Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Trump opposes Zeroth amendment

Trump's speech on the history of Clintonian corruption was postponed so he could deliver one in response to the mass shooting in Orlando where an inanimate carbon assault rifle killed fifty people. The topic was to be covered was billed as terrorism. Substantively, though, it was more a speech on immigration that also included terrorism insofar as terrorism is downstream of immigration. A few highlights follow.

Channeling Derb, Trump recognizes that maximum freedom within the nation's borders requires maximum security at the nation's borders:



He also channels Steve Sailer's sagacious suggestion that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging:


Trump points out fissures in the Coalition of the Fringes:



Trump has emphatically and vociferously proclaimed his unwavering support for the second amendment. He does not appear, however, to support the zeroth amendment:


A refreshing phrase to hear from a Republican presidential nominee:



After rhetorically boxing him in, it was clear that Trump had gotten under Obama's skin. He and Hillary read from the same talking points, They don't like Trump's renewed call for a ban on Muslim immigration into the US. That was only supposed to be a stunt to win the primaries--he wasn't supposed to be serious about it!

Parenthetically, from the second link in the preceding paragraph, note Lester Holt's smug remark that Trump's call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration wouldn't have prevented the Orlando shooting, as though he's just let loose some kind of polemical kill shot. To the contrary, if the US had adopted Trump's proposal generations ago, Omar Majeed wouldn't have been in the country at all, let alone a citizen. The time to adopt the moratorium was after the first battle of Poitiers. Better late than never, though.

Paul Ryan, GOP head cuckety-cuck, doesn't see it that way, of course. He agrees with Obama and Hillary.

This bipartisan attack on Trump, led by three of the government's highest profile establishment puppets, is coming hard and fast because Trump's idea is popular. After shuttering the ongoing poll over the last couple of weeks--apparently thinking they'd heard the end of the Muslim ban, too--Reuters-Ipsos opened it back up, asking respondents if they agreed or disagreed that "the United States should temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States". A plurality agreed:


The question is worded so that the proposal appears more strict than what Trump has actually called for. He's said it would only apply to non-citizen Muslims, but the poll--and Obama--mendaciously imply that it would apply to citizens, too. Even so, there's a lot of support for it.

Since Reuters-Ipsos began tracking responses in May, "disagree" holds a narrow edge over "agree" among likely general election voters in aggregate (N = 4,407):


To Ryan's dismay, it's massively favored among Republicans, 67.1%-28.2% (see here to support his primary challenger). It's also favored among independents, 49.0%-44.0%.

Ryan shouldn't assume he's safe behind the arena's walls. The gibbet glistens:



19 comments:

Mil-Tech Bard said...

We are on course for not only a Muslim "immigration pause", but a Muslim immigration ban plus general "immigration pause" shortly after.

There is a lot of elite political inertia involved, but the on-going spat Muslim terrorist attacks will bury it in blood.

Muslim Lone Wolf terrorists aren’t, because they are usually “Known Wolves” with dens of Muslim associates and enablers that the surveillance shut down of in 2012 DHS whistle blower Phil Harney documented.

This politically correct blinding of terrorist surveillance of Muslims and the Obama Administration open border to Syrian (read ISIS) refugee policies have created a network of local Muslim safe areas across the USA that these attacks will launch from for years to come.

We will see one to three more San Bernadino & Orlando type attacks -- at a minimum -- before the Nov 2016 election.

This is in addition to more Paris and Brussels type attacks in the UK and EU.

At some point there will be a ISIS IED campaign in America in crowded urban spaces as well.

The pattern of Muslim Terrorist "Wolf Dens" has been recognized by the press.


See:

Wolf dens, not lone wolves, the norm in U.S. Islamic State plots
NEW YORK | By Joseph Ax
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-islamic-state-crime-insight-idUSKCN0Z015A


This melt down of the DHS and predominantly FBI Counter-Terrorism mission has been noticed.

