Search This Blog

Friday, January 18, 2019

If A Day Ends in 'Y', Must Be Time For More Fake News


~ What a typical liberal looks n' sounds like

When we think of how much irrational deranged hate Democrats have for the President, its hard for any sane thinking person to understand how 50% of the population could be so deeply mentally ill

But we often think of something once uttered by a wise man long ago

'When dealing with a stupid person, you can imply he/she is stupid, use big words to insinuate he/she is stupid and even cleverly mock a stupid person..  You just don't directly tell a stupid person he/she is stupid.  Then you have a stupid enemy for life'
While on a personal level we absolutely loved how right after the election, he invited the heads of the various TV media to come to Trump Tower so he could directly scold them how rotten they all were (they attended assuming there'd be a detente), it didn't make for good political strategy

Everything the President has had to deal with when it comes to an openly hostile, extremely fake media with a personal vendetta to remove him from office or provoke a heart attack originates from that meeting in November, 2016

Oh sure they thought Trump was a buffoon and so beneath them, like they seem to think every conservative is but rats will be rats and with Trump, they don't have to pretend they're any different.
Not only does this putrid liberal media distort truth, purposely leave out key facts in stories and Refuse to report anything positive about the Administration's successes but they also feel emboldened to create fake stories out of the blue based on 'unnamed sources' that do not exist

The most recent and horrible example occurred last night as BuzzFeed report that President Trump "personally instructed" his former attorney Michael Cohen to lie to congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

Less than 12 hours after the report, its credibility has been called into question after the two piece of shit so-called 'journalists' who wrote the story gave vastly different answers as to whether they had actually the evidence
One of them, Anthony Cormier, admitted to CNN's "New Day" that he hasn't actually seen the evidence in the case.

When asked if he had seen the evidence, Cormier replied: “Not personally.” He then clarified that “the folks we have talked to — two officials we have spoken to are fully, 100 percent read into that aspect of the Special Counsel’s investigation”

His co-writer, Jason Leopold however told MSNBC "We have seen the documents. We have been briefed on documents."

Who is right?  Who are these mysterious 'sources'?
This fake news story is as good an example as any to explain the behind the scenes strategies at play when one wonders why such bullshit is written or reported

Obviously its sensational and attention grabbing which means increased viewer or readership and that pleases the advertisers greatly

Beyond that, when something anti-Trump and unsubstantiated is reported, we all know that 99.9% of liberals are going to make absolutely no effort on their own to research and see if the information is true, especially if the Trump hate item validates their personal derangement bias
In addition, it works with other made up news collectively or in aggregate to constantly put the President on the defense as an attempt to distract from him touting his successes

It also works as part of a collective lie narrative that works long after Trump is out of office to seek to forever taint his historical legacy like the vultures successfully did with Nixon

As god-awful as the media is today, in truth it really has never possessed any semblance of fairness and objectivity..  Ever

It's just that everyone has rose-colored glasses that media of the past was more fair or professional or civil toward those they disagreed with
We remember reading a fascinating book once about the how terrible the media was even as far back as Washington's Presidency

Back then in the 1790's, the newspapers would treat any and every decision by Washington as an assault on the Constitution and stir up fears he was really becoming a King no different than that other George in Britain

Then in the 1796 election pitting John Adams v Thomas Jefferson, the newspapers by and large were all so pro-Adams, that Jefferson later blamed them for losing and realized the only way he could ever win in the future was to create and own his own newspapers that pushed his points of view

Jefferson won the Presidency in 1800
And for much of this nation's history, newspapers were very open in their bias.. Some papers were called the 'Democrat' or the 'Republican' which was good because at least you knew where the media outlet stood

Intelligent people today know what side of the political fence most outlets are..  The stupid people believe their go-to news sources are unbiased

Only two US Presidents have had the guts to deal with the press in the correct manner so to control the beast
As we've written often here, Lincoln declared Martial Law during the Civil War and threw into jail any journalist who wrote anything that hurt the Union cause or defended the Confederate point of view

