The War is Joined: Call your Legislators NOW

In 2016, Politifact published an "analysis" of claims about voter fraud.  They came to a the conclusion that "claims about voter fraud are for the most part overblown or unfounded." The writer, Jon Greenberg, a forner NPR investigative reporter, went on to attack then candidate Trump's Tweet, " Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!"  Mr. Greenberg rated Trump's Tweet, "Pants on Fire," and presently, more of the same.  Enter, Sydney Powel, former Federal Prosecutor and author of, "Licensed to Lie," where she uncovered the destruction of Enron by the alphabet agencies in our corrupt government.

Sydney, it seems, has found the method of the cheating, the madness of it, and is now on her way to the Supreme Court to prove it.  Call your legislators NOW folks, because we will be determining this Presidential election in the House of Representatives.  Get your delegation to commit to vote the will of the people, or we will end up with the party that cheated to begin with.

We will have justice in the United States of Sydney Powel because, BY GOD, she said so and I'm on her side.  I wouldn't care who won the election if it were not manipulated by Smartmatic Software company.  No one would!  We believe in winning and losing fairly in this country, or, at least Conservatives do.  Liberals, it seems, are a little more shaky on this subject.  Some don't care and some do, but generally, I believe, that this country prefers its winners to actually have won.

Covid 19 may raise its ugly head here, but we will battle through that den of monsters to end up before the Supreme Court where each and every justice will have to grapple with the same outrageous evidence of cheating being brought forth by the honorable Sydney Powel.  if someone doesn't nominate her to the Supreme Court, I will be disappointed, though I'm not sure she'd take it.  God help us because we are going to need some divine intervention.  Perhaps God has already sent us Ms. Powel.  Now we must be smart enough to listen to her.

Systemic Stupidity: Preparing for the Fight

As the mechanics of our society grind slowly to life after Covid shut-downs, I look at the hives of activity and wonder at our way of life.  We live in a suburban small city in Western Montana, a University town with several small tech companies, a Direct TV Call Center, a few small manufacturers making enclosed trailers, dental equipment, and spas.  We have one of the better music venues on the Clark Fork River where we saw the B-52s last summer under the Big Sky.  We have a traditionally Liberal city council with two lone Conservatives, as you might expect in a university town, and the surrounding rural counties are great plains of conservatism surrounding the den of bears who buy run-down hotels for 40% over their value claiming they need a place for homeless Covid patients, turn private water companies into public utilities and allow health officials wide authority to limit business hours of operation, require its population to wear masks, all while claiming authority using a law that in its verbiage requires them to also remove vagrants and vagrant communities who all live happily untouched at an encampment on the Clark Fork River where they undoubtedly use the river to carry away garbage and excrement to areas downstream that they will never see.  We may never see it, but it seeps into our environment bringing dangers, I believe, far greater than breathing at others sans a mask.

People who care show up to comment at meetings where their grievances are largely ignored and the council goes merrily on its way increasing taxes where they can and making plans for more.  Most business owners, like mine, are looking for ways to leave our fair city, if they can, and move their operations to counties that still believe that there is a limit to effective taxation.  Though it has been proven time and again that people will avoid taxation by voting with their feet, our council has not an entrepreneurial bone in their body and they will continue to tax, and spend, like their is no tomorrow.  This microcosm of our federal bureaucracy is a wonderful example of the body politic and the difficulty Conservatives have in penetrating the Liberal mindset once established and ensconced in the chamber of local power.  

You'd think the Chamber of Commerce might provide a bulwark of protection against the Liberal behemoth, but though they warned local businesses against the Sign Laws introduced in the 1990s by the Liberal donor class pushing Agenda 21, there wasn't an outcry sufficient to push back against these "regulations" that seek Visual Beauty and defy common sense, so I found myself arguing with a sign Nazi about what 25% of window "space" meant when she had decided it meant window "pane."  She looked blank when I suggested that if we installed New England style windows with 8"×10" panes that I would then be forced to buy hundreds of 2"×3" signs for each "pane."  As she measured my Snowman sign and window pane in front of my customer, we both eyed the sky and wished for a simpler time.  

