You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Donald Trump’ tag.

It has long been an belief of mine that if you’ve never failed, you haven’t done much in life.

Anyone who is successful will have had at least one, if not more, spectacular failures. Donald Trump’s big professional failure was his casino closures in the early 1990s. We had to read and hear all about them again in 2016 presidential campaign. On a personal level, his first two marriages failed, causing a lot of hurt at the time.

Did the casino failures stop Donald Trump in the 1990s? Certainly not!

Therefore, my belief is that we need to take calculated risks such that, even if we fail, we have the mettle to dust ourselves off and keep going. In retrospect, failure looks stupid, but if the moves made sense at the time, we have to look for the next big success.

A friend of mine has a real problem with that concept, but, so be it.

On that subject, a month ago, I read an excellent post about learning how to deal with failure. One of my readers, Daughn, wrote ‘Why Are The Dems So Angry? Version 2.0’, which starts with the appalling reactions the Democrats have towards now-President Donald Trump, then explores how average citizens go into overdrive against others when they themselves fail (emphases mine below):

Worried about Trump becoming too popular because of his successes, attack him and his family personally
Worried about the country rejecting socialism/communism, re electing Trump, impeach him.
Don’t have enough votes for impeachment, then change the rules for a “hybrid Impeachment Inquiry”
Rather impeach Trump than resolve immigration.
Rather hire outside counsel, change the rules of the House, establish a mini-DOJ within the Congress, to defend Obamacare wherever it is challenged — than put together a good healthcare plan for the country …

And then it drifts down into culture,
Don’t get promoted? Sue the company for discrimination.
Don’t like your male boss, accuse him of sexual advances.
Don’t check out fast enough in line, can’t afford an item in a dept store = steal it.
Don’t want to take the time to work out problems with your spouse —>>> divorce.

To our kids:
Don’t get a cookie, scream until you do.
Don’t make the cheerleading squad, sue the school or spread false rumors about those who do
Not popular in school —->>>> kill your classmates.

It’s about never learning how to accept failure (Hillary Clinton is a perfect example).
If we cannot accept a failure, we’re stuck. Time stops. We cannot move forward to LEARN from the mistake, and grow, develop into a wise old man, change our tactics, and be a productive member of society.
Again, Hillary is a perfect example of someone who is “stuck”.

If we blame our failures on others, that’s a dangerous place to be.

We need to own our failures, learn from them AND MOVE ON.

The lady who wrote the post about Democrat and everyday anger related a personal anecdote about herself. She learned to deal with failure, thanks to her father, a Marine. He told her that if she never failed, she hadn’t done much in life (emphasis in the original):

When I was young, I worked on a case that I knew would make me successful and wealthy. I was so sure I was going to make a name for myself. Ahhhh, we’re all blind when we’re young. I worked on it for two years, and I did everything right. Every detail of the case was covered. I was so sure I would put the plan in motion, I even shopped for new homes. I knew the house I was going to buy. Suddenly, from left field, a competitor appeared. His plan was not as good, he was not offering nearly what my firm could, but he was older and the law firm was more comfortable with him than me. As I headed into a final meeting, where I feared I would learn the bad news, I called……….. Dad. I needed advice.

My Dad loved me. Surely, he would be empathetic or give me something magical to say or do to save the client. Instead, I got a swift kick in the a$$…. from my own Dad.

Dad was familiar with the case, of course, I talked about it endlessly for two years. Instead, Dad said, paraphrasing, “You’ve lost this one. Accept the beating and move on. You put all your eggs into one basket, and it’s a classic mistake. If you had 10 law firms- medium size, instead of going after the biggest one in the southeast, you wouldn’t be in this position. Yes, all the other guys in the office will make fun of you. This is your comeuppance. It’s going to happen. You failed to bring it home…… “

I was feeling like an old crusty barnacle on the bottom of a boat, whining a little bit (Gosh, I really thought Dad would have something magical. Dad hated it when I whined and he was getting impatient with me) when Dad continued, “…… but here’s the thing….. If you’re not failing, you’re not fu$king doing anything. If you never fail, that means you never tried. You want to be on the field of play, then expect to get fu$king hit. You’ll figure out how to win….. next time. You’re way too stubborn to stay down on the mat for too long…..”

My Dad was a Marine until the day he died and a very successful exec. I was 24 when that conversation happened and in 24yrs, I never heard him curse. Never. Not once. For Dad to drop the F bomb was a big deal. It meant two things. He was serious, and he was treating me like an adult, not a daughter. Mixed blessing. Lose a huge client, but in Daddy’s eyes, I was all grown up. Yeah, grown up enough to fail, …..miserably. And like all daughters seeking their father’s respect, Dad was much more important to me than any client. I was working on that “respect” thing…..but I was getting there.

I took my medicine from the client, and they were kind of surprised by how quickly I walked away. My competitor got a slot on Good Morning America…. and the sight of his face made me irritated for years. Salt in the wound. Yet strangely, I was walking a little taller. Yeah, I could figure it out. There would be many more failures to come. I embraced them and each time, the sting hurt a little less. Each failure taught me more, make me stronger. And no, staying “down on the mat” would have been easier, but was never a comfortable place to be.

Lying about it, selling out, compromising ethics was never an option. Can’t get respect that way….. at least not from my Dad.

I hope that makes us feel a bit better about personal failures, those big enough to attract ridicule or criticism.

Look at the people who focus on others’ failures. How much have they themselves done in life? Not much. They took the safe, secure way. They lived without taking the ‘What if?’ risk.

Better to have lived it large, taking that calculated risk and failing, rather than never have tried at all.

Failure is no bad thing. Failure teaches us lessons.

Above all, failure should teach us to keep reaching for the stars.

CNN calls itself ‘the most trusted name in news’.

It might have been 40 years ago, when it actually reported news.

Since 2015, however, CNN’s chief Jeff Zucker has issued a policy of anti-Trump editorialising all the time.

On October 14, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas posted a 19-minute video full of interviews with CNN employees, most of whom complain that Jeff Zucker has gone far enough, perhaps too far, with the anti-Trump narrative. Please take time this weekend to watch this fascinating undercover exposé:

Employees interviewed say that Zucker has a mandatory 9 a.m. telephone call issuing the day’s anti-Trump theme. Most often, this is impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.

The interviewees are not Trump supporters, but even they say this is taking away from CNN’s ability — and their own desire — to cover real news, not editorials.

Staff members say that Zucker helped create the Trump media ‘monster’ by overpublicising him since 2015.