They'd be kept in prison for long duration in prison without due process and their places of employment would be seized by the government

Lincoln also directed Union soldiers to be posted in front of the Supreme Court to prevent them from entering since the Justices, especially the Chief Justice Roger Taney had southern sympathies and didn't want them ruling on legal validity of secession
Then Woodrow Wilson did similar to the press who dared to write anything negative about our involvement in WWI and even sent back immigrants to their nation of origin who dared to speak against the government

Wilson believed Lincoln did not go far enough in controlling the press

We used to think this mindset was horrible and very un-democratic but then we saw what happened to LBJ and Nixon concerning Vietnam when you let the media run amok and what's happening now to Trump is downright scary

The media gets away with it because they can, and Trump for all his positives is mostly hot air; a man who boasts and rarely backs up words with deeds..

However, we absolutely loved what he did to that geriatric cunt Pelosi and the other Democrat congresspeople yesterday,  preventing them at the last moment from boarding a plane and flying overseas for a week

Wish he'd do more spiteful acts like that.. It was beautiful.
Because when its upfront and direct who your enemy is and you to they, its very freeing - no more needless fake formality and silly civility

We believe Trump will survive all this never-ending bombardment of media evil

It's just a shame he is incapable and/or unwilling to see liberals, especially in the media as the Enemies of the State which they are and act accordingly.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Just Do It!!

The last couple days we've written long albeit informative posts so today while still important (we don't just write to write), it will be much shorter

Perspective is a funny thing..  How quickly it can change based on one verbal or nonverbal gesture or tweet

A few weeks ago our stance was when it comes to funding the wall, it is so important that even if the partial shutdown must last weeks or months or over a year, so be it
Then Trump uttered what in our minds was the game changer i.e. essentially he could declare an emergency at that border and based on precedent, get the $5.7 billion in ways that bypass Congress

Now while we have written on why the President may have such reluctance, the point was that legally what he boasted was true - he Can do it albeit all the legal challenges that would come from it

He also said Mexico is indirectly going to be paying for it

And so....    Why all this constant bullshit?
Does Trump think he's making clever political points?  Does he really believe those parasitic Democrats are weakening? 

We all know they're scum..

We all know they put their party and identity politics before what's best for the safety and prosperity of the nation
This is honestly the first time we at A&G have been consistently frustrated and resentful at the President because none of this nonsense including depriving pay to nearly a million Federal workers has to be taking place

Only if funding absolutely had to come from Congress would the involuntary financial sacrifice of so many need to take place..   But this all could end at a stroke of his pen

Trump also said a couple weeks ago during a cabinet meeting when comparing himself to Obama regarding foreign policy that when a President makes threats or warnings, he essentially must back them up or they become worthless

Well?!
It wasn't the evil fake media that created a non-news story that Trump had that power to do an end-around Congress

It was Trump's words.

The real problem is originally Trump wasn't going to fight for funding.. His press secretary directly said so in answer to a reporter's question

Then many influential Conservatives howled and basically threatened they'd not support Trump in 2020 if he went back on his word to build the wall (rightly so) and Trump had to do a 180 and is still looking a bit discombobulated over it
We don't know why he doesn't just declare a border emergency now

Worse that happens is the emergency order gets bogged down for a bit in the courts which is still more forward progress than this impasse with the putrid Democrats

And who knows, if Trump pursued this avenue and ultimately it looked like he would win in the Supreme Court, perhaps Congress would fold for fear that a modern legal precedent for increased Presidential power was not worth a few billion and just allocate the funds

Whatever.. Whatever..
All we know is while our need for a wall has not wavered, we are getting sick of how Trump is handling things

He said he can get the funding without Congress?

Well. DO IT!