Our latest societal upheaval comes from the Left, no great shock there.  We are seeing middle-income white women bashing white men on behalf of black America.  Rush Limbaugh believes that our universities have indoctrinated women to believe that men are out to get them, and, if they are not beautiful, society will discriminate against them.  I thought, "No, women are smarter than that."  But I was wrong.  He was right, and I should know better than to question his wisdom after 30 years.  While I go about my daily life, running my business, making phone calls to my suppliers, dealing with customers and doing my bookkeeping, I have never thought that men suppressed me or discriminated against me due to my sex.  I also don't care what color skin my customers, suppliers, or anyone I deal with have or do not have.  Ah, but I am beautiful, so I don't have to worry about such things.  I do have a lazy eye, white freckle skin, and grayish-red thin hair, but I am genetically blessed with a combination of a Scottish father and German mother, and, of course, the kicker, I am white.  Almost too white.

What I know for certain though is that I do not live in a society that is rife with systemic racism.  Our local YWCA has a strong campaign against racism and very effectively pushes that message out to a largely accepting public who secretly think, "what racism?"  I suppose that there may be some racism against our Indian population in Montana and maybe that is what they fight against, but even our Indian customers are treated, in my store, with the same respect that I treat any white cowboy.  I cannot imagine frequenting a store that treated anyone differently than anyone else because of skin color or sexual orientation.  Now, that does not apply, in my book, to idiots and stupid people and we find those of all races, creeds and colors, so take that out of the equation right now.  

I heard an interesting explanation by Dennis Prager of the Leftist need to "solve" problems.  Mr. Prager posits that the Left in this country are not happy with peace.  They need something to gripe about because they are bored.  He blames this on the movement of the Left away from organized religion, and that may be true, but I believe that his idea that lack of spirituality breeds discontent has merit.  I am not a fan of revealed religion, but I don't hate it and I believe that our society is better off with the 10 commandments than without them.  I support those around me who love their churches and their congregations and I went with my Mom to her Orthodox Church for many years because I loved the music and the art that they bring to religious practice.  I choose to worship God in my own way and I have read every book that C.S. Lewis has ever written.  He made, by far, the best argument for Christianity that I have read, yet I still prefer to find God in my own way.  But I love peace.  I love it so much that I am willing to buy and store guns in order to defend it.  Yes, that may seem a contradiction to some, but peace is worth fighting and dying for in my book.

It may be that time to defend peace.  The Left is working hard to break our lovely society and I don't know what our fight will look like.  It may come in the courts defending against voter fraud, and it may come in the streets defending against organized Leftists who seek to disrupt our city centers.  But when the fight comes to small town Montana, we will be ready.  If you disrupt our idyllic life, you will pay with yours.  I feel very strongly about that, so take care, BLM, I am not alone.  If you bring your violence any further into small town America, you will meet with a fierceness that you have not yet faced.  We love our peace, and we will defend it both against fraud and destruction.  I love my little town and I love even its Liberal people, and if you threaten us here, it will look different.  We will never let you destroy our lives, so fair warning.  I sincerely hope the Left will simply give up, go back to their lives and let us run the country correctly with low taxation, less government and adherence to Constitutional Principles.  That sounds almost as idyllic as my little town and its hives of activity.  Unlike our Leftist friends, however, I don't believe utopia exists here on earth and so I prepare for the fight.

One who believes otherwise

Flummoxed By The Liberal Mind

Trump releases a transcript of the conversation he has in which there is no resemblance of a quid-pro-quo (QPQ). The whistle blower, who is really not a whistle blower but a heresay-blower because of a recent and suspicious rule-change, becomes irrelevant by any stretch of logic and Adam Schiff creates a Parody in which he lies, outright, to the American people in his opening statement of the House Judiciary Committee, making up his own version of the conversation. Our family's favorite Liberal calls my husband an "asshole" and says, "you know the whistle blower was telling the truth." What kind of mind are we dealing with here?

They call it, humorously, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), and it may be, but to me, it is far more pernicious. It is a form of brainwashing through propaganda where the facts are conveniently ignored and buried amidst a cacophony of "reports" by the media that continue to insist that Schiff's claim is valid when there is no evidence. Is it a matter of ignorance? I don't think so.