The White House has seen the film, as a campaign lawyer mentions the main CNN whistleblower Cary Poarch in writing. The letter below, dated October 16, 2019, gives notice that Donald J Trump for President, Inc., intends to take legal action against the network:

The day before, Trump tweeted:

Oh, if only.

James O’Keefe has experienced Twitter labelling portions of the Project Veritas video as ‘sensitive content’:

Twitter also omitted the Project Veritas video from their trending list, as O’Keefe explains in the next video:

This is the link to the video of Cary Poarch and Sean Hannity. This Fox News article has a brief summary of the interview.

By the time the Hannity interview took place, Poarch was no longer with the network. Hannity described him as a ‘contractor’ and ‘former satellite uplink technician at CNN’s Washington, D.C. bureau’. Poarch told Hannity that he had problems sleeping at night because of CNN’s extreme bias.

Poarch said he was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016 and voted for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson that year.

He told Hannity that he and his boss discussed his resignation, which, at the time, they agreed would be voluntary. However, the Project Veritas video circulated so widely and so quickly that the network terminated his employment that day.

The next video, from October 17, features a CNN employee saying that the House of Representatives abuses its power everyday, yet Congressmen and Congresswomen are trying to impeach President Trump for no justifiable reason:

Not everyone at CNN agrees with that assessment. The next video shows an employee saying that the anti-Trump coverage will only go away if the president dies! Pathological:

There have also been sexual shenanigans going on at CNN:

This is a terrible state of affairs but one many of us already suspected.

I congratulate Project Veritas for finally being able to expose CNN.

Yesterday, I ran across four articles of interest.

The coup

The starting point is James Howard Kunstler’s October 15 essay, ‘Wait For It’, which is about the ongoing American coup, the latest development being President Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine and the Democrats’ ‘whistleblower’ (emphases mine):

For one thing, he-she-it is not a “whistleblower” at all; was only labeled that via legalistic legerdemain to avoid revealing the origin of this affair as a CIA cover-your-ass operation. Did Mr. Schiff actually think he could conceal this figure’s identity in a senate impeachment trial, when it came to that — for what else is impeachment aimed at? Anonymous sources are not admissible under American due process of law. Mr. Schiff must have missed that class in law school.

All of this hocus-pocus suggests to me that there is no “whistleblower,” that it is a phantom confabulation of gossip threads that unraveled the moment Mr. Trump released the transcript of his phone call to Ukraine’s president Zelensky, aborting Mr. Schiff’s game plan. The ensuing weeks of congressional Keystone Kops buffoonery since then appears to conceal a futile effort by Mr. Schiff and his confederates to find some fall guy willing to pretend that he-she-it is the “whistleblower”

One marvels at Rep. Schiff’s tactical idiocy. But just imagine the panicked consternation it must be triggering among his Democratic colleagues. Notice that Mrs. Pelosi has been hiding out during this latest phase of the action. She may sense that there is nothing left to do but allow Mr. Schiff to twist slowly slowly in the wind, as he has hung himself out to dry. She should have known better since every previous declaration of conclusive evidence by Mr. Schiff over the past three years has proved to be false, knowingly and mendaciously so.

One also clearly senses that all the smoke-and-mirrors are a desperate attempt to divert attention from a soon-to-drop DOJ Inspector General’s report which, by the way, will only be an overture to much more damaging action likely to come from Mr. Barr’s proceeding. After all, IG Horowitz was not allowed under the rules to compel the testimony of persons outside the Department of Justice, which would now include Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and many others at the center of the RussiaGate prank

That lame admission will not avail to protect him or the CIA, an agency that is behind the administrative civil war. It has been a rogue agency for a long long time, but may have finally overplayed its hand, along with the newer adjunct agencies that have been stitched onto it since 9/11/01 — the dark network that goes by the name Intelligence Community. So many shoes are ready to drop on them that the din might drown out all the John Philip Sousa marches ever played in the lobby at Langley, let alone the thin trilling of a fake whistleblower.

Apart from these fateful developments the prize for the week’s most transparently disingenuous bit of media agitprop goes to Saturday’s New York Times puff piece on former FBI Director Jim Comey, which actually sets him up for federal indictment on something like sedition or treason.

Did you notice that the photo-caption states: James Comey plans to spend the next 13 months working to drive President Trump from power. Oh, really? By what means, exactly? Single-handedly or with whom? And how did the strategy he kicked off in 2016 work out? In case Mr. Barr is looking for some way to attribute motive to the actions that he’s investigating, he may need to seek no further. Also, consider that The New York Times and its editor-in-chief Dean Baquet, and publisher A.G. Sulzberger may be named as unindicted co-conspirators in the three-year campaign of sedition (freedom of the press, of course). Alert the shareholders.

I should emphasise that Jim Kunstler is not a Trump supporter, but even the Democrats’ continuing attempts at getting a legitimately elected president out of office have been making him think a bit more about the coup.

The ‘revolution in reverse’

The comments to Kunstler’s article were as wide-ranging and fascinating as ever.

Someone linked to an October 10 essay on Tzarism.com called ‘The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: A Revolution In Reverse: The Uprising Of The American Elites Against The American People’. The author, Dr Baruch Pletner, is a polyglot:

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist – Baruch Pletner is an entrepreneur, a scientist, an inventor, and a private pilot. He is passionate about education, the outdoors, and the war on globalism. Baruch holds a PhD degree from the Technion in Haifa, Israel and an MBA from Northeastern University in Boston.

He points out that the leftist revolution taking place in the United States is the inverse of what usually happens in an uprising:

The great Bolshevik revolutions of the last century in Russia, in China, and in Cuba all followed a familiar pattern: a group of young, energetic, endlessly corruptible, but not yet corrupt outsiders take on, in the name of the people, a tired corrupt establishment. A civil war ensues in which the people side with the revolutionaries because they (mistakenly) think that things can never be worse. Revolutionaries win, slaughter the establishment elites, and proceed to rob and enslave the people in even more outrageous fashion. Soon enough the old guard revolutionaries become every bit as corrupt as the ones they have replaced if not more so and the cycle repeats itself.

In America, the situation is rather farcically backwards. In America, the corrupt establishment elites have decided to stage a Bolshevik coup against the American people rather than the other way around. A Tsar fully in command of his own kingdom staging a coup against his own people is a bizarre development to say the least, and yet, here we are in 2019 America. Like always, there are reasons. First and foremost among them is the sheer scope of the nepotism and corruption of the American elites in business, government, technology, and the intelligence services. This scope has very likely far exceeded anything previously known in human history. Had the dimensions of the robbery perpetrated by the American ruling classes against the American people become widely known earlier, America could well have experienced a more typical revolution, one by the people against the elites.

