". Much like placing a crucifix in a jar of urine to mock Christianity and saying it's protected as "art", they will do the same with defaming the Leader of the Free World.
But that's the Democrats...the Marxists, the Socialists. You do not dare engage in "hateful" activities. You leave that to them. Their hypocrisy is truly unbelievable. The progressive leftists pretend to be cut from a higher cloth of morality, when they are corrupt on every level possible. Even down to using campaign funds to purchase expensive Super Bowl tickets, as Shelia Jackson Lee did this year.
As with many Progressive, Liberal taste-makers -Hollywood Stars, Music Entertainers, trendy "woke" websites, the mockery of the most gutter levels of class will be allowable without reprisal. We advocates of individual responsibility will be lectured to yet again. We'll be branded with a barrage of fabricated "racism, sexism, homophobic, islamophobic, whatever-a-phobic-ism" they'll dump upon us in order to silence our arguments, as they ride their high horse of hypocracy into an admonished sunset.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Are we having the conversation? A Lecture? Or an Agenda?
It looks as though I am not going
to benefit from the House of Representative’s Health Care provision, because it
leaves the door open to allow states to opt out, leaving the possibility of the
elimination of preexisting conditions. Apparently, Rape, as the liberal media
is trying to fabricate and contort, is the latest needle being thread to
demonize any tweak to Obamacare. Now, my preexisting condition is more of a
“mental rape”, due to the media mind melding that my family and I receive every
evening from the top 3 Television networks...at the very least.
There’s truly nothing like turning
on the TV, watching the Hollywood Left push LGBT lifestyles at every
opportunity, and then have to explain it to my 5 year old as we eat dinner. Now
before I go any further, please keep in mind that I’m not directing this rant
at specifically towards same sex relationships. I’m using it as one of MANY
examples of leftist bullet point wish list that is shoved into entertainment
that we use to decompress from everyday life. But it gets thrust into our home.
I guess that means we’re “having the conversation”. You know what? I want to
have the conversation when I decide
the conversation is necessary. When I DEEM it necessary. When real life
provides me with an example to which I can teach my children. But even the
conversation isn’t allowable through our free will, on my terms, by the
leftists. The Tolerant, benevolent Progressive Left must DEMAND we have the
conversation when THEY DECIDE. The Crux of their mission – control. Again, let
me have the conversation when a real world experience provides me with the
opportunity to do so. Maybe we encounter a person who is in the process of
“transitioning” out in public. We can have the conversation then. Maybe we are
out at a restaurant for dinner, and the server that greets us at the table is
extra flamboyant. I’ll have the conversation then. But ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox…It’s
not your responsibility to force
the conversation after we finish watching Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy at 8pm
on a Sunday afternoon, if we accidentally forget to change the channel. Most of
those shows beat you in the head with it out of the gate. It’s not just a cold
opening to a television show that starts with a risqué bedroom scene. It’s one
that encompasses some sort of LGBT bedroom scene agenda that causes us to rush
to catch the remote like a fumble at the one yard line in the final seconds of
the Super Bowl. And not because it’s a same sex couple hooking up on TV. It’s
because there’s sexually explicit encounters on television AND it’s with a same
sex couple. If it were a heterosexual couple engaging in the activity, we would
STILL have to scramble for the remote like a nuclear isotope. Hollywood spends
a fair amount of energy trying to inject whatever will get a rise out of people
that just want to have solid values. Whatever strikes a nerve is what Hollywood
is more than happy to write into the script.
Now, I have many friends,
coworkers, even a boss who was homosexual. That’s your deal. I couldn’t care
less about what you do on your own time and in your bedroom. But, the agenda of
magnifying the population size of these groups is in full steam on every show.
The character is ALWAYS written into the script somewhere. And that’s because
of the old saying “perception is reality”. The “All in the Family” sitcom
formula. Only this time, it’s not to change hearts and minds of a viewpoint
towards race of people who were not accepted as equal in the eyes of others.
This time, it’s to normalize the mindset towards those who choose to follow a
particular lifestyle. And it must be flashed continually, and flaunt it in
every possible method one every type and style of Television show. And when
inundated with it, we then hear the questions from our children. They are
genially inquisitive and curious as to why they are doing what they are doing.
Why they look and act the way they do. And it’s not because of cultural norms,
it’s because if you take measures to force yourself to look completely opposite
of how you were born, then curiosities arise. They’re trying to make sense of
the world. And then, “the conversation” begins. And the conversation always
MUST be had on their viewpoints. There is no conversation encouraged about
inherit, God-given rights, freedom, and liberty. The conversation must be about
progressive agendas and special interest platforms.