In Darkness at Noon, the seminal book by Koestler, written in 1938 about the leaders of the Glorious (Russian) Revolution who eventually confessed to acts they did not commit, the confessors were both political and intellectual leaders with no small pedigree. Ignorance was not the issue. It was from this book that the term brainwashing was born. Are we witnessing a form of brainwashing now in the partnership between Liberals and the Media? It is my contention that there exists a form of hope, which the protagonist in Darkness at Noon, Rubashov, has that explains the attraction of totalitarian ideologies: the hope that the political class can bring to pass a classless society, a kind of utopia, if you will.

We can see this now in the inexplicable actions of Democrats who insist that a conversation we have all read says something it does not say. Within this enigma is the hope that the party leaders can bring about the impeachment of Donald Trump simply by repeating that there was a QPQ, even though the other party to that conversation insists that there was not. This is a political hope, one that is not likely to bear fruit because our founders put in place checks on this sort of thing, but it doesn't matter the level of success if you have convinced your followers that what you are saying is true.

Our favorite Liberal is clearly convinced that Donald Trump is the Devil and that he did, indeed, hold a conversation with the Ukranian President that had at its core a QPQ. Her voice will be added to many others and the lie will propagate. And what will we see at the end when the lie is shown to be a lie? Hope lives eternal in the Liberal heart, and even a transcript will not sway the faithful. They will insist, as those who are brainwashed will do, that the lie is the truth and there is obviously an attempt by the vile opposition to subvert the glorious efforts of the Democrats who, as you should know by now, care more than others about our society. This sympathetic nature gives the Democrat its authority and thus its veracity in all matters.

The Rubashov theory of confessions is a nod to the Machiavellian thought that the ends justify the means just as long as what you are doing is justified by your faith in your political beliefs. There is a screwed-up logic there that leads to truth equals lies and all is justified by what is noble in the mind of the participant.

In my world, it looks like propaganda has lead to the brainwashing of large swaths of our political participants and that is never good. Somewhere in all of these paradoxical statements should be some semblance of truth. The real truth.

So far, I believe President Trump stands on terra firma and, if necessary, we shall see this as the wheels of justice turn slowly toward the Senate. I, too, have hope, but it is a hope based on liberty, freedom, and individual responsibility, not on utopian ideology. But my thoughts and my opinions are not in line with Liberal ideology, so they have no bearing on the Liberal mind, because the Liberal mind has closed for business. It is their way or the highway, and that, my fellow human, is the beginning of the totalitarian journey.

The Sad Victims of Propaganda

I include my father in the category above.  After listening to Rachel Maddow and believing her for many years, when I mentioned that Donald Trump's campaign was the target of several major U.S. agencies in a cabal of spying, my dad very quickly told me that Donald Trump would be hauled away from the White House in "cuffs."  Really?

Our main-stream media (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times) have convinced more than half of our country that, despite two years of exhaustive investigation by vengeful partisans, Donald Trump is still a bad, bad man.

The latest, and most laughable comes from the same idiots in our softball media in a report on Michael Cohen, Trump's one-time, now discredited and fired lawyer, who had a conversation with, and remember the name, Victor Vexelburg.  It's COLLUSION all over again claim the morons in our press.  Michael Cohen is a scumbag who taped his client in an effort to hold onto information that he could  sell later.  He also sold his position of influence as the Presidential candidate's lawyer to various people, including this Vexelburg.

The reason this is so incredibly vexing for those of us who pay attention to the "players" in our political elite, is that Vexelburg is the Russian Oligarch who not only donated to the Clinton Foundation, but did so when Bill Clinton was President, his wife was Secretary of State and Mr. Vexelburg was the founder of Renova; while the head of Renova, Vexelburg was named the head of the Skalkavo Project which was a technology-based silicone valley scam company that was set-up primarily to steal American technology.  Hillary's staff pushed for a meeting with Bill Clinton and Vexelburg who convinced El Presidente that having a bunch of US companies join in the "project" would be a good idea.

