Among the Sons of Togarmah, Part 6

In Part 1, we had a general overview of the Caucasus, including considering the methods Moscow has historically used to pacify the region. In Part 2 we considered how Islamic terrorists were targeting the region of Kabardino-Balkaria, a region near Sochi; significant, because Sochi is an important Russian resort city and will be hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics in February, and Russia was hoping the influx of tourism to the region would help the economies not just of Sochi but of surrounding areas as well.

In Part 3 we took a long look at how Putin was pacifying Chechnya, mainly by supporting the clan of Razman Kadyrov. With Moscow's backing, Kadyrov's clan has provided a degree of stability and pacification of Chechnya, but at a cost: corruption which leads all the way to Moscow. Moscow funds, supplies and supports Kadyrov, and, in return, Kadyrov keeps Moscow from having to send troops to Chechnya for a third war (there have been two since the Soviet Union collapsed). However, the cost runs deeper: with government essentially an extension of Kadyrov who, in turn, delivers nearly unanimous support for Putin in federal elections, the people have nowhere to turn with grievances, except to Islamic extremists. There are Chechens who support Russia against the extremists, but who would rather not support the corruption of Kadyrov (or of Putin, for that matter). Meanwhile, Moscow has cultivated other clans in Chechnya which could replace Kadyrov - a sign of Putin hedging his bet.

In Part 4 we saw how the Islamic insurgency in the entire region basically cooperates with an eye to establishing a regional caliphate. The center of the regional insurgency seemed to be Dagestan. Then, in Part 5, we considered allegations that Putin and Kadyrov were involved in trafficking narcotics - something other regional actors also do, including the Islamic terrorists, who find heroin money useful to fund their jihad.

With the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics nearly upon us, it is perhaps time to update this series.

One issue that has been on the burner for years is economic development of the region. When I use the term "the region", I am referring to the Northern Caucasus, which is that part of the Caucasus in the Russian Federation. In fact, apart from the geographical Northern Caucasus, there is also the North Caucasus Economic Region, a geographical entity which includes fertile agricultural areas around the Kuban River, as well as the resort city of Sochi.

This region is distinct from the sovereign nations of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, which are sovereign nations that used to be republics in the former USSR. However, it is worth considering what is going on across the international borders from the Russian Federation's North Caucasus in these latter nations.

Regarding economic development of the North Caucasus, Russia has worked to improve the tourist industry in the area, as mentioned earlier in this series, especially with an eye to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia's tourist resort town of Sochi. However, as far back as 2011, plans were being devised to make the North Caucasus into a Russian version of Silicon Valley. From Silicon Valley planned for Russia's North Caucasus, August 25, 2011:

Plans have been put forward to create a Caucasian Silicon Valley, at a cost of 32 billion rubles ($1.1 billion) as part of on-going efforts to generate opportunities in the troubled Russian region.

[snip]

Silicon dreams

While the US Silicon Valley is a world leader in computing and IT advances, the Russian version will focus on making the raw materials.

In Stavropol Region factories will produce polycrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon is planned in Kabardino-Balkaria, multicrystalline silicon will come from Karachay-Cherkessia while North Ossetia will manufacture photovoltaic cells and Dagestan will work on solar modules, RIA Novosti reported.

The idea seems to come closer to Ramzan Kadyrov's stated commitment to make Chechnya financially independent by developing a manufacturing base.

As mentioned at the beginning of this post, Russia pays a price for peace in Chechnya, and Russians are tired of paying it. However, should the Caucasus become financially independent, then that dramatically diminishes the need for ties that local rulers such as Kadyrov have with Moscow.

Later that year, as Putin campaigned for the presidency in the March, 2012, election, he promised no cuts to the funding for economic development in the Caucasus - amid cries of "Stop Feeding the Caucasus", a slogan that was gaining popularity with Russians. From Putin says no cuts in North Caucasus funding, December 20, 2011:

A "Stop Feeding Caucasus" slogan is gaining popularity among Russians, stunned with images of new mosques and shiny buildings in the Chechen capital Grozny, destroyed in heavy fighting between the separatists and the Russian army in the 1990s.