Think about the last time America
was united, arguably at its greatest. September 12, 2001. American Flags on
every car and a muted, special interest. There were no arguments about a
multitude of sub genders. There wasn’t any outrage over whether or not we
should change the name of college administration leadership from Master to
Magister, because of some crazy linkage to slavery. We weren’t offended over
every single thing, but if we were, we didn’t care to complain about it. But at
a certain point encroachment occurs, on a level which forces itself into the
makeup of your values, is framed as a “conversation about tolerance”. After
9/11/2001, all of that took a pause. And really, we shouldn’t need a 9/11 event
to push us to the core of what our principles and values SHOULD be, regarding
liberty and freedom.
It’s not simply homosexuality and
transgenderism that we have to have “The Conversation” about. It’s all of the
leftist talking points: “
The problem is the conversation
you’re wanting to have is like that annoying person at the kiosk in the mall
who chases you with the forehead massager or perfume. It’s as annoying as the
Timeshare phone call you never want to answer. They box you into a corner and
start spewing their BS, while you’re expected to sit there and take it, comply,
and accept their demands. A conversation requires a back and forth, a sharing
of discussion points. Or, as it’s defined: The informal exchange of ideas by spoken
words.
We’re not getting an “exchange”. We’re
getting a lecture. We are supposed to tolerantly sit there and take it. See,
when people hear Conservatives argue against these wins by saying, “This is a
slippery slope” it’s because conservatives understand the natural reactions
that come from push certain boundary’s over. Without any self-awareness, they
find themselves actually putting the WD40 on the freaking slide and sliding
down the slope. Because the conversation doesn’t just stop there…it gets forced
down a rabbit hole of insanity, like what was displayed at the MTV Movie and TV
Awards.
(This
from the Daily Wire)
“This year has been full of firsts
for me.
I am the first, openly, non-binary actor to play a non-binary character on a
major, television show and now it’s so cool to be here presenting the first,
acting award ever that celebrates performance, free of any gender
distinctions,” gushed Dillon.
“Tonight, we celebrate portrayals of the human experience because the only
distinction we should be making when it comes to awards is between each
outstanding performance. I am honored to give this golden popcorn trophy to one
of these talented nominees.” Watson gave the most SJW-appeasing speech of
all time.
“The
first acting award in history that doesn’t separate nominees based on their sex
says something about how we perceive the human experience. MTV’s move to create
a genderless award for acting will mean something different to
everyone, but, to me, it indicates that acting is about the ability to put
yourself in someone else’s shoes and that doesn’t need to be separated into
two, different categories,” said Watson. “Empathy and the ability to use your
imagination should have no limits.”
Then
the Beauty and the Beast actress
stopped mid-sentence to hug and thank Dillon "for educating me in
such an inclusive, patient and loving way.
"I'm
so proud to be a part of a film that celebrates diversity, literacy, inclusion,
joy and love the way that this one does," continued Watson.
The
Left, of course, had a full-blown orgasm
over the spectacle. After all, rich Hollywood elites solved female
oppression! Yeah, not even close. First of all, there are many more male
than female lead actors. This will put women at a disadvantage if this
"genderless" award trend continues. Also, men and women tend to play
much different roles. For example, judging Hugh Jackman in Logan and Emma Watson for her role in
a fairy tale in the same category seems ridiculous. This is why we
have categories in the first place. If the genderless theme applies to an award
show like the Oscars, women will start winning awards for purely politically
correct reasons as a way to fill some SJW quota in Hollywood elites' minds, or
men will likely dominate many more categories than they already do. So
the Left should enjoy their "equality" now, before females don't come
out on the winning end of the genderless awards and we get a socially conscious
#OscarsSoMale hashtag.
They probably created the genderless Award because they
didn’t want to face the upcoming consequences for the bizarre world they’ve
built – the one with 63 freaking genders. Eventually it would’ve come down to
“The Award for Best Cisgendered Actor in a Supporting Role is…”, “Best Lead by
a Two-Spirit in a romantic comedy…”, or
“Best Gender Nonconforming support in a dramatic role goes to…” So they
make it across the board, genderless. Then, they cheer their achievement and
while giving themselves awards to prop up their egos, while they simultaneously
pat themselves on the back on the great work they’ve done. Nothing like taking
the achievements of the Women’s Suffrage Movement, where we find unique ways to
empower women at every opportunity
And AGAIN, they didn’t stop pumping
another award show with crap-tons of politics, 10 pounds of special interest
progressive leftist crap in a 5 pound bag, as they always do. They even lauded
a 70 year old women on a youth focused demographically based network, who’s
also a lifelong career politician, was cheered as if she was this hip cultural
icon. She was the most outspoken against President Trump, so she’ll be the one
to be lifted up as “Cool” in MTV’s eyes. And she was giving out the award. She
didn’t receive one of those ambiguous, androgynous, genderless Spacepersons
Trophy for her latest track, “I didn’t call for impeachment
(Impeach 45)” – the Contradictory Remix.
The continual progressive stealth
assault on the unassuming masses with their indoctrination continues. Similar
in the way that the left has destroyed American Pride by rewriting History,
lending many to hate the nation and the founding, they have targeted other
fundamental foundations in order to destroy the culture of the United States.