There are other reasons, he says, which date from the late 1980s. Continuing on from the previous paragraph, he tells us:

Well aware of the possibility if not probability of such an outcome, the people who run America put in place a plan to make it all but impossible. The plan involved the gradually escalating erosion of the limits on government powers put in place by the Constitution with a parallel erosion in the God-given rights guaranteed every American by the same document. This was a fully bipartisan effort, put in place immediately after president Reagan departed office. It is sufficient to observe the exponential increase in government versus private sector employment in America from 1988 to 2019 to fully grasp this point. Stopping immigration from countries that have (or at least used to have) a tradition of personal freedom and limited government while throwing open the spigots for immigration from countries that have neither was the second part of the same plan. The destruction of family values and Christianity in America was the third.

Then there were the social, guilt-inducing conditioning of the majority of the American populace, who have no control over their skin colour. As such:

Americans allowed themselves to become squeezed out of well-paying jobs by the elites-induced trifecta of low and high-skilled immigration and automation, with nary a whisper in protest.

Then, he says, along came Donald Trump. In the eyes of the elite, President Trump must be stopped:

Trying to pin on Trump their own sins of sexual corruption, nepotism, embezzlement, etc. has not been a well-thought out strategy on the part of the American power elites simply because it enabled him to begin educating the American public as to the breathtaking scope of their own criminality. Now, on the verge of Trump’s inevitable reelection, they are left with only one option: a coup d’etat against the American people, the American Constitution, and the American Republic itself.

Since the elites still very much permeate every hall of power in America, this is a one-off deal in which the rulers of a country set out to violently overthrow the very political structure of the country they are ruling, but, as they say, it is what it is. The cover may be different, but the playbook is the same, so we are already being exposed to the oldies but goodies of escalating agitprop (weaponized lies and propaganda), suppression of unwanted elements (cancel culture), and paid snitching (whistleblowing). Now we are entering into a new phase, that of secret trials with a predetermined outcome.

He means impeachment hearings, which he goes on to discuss, adding:

… what follows next will not be pretty. Having obtained an illegal impeachment that has no chance in the Senate, the powers that be in America will use this “impeachment” to force Trump off the 2020 ballot by any means possible, including things that now sound crazy like setting up a parallel Supreme Court having declared the Constitution illegitimate because it was written by white males some of whom supported slavery and ratified without African American and other minority votes.

Needless to say, such actions may well precipitate an armed conflict we know of as civil war, but that would not be an unexpected outcome for the elites. We know now that the American intelligence services all work for the elites and not for the people. They will fight on their side in the coming war. What we don’t know is to what degree the armed forces have been infiltrated, especially the mid-level officer corps.

That is my concern, too.

The New York Times and Carlos Slim’s fortune

Someone else responding to Kunstler’s piece posted a 2015 Ann Coulter article for Townhall, ‘Carlos Slim: The New York Times’ Sugar Daddy’.

Ann Coulter observed the editorial shift in the New York Times since Carlos Slim rescued the failing newspaper in 2008.

Back in 2004—before the Times became Slim’s pimp—a Times article stated: “Clearly . . . the nation’s southern border is under siege.”2 But that was before Carlos Slim saved the Times from bankruptcy. Ten years later, with a border crisis even worse than in 2004, and Latin Americans pouring across the border, the Times indignantly demanded that Obama “go big” on immigration and give “millions of immigrants permission to stay.”

And, going back further to the Clinton administration, the NYT used to point out porous border problems:

In 1997—the pre-Slim days—the Times had editorialized: “Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border.”39 Another editorial that year complained that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had “done a poor job of keeping out illegal aliens, deporting criminals [and] processing requests for asylum.” This wasn’t even Bush-bashing—Clinton was president!

Coulter explains how Slim makes his money off the American taxpayer, which involves much more than enlightened citizens buying copies of the New York Times:

One of the ways Slim makes money off of illegal immigration in the United States is by overcharging Mexicans to call home, especially during World Cup soccer season. Slim takes a percentage of all cell phone calls into Mexico—and Telmex’s “interconnection rates” are astronomical. International roaming rates are 37 percent higher in Mexico than the average of all OECD countries.

But the main way illegal immigrants benefit Slim is through their remissions. Monopolistic pricing is of little value in a poor country. A monopoly on air in Burundi would not produce the world’s richest man. Luckily for Slim, Mexico is located right next to one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The OECD estimates that Slim’s suffocating telecommunications monopoly costs Mexican consumers $26 billion a year, with more than half of that coming from Slim gouging his customers. They would have $20 billion less to spend without 40 million Mexicans living in the United States.

According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Mexican immigrants or those of Mexican descent send at least $20 billion out of America back to their relatives in Mexico each year.29 No wonder immigrants are so reliant on welfare—they’re sending so much of it out of the country! Twenty billion dollars is significantly more—about a quarter more—than the amount of money the United States sends to Mexico in direct foreign aid. The $20 billion being sent to immigrants’ grandmothers in Chiapas is forever eliminated from the American economy—unavailable for investment in American companies, the purchase of American products, or hiring American workers. That’s a cost of immigration that Americans are never told about.

These billions of dollars being drained out of the U.S. economy every year would be bad enough if the money were coming exclusively from cheap-labor employers like Sheldon Adelson. But it’s worse than that. It comes from American taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to support Americans who lose their jobs to low-wage immigrant laborers, taxpayers support the immigrants, too. Seventy-five percent of immigrant families from Mexico are on government assistance.

Putting two and two together, we can more easily understand the New York Times‘s editorial line under Slim and the billionaire’s desire to see more Mexicans enter the United States illegally:

That’s why, in 2014, Slim was exhorting Mexican youth to cross illegally into the United States for jobs. The stated purpose of Obama’s open defiance of American immigration laws was to avoid punishing “children” who were brought to the United States by their parents. Slim didn’t care about that. (Then again, neither did Obama.) He just wanted more Mexicans working in America and sending dollars back to him. As the CEO of the “Carlos Slim Foundation” explained, “[O]ur goal is to reduce the access barriers for them to reach this potential . . . to build not just them but their families, so they’re able to contribute to the economy”—i.e., the Mexican economy owned by Carlos Slim.