See this link from the Free Republic blog --

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3440201/posts?q=1&;page=1

Titled:

FBI Counter-Intelligence Up for Grabs?
Washington Free Beacon ^ | Bill Gertz


It appears that the three letter national security agency sharks are circling the FBI Counter Intelligence mission budget.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

This is the opening post of the Free Republic thread link I posted above --


Bill Gertz' latest column has a tid-bit indicating that the wolves are circling around the FBI's counter-intelligence mission. See the quote above.
I doubt that the FBI failure concerning the Orlando terrorist attack was the last straw, though. The article explains a systemic "don't look" 9/11 type failure, though the latter was due to Jamie Gorelick's imposition of a wall between national security organizations to prevent an investigation of Bill Clinton's sales of favors to foreigners. Which included sale of national security secrets to at least the Chinese government.

The Orlando failure was due mostly, or almost entirely, to straight lefty political correctness plus moral failure by non-lefty officials. This does not excuse the FBI here, but giving the majority of its budget to a new organization seems excessive unless there is something else going on.

And the No. 1 suspect there is a decision by FBI Director Comey not to recommend Hillary's indictment. Sure this is speculation on my part. But something is going on.

I personally have advocated creation of a new domestic national security organization, without arrest power, since 9/11. There simply is a flat-out contradiction between the necessary mind-sets for law enforcement vs. national security.

But I've also noticed a growing feeling for months that an FBI decision not to recommend Hillary's indictment would be the final straw for elimination, during the next GOP administration, of its national security role.

The FBI's failure in Orlando is a great opportunity for the FBI's rivals to accomplish this. IMO that is what is going on here. Comey has decided, for whatever reason, not to recommend Hillary's indictment. And the wolves are now taking dibs.

Fire away, and please let us know what you really think.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

And this seems to be the best response there so far, first rock --

Thud,

It is clear that some time between the Mid December 2015 — in the aftermath of San Bernadino — when FBI Director James Comey declared the Chattanooga recruiter shooting Islamic terrorism — and June 2016, that the Obama Administration cut FBI Director Comey’s institutional stones off.

I am not sure the means by which this was done, but I suspect dirtying of numerous senior FBI officials in Obama’s “Fast and Furious” or “Gunwalking” to Mexican Drug Cartels Scandal played a part.

This “De-stoning” of Comey affects both the FBI’s ability to drop an indictment on Hillary as well as to do an effective and non-partisan counter-intelligence of the domestic jihadi threat.

FBI Director James “Stoneless Joe” Comey knows further that Muslim domestic terrorist attacks are both inevitable and unstoppable.

Simply based upon the 3-year State Dept/Homeland Security Islamist vetting black out that former Homeland Security investigator turned whistleblower Philip Haney has documented in his new book as well as articles like this one after San Berdo -

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/report-obama-told-nsc-to-downplay-terrorist-angle-of-san-bernadino/

Mil-Tech Bard said...

And this is the second rock of the best response to that Free Republic thread --


----


See also this Philip Haney interview with Megyn Kelly —

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/12/10/whistleblower-says-he-could-have-prevented-ca-attack-if-government-didnt-cut-funding

Philip Haney told Megyn Kelly that as part of his investigation, he was looking into a collection of global networks that were infiltrating radical Islamists into the U.S.

But a year into the investigation, Haney said they got a visit from the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, who said that tracking these groups was problematic because they were Islamic.

Haney’s investigation was shut down and 67 of his records were deleted, including one into an organization with ties to the mosque in Riverside, Calif., that San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook attended. Those deleted files included information on an organization with ties to Farook’s mosque, San Bernardino’s Deobandi movement-affiliated Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamia.

And Farook’s wife and accomplice, Tashfeen Malik, went to school at Pakistan’s al-Huda, which also has ties to the Deobandi movement.

As the global intelligence group Stratfor has reported, Talighi Jamaat has been linked to a number of attempted terrorist attacks targeting the U.S.

Members of the sect were tied to the Oct. 2002 Portland Seven case and the Sept. 2002 Lackawanna Six case. Members were also involved in an Aug. 2006 plot to bomb airliners en route from London to the U.S. and attempted bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland.

Consider — The Obama Administration won’t delete illegally held gun purchase data on American citizens, but it did so for records of terrorist affiliated foreign Muslims.