The slogan was also picked up by some nationalist-minded opposition leaders like lawyer Alexei Navalny who is serving a 15-day jail sentence for disrupting public order during mass protests in Moscow after the Dec. 4 election.

Putin said that a reduction in investment would bring more migrants from North Caucasus into the large Russian cities "along with all the problems it causes" in a clear reference to last year's nationalist riots next to the Kremlin.

"What will we do then? Kick them all out? But where will they go? They will join the insurgency," Putin said, according to a transcript of the meeting posted on the government's website. "And the fratricidal war will carry on."

Skipping down:

Critics argue that money flowing into North Caucasus is stolen by corrupt officials. In his blog in March 2011 Navalny attacked an official from Dagestan who ordered a car worth $265,000 using public money, questioning why a minister of a poor region drive such an expensive vehicle.

[snip]

Official results showed Putin's United Russia party had received 99.5 percent of the vote in Chechnya, run by Putin loyalist Ramzan Kadyrov - a result which made the opposition cry foul. Other republics also backed United Russia.

Kadyrov, who hosted a glitzy opening ceremony for a skyscraper complex that was attended by Hollywood stars and coincided with his 35th birthday, said he was receiving money from Allah.

Promise economic development, then let the local pro-Moscow (pro-Putin) strongmen spend it to consolidate power?

An interesting and readable summary/overview is provided by Ariel Cohen, Ph. D., in an article entitled A Threat to the West: The Rise of Islamist Insurgency in the Northern Caucasus and Russia's Inadequate Response, from March 26, 2012:

Russia's Northern Caucasus is turning into one of the most volatile, lawless regions in the world and a hotbed for international terrorist activity in spite of decades of Russian military operations and repeated assurances from the Russian government that peace has been achieved. As Russia continues to lose control of the region, it is becoming a significant base for Islamist terrorist organizations and organized crime and may ignite an even greater terrorist campaign inside Russia and beyond.

[snip]

To alleviate the hostilities, the Russian government has implemented many economic and developmental programs and provided billions of dollars in aid to the North Caucasus in the past few years. Russian officials have invested to curb the appeal of radical Islam among the youth, but the area's overall economic and social prospects remain grim due to the ongoing security crisis caused by heavy-handed security policy and the pervasive corruption and mismanagement of the Russian government.

Thus, Russia's entire counterinsurgency strategy is in question. Its primary goal is "to make the local population less afraid of the law enforcement than the insurgents,"[2] but the overly violent Russian approach has often produced the polar opposite. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the North Caucasus has experienced two major wars and numerous skirmishes, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties and internally displaced persons, while the fear of terrorism has spread throughout Russia.

Spreading ungovernability in the Northern Caucasus facilitates the emergence of Islamist safe havens, complete with terrorist training facilities, religious indoctrination centers, and hubs of organized crime. This should be a cause for concern for the United States.

[snip]

U.S. policymakers should be concerned that the North Caucasus may devolve into an anarchic haven for Islamist terrorism and criminality. Security of America's friends and allies, prevention of a terrorist safe haven in the ungovernable North Caucasus, and ensuring the free flow of energy resources are high priorities for the U.S. in this volatile region. Such a threat should not be allowed to develop.

The interests of the United States and its allies could suffer from Russia's failure to respond appropriately to Islamist extremism. Washington needs to develop a strategy to respond to potential "spillover" from Islamist insurgency in the North Caucasus. The U.S. and its allies need to monitor the region for early signs of danger in order to respond appropriately. A modest investment in intelligence, diplomacy, and capacity-building with U.S. friends and allies could help to mitigate the rising Islamist threat and the effects of misguided Russian policies.

As explained in the article, spillover threatens important US allies, as well as important trade routes, especially energy trade routes, that skirt Russia's southern border through Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

Well, fast-forward to 2013. The investment in the North Caucasus as a possible rival to Silicon Valley has begun. From New energy opportunities in Russia thanks to photovoltaics, May 23, 2013 (see original for links that I did not reproduce):

According to Tomasz Slusarz (CEO of Solar PV Consulting), Russia will consolidate its dominant position in the global energy market, above all, thanks to photovoltaic power.