After another giant donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton also visited Russia and gave a speech where he met with Davorovich who was the founder of the Uranium One project.  There is much more to this story which you can find at a real media outlet, the Federalist.

I don't know, maybe you think it's perfectly OK to have our companies hand their technology over to the Russians and maybe it's OK for Clinton to give speeches in Russia after his foundation receives $500k, but it's the "COLLUSION" narrative in the media today claiming that Trump was somehow a puppet of Vexelburg via Michael Cohen is more than I can take, rationally.

I can't help but ask my Liberal friends, "Are you STUPID?"  Ask yourself this question, Liberals because your blanket ignorance of the worst media disgrace in our country's history is laughable when you get your panties in a twist about a 2nd hand conversation by an ex-Trump lawyer who had a conversation with a bad boy of Russian high finance.  Dear Lord.

It's time for me to go and bang my head on my desk now.

Totalitarian Tester

Why should you vote for Matt Rosendale?  I'll tell you why:  Matt Rosendale will go to Washington D.C. and vote like a Conservative. 

John Tester, on the other hand, will vote exactly how his masters, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, tell him to.  Now, he may not be completely under their thumb, but NOBODY can take the kind of money he's taken from the Democrat machine and not be beholden in some way, shape, or form.  Senators from this state may go to DC saying they'll buck the money guys, but after 12 years, they are bought and paid for, at least Tester is.  NO ONE should be in DC that long and I firmly support Convention of States and the term limits supported therein.

Just look at what our Senator said about Ron Jackson when Trump suggested the unlikely candidate for head of the Veteran's Administration.  Dear Lord, the crap he spewed about the long-time white house doctor was diabolical.  Using heresay stories to impune the character of a man who has served our country through multiple administrations, Tester did the bidding of his masters and smeared the good doctor until he was forced to resign.  Close friends say that Admiral Jackson could not defend himself because it would have involved revealing classified information and he was not willing to do that OR to put his family through the hell that we clearly see the Left is willing to rain down upon any Trump nomination.  So, there again we see clearly that John Tester is willing to smear his political enemies and in the process exhibit his clear lack of moral character. 

No longer are those politicians on the Left like John Tester willing to battle their political opponents on the issues, instead, Tester takes the easy way out choosing the much easier smear tactics usually reserved for use by campaign lackeys.  Tester isn't afraid, it seems, to personally smear his opponents.  Take the Eagle Crest development, for example, and the spurious commercial "approved" by Tester that accuses his opponent of building faulty foundations and calling Rosendale a "fraud." Impuning his opponents character with outright lies apparently doesn't trouble John Tester one bit.  Here is a quote from one of the lawyers representing the defendents in the Eagle Crest development case, "I deposed Matt Rosendale, and I found him to be somebody well prepared for deposition and someone who is on the up and up and ethical,” Stephanie Oblander said, adding his company provided the necessary information to contractors. The Great Falls Tribune story continues, 'Oblander, a supporter of Rosendale who said she was critical of Tester, said she was an attorney in two of the lawsuits in which Eagles Crossing, an entity owned by Rosendale, prevailed in 2015 and 2016.  She said Eagles Crossing was vindicated in the two lawsuits that decided developer duty. She believes the ad is unfair.'  Huh, so, once again, Tester is willing to impune the character of his opponent with outright lies and half-truths. I'm thinking the head of the Crow tribe may have Tester figured out which may account for his change in support from Tester to Rosendale. 

I could write several more pages of crap spewed forth by the Tester campaign and John Tester himself, but we have already established his willingness to smear, so let's look instead at Tester's record in the Senate.  The moderately conservative Democrat from Montana who supports gun rights, small business, and economic policies that help the people of Montana disappears when he arrives in Washington DC.  Instead, the life of relative luxury in his big ol house in DC kicks in and he forgets all about those relatively conservative promises he made to get elected in a relatively conservative state.  Instead, he heads out to his favorite DC restaurants and joins his Leftist buddies drinking and laughing at the rubes in Montana who sent him there.  It's time for this guy to be put back out to pasture, and my guess?  He doesn't return to Montana except to visit, instead choosing the high life as a K Street lobbyist just like hundreds of other Senators whose voters finally figured them out. 