They were able to convince the youth that American settlers stole The Native
American’s land, when Native Americans sold the land to them thinking they had
just pulled one over on them because they didn’t believe in property ownership.
They focused on the internment of the Japanese in America during World War II,
even though it was a progressive liberal president who enacted the policy from
the get go. And they vilified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as some
unwarranted, imperialist terrorist strike by America, when it was to thwart the
unimaginable resolve of the Japanese who fought till the death. They’ll say
that we didn’t need to bomb them because they were going to surrender, which
couldn’t be further from the truth. Even after BOTH areas were strategically
targeted, not for maximum civilian deaths but because of the military
concentrations that resided in those areas, the Japanese was STILL persevering.
But we’ve destroyed historical truth and fact to cultivate anti-Americanism in
favor of global citizenship.
So, after rewriting history, we’re
now trying to rewriting science. And Bill Nye is the one spearheading this
mission.
From the Washington Free Beacon:
‘Bill Nye’ Episode on Netflix Omits Segment Saying Chromosomes Determine Gender
A segment saying that chromosomes determine one's gender on an episode
of the educational children's show "Bill Nye the Science guy," is cut
out on the Netflix version.
Netflix did not edit Bill Nye
the Science Guy. The series was delivered that way by Buena Vista TV,
according to a Netflix spokesperson.
In
the original episode, titled "Probability," a young woman told
viewers, here is the portion of the show that was edited out: "I'm a girl. Could have just as easily
been a boy, though, because the probability of becoming a girl is always 1 in
2." "See, inside each of our cells are these things called
chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” the young woman
continued. "See, there are only two possibilities: XX, a girl, or XY, a
boy."
But in the version of the episode uploaded to Netflix, the segment
has been cut entirely. While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment
appears to contradict Netflix's new series "Bill Nye Saves the
World."
The new
show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender
is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than
just the two traditional genders.
Update May 5, 2017 9:28
a.m.: This post has been
updated to reflect comment from Netflix, which says it did not have a role in
cutting the segment from the episode.
Of course, Bill Nye “the Consensus,
Mechanical Engineer Guy” demolished the science he touted in the 90’s recently
with his new show, Bill Nye Saves the
World. Unfortunately, they couldn’t save our ears from this travesty of a song
My apologizes for linking to that
talentless, tuneless drivel that amounts to televised poop on a stick. We just
needed you to get a healthy dosage of the sickness that they’re spewing, much
like a vaccine, so you can recognize the disease and attack it before it
strikes while you’re not looking. But this is their version of “Science”. Much
like this speaker at the March for Science event, which had nothing to do with
science, displays in her words alone.
But again, Science is not something
that can’t be changed without some intense questioning, leading to the
construction of a hypothesis. Through multiple testing attempts, they can
establish a definitive result to prove or disprove the hypothesis from every
angle possible. But they avoid this on their Pet Agendas. They omit the results
in order to bolster their narrative and continue the “Conversation”, as they
lecture you and your family into submission. Even when glimmers of scientific
research emerge to debunk their talking points and overall agenda of control.
(From the Daily Wire) - TRANSGENDER
AGENDA FAIL: Scientists Say There Are More Than 6,500 Genes That Express
Differently in Men and Women
Transgender activists have
simultaneously detached gender completely from sex and suggested that
men can magically become "real women" by merely
"identifying" as female, and vise-versa. This is untrue, of course. A new study composed by Weizmann Institute of Science
researchers just widened the
hole in the transgender narrative pushed by progressives: it
has been found that the two sexes express over 6,500 genes differently, adding to the already major
biological differences between men and women.
"Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently
uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed — copied out to make
proteins — differently in the two sexes, “notes the Weizmann Institute.
The study focuses on how "harmful mutations in these particular genes tend
to accumulate in the population in relatively high frequencies."
Professor Shmuel Pietrokovski and Dr. Moran Gershoni,
both researches from the Weizmann Institute’s Molecular Genetics
Department, "looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting
them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They
eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward
one sex or the other in at least one tissue. For example, they found genes that
were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and
they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene
expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was
higher in women," reports Weizmann Institute.
And the differences continue: mutations expressed in men
were less likely to be weeded out via natural selection than in women. “The
more a gene was specific to one sex, the less selection we saw on the gene. And
one more difference: This selection was even weaker with men,” said Gershoni.
The researches highlighted sexual evolution theory
from the 1930's to account for such a difference: “In many species,
females can produce only a limited number of offspring while males can,
theoretically, father many more; so the species’ survival will depend on more
viable females in the population than males,” said Pietrokovski. “Thus natural
selection can be more ‘lax’ with the genes that are only harmful to males.”
There were also discoveries of sex-linked genes in the
mammary glands:
Aside
from the sexual organs, the researchers discovered quite a few sex-linked genes
in the mammary glands — not so surprising, except that about half of these
genes were expressed in men. Because men have fully fitted but basically
nonfunctional mammary equipment, the scientists made an educated guess that
some of these genes might suppress lactation.