Russia is one of the leading oil and gas producers and exporters in the world, but this has not stopped the government’s ambitions in the search for clean energy supplies. For this reason, and for some time, they have begun investing in alternative energy sources, including photovoltaics.

[snip]

The sun is certainly not lacking in Russia where there is a potential of about 1,870 TWh of radiation and an economic potential of 101 GWh per year. The sunniest regions are those in the south, particularly the Northern Caucasus...

[snip]

In fact, investments have been made by multi-billion dollar giants such as Renova and Lukoil both for the accomplishment of photovoltaic parks in order to encourage the creation of a national industrial sector.

A few weeks ago, they set the bases for the birth of a "Silicon Valley" in the Northern Caucasus, a joint venture between the local government and private companies to promote a project with the goal of producing polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules.

Similarly, in Dagestan, a California-based company called Plug & Play has begun operations in the capital, helping develop businesses in the republic. From Plug & Play Tech Center opens in Dagestan, October 22, 2013:

Plug & Play, a Silicon Valley-based global business incubator, has opened a new affiliate center in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan – a praiseworthy initiative in a region in Russia’s Northern Caucasus more often in the news for political conflicts and religious extremism than for IT innovations.

As East-West Digital News, the international resource on Russian digital industries, reported earlier this month, the Plug & Play Dagestan Center is located on the Dagestan State Technological University’s campus and plans to support 10-15 startups simultaneously. These projects receive a working space, mentors, legal advice, help with the search for funding, and the opportunity to present their projects to investors after six months.

[snip]

Plug & Play, which presents itself as “Silicon Valley in a Box”, claims that its incubated startups it has have raised more than $1 billion since 2006.

The question that comes to mind, though, is how much foreign investment and foreign tourism can the region expect, given the now-deteriorating security situation? From Failed North Caucasus Policy , July 22, 2013:

Events of the last few months have created the strong impression that something serious is brewing in the North Caucasus. Fighting in Chechnya has intensified, as has the conflict over its border with Ingushetia. Meanwhile, militants continue to kill policemen in Dagestan, and Chechen warlord Doku Umarov has threatened to detonate a bomb during the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

The problem is not that the Kremlin has recently committed a fatal mistake of some sort. Rather, we are witnessing the cumulative effect of a series of many small past mistakes resulting from the lack of a coherent strategy. Now, the authorities must deal with the consequences.

[snip]

Russia's withdrawal from the North Caucasus is effectively already underway in the form of a large-scale ­departure from the region of ethnic Russians. Meanwhile, several republics in the region no longer subject themselves to Russian legal or political norms, although formally they remain under Moscow's authority.

In Kabardino-Balkaria and Dagestan, Moscow rejected its usual approach of buying loyalty from the ethnic clan elites, attempting instead to achieve stability through the use of ­siloviki. But by relying on siloviki brought in from outside the region, Moscow's presence begins to resemble more of an occupying force. That model of rule is inherently unstable, and it is unclear just what price Moscow will end up paying for it in the near future. For example, it is clear that the dismantling of strongman and former Makhachkala mayor Said Amirov in Dagestan will sharply increase the risk of serious instability there.

Meanwhile, across the international borders, Armenia is working to become the Silicon Valley of the Caucasus. From Armenia can become Silicon Valley of the Caucasus, December 20, 2012:

On December 8, Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan met with the President of the California Institute of Technology Jean Lou Chameau, the Aysor.am reported.

According to the press service of the government, the Prime Minister presented the ongoing in the country education reform, as well as the process of international accreditation of Armenian universities. They discussed the prospects of bilateral cooperation and the development of information technology in Armenia.

The U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff, who attended the meeting, said that Armenia had the potential to become the Silicon Valley of the Caucasus.

(See also Armenia could become Silicon Valley of the Caucasus – Adam Schiff.)