So, when you're thinking that maybe those ads claiming Rosendale is some lackey for insurance companies might have validity, take a gander at John Tester's Federal Election Commission webpage and check out the massive dollars being funneled into Tester's campaign by, yep, you guessed it, big insurance companies (the really big ones who got to sit in on the closed-door meetings with Harry Reid during the so-called Affordble Care Act "negotiations," and what is even more disheartening, every Democrat, Socialist, Leftist group on this earth has contributed to Tester's $15,000,000 war chest.  Hop on over to Rosendale's FEC page and you'll find that the reason you're hearing 4-to-1 Tester ads is likely due to the less than 5 million that Rosendale has at his disposal to defend himself against the constant attacks leveled against him day and night in one of the most expensive campaigns of all time.

They are concerned, folks, because in a state where Trump won by 20 points, they know that there are Republicans who must be supporting Tester and they are scared to death that those Republicans might just wake the hell up and vote with the President in this election.  So, take a HARD look at the claims that John Tester is making with all that money, and THINK about why it is VITAL to the U.S. at this point in time that Montanans term limit their 12-year Senator and send a Conservative to support our President to do the Conservative things that we know are true and good like banning this ridiculous sanctuary city/state movement, protecting our sovereign borders, continuing to support economic development by cutting taxes and lowering government spending (well, hopefully THIS time around anyway), supporting Liberty through sound fiscal policy, and finally, voting the Conservative values that are strong in America's Last Best Place.  Support Rosendale for U.S. Senate and increase the Conservative Caucus' numbers because Conservatives know full well, they are the only representatives we can count on in this crazy political climate.  Now, go vote your Conservative values!

Linlee Nelson
Small Business Owner
Missoula, MT

Do We Due Process? Or Don't We?

When I was in high school (Judge Kavanaugh would have been in my graduating class), I remember being educated in my health class about what to do in the case of rape.  A local woman police officer came to our class and talked to us about what was necessary in law enforcement in order to bring a successful case against a rapist. 

 It was shocking; shocking that we had to go to the hospital first, that this thing called a "rape kit" with semen samples and vaginal fluids would be collected, that pictures would be taken, immediately, in order to see bruises in the vaginal area before they disappear.  I remember thinking that it would be like being raped all over again.  This is what women do every day in our country; they "suck it up," get rape kits and go through unadulterated hell, again, in order to bring their rapist to justice. 

 I remember thinking that it was monumentally unfair that a woman, who had just been violated, would have to be violated all over again in order to put her attacker behind bars. This is one of the reasons that women are different, why they deserve support, why I belong to an organization that supports them, because women have an extra burden in our society and in our system of justice, a burden that men do not have.   In order to bring a rapist to justice, women have to endure hell, again. 

Due process is one of those foundational concepts in a society that depends on the rule of law. Should we put it aside for women who come forward many, many years later? Should we give the benefit of doubt to the accuser? The burden is an awesome one. And what if the woman has an agenda? Are we to believe that women cannot lie?  

_;The statistics cited for false accusations are ambiguous and indeterminate.  For instance, most sources cite that as much as 10% of accusations of rape are proven false and that of those, a very tiny percentage result in jail time for the accused.  It's good that a tiny percentage are falsely imprisoned, but imprisonment is not the only result that can ruin the accused.  Just the accusation made by a woman who has no record of suspicious behavior is enough to result in lost job opportunities, broken marriages and the types of things that happen in cases where one's reputation is destroyed.  The statistic that may be more interesting is the number of accusers who spend time in jail for falsely accusing someone which I am guessing is roughly equivalent to the number of those who spend time in jail after being falsely accused. Neither of these numbers help us in our search for truth and justice.  Simply citing a statistic and claiming that 9 out of 10 women are telling the truth and that makes false accusation OK is like saying that 9 out of 10 murderers are lying about not killing someone, so the person who says they didn't kill someone is a murderer.  A low percentage chance of a false accusation is not a good defense of the accusers' believability.  That's 1 out of 10, and that's enough for me to look for corroborating evidence.  I no more want to convict an innocent person of murder than I want to convict an innocent man of rape. Percentage chances are lousy determinative factors; they are what they are: percentage chances, not evidentiary proof.