While such a difference might be obvious in the mammary glands,
the researchers also found genes "to be expressed only in the left
ventricle of the heart in women. One of these genes, which is also related to
calcium uptake, showed very high expression levels in younger women that
sharply decreased with age; the scientists think that they are active in women
up to menopause, protecting their hearts, but leading to heart disease and
osteoporosis in later years when the gene expression is shut down."
Additionally, they found "another gene that was
mainly expressed in women was active in the brain, and though its exact
function is unknown, the scientists think it may protect the neurons from
Parkinson’s — a disease that has a higher prevalence and earlier onset in
men. The researchers also identified gene expression in the liver in women that
regulates drug metabolism, providing molecular evidence for the known
difference in drug processing between women and men."
“The basic genome is nearly the same in all of us, but it is
utilized differently across the body and among individuals,” said Gershoni.
“Thus, when it comes to the differences between the sexes, we see that
evolution often works on the level of gene expression.”
“Paradoxically, sex-linked genes are those in which harmful
mutations are more likely to be passed down, including those that impair
fertility. From this vantage point, men and women undergo different selection
pressures and, at least to some extent, human evolution should be viewed as
co-evolution. But the study also emphasizes the need for a better understanding
of the differences between men and women in the genes that cause disease or
respond to treatments," added Pietrokovski.
Still, the many intricate biological differences
between men and women, such as the ones expressed by Weizmann Institute
researchers, will be said by progressives to be simply overridden by one's
feelings.
So, it
looks as though Mr. Nye’s (not Professor Nye, or even Dr. Nye mind you) attempt
to shroud scientific truth by removing it from older shows to attempt to
recreate consistency with his new platform is thwarted yet again. But that’s
his M.O. Listen to this exchange on his Pet Political Agenda Item, Climate
Change.
William Happer, a physicist at Princeton
University,” caused Bill Nye to become ‘heated’ after Happer said the climate
change that Nye talks about is a “myth.”
“There’s this myth that’s developed around carbon dioxide that
it’s a pollutant, but you and I both exhale carbon dioxide with every breath.
Each of us emits about two pounds of carbon dioxide a day, so are we polluting
the planet?” Happer, who has advised President Donald Trump on climate issues,
said.
He
wants to silence opposition. He wants to remove dissenting opinions. And that
hasn’t stopped him from taking on other UN Agenda21/2030 sustainable talking
points, like population control or this issue with you having what he says is “extra
Children”.
The 13th and final
installment of “Bill Nye Saves the World.” is titled “Earth’s People Problem,”
and with a name like that, you know we could be in for some ideas that border
on eugenics.
The 26-minute episode
starts off in fairly inoffensive fashion. Following an intro that demonstrates
how human consumption is like sponges soaking up water, Nye explains how women
who have access to educational and professional opportunities tend to have
fewer children. This is true, and he illustrates his point by telling the story
of his mother, who developed technology for the United States during World War
II and went on to earn her master’s degree and doctorate. (Inspiring!)
Nye says when women are in
power, they have fewer children, and more resources can be devoted to those
children. “It’s not rocket surgery. It’s science!” he coyly explains. Sure,
it’s not science in the same way that a Punnett square is science, but there is
certainly a correlation there and the overall goal of providing equal
opportunity to women is noble enough. So let’s just indulge him and call his
observation “science.” Close enough.
Noting that the population
density is highest in India, Nye’s correspondent Emily Calandrelli went off to
India to deliver a report on population growth in the country. It is followed
by a brief chat between Nye and Calandrelli that quickly devolves into a
lecture on how America’s maternity leave policy is an example of our
patriarchal society (or whatever).
She says women in India get
16 weeks of paid maternity leave, which is “unheard of in the United States.”
Never mind that in California (home to roughly 20 percent of Americans), they
have 16 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave as well. Also disregard the fact that
the absence of a federal requirement for maternity leave does not mean
maternity leave is nonexistent in the United States. Instructively, she
approvingly lists China when she rattles off some of the countries that do have
required paid maternity leave policies.
Then we get to the rancid
meat and soggy potatoes of this whole spectacle: the panel segment. On the
panel are: Dr. Rachel Snow, chief of population development at the United
Nations Population Fund, Dr. Travis Rieder, ethicist at the Berman Institute
at Johns Hopkins University, and finally Dr. Nerys Benfield, director of
Family Planning Montefiore Medical Center. Benfield is an abortionist, (so you
may know where we are headed here).
Nye starts off the panel by
asking “What should we be doing?” Benfield immediately jumps in and says that
as a physician, she feels access to health care and family planning is
important. She avoids the A-word. Repeating the observation that women’s
education levels and fertility rates are inversely related, Benfield says the
reason is either women are having less sex (Nye, redblooded horndog that he is,
howls “I hope that’s not true!” with a quasi-sheepish grin), or that women are
using contraception.