The ‘invisible government’

Truthdig has an article by the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, ‘Our Invisible Government’, which is, in part, a book review of Stephen Kinzer’s new book, Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control.

I will not be excerpting Hedges’s article except for this:

Kinzer builds his book around Sidney Gottlieb, an elusive, quirky and powerful operative in the CIA who in his quest for mind control—something he and others in the CIA had convinced themselves the Soviets had mastered—oversaw medical experiments that had been originated by his German and Japanese collaborators. These experiments were coded-named Bluebird and later Artichoke, which Kinzer calls “one of the most violently abusive projects ever sponsored by an agency of the United States government.” The torture sessions often permanently shattered the minds of his subjects. Victims were kidnapped (later this would be called “extraordinary rendition”) and sent to clandestine centers around the globe—now known as “black sites”—or were picked from the prison population abroad and at home. Those forced into taking part in these experiments included impoverished African Americans at the Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Ky. Many of the victims were labeled “expendables,” meaning they could be murdered after the experiments and disappeared. The corpses were usually burned. Anyone who was powerless, or could be made powerless, was a potential target. Mentally handicapped children at the Walter E. Fernald State School in Massachusetts, for example, were fed cereal laced with uranium and radioactive calcium and their induced sicknesses were monitored. Gottlieb oversaw the administering of LSD and other drugs to induce psychotic states at the federal prison in Atlanta and a youth correctional facility in Bordentown, N.J. None of his subjects consented to being a human guinea pig, and many ended up psychologically impaired for life. The Boston gangster James “Whitey” Bulger, being held in the Atlanta penitentiary, was told he would be part of an experiment on curing schizophrenia but then was surreptitiously given LSD nearly every day for 15 months. CIA scientists also conducted experiments on terminally ill patients at an annex of Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Gottlieb searched for years for a cocktail of drugs that, in Kinzer’s words, would draw “prisoners away from their identities, induce them to reveal secrets, and perhaps even program them to commit acts against their will.” It was a vain quest. But with each failure he and the CIA became ever more zealous, working closely with former German Gen. Walter Schreiber, the onetime surgeon general of the Nazi army who had “approved experiments at the Auschwitz, Ravensbrück, and Dachau concentration camps in which inmates were frozen, injected with mescaline and other drugs, and cut open so the progress of gangrene on their bones could be monitored.” Kinzer adds that according to one American researcher, the experiments “usually resulted in a slow and agonizing death.”

Gottlieb had a habit of secretly lacing the drinks of colleagues with LSD to see their reaction. Some never recovered. One of his victims was Frank Olson, a CIA scientist who was appalled by the brutal interrogations he witnessed and planned to resign from the CIA. Gottlieb and his secretive group of torturers and assassins were terrified Olson would go public. Olson was found dead in 1953 on a sidewalk in Manhattan after allegedly diving through a hotel window. His son Eric had his father’s body exhumed in 1994 and turned over to James Starrs, a forensic pathologist at George Washington University in the District of Columbia. “Starrs had found no glass shards on the victim’s head or neck, as might be expected if he had dived through a window,” Kinzer writes. “Most intriguingly, although Olson had reportedly landed on his back, the skull above his left eye was disfigured.”

“I would venture to say that this hematoma is singular evidence of the possibility that Dr. Olson was struck a stunning blow to the head by some person or instrument prior to his exiting through the window of room 1018A,” Starrs concluded.

Starrs was later more emphatic: “I think Frank Olson was intentionally, deliberately, with malice aforethought, thrown out of that window.”

As awful as that is, the rest of the article has details of even more gruesome and demonic ‘experiments’, which those interested may read at their leisure.

Conclusion

We have much to pray for in the coming months: the safety of Donald Trump and his family, the thwarting of evil deeds from our notional betters and the return of a moral society, which is the only way to conserve the freedoms we know in the West. Those, too, must be restored, with Big Government — the malicious Nanny State — being thrown out.

Also, please spare a prayer for Brexit. What has been going on in Parliament and the upper courts of law since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister has been chilling, to say the least.

At the end of September, Jon Voight issued the following short video about the attacks on President Trump from the American Left.

He issued this after the House filed impeachment proceedings against the president. He makes a calm yet impassioned speech about the Left’s hate of anything that is good and true, especially President Trump’s accomplishments to date for the United States:

Most of the comments following the video are pathologically anti-Voight and anti-Trump. I am glad to see that Alana Stewart showed her support.

As Jon Voight says, we will need to stand together and stay strong in these troubled times of lies and other evil being perpetrated on a great president who is working non-stop to restore the United States to greatness.

On September 28, 2019, President Trump discussed the ‘single greatest scam’ going on in politics today — the Left’s relentless attacks on him and the American people.

Please watch this short video:

How true.

The comments in response to that tweet are hideous, to put it mildly.

Here in the UK, our Left is conducting similar co-ordinated attacks on Prime Minister Boris Johnson. I notice that they did not do this to Theresa May, possibly because they knew she would delay Brexit, which she effectively did.

Now we have a PM who wants us to exit by October 31.

Here is one American citizen pundit’s view:

People aren’t stupid. They see and understand what is going on.

DB Daily Update has a great article on the current parallels between the United States and Great Britain. It does seem as if there is a cold civil war going on in both our nations. Emphases mine below:

When this latest coup/impeachment effort crashes and burns in spectacular fashion, we can expect the forces aligned against Trump and his supporters to simply make up another false narrative and keep the coup going.

The same thing is happening right now in Britain, where Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister elected to complete the Brexit effort the voters approved three long years ago, is under a similar relentless assault by that country’s deep state, disloyal lawmakers and fake news media. As I wrote in one of the earliest Campaign Updates way back in 2016, Brexit and Trump are essentially the same political movement, a movement that pits those who love their country and want it to remain a strong, independent nation against the forces of globalism and one-world-government.

The Brits who support Brexit have held firm through all that time and grown stronger. Trump’s base of support has also held firm and grown larger. That base has remained unshakable not because they necessarily approve of every aspect of Trump’s personal behavior, but because they understand what is at stake here, and whose side Trump is on.

Because at the end of the day in this tiresome Civil War, Trump is on the side of Americans and America. I don’t know about the rest of you, but they won’t ever wear me down.

That is all.

I’ll close with comments from the aforementioned Praying Medic tweet that help explain why the British wanted a referendum on EU membership. These also indicate why Theresa May was never viciously attacked politically whilst she was PM:

As for Boris, only a couple of weeks ago the Shadow (Labour) Chancellor, the former Conservative Chancellor (under May) and Boris’s own sister (!) claimed that No Deal backers stood to make financial gains.