Why indeed would foreign workers - whose expertise would be needed for anything more than just production of raw materials - and foreign capital be sent to Russia's North Caucasus, when across the international border (indeed, with a country in between) is the potential for greater development of true high-tech industry in a country that is safe from Islamic terrorism and free of the Moscow-backed corruption?

It will be interesting to see how the Winter Olympics go in Sochi, and what happens in other places, such as Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria.

Bogey Dope, Part 4

In Part 1, we had an overview of the special election in 2012 to fill the Congressional seat that Congresswoman Giffords vacated due to her injury, including a glimpse of the candidates. The focus of this series has been on situation facing Martha McSally, a former Air Force fighter pilot, the first woman fighter pilot in combat and the first woman to command a fighter squadron.

In Part 2 we looked at what McSally was up against - not her opponents in the election... the corruption in Washington and beyond that was resulting in the problems her district faces and which she would have to deal with in Washington, should she win a seat in Congress.

In Part 3 we looked at the in-fighting among the Democrats, and saw how the Democrat powerbrokers are not really "pro-choice" when it comes to a democratic election; in fact, the strategy of the Democrat powerbrokers was to eliminate all competition (even the Greens) in the district and polarize support on the left, while hoping that competition would weaken the Republican side.

Ultimately, McSally lost in the special election primary to Jesse Kelly. Kelly then lost to Democrat Ron Barber.

However, this was not the end of the fight for McSally. From the beginning, it was apparent McSally was in this for the long haul, and was ready to face some set-backs. She went into the special election determined to become the Congressional representative for that part of Arizona. Thus, win or lose in the special election, she was determined to run again in the redistricted Congressional District 2, which represents the same part of the state.

So, in the November, 2012, election McSally prevailed as the Republican candidate, but then lost to Congressman Barber who sought to retain a seat he had won in the special election.

This is interesting, because Barber's entry into the special election suggests that he did so at the last minute and perhaps only intending to hold the CD8 seat while someone else could line up for the regular redistricted CD2 election – in sharp contrast to McSally, who from the beginning had the seat targeted.

So, what is happening was actually predictable and predicted.

After Jesse Kelly lost, once in 2010 to Giffords, then again to Barber in the 2012 special election, the Republican mantel passed to McSally – see NY Times 2012 House Race Ratings - who, despite her loss in the 2012 general election, is trying for the seat again.

And, again, McSally is going to face a primary fight. First, on September 28, Ed Martin announced his candidacy, then, on November 5, Shelley Kais announced hers.

It will definitely be an uphill battle for Martin and Kais. McSally already had a campaign apparatus in place, she has a following, and she is raising money. Significantly, though the pundits suggest McSally is going to be getting backing from Republicans on a national level, as I look over the campaign finance reports filed on her behalf with the Federal Election Commission, I notice that nearly all of the money that has come in for her is from individual contributions. McSally seems to have popular support. It does not look like Martin or Kais have done significant fund-raising.

The incumbent, Democrat Ron Barber, has some money and some support.

Analysts correctly identify Barber as vulnerable, since his district is a swing-split ticket district and is contestable. On the Democrat side, big names are rallying behind someone they consider to be vulnerable; specifically, Nancy Pelosi's leadership PAC, PAC to the Future, has already given Barber $10,000 this year – thus a tie-in to another series I started today.

It looks again like the Democrats will not permit any dissidence, while the Republicans can expect a fight in the primary.

Stay tuned as this series continues.

Half-Truths, Part 1

The worst lies are the ones that bear close resemblance to the truth, because people believe them.

Indeed, it may be said that half-truths are the devil's backbone.

__________

As I research Nancy Pelosi, the impression I get is of someone who is not stupid, but who does say things that appeal to people stupid enough to support her. The particular method in which Pelosi deceives people who do not do their research is by telling them things which are not totally accurate, but which are somewhat close to the truth. In fact, according to Politifact.com, almost half of what Pelosi says on the issues is half-true; notice also that her statements are skewed toward lies and outrageous lies, and away from the truth.