There are women on social media right this minute saying that they don't care, that men deserve to lose their jobs, their families, and that those who are prosecuted unjustly should just "get over it."  Statements that separate the men in our lives from us as if it is always someone else's man who will be accused are unrealistic and reckless.  Most women don't exist separately from the men in their lives: their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons. We love them, we care for them, and we receive love and support from them.  So, making statements that "men deserve it," or that we don't "care" what happens to them are idiotic and sexist, in the worst possible way.

Women every day, in business and in the criminal justice system depend on due process in their own lives.  If we throw due process under the bus, we will ;become a dictatorial country where, I can assure my readers, women are not treated well.  Ask women in Venezuela or Estonia where they would rather reside, in a country where the rule of law is respected or a country where you can be accused and convicted in the same sentence?  

After listening to an emotionally devastated Judge Kavanaugh list the many women who testified on his behalf, I believe that those who come forward saying things like, "I believe Dr. Ford," are not being intellectually honest.  Judge Kavanaugh deserves to have our Senators consider the preponderance of the evidence.  Those who follow the Chuck Schumer playbook will exclaim that they don't believe a Judge who has kept a calendar from 36 years ago and has submitted a letter from 65 women through all walks of his life who have testified to his non-violent nature.  Those people are not weighing the evidence without bias.  They are letting the Democrat playbook determine their vote.  

Dr. Ford has offered no supporting evidence in the form of corroborating testimony or written journals.  The people she claims were near or in the room have submitted written testimony that they were not there and the event did not take place.  The Democrats are demanding an FBI investigation, of course. What, exactly, is the FBI going to investigate?  They would take statements from Judge Kavanaugh (and would likely give him a high degree of credibility due to his long record of service free from accusation), and they would take statements from Ms. Ford.  The FBI would not take the lie detector testimony into consideration.  Mr. Judge has already submitted his testimony.  The FBI would take the testimony, fill out the 302 forms and send them back up to the committee.  If the Democrats honestly cared about the truth, they would have insisted on investigating these claims when they received Dr. Ford's letter many months ago.  It could have been done in closed session, privately, saving Dr. Ford from unpleasant confrontations.  But I think the Democrats were looking for political theater and they have gotten it, in spades.

The Judiciary Committee is performing the very same "investigation" that the FBI would perform and there is no conclusion because they cannot come to one based on Dr. Ford's testimony.  The FBI, as Joe Biden has famously declared, does not "make conclusions," so Sen. Durbin's theatrics as he asks Mr. Kavanaugh to turn to his left and ask a lawyer there to begin an FBI investigation is just that, theatrics. Theatrics in the face of emotional testimony on both sides where lives are being changed are despicable, but that is  typical for Senator Durbin who faithfully carries the party line and has not let an original thought cross his mind in many years.  

If we are going to destroy people's lives with no evidence, we are a country that will believe anything.  Will we no longer require that women provide rape kits as supporting evidence, or file police reports, or document the incident in a journal or tell their best friend, no matter the difficulty?  If we no longer require evidence, we set ourselves up for the worst kind of division.  False accusers will be able to level charges against your father, my brother, your son, and my dad without having to do the hard work required to make sure that evidence is collected and the accused gets his day in court.

The hard work of collecting evidence may not be popular with the women who write emotional stories about long-ago assaults, but it is vital to those who are serious about convicting violent offenders.  Due process is necessary and needed in a world where women must be taken seriously when they provide painful testimony, go through the process required to provide rape kits to a judge or jury, and show incredible bravery in testifying against someone who has harmed them physically.  We NEED due process and I, for one, support the rule of law.  

Are we to throw out due process because women are psychologically damaged and because they are damaged, they don't report?  This kind of accusation, if it is taken seriously by our political bodies, creates division between those in our society who believe in the rule of law and those who believe that there need be no evidence to prove assault, not to mention the division it will create between men and women!  Women have asked to be treated as equals in our society, but now we are asking for something more, to be believed no matter the situation.  We are asking for a special status, and for what?  For politics?  I don't believe that it gives our gender an advantage to request special status.  It might bring some women immediate gratification as men are trotted off to jail, but in the end, it will harm us by dividing us.

