One thing you can usually count on is that during the Democratic Party Convention we will be treated to some speeches using painfully flawed logic.
Case in point, the otherwise poignant speech by the Muslim father, who, after recounting the tragic loss of his patriotic son in combat in Afghanistan, drew a copy of the constitution from his pocket to chastise Donald Trump about his proposed 'ban on Muslim immigration'.
It was a very emotional moment. But it was flawed.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the United States of America should have open borders. And beyond that, when it talks about civil rights, it does not suggest that everyone on the planet is automatically extended the same rights and privileges as American citizens. The constitution does not explicitly disallow vetting immigrants for religious beliefs, or any incompatible cultural practices, such as voodooism. So the idea that screening immigrants as a tool for securing our borders violates the Constitutional rights of the immigrants is factually wrong.
Mr. Khan said, "He wants to build walls and ban us from this country."
Who is 'us'? The moderate Muslims or the radicals? Can he answer that? He can't, because he would be pointing out what a phony representation of Trumps idea he is making! If he answers 'all Muslims', he would be wrong, because Trump said it would be a temporary ban until authorities can figure out who is who. Meaning once we improve our vetting system, we would allow moderate Muslims to once again travel freely. Of course, Mr. Khan could argue that there is no way to separate the moderates from the radicals, but I don't think he wants to go there...
If he said only radical Muslims, than he would be in agreement with Trump. So, we have determined that Mr. Khan has misrepresented what Trump said.
Next, when Khan said "if it was up to Trump, he never would have been an American" and his son could not have volunteered to join the armed forces to defend freedom, he was setting up a straw dog.
His family has been here for over thirty years. When they immigrated here, Trump was not advocating a ban on Muslims. No one was. They are proof of that. The historical truth is, Americans are the most generous and freedom loving people on earth, and legal immigrants have almost always been welcome to come here.
Except in times of war.
Whether the Democrats want to acknowledge it or not, war has been declared on America, by radical Muslims who have stated that they intend to kill us all if we do not submit to their Caliphate. And if we get serious, which the Obama administration has yet to do, we will declare war on them, and then we will secure our borders, immediately. From all people who intend to do us harm, regardless of their religious beliefs, their color or their race.
After Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Proclamation 2525 is still the law today:
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.
When the Khan family came here, there was relative peace in most of the Middle East. We were not seeing countries, regimes, and entire geopolitical regions overrun by droves of well armed, merciless killers. We were not witnessing mass executions, beheadings and plastic explosive assaults on public places throughout the world. Our economy was not stuck in neutral, and jobs so scarce. These are extraordinary times. We are facing entirely new forms of aggression, all under the guise of Jihad, a uniquely Islamic strand of cult-like devotion to death and destruction.
When at war and your compound comes under assault, the first thing any competent military leader will do is secure the perimeter. To not do so would be reckless incompetence. Which is precisely what the Obama/Clinton immigration policy is.
The Evening News opens with 'Good Evening' then proceeds to tell us why it isn't.
Have you ever seen a news program open with a happy story?
One of those heart warming stories they always save till the last minute,
so when they sign off you think twice about committing suicide?
We need to 'press the press' to rearrange the headlines;
Refocus on what is great about freedom
About those that preserve and protect it
And tell the positive stories
Of which there are millions
And put the bad guys and their mayhem
On the back page
Behind the classifieds
in a size 8 font….
Millionaire socialist musicians do not understand the capitalist system that has served them so well... An example of that is Donald Trump's use of Queen's anthem, We Are The Champions, at the Republican National Convention. It worked for Trump in two ways; it was a perfect fit for the WWF-like entry Trump made just as his nomination was complete. "We are the champions, we beat the establishment!"
And two, it caused an uproar over the performance rights of the writers of the song. Who then looked close-minded as they complained that they would not have given Trump, who they consider a homophobe, the rights even if he had asked. The band demanded the RNC 'cease and desist' from any further use of their song, because the Trump campaign organization had not asked for or received permission to use it.
I raise this issue because every election cycle we hear rich, socialist musicians bellyache about conservatives using their music during rallies and conventions. This year a bunch of lefty artists, often ones worth millions who sing about and venerate socialism, while practicing the purest form of capitalism there is, complain that Republicans are using their music without their consent, and that they do not approve of that because Republicans are racist and hateful.