At least one Government minister subsequently denounced this last week from the despatch box in Parliament.

Here is the report on the allegations from The Guardian dated Saturday, September 28:

The UK’s most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson’s financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister’s willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson’s acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.

Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister’s own party.

Hammond said he was repeating a comment made last week by Rachel Johnson, the prime minister’s sister.

The former chancellor was accused by senior Tories of attempting a “smear” without evidence. However, Hammond was supported on Saturday by a series of MPs from across the Commons.

“Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit – and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring,” Hammond wrote in the Times.

Downing Street has refused to comment on the claim.

On October 1, Treasury Minister Simon Clarke accused John McDonnell of ‘outlandish speculation’ when the latter brought up the issue that day in Parliament:

Guido Fawkes has more (emphases in the original):

Making his debut at the dispatch box, the new Treasury Minister Simon Clarke confidently tore down McDonnell’s absurd urgent question on short positions taken against the pound in the lead up to a possible no-deal Brexit. Something Guido and many others have comprehensively debunked before…

Clarke blasted the question as the shadow chancellor propagating myths and smears and claiming the conspiracy does little to cool tensions in Westminster at the moment. Playing Labour at their own game…

On a related note, at the weekend, it was rumoured in the media and by other Remainers that Boris could go to jail for pursuing a No Deal Brexit in violation of the recent Benn-Burt Act, a.k.a. the Surrender Bill, which stipulates that he must ask for an extension to the current Brexit deadline.

This is straight out of the Get Trump playbook.

More to follow anon.

As it is with President Trump, so it is with Prime Minister Johnson.

The more the Left in their various guises attack these men, the more popular they become in the eyes of the people.

If this is true about the US president, it seems to also be true about our Prime Minister. British voters are beginning to understand that the elites despise them:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, September 15, 2019, a Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate (PPC), Kirsten Johnson (no relation to Boris), seemed to smear Leave voters in her proposed constituency in Devon:

Well observed. Kirsten Johnson’s accent is indeed American; she was born in Virginia but has dual US/UK nationality. Her husband is English. It’s a shame she went on the offence against voters in her adopted country.

She gave an interview to the BBC Radio 4’s Ross Hawkins on The World This Weekend. Guido Fawkes has the excruciating soundbite.

The North Devon Gazette covered the story and local political reaction (emphases mine, outside of the Conservative MP’s name):

When asked about North Devon being an area that voted to leave the EU, she said: “Demographically it’s 98 per cent white. We don’t have a lot of ethnic minorities living in North Devon. People aren’t exposed to people from other countries.”

North Devon MP Peter Heaton-Jones has called on her to make ‘an immediate and unreserved apology to local people following her disgraceful comments’, saying they were ‘highly offensive’.

On the show, interviewer Ross Hawkins asked what the number of ethnic minority votes had to do with it and Dr Johnson said: “I didn’t mean to mean that it has anything to do with it at all – just saying that when I speak to people I am hearing comments to me….when it….it refers to race. You’ve got….you’ve got me in a corner here.”

Dr Johnson then referred to the rise of hate crimes and was asked if she linked leave voters to hate crime.

She responded: “No I do not link all leave voters to hate crime, not at all, I need to make that absolutely clear.”

The awkward radio segment continued and eventually concluded with Mr Hawkins saying: “There she trailed off, and I’m not sure I ever did really understand her point.”

In a statement, Mr Heaton-Jones called the remarks ‘appalling and unacceptable’.

Dawn Westcott, The Brexit Party’s PCC, who also appeared on the same programme, voiced her ‘sense of shock’ at Johnson’s remarks:

This is not the London bubble. This is the countryside and there’s a sense of shock that the Liberal Democrats are no longer representing the views of North Devon.

The Green Party PPC was equally offended. Their PPC, Robert Mack, said:

I can’t believe the disdain for North Devon residents from the Lib Dem PPC, Kirsten Johnson.

This statement clearly pits their party against the electorate here. We need to trust people to make decisions and this is why I back a people’s vote. We need to listen to people from all sides of the debate, without prejudice.

Mark Cann, chairman of the North Devon Labour Party, expressed it best:

These distasteful comments from Kirsten Johnson just go to show how little she understands the people of North Devon. Despite our differences on Brexit, no one should be branding those with a different view as racist or lacking an understanding of the issues. We should respect all views on Brexit no matter how we might differ in our opinions. That is why Labour is committed to a Peoples Vote and will respect its outcome.

Too right.

That said, I disagree with the call for a People’s Vote from the Greens and Labour. We had a people’s vote in 2016: the EU referendum.

In the end, Kirsten Johnson tweeted an apology the day after the interview:

Voters were unimpressed:

The timing of this episode was bad, as the Lib Dems party conference was going on in Bournemouth at the time:

You get the idea. I hope she loses bigly, as President Trump would say, when the general election comes around.

Now on to Boris.

Many of us appreciate the short videos that No. 10 issues two or three times a week. They keep up our morale.

Last week, Boris — which is how we referred to him as Mayor of London — gave us an optimistic update on his travels in the North of England as well as his meeting with Ireland’s Taoiseach — Prime Minister — Leo Varadkar. He then discussed his — our — enemies in Parliament, saying that it was inexplicable why they would not agree to a general election:

Some Remainer MPs know they would lose, especially when they campaigned to uphold the 2016 referendum result in 2017’s general election. Here are two polls from last weekend.

The first shows Conservatives and Labour neck and neck:

The second shows the Conservatives ahead by a comfortable margin:

On Monday, September 16, the PM went to Luxembourg to meet over lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker, outgoing President of the European Commission, and then on to a meeting with the tiny nation’s prime minister, Xavier Bettel.

This was the lunch menu. ‘Bio’ means ‘organic’ and chicken oysters refer to the oblong tender pieces just in front of the thigh, along the back of the chicken:

Downing Street released the following communique afterwards. From The Guardian:

The prime minister and President Juncker had a constructive meeting this lunchtime. The Brexit secretary [Stephen Barclay] and Michel Barnier [the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator] were also in attendance.

The leaders took stock of the ongoing talks between the UK’s team and taskforce 50. The prime minister reconfirmed his commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and his determination to reach a deal with the backstop removed, that UK parliamentarians could support.

The prime minister also reiterated that he would not request an extension and would take the UK out of the EU on the 31st October.