Thus, many of the people who support her are either unable to check the veracity of her statements, perhaps because of how the American education system has left them, or unwilling – and it is those who are unwilling to check on her (and other politicians) that I categorize as "stupid"; these are the very same kind of people who, in the Republican Party, bring us candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney and Chris Christie.

Other people support Nancy Pelosi, not because they are stupid, but because she can deliver political power, political favors, and money. These are the corrupt, the power-hungry, those with no moral compass... the crooks, who have always been with humanity and, again, who infest not just the Democrat Party, but the GOP as well.

People who are reasonably educated on politics – regardless of where they are on the political continuum – do not support her, because they see that, at best, she has sold them out to the system.

In fact, when advertising a protest against Pelosi, the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center had a very long list of grievances against her, calling her a "1%er", pointing out that she is one of the wealthiest 1% in America, and then detailing how so much of what she does supports the "haves" instead of the "have-nots" that the Democrats purport to represent.

Thus, as I research Pelosi, the overwhelming impression I get is of money, power, and special interests; Nancy Pelosi is a lifelong politician and a Washington insider.

__________

Nancy Pelosi has been involved in politics her whole life. Born into a family of Democrats, her father was a Congressman from Maryland, and her brother served as mayor of Baltimore.

When she moved to San Francisco with her husband, she began to work her way up in Democrat politics. She has served as a Democratic National Committee (DNC) member, and party chair for the California Democratic Party. She was also Finance Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Congresswoman Pelosi is important to Democrat cash flow, as evidenced from some of the jobs she has done for the Democrats. Not only is she rated as one of the richest members of the US Congress, but, since her district ensures she has a secure Congressional seat, she can devote her efforts to fundraising for her Democrat colleagues.

Nancy Pelosi is thus a powerful Democrat, but not because she is the minority leader and former Speaker of the House. Indeed, it seems she is the minority leader and was Speaker because she is powerful – and political power means money and connections, both of which Pelosi has.

This series will examine Nancy Pelosi, her power, and her role in contemporary Democrat politics.

Waging Politics, Part 7

Politics is an interesting business. It is how civilized - though not necessarily honest – people conduct business.

The stakes are high. Political leaders make rules about what is right and what is wrong. They decide who enforces those rules, and how. They decide what is the cost of compliance, and what is the cost of non-compliance.

Politics means government. And, as George Washington said,

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

Politics decides who is in charge of government, and what the rulers are going to do. Politics generally has a façade of respectability given to it by elections. For this respectability to be more than a façade, the vote count must be honest.

But, with the stakes so high, who would be foolish enough to leave such an important matter as who makes and enforces the rules to the whims of a volatile electorate?

As Josef Stalin said,

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Cheating in an election means nothing, unless the cheaters can get away with it.

One way to get away with it is to intimidate the people into going along with fraudulent results. Intimidation is easier if the people who rig the elections also control the security apparatus, and if the people are unarmed and bombarded by propaganda. A feeling that there is nothing they can do, coupled with an atmosphere of propaganda, can lead to a feeling of hopelessness and apathy, and those in power stay in power.

So much for my comments on gun control and the media.

Another way to get away with it is if no one detects the fraud.

That will be the topic of this post.

Rather than discuss ways of having a fair election, let's discuss ways of cheating in the early 21st century.

How does one accomplish election fraud that is undetectable?

Well, with the literally hundreds of millions of dollars spent on elections to federal offices, coupled with the obvious slant of the media, and the inability of so many Americans to do their own research, it's thankfully simple.

First, you need to get electronic voting machines in use in as many places as possible. It is not necessary to have them in use in all places. However, certain states vote Republican, and certain states vote Democrat. These states can be left alone.

But, some states vote split-ticket (voting for different parties in different races in the same election) and swing (supporting one party in one election, then the other party in another election).

These are the states to target.

Neither is it necessary to target the entire state. There are counties and even precincts that are Republican or Democrat. These can be left alone.

However, the split-ticket and swing counties are important, and voting machines that are used in the split-ticket and swing precincts are the ones that will actually win the election.