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

A Very Brief History of the US that Schools Do Not Teach

After reading yesterday's posting some may have been amazed to know that the US has been as much a colonial power as any other stale European nation while other readers may have not been the least bit surprised

It's not cynicism to think that way.. Just the reality of life because all nations make policy decisions in past and present based primarily on economic reasons and generally speaking one country is not any better than another
If Nicaragua or Honduras, etc had the means and military capabilities, they would have as easily sent troops to occupy parts of the US and exploit our resources for their singular benefit as conscious-free as we did to them

So don't go down that 'America is evil' route..  It is not; We're a wonderful country

It's just we're not the perfect nation some like to think us to be

We've always believed that America has had and still has a lot of problems and did things historically to others that one should not be proud of but compared to everyone else, we are the greatest nation in the world, so just getting that out there before we continue..
Every country makes policy decisions based primarily on financial considerations and we're no different

Since the school system and even university/college level all do such a piss-poor job of teaching American history, we thought we'd take a couple moments to give a quick summary that focuses on the gaps that is accidentally or purposely left out of the curriculum

We start in colonial times..  Everyone for generations has been taught that we declared war on Great Britain because of liberty and freedom and self-determination

Maybe.. but No
After the end of the Seven Years War or 'French & Indian War' (1756-1763), Parliament expected the colonists to pay for it so it levied various taxes on those living here to deal with the financial burdens of it and continual defense from the Indians along the western border

OK.. so everyone knows that..  Stamp Act... Tea Party.. etc

But when the taxation was becoming too overbearing, the colonists wanted to create their own separate currency where they could control the valuation and not have money's value determined by London, and thus re-pay the war debt using that specie
British Parliament refused because it would not have been financially beneficial and and prevented the colonies from doing this

This caused great economic misery and hurt the merchants even more than taxes on stamps, thus becoming the breeding ground of hate which became the American Revolution

So the war ends in 1781.. we win (Yay!)  and there's the formation of Articles of Confederation followed by the Constitution we all love..

Fast forward to War of 1812 (1812-1814)..  Why did we fight it?
In brief, the British were preventing American merchant ships from navigating on open waters and on many occasions, impressed those vessels, meaning the British navy would stop US ships, climb on board and force at the barrel of a gun US seamen to come aboard their ships and essentially become their seamen

The war was a stalemate though we did give the Brits a deserved ass-kicking at the Battle of New Orleans - but overall it was fought over economics

So we move forward in our time machine to the 1840s and the Mexican War (1846 - 1848)

Did it have to do with liberty and freedom for Texas?  Ehh
Had much more to do with manifest destiny and expanding slavery westward

It is truly amazing to think of how large a booty we took from Mexico after the peace treaty was ultimately signed - Territory which is now Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, etc..

And think about this amazing bit of trivia..  Had there been no Mexican War and no acquisition of California, then when gold was discovered in 1849, it would have been on Mexican owned lands and they would have been financially enriched instead of the US
Who knows.. had there been no Mexican War, maybe gringos would be trying to cross the border to get into their country where all the wealth and prosperity would be located

So we keep moving along and we get to the Civil War

While we do believe many Union soldiers chose to fight to free the slaves, the Union as a nation did not
Lincoln once said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Lincoln also said during his second debate with Stephen Douglas on August 27, 1858:                                                                                                                                                                                       
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people
And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which prevents them from living together on terms of social and political equality.  

And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race"

So we can stop this bullshit that Lincoln and the Union as a whole as more moral and ethical than the Confederacy
Also the reason so many in the North wanted slavery dissolved was more for spite than humanitarian - they wanted to hurt the South financially...

Workers, especially immigrant labor was paid pennies a day to live in squalor but pennies a day was still more than what they saw slave owners paying 

The fact that slave owners had to pay to feed, clothe, shelter and provide medical care to their property while Northern industrialists didn't was something that slipped their greed-ridden minds
So the Civil War ends and slaves are free, something we're all still paying endlessly for 150+ years later and now the government focuses attention on westward expansion

Obviously the Indians were dangerous, brutal savages that would attack settlers thus kill the men, rape the women and abduct or kill the children -- sorry, no 'Dances with Wolves' historical revisionism here

But the primary reason for the Indian wars was economic - it was a growing, expanding nation and they were a threat to settlers' safety

Who wants to take their family westward to find themselves full of arrows with heads' scalped and vaginas violated..  That is bad for business
We talked about Central and South American and Caribbean colonization yesterday so we move forward to 1917 when we enter World War I

We did not do so for democracy - that is absolute bullshit

We entered World War I even though then President Wilson campaigned just 6 months under the slogan 'He kept us out of war' because US banks had lent so much money to Britain and France to fund the war, they were terrified that if they lost, the banks would never get repaid on the loans

So from that, we go 'Over There!' and have Americans fight and die for nothing
Now we come to World War II..  Why did we fight?