The leaders agreed that the discussions needed to intensify and that meetings would soon take place on a daily basis. It was agreed that talks should also take place at a political level between Michel Barnier and the Brexit secretary, and conversations would also continue between President Juncker and the prime minister.

The European Commission’s statement read:

President Jean-Claude Juncker and Prime Minister Johnson had a working lunch today in Luxembourg. The aim of the meeting was to take stock of the ongoing technical talks between the EU and the UK and to discuss the next steps.

President Juncker recalled that it is the UK’s responsibility to come forward with legally operational solutions that are compatible with the withdrawal agreement. President Juncker underlined the commission’s continued willingness and openness to examine whether such proposals meet the objectives of the backstop. Such proposals have not yet been made.

The commission will remain available to work 24/7. The October European council will be an important milestone in the process. The EU27 remain united.

President Juncker was accompanied by the European commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier.

President Juncker will travel to Strasbourg later today and will address the plenary session of the European parliament on Wednesday morning.

However, the Financial Times reported that Juncker said Monday was the first time the Prime Minister appeared to understand the meaning of a single [EU] market. Really?

The managing director for Europe of the Eurasia Group says we should be on guard against statements coming from Brussels (Bxl) which contrast with those from European capitals, e.g. Berlin and Paris:

After lunch, a group of people began booing the Prime Minister:

Then there was the failed press conference with Luxembourg’s PM Xavier Bettel. Bettel spoke, but a rent-a-mob was there to harass our PM. Consequently, he refused to speak outdoors under those circumstances:

Interestingly, in the days before the Luxembourg meeting, No. 10 asked if any press conference could be held indoors, but Luxembourg officials said there was no room large enough. Seems hard to believe, as Luxembourg is a very important location for EU officials and meetings. Hmm.

Britain’s media — left and right — took a swipe at the PM for not appearing at the press conference. However, the British public viewed the situation differently:

That is true, as confirmed by a reporter for the Independent, not known to be a pro-Boris news outlet:

No. 10 made a short video of Boris’s private remarks in Luxembourg — for the British public, not protesters or the EU:

The Irish border ‘backstop’ is the big fly in the ointment between now and October 31. However, on last Thursday’s BBC Question Time, Dr Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU Law at Cambridge University, said that the backstop does not even come into effect until the transition period comes to a close in several months’ time — after we leave the EU. Therefore, surely, we have time to negotiate. No one wants the return of a hard border between the two countries, including Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson is quickly becoming a people’s hero. I wish him the best of luck in the weeks ahead.

Most of us thought that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was safe from allegations once he was confirmed and sworn in to office nearly a year ago.

We were wrong.

On Saturday, September 14, 2019, a New York Times article raised the allegations from 2018 once more, calling for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

The paper invited the two authors of a book about the Kavanaugh accusations, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, to write a column about them. Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly wrote the book and the article. Part of the article (paywall) has to do with one of last year’s accusers Deborah Ramirez and a classmate, Max Stier, who are said to have witnessed Kavanaugh, a university freshman, at a dorm party. Breitbart has the excerpt of the supposed episode.

Those familiar with Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s book have said one must read it until the end to find this gem:

… critics pointed out: “Not only does the alleged victim not confirm the story, she is reported to be denying it.”

Nevertheless, Democrats have been on the attack, including presidential candidate and US Senator, Kamala Harris, from California:

Breitbart‘s article states:

Harris did not mention, or did not know, that the authors’ own book refutes the allegation, which the alleged victim reportedly does not recall. The accuser [Max Stier] — not the victim — also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment …

During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Harris — who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee — was criticized for tweeting a deceptively edited video that made it appear as though he argued against women’s access to birth control.

Some Twitter users, including a co-author of a book on the subject, remember this story from an article in the New Yorker at the time and how it collapsed under scrutiny:

The story of Christine Blasey Ford, the most memorable of Kavanaugh’s accusers, was also resurrected — but earlier, around September 8, before the NYT article appeared.

Here’s the short version:

On September 8, Newsweek reported, in part:

A video circulating on social media shows Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney telling attendees at a feminist conference that her client’s testimony against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade.

Conservatives are railing against comments attorney Debra Katz made in April in her keynote address at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference regarding Kavanaugh’s controversial Supreme Court confirmation process. Katz represented Ford, who testified at a public hearing and accused Trump’s nominee, at the time a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, of sexually assaulting her 36 years prior while the two were in high school. Katz’s comments at the conference appeared to confirm many conservatives’ accusations that Ford’s testimony was intended in part to protect the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established abortion access as a constitutional right.

Speaking on the theme of “Applied Feminism and #MeToo” earlier this year, Katz told attendees: “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court.”

The self-proclaimed “women’s rights and social justice activist” continued: “We were going to have a conservative [justice] … Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

American Lawyer Magazine reporter Ryan Lovelace authored a book released last week entitled, Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh, portraying Katz as a partisan, politically-motivated feminist who encouraged Ford to smear Kavanaugh.

Another Democrat candidate for president, Amy Klobuchar, US Senator for Minnesota, tweeted her support for Blasey Ford:

Yet, one of Blasey Ford’s oldest friends doubted the veracity of the accusation against Kavanaugh.

This is also in Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s book. They were the ones who wrote the recent NYT article.

On Sunday, September 15, The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway tweeted:

Interestingly, that same day, the NYT issued a correction to their article. One wonders how many people saw the correction and how many millions more spent time at the weekend listening or reading extensive coverage of the efforts to impeach Kavanaugh:

The correction states:

Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Something must be done about the media in general:

This scurrilous tactic of smearing Kavanaugh again and again, now with the goal of impeaching him, could backfire on Dems in 2020.

This is what a sampling of Americans said on Twitter:

One had a message for Kamala Harris:

So why are these accusations and calls for impeachment being raised now?

Here is another reason why. The Senate is appointing dozens of Trump nominees to US federal courts:

Citizen journalist Tracy Beanz, gives us the perspective of another citizen journalist, Harold Finch. The following thread explains that the Democrats are afraid of losing more of their cases in the higher courts. In retaliation, the Dems could try to discredit decisions from those courts — including the Supreme Court — and ignore them. Dangerous:

There it is — plain as day.

This is just one more reason NOT to vote for Democrats in 2020.

A lot of Americans vote Democrat because their families have done so for generations.

A lot of Christians also vote Democrat because a) for Catholics, it was known as ‘the party of the Church’ and b) others, today, view Dems as kind people concerned about the downtrodden.

Below are three reasons why American voters should think again about voting for Democrat candidates.