The panel notes the
importance of contraceptive access. Snow jumps in and says “We need justice and
we need education.” What “justice” means in this context is anybody’s guess? My
personal guess is that she is referring to abortion. But, again, the panel
dances around the word.
How do we create and export
this justice? Nye asks. Snow responds with vague concepts like “excellent
education systems” (You heard her, everyone! Make them excellent!) and “family
planning,” as she nods in the direction of the abortion doctor two seats to her
left. Family planning, meaning abortion, a word that is again avoided.
The fight against climate
change, Nye’s most passionate cause, is brought up by Rieder, who notes that
children in developed countries use 160 times more resources than children in
the developing world. This is where the creepy totalitarianism of the
environmental movement starts to show itself. Nye asks, bluntly, “Should we
have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed
world?”
Extra kids. These d-mn people and
their existence, am I right? Nye (who, again, decided we all needed to see that
abomination from Bloom) is wise enough to set limits on humanity. This whole
concept and the ease with which he discusses it is so frightening and evil that
I am genuinely appalled at Netflix’s decision to air it.
Rieder says we should “at
least consider” a form of punishment for people who have these Extra Kids I.
Nye impatiently responds that “consider means do it.” Snow, to her credit,
jumps in and takes issue with the idea that “we do anything to incentivize
fewer children or more children.” Benfield notes the history of compulsory
sterilization in America, a practice that was in place as recently as the
1970s. The issue was not come at from a position of justice in the past, she
adds. But this time will be different, I guess?
So, if you’re scoring at
home, that leaves China’s maternity laws and their recently ended one-child
policy as the key points from this half hour of science televangelism. As
Calandrelli says, it’s time for America to “catch up.” With China.
Yeesh. The program
had eight minutes left that I couldn’t watch even if I tried.
So why is this all happening? Transgendered bathroom arguments, the entertainment community injecting alternative lifestyles into every bit of programming, recognizing the ridiculous premise of the existence of about 63 different genders, implementing ridiculous federal education curriculum to encourage data mining in the name of Common Core, changing energy policy to undeveloped, unproven energy resources in the name of saving the planet, aligning our healthcare system as a government controlled system that is compatible with other nation’s systems, population control with the idea that family planning must consider the limitations to having “Extra children”? There are two things at work here. Much like the economic policies over the last 8 years to stunt and stifle economic growth, leaving GDP under 1% for 8 long years, you cannot coax the ceding of sovereignty by the globes freest nation in the world’s history without diminishing them to a level that would allow them to willingly hand over freedom in favor of security, stability, and “Sustainable Development” – the global community engineering of the United Nations. Read through the proposals of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. It lays out the “non-binding agreement” to set the stage for utopia.
We’ve covered how the UN
A shocking
statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at
a news conference in Brussels. She admitted that the Global Warming
conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which
she is the executive secretary, has a goal
not of environmental activism and not to save the world from ecological
calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She
said very casually:
“This
is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the
task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic
development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the
Industrial Revolution.”
She
even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most
difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally
transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Now, how does all of this explain
the insanity the associates itself with this agenda, like arguments on
Transgendered bathrooms, and the LGBTQ injection into entertainment media (with
every sitcom having a token LGBTQ character forced into the script and every
episode breaking out into a Musical with a plethora of Jazz hands)? It’s the
method that the Soviet Union employed to crumble America from within, as
explained by Former KGB Agent, Yuri Bezmenov, in this video
from the 1980’s. Listen to the methodology, and before you shrug it off,
ask yourself – “Is any of this actually happening?”
Is this why
we are adopting all of these European cultural positions? Is this why we are
currently even removing our civil war monuments in order to set the stage for
the new global community? Is all of this setting the table for what’s to come?
In my opinion, the model for the new global governance will be the
Chinese model: a state run Faux-Capitalism. They will tout China's economic
prosperity as the key mixture of State Socialism & Capitalism. But they
will be completely mistaken. Because where they opened up their economy to
allow some form of capitalism to go it will be like a controlled burn, when it could've
been a wildfire. The United
Nations Agenda is even using Communist Methods to implement a Chinese/Soviet
crafted Global Authoritarianism.
You may think this is all insane,
but follow the money, power, and search for an endgame goal to all of the
insanity in the world and all paths lead back to these points.
How do you fight this back? How do
you overcome this encroachment? The way you combat this with your family is by
building a strong foundation. No matter what they do in defiance for a time, or
if they are inundated with values that don’t agree with your families, that
foundation will be something that they’ll return to. We can’t allow the
Government’s education system provide this foundation in a form of “Creative
Outsourcing”. Giving this responsibility over to them because of a sense of
Faux-Expertise. We can’t give the foundation of values and principles over to
cultural groupthink by tastemakers and celebrities. It must be within your
family and you must measure every bit of influence and teaching (School
Coursework, etc.) through the lens of your values and principles, to be certain
that you can identify indoctrination and be able to use them as teachable
moments via real world examples to your family.