For democracy?  To liberate the Jews from the camps?  

Because we were attacked?

No to the first two, though obviously being attacked gave the nation the OOmph to officially declare war on Japan
Of course no one ever mentions that we manipulated Japan into attacking because we meddled in their sea trade and prevented them from acquiring rubber and petroleum, which they desperately needed to keep pushing their war effort vs China

Sorta like if you see someone punch another in the face but don't notice the provocation that the one being punched was grabbing the other by the throat to deprive of air, thus the response

So we fight Japan so we can take back control of the Pacific and thanks to the Nazis declaring war on us, we fight them so we can liberate Europe back into a capitalist continent that will buy/consume US goods 

In the process it is only because of WWII, that we finally got out of the Great Depression
And every engagement during the Cold War was more about the economic dangers of Communism and ensuring their borders were open to US companies and its products than anything social, political or moral

And we all know what's going on the last few decades from Gulf War to the present is oil related

Like we said before, this is not to put America in a negative light..  
We're the greatest nation in the world but primarily its because all others have been historically and/or presently various degrees of god-awful

No nation is innocent or pure or conducts policy with good social intentions unless its secondary to money and finance

Not ever

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

The Real Reason So Many Wish to Enter the US..

~ American warships off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico as we prepare to occupy the city - 1914

For today's post we fear we might make loyal listeners quite jittery as opinions will be expressed on economics that will sound quite extreme left on the political spectrum but we promise we have not turned radical socialist/communist in the last 24 hours

We just pride ourselves on giving honest and unique perspectives you won't find elsewhere and as always you decide if you agree, disagree or think we're full of it

OK, so here we go..
Ever wonder why so many people from 3rd world countries, especially in this hemisphere desperately seek to enter the US whether it be through legal or illegal channels?

To say that our economy is good and theirs are weak or poor is a massive over-simplification because you have to take the time to understand exactly why their economies are the way they are and why the US isn't (well debt wise we are worse but reserve currency has its privileges)

Basically most of South and Central America are financially in very bad shape because we, the US started colonizing them starting back in the late 19th century

And though the terms change (we call them allies now), the corporations remain as does the suck-sucking of wealth from most of this hemisphere up northward to us
Here's a modern example of the last decade that is as good as any as to how the US controls a country's economic autonomy for our benefit:

On June 1, 2011, the magazine 'Nation' headlined "WikiLeaks Haiti: Let Them Live on $3 a Day," reporting that:

"Contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.... 
The factory owners told the Haitian Parliament that they were willing to give workers a 9-cents-per-hour pay increase to 31 cents per hour to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for US clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica. 

But the factory owners refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. 

And they had the vigorous backing of the US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand." 
Hillary Clinton's State Department pushed hard to reverse the new minimum wage law.

A deputy chief of mission under her said the $5 per day minimum 'did not take economic reality into account' but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to 'the unemployed and underpaid masses.'

So in other words the US government took the side of US corporations and arm twisted enough Haitian government officials behind the scenes with promises of 'carrots' and/or threats of 'sticks' to convince them that their people did not deserve 31 cents more an hour in wages
This is not a Obama/Hillary thing..  As much as we hate both, they're not alone or isolated in how the US continually works to take other nations' natural resources for itself while allowing US corporations free rein to dominate and subjugate a region as the natives suffer in deep poverty

You can go back over 100 years to find examples of this, one of the biggest being what was known as the 'Banana Wars' which was a series of US military interventions into Central & South America and the Caribbean between 1898 and 1934 to control those governments and bend them to the will of the US corporations that were exploiting them
Most prominently, the US was advancing its economic, political, and military interests to maintain its sphere of influence and securing the Panama Canal (opened in 1914) which it had recently built to promote global trade and to project its own naval power.