New DNC resolution

At the end of August 2019, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a party resolution: ‘Resolution Regarding the Religiously Unaffiliated Demographic’.

An excerpt follows, emphases mine:

WHEREAS, the nonreligious have often been subjected to unfair bias and exclusion in American society, particularly in the areas of politics and policymaking where assumptions of religiosity have long predominated; and

WHEREAS, those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of “religious liberty,” to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities; and

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party is an inclusive organization that recognizes that morals, values, and patriotism are not unique to any particular religion, and are not necessarily reliant on having a religious worldview at all; and

WHEREAS, nonreligious Americans made up 17% of the electorate in 2018 and have the potential to deliver millions more votes for Democrats in 2020 with targeted outreach to further increase turnout of nonreligious voters …

What nonsense.

Americans, whether religious or not, are more pluralistic at any time since the US was founded. I personally know average families who have embraced gay sons and daughters. Others have welcomed marriages of their children with those of another faith or race.

Therefore, there seems no good reason to adopt this sort of resolution.

The Stream has an article about it: ‘Democratic Party Passes Resolution Against Christianity’.

The author, Tom Gilson, a senior editor of The Stream and author of books on Christianity and modern day living, raises important points about this move. Excerpts follow:

The key paragraph:

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of “religious liberty,” to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities …

The party’s hostility toward Christian beliefs and values was clear enough before. Putting it on paper this way, however, raises the message to another level.

The Democrats want to see Christians on the defense. And they’re good at putting us there. They have special skill with scare words. Even the simple word “particular” makes us look small, small-minded, and off in an intellectual corner somewhere. Of course none of that is true.

They put “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the concept of it weren’t in all America’s founding conversations, and in the first paragraph of the Bill of Rights. They speak, too, of “civil rights,” “liberties,” and “minorities.” America has sacralized these words, hardly ever stopping to ask when they apply, and when they’re nice-sounding words that don’t belong where they’re being used.

And there’s no simple response to this. That’s not because the answer is unclear, but because so much needs explaining to get it across. We live in different worlds, as it were. When a party takes aim at the Western world’s moral foundation, it’s no longer making mere political statements. This is a worldview statement.

In the Democrats’ world, “civil rights” are no longer endowed by our creator. They’re human products, human inventions. Gay marriage is example number one: It became a right when five Supreme Court justices said it was …

Christianity gets criticized for aligning with the Republican Party. I’m not comfortable with that myself. There’s great danger in tying ourselves to any political group. But what choice do Democrats leave us now? There are only two major parties. One of them has made its stand. It’s against us. We can’t vote Democrat and hold to our Christian values and beliefs.

Let me repeat that: We can’t vote Democrat and hold to our Christian values and beliefs. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything our president does. It doesn’t even mean we have to be Republicans. But for all the options seemingly open to Christians, one of them is shut tight, at least for now — by Democrats’ own decision.

Abuse of Trump donors and supporters

On August 5, Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), released a list of prominent Trump donors in the San Antonio area.

On August 10, Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican Party, responded:

One month later, the tweet is still up.

No, Ronna, Democrats will never be forced to condemn such a heinous move. However, if Republicans did such an unthinkable thing, it would be all over the news 24/7 for months.

On August 10, MSNBC featured a discussion between host and guest about physically harming Trump supporters:

Trending Politics covered the discussion, which concerned a Trump donor’s fundraiser as well as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s harassment outside of his home while he was recovering from a recent injury. Language alert below:

On Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes agreed with a guest on his show, Elie Mystal who said that Trump donors should be met with pitchforks and torches.

“People of color are already targets under this administration,” Elie Mystal said to Hayes. “I have no problem with shining the light back on the donors who fund this kind of racialized hate. I go farther, I want pitchforks and torches outside this man’s house in the Hamptons.”

“I’ve been to the Hamptons, it’s very nice, but there’s no reason why it has to be,” he added. “There’s no reason why he should be having his nice, little party. There’s no reason why people shouldn’t be able to be outside of his house and making their voices peacefully understood that they reject this stuff.”

Mystal’s comments were directed towards billionaire Stephen Ross who recently held a fundraiser for President Trump’s re-election campaign.

“Totally,” Hayes agreed. “There have been peaceful protests outside [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s house and I imagine there will be peaceful protests outside [Ross’s house]. Again, it’s all speech.”

The protests outside of McConnell’s house were anything but peaceful. The demonstrations were caught on camera shouting death threats. One liberal even screamed “just stab the motherfucker in the heart.”

“Trump is a bigoted demagogue and we all kind of know that. These people should be ashamed of supporting him. Right? Like, at this point you should basically only be able to contribute to the Trump campaign with bitcoin,” Mystal stated. “But Equinox man is holding an ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ party and he’s surprised the people are getting up in his grill.”

Here’s the video in full:

Can you imagine if Republicans had a conversation like that on Fox News? MSNBC would be dissecting it until Election Day next year.

Do Democrats honestly think that such extremist talk will make Trump supporters falter? Why on earth would Trump supporters want to even vote Democrat after such views were aired?

This is but one example of the hate Democrats have for Trump supporters. Here’s another, from the New York Post on September 1:

Witness Hollywood’s new ­McCarthyism. “Will & Grace” stars Debra Messing and Eric McCormack could just have boycotted a fundraiser for President Trump next month if they don’t like Republicans.

But that’s not enough for the Tolerance Taliban. They want the names of anyone who does show up at the fundraiser so they can be blacklisted.

“Please print a list of all attendees please. The public has a right to know,” Messing tweeted Friday in response to a Hollywood Reporter story about the Emmy-week function.

McCormack piled on, “Kindly report on everyone attending this event, so the rest of us can be clear about who we don’t wanna work with.”

It’s sinister that high-profile entertainers could harbor such illiberal instincts and have no shame about displaying them for all to see. But the most damage they do is to their own credibility.

I hope the reporter is correct about the credibility angle. Personally, I am less optimistic.

Number of illegals higher than estimated

Recently, Tucker Carlson discussed a Yale University study that says the number of illegals in the United States is likely to be closer to 22 million than the oft repeated 11 million figure.

Please take one minute out of your day to watch this. It has subtitles, so there’s no need for sound:

Carlson says that the Dems are soft on illegals, because they want all of them to be able to vote in 2020.

He is not wrong. The Motor Voter programmes run in various states practically guarantee that illegals are registered when they apply for driving licences.

Democrats want to go further now and are pressing for all age-appropriate illegals to be able to vote … in a country they, by law, should not even be in.