So, you make sure the media tells everyone how so many people are supporting your candidate. It doesn't matter that this is not true. People will look around their neighborhood, and assume the idiots are somewhere else. The important thing is that the people have this idea that the race is actually close.

Next, you program the voting machines in the key precinct to throw a small percentage of the votes to your candidate.

Don't be obvious. If a precinct has 1000 voters, you do not want 1000 votes cast, and certainly not 1000 cast for your candidate.

Consider Harry Reid's last election.

Reid had a little more than 50% of the vote; his Republican challenger had a little less than 45% of the vote.

In other words, Reid had 10 votes to every 9 that his opponent had.

If you know that Reid really only has support from about 45% of the voters, and his opponent has support from 50% of the voters, then you program the voting machines to throw one out of every ten votes for the Republican to the Democrat. This flips the percentages, putting Reid out front.

You may not be able to tamper with some counties. But, in Nevada, if you could tamper with Clark County (where Las Vegas is located), that should be enough. Since you can only work in one county, you may have to program the machines to throw one vote in five, instead of one in ten, in the areas where you can do this.

However, this is hard to detect.

In the old days, people could see ballot boxes full of ballots. They could count the ballots, and see how a given precinct with 1000 voters cast 1200 votes for one candidate, and only 100 for the opponent. This might raise a few questions.

But, who can look at a voting machine, and know that the electronics on the inside are functioning as one would hope?

Even if we could see inside the voting machine, who would recognize the algorithm that throws one vote in five or ten from one candidate to the opponent?

Coupled with the media telling you how great that other guy really is, and how everyone is supporting him (except for racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, Bible-clinging gun-nuts like you), you might just walk away thinking the other guy actually had more votes, shaking your head as you looked for a local bar where you could drown your post-election sorrows and maybe play some video poker.

But, in the same way those video power machines have their payouts set, and considering that people in Las Vegas know how to set them, do you really think a few guys can't be found in Sin City to rig the voting machines?

And, do you really think those guys can't travel to other key locations in other key states, to make sure Obama wins (again), and that the Democrats retain control of the Senate?

If caught (an unlikely situation), judicious use of money and political power can end the investigation after the words "computer malfunction" or something like that.

For real fraud to occur, you need to make sure that you are using technology the average citizen does not thoroughly understand. So, complaining about wasting trees and about time spent counting by hand when a machine can tally everything electronically, paper ballots have to be replaced with voting machines. And, as a back-up, the people need to know that those in power have them outgunned.

Couple this with reasonable control of the media (which, after all, is staffed with true believers who are convinced that, even if you are doing something wrong, it is for a greater common good), and you need not worry about any election, no matter how lousy your candidate is.

__________

Important notice: This post was intended as a theoretical discussion of how voter fraud could work under the right circumstances, and using a real election as an example of when and where there would be opportunities for fraud. This post is not intended to suggest that such fraud has actually occurred anywhere, much less in places specifically mentioned in the post.

Waging Politics, Part 6

Political Action Committees...

__________

John. L. Lewis was born in 1880 in Cleveland, Iowa. Cleveland was established when the Whitebreast Coal and Mining Company began working a shaft of coal to the east of Lucas, Iowa, and decided to establish a company town there. Lewis went to work in the coal mine, but also tried his luck in business, and ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Lucas in 1907. By this time, Lewis was involved with the United Mine Workers (UMW), and in 1911 Samuel Gompers, the head of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), hired Lewis as a full-time union organizer.

By the 1920's, Lewis had worked his way up to being president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). However, by this time, the unions were leaning socialist, and communist operatives were busy trying to subvert them. Lewis played hard politics, appointing to the union bureaucracy men loyal to himself, and using tactics such as armed force and ballot-box stuffing to retain control of the union and to fight off communist-backed political attacks.

Lewis framed a plan for a contract between the UMWA and coal operators that so impressed President Coolidge and then-Commerce Secretary Hoover that Lewis, a Republican, was offered a position in Coolidge's cabinet, which Lewis declined.