We can now expect, on both sides of the isle, to see a parade of accusers come forward with baseless accusations from 36 years ago in order to have their political "way" with the confirmation of judges.  Our courts should not be subject to this drama. I've heard women I respect say that coming forward 36 years later is "not political" and that claim is not based in reality.  Of course it's political: it's part of how we exist in our society and how we live within a society that is based on the rule of law.  

I will support women who do the hard work of collecting evidence and testifying under terrible pressure, but I will not support women who come forward 36 years after a drunken house party that never told anyone, never reported it to the police and never did the hard work. Testimony like Dr. Ford's diminishes the efforts of women who are, as we speak, doing the hard work to make the case against their attackers in our nation of laws.

Obama's Scandals are Coming Home to Roost

Those of you who know me understand that I am a Conservative, have been since I wrote my first paper in high school about the book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn entitled "Day in the Life of Ivan Dinesovich." 

Well, I'm floored.  The Obama administration was so completely corrupt, lying about crucial issues, this last one a real doozy.  The Obama administration "assured" Republicans again and again that Iran would not have access to the American banking system, but they outright lied.  And this was all to avoid what?  Outrage by the Right?  It certainly wasn't to gain support for a treaty because there was no treaty, and Obama knew that this farse would never have passed the Senate.  But I bet old Bob Corker, head Republican moron, would have changed his tune. 

Obama proudly brags that there were no scandals in his administration.   That's because his administration WAS a scandal.  From "deeming" a rotton, behind-closed-doors "negotiated" ACA to battlefield rules of engagement that have a patriotic army lietenant serving a 20 year sentence, to the outrage of sending spies into the Trump campaign after sweeping Hillary Clinton's many lies and evations under the FBI's politically influenced rug of protection, it is no wonder that Democrats like Doug Shoen are questioning the party leadership. 

The Democrat Party, under Barack Obama's leadership is a radical version of it's former self.  A Democrat Party once Pro-Abortion, pro-big government has turned into a party of multicultural open borders, government funding of just about anything, and a serious tilt toward socialism.  Any resemblance to the Democrat Party of JFK is gone. 

Most Americans don't follow politics enough to care.  They have a general idea of how they want to live their lives, what they believe in and what the party they support believes in.  But while they are comfortably living in a society undergirded by free market capitalism, they are free to dabble in the oxymoronic democratic socialism that so many activists hold close to their hearts.  No such thing exists, of course, because a socialist society is, by definition, one in which the means of production is controlled by the state.  But they continue to argue that we can have some kind of hybrid, where capital is freely exchanged, the means of production are still privately controlled, but the state has it's fingers in the pie to "protect" the public interests.  And, in fact, that's what we currently have.

I do not accept this hybrid as democratic socialism because it's not even close and the more we allow the state to control the means of production, the closer we move to socialism.  There IS NO democratic socialism because the tipping point results in Socialism and Socialism results in state control of more than just the means of production because human nature is what it is.  The great philosophers knew that once a social institution gains central power, they don't relinquish it, and the argument for democracy through the centuries has been fought again and again.  But we don't teach the great philosophers anymore.  If anyone reads Marx it's because they are taking Political Philosophy in college. And in those classrooms, Marx is revered for a system of control that my father (PhD Sociology) believes would work but that I believe has been shown, miserably, to fail. 

As Ivan Dinesovich dug marks into his cell wall, he contemplated the social construct that resulted in his confinement and found it lacking in human Liberty.  We give great powers to our political leaders and the rule of law is divided when those leaders are corrupt which leads us to a system where a Navy Corporal sits in jail for taking pictures on his submarine while his Secretay of State runs an unsecure server, wipes out thousands of emails, erases the hard drive with Bleachbit and destroys cell phones with hammers and runs for President, fully protected by a politically supportive justice department.

Obama's scandals are very real and myriad.  If life were fair, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rod Rosenstein, Jim Comey, James Clapper and John Brennan would be carving dates into the rock walls of their cold, damp cells and enjoying the fruits of a system they so love during their long days working on collectivist farms.