The Obama’s State Department and the Homeland Security’s “Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties” minions shutting down Mosque surveillance for three years — from 2012 to San Bernadino — puts Hillary in the same “Muslim terrorist hugging” cross hairs as Obama.

The three year surveillance lapse makes further domestic terror attacks before the 2016 election a certainty, because even after San Bernadino, Obama and Lynch won’t raid radical Muslim Mosques.

Trump can credibly say Obama and Hillary would rather the American streets run red with the blood of dozens of Americans than raid a Radical Muslim Mosque…and he will.

During the last lame duck year of an unpopular president’s final term, the FBI counter-intelligence lifers must be in full rebellion for fear of institutional the consequence’s of that lapse.

The issue for FBI Counter-Intelligence officials is that they have a “Sir John Harington problem” AKA

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Sir John Harington
Epigrams, Book iv, Epistle 5.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

This is the final rock of the Freep thread --

---



The Muslim Brotherhood has ready-made ideological fellow travelers in the anti-colonial/anti-nationalistic Left in the West.

This Leftist political faction dominates both the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton’s senior aides.

Think of the Muslim Brotherhood as a ideological analog to a virus, with a “ideological protective outer coating” that mimics Leftist ideology and suppresses the normal Leftist “immune reaction” reaction to Muslim misogyny, homophobia and religious-based ethic cleansing in favor of expressing the Western Left’s more important to their self-image anti-colonial/anti-nationalist identity.

All of the above leaves FBI Counter-Intelligence mission in a horribly exposed budgetary position, if FBI Director “Stoneless-Joe” Comey does not drop the Hillary indictment before the Democratic National convention (DNC).

A Hillary indictment any later than that won’t save the counter-intelligence mission for the FBI.

The FBI nearly lost this mission after 9/11/2001, but could and did appeal through it’s GOP connections to get George W Bush to not do so.

A No Hillary Indictment before the DNC, Post-Obama, FBI will appear Pro-Democratic Party partisan as hell in a Trump Administration

And it will have no friends with a President that has no ties to Congress and that takes pride in firing incompetents.

The kicker in all of this is that Putin’s Russia is going to blow all the Classified Hillary Clinton e-mails proving she is a criminal.

The De-Stoning of Comey means that those e-mails will be dropped before the FBI’s indictment and that will seal the budgetary fate of the FBI-counter intelligence, whenever it occurs.

Cicatrizatic said...

Have you reviewed the general election polls that have come out in the last few weeks? Their sampling skews by under-polling Republicans. The Bloomberg poll that everyone is touting - only 25% polled identify as Republican. The media is pushing a narrative that Trump is in free fall - it looks like an orchestrated effort to depress his poll numbers and prop up Clinton.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Between Russia and Assange is there any way to keep the information under wraps?

It's the threat of appropriating the FBI's counterterrorism budget for another organization that keeps the FBI silent? What does Comey have to lose if the Obama administration pulls the trigger? While an official indictment would be huge news, it's not the only way to mortally wound Hillary vis a vis the emails.

Cicatrizatic,

Reuters-Ipsos' methodology is consistent so I suspect there has been a genuine fall. That's to be expected with Hillary having all but officially won the nomination though. The markets have moved from 2:1 Hillary to about 2.1:1 Hillary. Take them with a grain of salt.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone said

>>Between Russia and Assange is there any way to keep the information under wraps?

No.

>>It's the threat of appropriating the FBI's counterterrorism budget for another organization that keeps the FBI silent?

Yes & No.

The typical way that a large Federal bureaucracy that has failed in it's vital mission is dealt with is by creating a new bureaucracy to do its mission and starving the old one to death.

The two classic examples are from the US Army in WW2.

The Quartermaster corps was not going to be able to do the transportation mission, and when it failed, the Transportation Branch was created in 1943-44.

The other example was 1940-41 when General Herr of the Horse cavalry branch embarrassed the Army in declaring he would not give up one horse to Congress after the fall of France to the German Blitzkrieg.

Following that performance General Marshall created the Armored Force in the immediate aftermath with the able assist of a defacto mutiny against General Herr of then Col Chaffee and other tank oriented senior officers of the Cavalry and infantry branches during the Louisiana maneuvers.