US companies such as the United Fruit Company also had financial stakes in the production of bananas, tobacco, sugar cane, and other commodities throughout the region.

So let's take a few moments to look at various countries the US government then took over which basically they still control economically and politically to this day:
Panama: U.S. interventions in the isthmus go back to the 1846 Mallarino–Bidlack Treaty and intensified after the so-called Watermelon War of 1856.

In 1885 US military intervention gained a mandate with the construction of the Panama Canal. The building process collapsed in bankruptcy, mismanagement, and disease in 1889, but resumed in the 20th century.

In 1903, Panama seceded from the Republic of Colombia, backed by the U.S. government and building resumed.   Originally no nation was supposed to own the Canal but ultimately we full control and managing the canal until President Carter gave it back to Panama in the late 1970's.
Cuba:  U.S. forces seized Cuba along with Puerto Rico and Philippines from Spain in 1898 as a result of winning the Spanish-American war and led to the start of Banana Wars.

In December 1899 US president William McKinley deemed General Leonard Wood to have supreme power in Cuba, so we liberated Cubans from their Spanish 'oppression'.

We occupied Cuba from 1898 to 1902 under military governor Leonard Wood, and again from 1906 to 1909, in 1912, and once again from 1917 to 1922; in 1903 the US took a permanent lease on the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

Like everywhere else, we allowed US corporations to enter while protecting their interests through puppet rulers or by sending in the Marines
Dominican Republic: US military were sent in 1903, 1904 and 1914 then we occupied the country from 1916 to 1924.

Nicaragua: Occupied by the U.S. almost continuously from 1912 to 1933, after intermittent landings and naval bombardments in the decades beforehand.

Mexico: The U.S. military involvements with Mexico in this period are related to the same general commercial and political causes, but stand as a special case - we conducted a Border War with Mexico from 1910-1919 to control the flow of immigrants and refugees from revolutionary Mexico (pacificos), and to counter rebel raids into U.S. territory.
Haiti:  Occupied by the U.S. from 1915–1934, which led to the creation of a new Haitian constitution in 1917 that instituted changes that included an end to the prior ban on land ownership by non-Haitians. This period included the First and Second Caco Wars.

Honduras:  The United Fruit Company and Standard Fruit Company dominated the country's key banana export sector and associated land holdings and railways, saw insertion of American troops in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925.

The writer O. Henry coined the term "Banana republic" in 1904 to describe Honduras.
Other Latin American nations beyond what we listed here were influenced or dominated by American economic policies and/or commercial interests to the point of coercion.

Theodore Roosevelt declared the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, asserting the right of the United States to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of states in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts.

From 1909-1913, President William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox asserted a more "peaceful and economic" Dollar Diplomacy foreign policy, although that too was backed by force, as in Nicaragua.
Perhaps the single most active military officer in the Banana Wars was U.S. Marine Corps Major General, Smedley Butler, nicknamed "Maverick Marine"

He saw action in Honduras in 1903, served in Nicaragua enforcing American policy from 1909 to 1912, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his role in Veracruz in 1914, and a second Medal of Honor for bravery in Haiti in 1915.

In 1935, in his book 'War is a Racket', he denounced the role he had played, describing himself as "a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism"

And really, aren't pretty much all soldiers today the same?
So the long and short of it is this --  There is a reason all these people from our hemisphere desperately want to enter the US, legally or illegally and why there aren't massive waves of Americans seeking to migrate elsewhere:

We economically exploit their home nations instead of they getting to exploiting us

If the US government truly wants the massive wave of illegals to stop,  it would institute new economic policies where other nations claim genuine economic sovereignty over their financial affairs and are free from the shackles of debt which the US run/controlled IMF and World Bank have placed on them

Since that will never happen, the only other option is the wall.