Monday, January 30, 2017
Trump’s first week – Conservatives, you can’t always get what you want, but you’ll get what you need.
https://soundcloud.com/adrianslade/conservatism-may-not-get-what-it-wants-but-itll-get-what-it-needs
We are only a week into the new Trump Administration. “The Don” has come swinging out the gate, like a pre-Robin Givens, Mike Tyson back in his prime. And He’s giving Conservatives plenty to cheer about. He’s opening up his first 100 days in extraordinary fashion, in order to set a powerful tone. So far, he has removed all climate change data and references from the White House website. He has removed the federal funding for foreign funded abortions. He froze all federal agency hiring, with the exception of those hired by the Military. He has authorized the building of a Southern Border Wall. He’s made an executive order declaration to repeal and replace Obamacare. He’s removing funding from Sanctuary Cities and ending the “Catch and Release” program. He’s looking to strip billions of federal funding from the United Nations. His appointments, although somewhat a mixed bag, have been fairly decent overall. The possibility of Neil Gorsuch as the next Supreme Court Justice is extremely promising. He has even authorized the advancement of the Keystone and Dakota Pipelines, to the chagrin of the Progressive Leftists.
But, his lack of Conservative grounding illustrates just how contradictory his governing style may just be toward conservatism in the future. It seems to be starting to rear its ugly head, especially as it relates to the recent Pipeline Executive Order. For the Federal Government to mandate that private businesses use only American Made Raw and Refined Materials into the building, re-fabricating, or repairing Pipelines in America is a bit of an overreach in my opinion:
SUBJECT: Construction of American Pipelines
The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with all relevant executive departments and agencies, shall develop a plan under which all new pipelines, as well as retrofitted, repaired, or expanded pipelines, inside the borders of the United States, including portions of pipelines, use materials and equipment produced in the United States, to the maximum extent possible and to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary shall submit the plan to the President within 180 days of the date of this memorandum.
"Produced in the United States" shall mean:
(i) With regard to iron or steel products, that all manufacturing processes for such iron or steel products, from the initial melting stage through the application of coatings, occurred in the United States.
(ii) Steel or iron material or products manufactured abroad from semi-finished steel or iron from the United States are not "produced in the United States" for purposes of this memorandum.
(iii) Steel or iron material or products manufactured in the United States from semi-finished steel or iron of foreign origin are not "produced in the United States" for purposes of this memorandum.
The Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP
DONALD J. TRUMP
If it were a Government Agency doing the actual construction of the Pipeline and using materials made directly from American Steel and Iron Companies, I would have no problem with this Executive Order. It would be their contract to award and their expense to incur (but at our expense via tax revenue). With the current waste of tax revenue, over frivolous studies such as the effects of Mountain Lions running on Treadmills, I could look past purchasing only American Steel and Iron for a project that is fully developed by a Government Agency. Now, would I want a Government Agency to be responsible for actually building the pipeline? Probably not. We would most likely be constructing this energy solution for the next 30 years, if a Government Agency were solely responsible for its Construction. But, when you look into who is actually being tapped to build theses pipelines, and how this order relates to Pipeline construction overall within the United States, it seems a bit outside of the Constitutional role of the Government.
Some of these pipelines are being built by Private energy firms. The Dakota Pipeline, in particular, is being built by Texas based Energy Transfer Partners. This is where I call into criticism the new President’s basis for decision making. It’s why we Constitutional “Conservatarians” wanted someone with a strong constitutional foundation to be leading the movements necessary in repairing the Republic from eight years of Progressive Sabotage. Take the Carrier Co. deal. This was the “canary in the coalmine” to Trump’s handling of the economy, and to how he plans to bring business home to America. The Deal, mostly allowable due to Mike Pence’s role as Indiana Governor at that time, was to make individual tax breaks available in order to incentivize Carrier Co. to stay put and not flee the country due to the company’s economic sustainability. Most notably as of late, there have been a plethora of various businesses proclaiming that they will remain in America. Did they each receive customized deals and incentives indicative specifically to their desires by Federal Government Promises?
This is not the role of Government. It’s not their role to harness domestic business through coercion, via individual deals towards businesses on a case by case basis. We tend to call this “Crony Corporatism”. The role of government is simply to create an enticing environment. Why not provide a lower corporate tax rate? This will lead to businesses into reevaluating the risks and rewards of operating overseas. Do we headquarter in a country that will let us keep more of our revenue? If we decide to look at other countries for conducting operations, we have to address some other outside questions:
- What if that country is politically unstable?
- What if the country is in the crosshairs of another nation’s aggression?
- What if they confiscate our property or overthrow our operations?
- What if the country is susceptible to an uprising of its citizens?
- What if, as in the case of China, their Government demands they be a must be a shareholder with a percentage of ownership in our business in order to be able to enter into their market to grow our customer base?
- What if we have to bribe government officials to facilitate our operations in these new markets?