When WW2 kicked off Marshall abolished all Army branches to clear dead wood like Herr and went with a temporary structure for the duration of the war

FBI Director Comey just had his "General Herr before Congress moment" with The Donald.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone said


>>Reuters-Ipsos' methodology is consistent so I suspect there has
>>been a genuine fall. That's to be expected with Hillary having
>>all but officially won the nomination though.

Even if Reuters-Ipsos' isn't part of the "OMG Trump might win after Orlando" media poll gas lighting campaign, their models are outdated.


There are the following major factors that the old polling models don't cover --

1. Public uprising,
2. Enemy action,
3. Class swings, and
4. Swings in what had been one party's secure base ethnicities.

There's a lot of newness going on which even unbiased polls would have significant difficulty tracking.

Basically we are in the realm of Hostile field polling in order to understand where the public is.

"Hostile field polling" where you ask a question that is a proxy for the real question asked, because of the fear of those answering that their responses would be used against them.

Surprisingly enough, Reuters appears to have discovered a very good hostile field question on whether voters would choose Trump in the secrecy of the ballot.


See this link and particularly the polling graphic of the result --


Reuters: Half of Likely Voters Back Temporary Ban on All Muslim Entry to United States

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/reuters-half-likely-voters-want-temporarily-ban-muslims-us/


New polling data from Reuters shows a surge in support for a far-reaching temporary ban on any Muslim entry to the United States.

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Orlando, 50 percent of likely voters now support a temporary halt on Muslim entry into the United States. Just 42 percent of likely voters oppose a temporary ban.


People that want to ban new Muslims coming into the USA will not vote Hillary, and that number tops 50% now.

This will be even more true after the one to three more major ISIS attacks happen here and in Western Europe before the Nov 2016 election.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Duh!

]Face Palm[

You had the poll results for the graphic posted.

Mil-Tech Bard said...


Another Muslim immigration ban poll by NBC via The HILL--



http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283789-poll-americans-split-on-trumps-muslim-ban-proposal

The NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll shows 50 percent of those surveyed support Trump's proposed Muslim immigration ban, while 46 percent are opposed.

Dan said...

Paul Ryan is a national tragedy. We should just call him The Undertaker. WTF is wrong with those Wisconsin voters?


Mil-Tech Bard said...

>> WTF is wrong with those Wisconsin voters?

They haven't had a major Muslim Terrorist attack yet.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Good to see it corroborated elsewhere. The way the Reuters-Ipsos poll is worded makes the proposal appear more 'extreme' than it actually is, and yet it's still popular. The question is whether Trump's Muslim ban is more popular than Trump himself, or if Trump is as popular as the Muslim ban is.

Dan,

That the GOP made him speaker is the real tragedy. From an the affluent, upper Midwestern district he's in, cucks are hard to beat. Keeping them from the national stage is easy though. But of course cuckservatism is what the party's national leadership wants.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

This is a media poll more useful for showing direction change rather than margin. (See my reasons above WRT margin issues.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283961-poll-clintons-lead-over-trump-slipping-since-orlando

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Result of the first media poll taken in Florida post-Orlando.


http://prntly.com/2016/06/18/clinton-fades-in-florida-in-first-post-orlando-poll-trump-surging/

In the state of Florida herself, Trump holds a lead, which is actually surging.
PPP (D) 6/2 – 6/5 737 RV 3.6 44 45 Trump +1

Mil-Tech Bard said...

FYI, A number of folks have tagged http://prntly.com as a joke/hoak site.

YMMV.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Directional change, not absolute accuracy, is why I keep such a close eye on the Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll. It's conducted almost daily and with large sample sizes, around 1000.

Prntly had the false poll showing Nahen allegedly beating Ryan WI 1st district primary. It wasn't *ahem* a scientific poll at all. As great as that would be to have happen, it almost certainly won't.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

This poll and poll graphic are very stark.

We have not see the full extent of the National Security rise yet.





https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/20/poll-orlando-huge-spike-voters-concerns-security/

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/securitypoll.png