Such an act would result in millions more added to the voter rolls in overwhelmingly Democrat states as well as in marginal Republican ones.

The higher the population, the more Electoral College votes — and the more Congressional representation — those states receive. Think of California and New York.

Carlson is correct in saying that the Democrats are using this tactic not because they have any particular feeling for illegals but rather to get the votes they need to stay in power for years to come.

Imagine if there were never another Republican president. Some might cheer at that, but once one party is in power for years and years, corruption is sure to follow, not to mention the strong possibility of totalitarianism.

Conclusion

This man, who is not American, has a warning about the Democrats:

Just in case the lady’s tweet gets deleted, here is his message in full:

I could not agree more with his sense of passion and urgency.

I, too, have come to believe that the United States is in a state of spiritual war.

I pray that America recovers. I also pray that this spiritual war does not spread to other nations. No one can afford its costly consequences.

Actor, producer and author Isaiah Washington recently had a word for Hollywood’s conservative cowards who refuse to come out of the closet politically:

The Epoch Times interviewed Washington recently (video at link), describing his career to date as follows:

an actor and producer who started his career in Hollywood in a number of Spike Lee films. He is perhaps best known for his role as Dr. Preston Burke in television show Grey’s Anatomy. More recently, he starred in the science fiction TV series The 100.

However, although the actor supports Donald Trump, he is at odds with the way black Americans have been urged to leave the Democrats:

It seems to work for some blacks but not for others. Pro-Trump people need another angle or two. One size does not necessarily fit all.

The Republican Party in California should be encouraging other minorities, too, who disagree with the physical filth and disease permeating cities and suburbs in that state:

Washington delves into American history in order to better analyse the Democrats:

He is also critical of Hollywood:

Incidentally, an executive with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was arrested on August 23:

I’m delighted that Isaiah Washington and many other blacks have decided the Democrats are no longer for them.

I hope he can persuade more Hollywood conservatives to out themselves politically.

When Donald Trump discussed human trafficking during his 2016 campaign, I wondered how serious a problem it was.

Surely, no one else talked about it.

Yes, we knew about Jeffrey Epstein, but he seemed to be an outlier.

Since then, we’ve had the NXIVM trial which, thankfully, resulted in prison sentences.

Donald Trump, who lived in New York City for most of his life knew what he was talking about — once again.

Jeffrey Epstein’s mysterious death made the headlines over the weekend. I wrote about it here and here.

At long last, people are beginning to wake up to the horrors of human, especially child, trafficking.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, is one of them. He has pledged to start linking the dots surrounding this horrifying issue:

He wrote that thread before Epstein died:

The following day:

More power to his elbow in getting the job done!

Corey Lynn – Corey’s Digs has been investigating these issues for quite a while. She has more specifics on Epstein and his associates:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019, the day after Epstein’s death, Fox’s Life, Liberty & Levin featured South African film director and producer Jaco Booyens (pron. ‘Yaco Boyens’), whose recent film, 8 Days, is all about child trafficking. Mark Levin conducted a 32-minute interview with him. The original full length video link which I posted has been truncated to one second. I am grateful to one of my readers for letting me know. I found another video, but not of the full interview. A shorter — 9:50 — segment follows:

A second reader found the nub of the child sex trafficking stats in another interview clip here.

I urge everyone to take the time to watch that same video clip, which is not on YouTube, then read the summary of the full interview below.

It is very important in understanding the gravity of child trafficking.

Jaco Booyens, who now lives in the United States, also has a website about combatting human trafficking: SHAREtogether.org.

A summary of the interview follows.

Booyens made 8 Days because his sister Ilanka was trafficked when both were children in South Africa in 1994 or 1995. At the age of 13, Ilanka had just won a national song competition and was subsequently trafficked to a record company! She was trafficked for six years.

He said that the person who leaves or is abducted to be trafficked is never the same one who returns home. Fortunately, Ilanka now lives in Nashville.

Booyens has used aspects of his sister’s plight in the film.

Levin showed the trailer for 8 Days, which begins with a nice teenage girl who is enthralled because a classmate asks her out on a date. Her parents let her go. Unbeknownst to them, the boy, who is driving the two of them into town for the evening, pulls into a car park and stops the vehicle. Another vehicle pulls up, and a couple of people get out, abduct the girl and drive off. The next eight days are a living hell for the girl — and for her parents, who have no idea what has happened to their daughter.

Booyens said that statistics he has seen show that trafficked children normally die after seven years from drug abuse. Also, one imagines, the horrors they have been subjected to are another factor in premature death.

He came out with more statistics about child trafficking in the United States:

  • Currently, most victims are girls (average age 12), although the number of boys — especially those who are prepubescent — is rising;
  • The situation is now much worse than it was five years ago;
  • A pimp can earn $250k tax free per year off from trafficking one child;
  • 300k children are trafficked every day in the US; 76,000 are trafficked per day in Texas alone, despite Governor Abbott’s best efforts;
  • There is ‘rampant abuse’ in the ‘foster care system’;
  • The US has ‘more slaves today than ever in history’ and he lived through South Africa’s apartheid;
  • All classes are involved at some level: the pimp makes most of his money from executives earning $100k per annum, but ‘a janitor’ can purchase a child’s services from time to time, too;
  • Online recruitment is the norm. Procurers get to know a child and ask all the right questions;
  • It is not unusual for trafficked children to live with their parents and attend school daily;
  • Pimps advertise the children online: ‘You can order children the way you order pizza’.

Booyens says that the porn culture is to blame for child trafficking. Pornography is dehumanising and it objectifies not only women, but children, too.

He said that he has approached left-wing media networks for time to explain this dangerous trend, but they declined. He said that they apparently prefer to complain about Donald Trump, who, he said, has done the most of any US president to actively combat child trafficking. He said that could be a reason why the Left rails against him so much and goes on instead about his breaking up families at the border. On that subject, he said that as many as 30% of ‘families’ at the border aren’t family units at all — but traffickers and their victims. He gave credit to ICE and other law enforcement agencies, whom he said are ‘there to keep us safe’.

So far, only Fox News has agreed to have him on to explain the horrors of trafficking.

Child trafficking is a huge issue, and the Trump administration is doing everything it can to slow it down, then stop it.

All I ask is that people be aware of how destructive trafficking really is.

Booyens said that 8 Days (not to be confused with the sci-fi series) is available on Netflix and on DVD.

I will be returning to lighter subjects in my next post.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2019. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,363 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

November 2019
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,536,073 hits