You never hear them tell conservatives not to buy their albums though, do you? Which means they value conservative's money when it serves them, but dismiss them if they publicly enjoy their music.
New Queen lead singer Adam Lambert tweeted, "If your politics party spends decades treating gay people as second-class citizens, guess what: You don't get to use Freddie Mercury's music at your convention."
Wrong. It is not your private property anymore.
Licensing your art is a purely capitalist way to make a living. Millionaire musicians seem to forget that along with the enormous amounts of royalties comes some compromises. Once you license your songs to ASCAP or BMI, you forfeit the ability to restrict specific parties from playing your songs.
It is no longer purely your song. It is part of a performance contract, in which both parties have rights. Ironically, the licensing program is almost a collective, because it allows the public, other musicians, and the venues, to 'share' the music, while protecting the artists and helping them to collect residuals on their work.
When an artist releases a new recording, they sign an agreement with ASCAP, or BMI, or other licensing organizations to manage the use and compensation of the song. At that point, the artist no longer has the power to pick and choose who plays the music, as long as the terms of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), or one of the three other licensing organizations are being met, they cannot simply deny a person of a political movement the use of the music. Venues like the convention center in Cleveland, pay thousands of dollars in annual performance rights fees so they can have clients play any music they want when holding conventions in their building.
Marketing, like freedom, is a two way street. Artists have to decide, do I want to maintain maximum control over my art, or do I want maximum return on my investment, my talent, by sharing it with the world?
You can't have it both ways Adam.
I am so tired of being called a hater, a racist, a homophobe, a xenophobic, and worst of all, a Republican. I am none of the above.
I have pointed out, in my book Turn Right At Lost: Recalculating America, that a major threat to our future is the necessity for the left to redefine our language. In his prescient book 1984, George Orwell described the destructive effects on democracy when leftists (statists that worship government) misuse the language. Redefining terminology, disrespecting our language, and redefining history all have an insidious effect on perceptions of reality. And they are effective tools for destroying Western modernity, capitalism, democracy and liberty.
In Saul Alinsky's book Rules For Radicals, which Hillary Clinton reviewed as part of her senior thesis upon graduating from Wellesley, he lays out the way to change the world for collectivism:
Demonize Capitalism: Establish a national guilt trip that presents Capitalism as selfish, oppressive and destructive.
Redefine Language: Through intimidation and exploitation of children and the underclass, Progressives can change attitudes and perceptions, and garner emotional support for their effort to reconstruct history and society.
Multiply disenfranchised minority groups and then pit them against each other and the establishment; then ride in to rescue selected parties and form disruptive and vocal coalitions to defeat conservatives and moderates.
Rewrite History: Destroy any allegiance to the 'glamorized' history of the country, remove any incentives to sacrifice oneself for the good of the evil establishment.
I, like many Americans are feeling disenfranchised by the purposeful campaign to 'reeducate' Americans by changing the meaning of words, which then affects nearly all exchanges of information, distorting the perceptions and interpretations of history.
The efforts of leftists to take our country back to a dark age of tribal warfare and utopian ideologies, is driving the nationalism Trump has tapped into. So I stood up and clapped when he said, "I have no patience for political correctness!"
Political correctness is a terminal disease.
According to the indignant and self absorbed mainstream media, if you are pro-American, you are xenophobic and hateful. If you have a nuclear family that actually loves each other and operate a private business or charity foundations, you are phonies. If you want the world to restore law and order and provide stability so everyone can live in peace and security, you are a rightwing fascist.
Precisely the lesson our kids have been inculcated with if they have attended public schools or even respected private colleges anytime in the past 30 years. The progressive media focuses entirely on how much more 'educated' leftists are, elevating entertainers to the position of foreign policy experts. Now they own the word 'educated', defining it as anyone that agrees with their collectivist ideology. Here's some other examples:
I heard a caller on talk radio say Donald Trump was a 20-year liberal until just recently. Oh really? So who raised his kids? As I watched Melania, Donald Jr.,then Eric and later both Tiffany and Ivanka speak to the convention, I was struck by their moral clarity, respect for the family, and unbelievable public speaking skills. The values they espoused were classic conservative values. Melania was especially genuine, having immigrated from an Eastern European communist country.
As Mike Pence noted in his brilliant and well delivered speech, "You can't fake kids!"
Try building a business empire in New York without having to pander to both sides of the political aisle. There is a big difference between swimming in politics while doing business, and doing the business of politics.