- What if we can foster a relationship with their leadership financially, in order to operate at a level that’s more cost effective than being taxed at the rate of operating in America?
ALL of these questions are typically hedged against the calculated costs of labor, regulation compliance, and taxes for operating in America. Think of it in like this: If operating in a volatile nation could lead to a meager 5% increase in revenue, is it worth risking operations over the 1% revenue increase that could be earned due to the financial burden of higher costs of operating in America? It may Sound ridiculous, right? Well, think of this: What would be the result of a meager 5% overseas revenue increase vs. a 1% American revenue increase, as to how it relates to revenues earned of about $100 million? Yeah, I’d probably risk it too!
There’s another way to think of this situation on a personal level. Take the example of blissfully enjoying the comforts of home. Think of having the ability to be able to set your thermostat to 72 degrees, run all of your electronic devices, and light up your home the way that you see fit. Think about if you can consider all of this, without the consideration of the economic expense? Complete comfort at your every whim. If the Government subsidized your electrical bill, you’d probably even run the Hot Tub and leave the windows open with your heat on in the middle of February! Now, if it’s not economically viable to your income and expenses, you may think about dealing with a cooler temperature in your home. You may not want to run all of those electronic devices, in order to financial conserve and possibly save money. Businesses think of all of these factors in the same manner as well. And not every bottom line is a bloated, gross hording of revenue, as Liberals always assume. Sometimes, expenses add up to barely making any revenue. Assessing the tax implications of operating in the United States could force them to move out of the country. Everything is viewed as a hurdle. Continually assessing these obstacles is a regular action for a business to take, in deciding where to operate.
Ultimately, it is the role of government to provide a competitive and comfortable environment in order to entice businesses to reside and operate in America. You can do this easily, without the mindset of the last eight years. Instead of acting as though America is the “Burbank, CA. of the world” and the Government is doing these companies a favor by letting them operate in America, taxing them as such, we should cultivate a favorable economic environment for business retention.
Additionally, Trump displayed another action that makes me question his Constitutional grounding. We all understand the out of control crime and violence that is occurring in Chicago. Local police have had their hands tied. The progressive regimes have wielded toxic policies over decades of consecutive liberal dynasties, fostering this crisis. Generations of broken families, sanctuary city allowances, and an economically declining metropolis due to governmental inefficiency, has led to increasing violence and widespread murders. Drug gangs and drive by shootings have steadily increased year after year. It is an issue that the City of Chicago must eradicate.
So, Trump decided to weigh in on this phenomena. He sent out a tweet on twitter Tuesday night, Jan 24th. It stated, “If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible ‘Carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016). I will send in the Feds!” Ok, if this was sent by Trump in 2015, I could look past it as simply heavy criticism. If it was some Hollywood actor, I could justify that critique as well. And this could be typical “Trump chest pumping” in a motion to show his positioning. He was very masterful at doing this throughout his campaign, whether it be brash or not. But this is now coming from the President of the United States! On the surface, it may sound reasonable. We all understand something must be done in Chicago. And to be honest, it’s entirely legal for the President to do so! Technically, Trump could deploy a commandeered National Guard into Illinois in order to quell the inner city violence that’s ever increasing, under the vague sections of legislation that’s already on the books. But, I think that Trump’s tweet actually sends a disturbing message.
Yes, the President has legal authority to intercede over domestic violence. But, he also currently has the legal authority to uphold Obamacare, even though we are all clamoring for its repeal. The problem again comes from his views as to the role that the Federal Government should play. Even though it isn’t in the “Top 5 Laws to Repeal”, a Constitutionalist would have addressed this issue and called for its removal. What should the Federal Government’s role be in relation to State law enforcement? How does it relate, at the very least, to Municipal and State Government performance? Should the Federal Government intercede in every State with a Locality that has a high crime rate? Is a State’s Sovereignty even crucially important of a factor as to how it relates to the makeup of our Republic? Keep in mind, this isn’t a criticism of Trumps or even his Tweet. This is actually a criticism of the expanded role of the Presidency going back to even George W Bush.
Now, I live on the east coast, about a few minutes away from the beach. We encounter severe weather on a regular basis. One of the oddest occurrences for people, who don’t live in an area such as ours, will note from time to time is the practice of preemptive declarations of State of Emergencies before an extreme weather event. The Governor will usually make this declaration in advance of the 1st rain drop! They do this in order to allow the Federal Government to aid in the efforts of the State Government. They “invite them in” to provide assistance with protection, medical assistance, and even help with clean up ahead of a severe weather event. Usually, this is preemptively ordered to begin the painstaking logistics of setting the assistance effectively in place. Think about Hurricane Katrina. Kathleen Blanco, the Governor of Louisiana was urged by the President of the United States to declare a State of Emergency. She failed to do so. The Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, didn’t even deploy the necessary measures to have evacuations ready. He failed to have essential city service employees ready to assist in covering the impending disaster. That’s why dozens of buses were underwater. No State of Emergency was Declared until it was extremely too late. This tied President Bush’s hands on providing Federal Assistance. They weren’t invited in to the State to assist by the sitting Governor. Whether or not this was done to inflict political damage to the President at the expense of their citizens is another argument altogether. But the mechanics of this example are as such to show the role of how the Federal Government interacts with the State Governments. George W Bush didn’t force the Federal Government into Louisiana, even if he wished to do so. A respect for States Sovereignty was never trampled upon by our Executive Branch of the Government.
So, in response to this quandary, the N.D.A.A. of 2007 was one of the few actions taken by the Bush Administration in order to remedy this issue. The N.D.A.A. of 2007 states:
“On October 17, 2006, the President Bush signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation amends the Insurrection Act to allow the President unilaterally, i.e. without the consent of the States involved, to deploy Federal troops, to respond to natural disasters and other major domestic emergencies, which was signed over the bi-partisan objection of all State governors, who claimed it trampled upon State Sovereignty”
This from the University of Maryland Center for Center for Health and Homeland Security:
“Perhaps the primary reason for the delayed federal action was the President’s perceived lack of constitutional and statutory authority to assume command of the response by the National Guard or to override Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco’s refusal to allow a unified command structure for active duty federal troops and the National Guard. That perception resulted from a narrow interpretation of both constitutional principles and the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the federal military to enforce domestic laws in most cases. In 2006, to resolve this lingering uncertainty, President Bush urged Congress to enact the Warner Amendment to the Insurrection Act. This Amendment granted the President explicit authority to employ federal troops to “restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States” without the consent of the affected state to respond to a major disaster or emergency. The Warner Amendment was subsequently repealed in 2008, as it faced much opposition having arguably represented an unjustified expansion of presidential power.
Despite the ultimate repeal of the Warner Amendment, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, leaders in the field recognized the military’s potential to play a critical role in providing response support in major disasters and emergencies. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act already authorizes federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, to provide a wide range of assistance in order to save lives and protect property, including providing federal supplies, personnel, and other resources or performing various emergency management services. In 2012, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the Secretary of Defense to involuntarily activate any Reserve units or individuals under federal authority to provide assistance in responding to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency. A state governor must first request federal assistance, but need not consent to the activation of Reserve troops. The passage of this Act streamlined the process for the Reserve to mobilize in order to support local communities. The Act’s purpose was first realized in November 2012 when the Army Reserve activated three tactical water distribution units to affected areas in response to Hurricane Sandy.
In stark contrast to the criticism of slow federal action in response to Katrina, the federal government received much praise from the states and local communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy seven years later for its quick response and minimal bureaucratic red tape. Despite a few challenges over the last ten years, including the enactment and repeal of the Warner Amendment, the federal government has made and continues to make significant progress in its involvement in disaster and emergency management through carefully considered legislative reform.
Now, justification for Trump’s Statement is found within the section entitled: “Or other condition”, which refers to “Subtitle H: Other Matters”. It’s a very critical action. The president can send the National Guard into any community for any—even frivolous—reasons. The Founders were anxious to never have a national police force, for fear it would be used to centralize power at the federal level and weaken the role of states. Many times in the Federalist Papers, it addresses the natural tendency for a powerful central government to gravitate to great control over the several states. It emphasizes the necessity for the importance of State Sovereignty. In Federalist 46, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared from the NY Packet, James Madison mines this territory. He states, “I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the state governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. The federal and state governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes”. ”. He goes on to address those who were against the proposed Constitution at that time as saying, “These gentleman must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone”. He continues by stating that, “The first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States”.
Going back to the roots of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act takes you to the Insurrection Act of 1807. This act is the set of laws that govern the ability of the President of the United States to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. It was coupled with the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. That was passed to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It reads: “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the military ‘as a posse comitatus’ or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years or both.”
Now, the 2007 section was repealed under the 2008 in the HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, SEC. 1068.
SEC. 1068. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS IN SECTION 1076 OF PUBLIC LAW 109–364 RELATING TO USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES. (a) INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law
`The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) Opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.’
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by striking `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
We all know that President Obama had absolutely no regard for the boundaries between State and Federal jurisdiction. He continually displayed this throughout his exhausting, eight year tenure. Federally Militarizing Municipal Law enforcement, through using the Department of Justice as his weapon, was normal fare for Obama. They continually undermined local internal affairs investigations, even down to conducting independent ones that prop up their agenda. It was a normal occurrence. But that was a Progressive President. We expected a disregard for Constitutionality from him and his party. But we should never settle for the same standard from a Republican administration. Especially, since the Constitutional grounding was something many of us were clamoring for in the primaries! So, to see this tweet posted by a sitting President was a bit unnerving. Truthfully, the N.D.A.A. should actually should be on the repeal, “1st 100 days” Chopping Block. Let’s return to constitutionality. Hopefully, the Conservative council that’s helping us win back all of that lost ground from the Democrat regime, will roll back this over extension of powers.