Years of union-building and organizing during the Great Depression led to Lewis' attempt to organize steel workers, and bring them into the AFL. There was in-fighting, and when the dust settled, Lewis' organization was expelled from the AFL, and Lewis was elected president of the newly-formed Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).

World War Two started, bringing the US out of the Great Depression. However, by 1943, wartime inflation was having an impact on the wages of workers in America. In response, 400,000 coal miners - led by Lewis, and not affiliated with either the AFL or the CIO - violated a wartime no-strike pledge, and went on strike: their demands were 1) retention of the existing 5-day, 35-hour work week; 2) inclusion of travel time between mine pit entrance and underground jobsite as part of the hours worked; and 3) a raise of $2 per day. Union leaders cited a tremendous increase in mining accidents that resulted from the wartime increase in coal production: in 1941, 64,000 workers were killed or injured, and in 1942, the number was up to 75,000.

President Roosevelt had to intervene to break the strike, though not without the striking miners gaining significant concessions.

Interestingly, it was a Republican union leader who challenged the government on behalf of workers, and a Democrat who used federal power against the unions.

In response to these events, in 1943, the Smith-Connally Act was passed – over Roosevelt's veto – allowing the federal government to seize and operate industries critical to the war effort which were threatened with strikes. A provision of this act was that unions could not make contributions in federal elections.

In 1944, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), since 1940 led by Philip Murray, established a political action committee – a PAC – to get around the provisions of the Smith-Connally Act. Money was given to the PAC; the PAC would then give money to pro-union candidates for elected office.

In response, businesses began to create PACs to counter the influence of pro-union PACs.

PACs have been limited as to how much money they can give per candidate per election. Also, there have been limits on how much money an individual contributor can give to a PAC.

However, PACs can be created, and PACs can donate money to each other.

Thus, PACs are now a key means of getting around inconvenient campaign finance laws.

Also, because money can be shuffled from PAC to PAC, PACs are a key means of laundering campaign money.

For example, a corporation can give a $100,000 bonus to each of ten executives. Each executive can give $5,000 to each of twenty PACs. The twenty PACs can each give $5,000 to a given candidate. Thus, $1,000,000 of corporate money can be laundered into the campaigns of ten different candidates using twenty different PACs.

Additionally, the corporation can give another $50,000 bonus to each executive who, in turn, can give $5,000 directly to each of the ten different candidates.

Instead of a corporation, a drug cartel can give money to each of ten operatives; the rest of the process is the same.

Increase the number of PACs, and you can increase the flow of money, and complicate the task of tracing it.

Thus, legal and illicit money can be mixed together; money from decent, honest Americans and illicit money from foreign entities can be mixed together. Only the politician need know where the money is really coming from, in order to repay donors with expected favors.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand how a politician can be so stupid as to do something that is clearly against America and clearly against the constituents that politician is supposed to represent.

But, if you can follow the money flow, you can see how money buys influence.

It is interesting to note that Arizona Senator John McCain has been a champion of campaign finance reform. Yet, money has been laundered to him from Albanian organized crime groups, which are tied to Islamic terrorists, via people and PACs in the United States. McCain takes the money, talks about campaign finance reform, and furthers US policy that helps Islamic terrorists.

Waging Politics, Part 5

In previous posts in this series, we looked broadly at how government in the United States is supposed to work, and then we looked at political strategies that could remove Democrats from power, even where they are strongly entrenched. Next we looked at how to turn up the heat on elected officials, though the main focus has been legislators.

Now we consider a totally different class of political target: judges.

Why is this important?

Well, stupid rulings by liberal judges have long left decent Americans wondering what is going on.

But, it's getting worse.

Islamic law, known as sharia, either places severe limits on the exercise of other religions, making Christians and Jews into dhimmis, or it outlaws other religions altogether. More extreme interpretations of Islamic law simply require non-Muslims to convert to Islam or be killed. In contrast, the First Amendment to the Constitution of our Republic guarantees Americans the free exercise of religion, which includes a freedom from religion.

Islamic law devalues women. In an Islamic court, for example, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. In another example, under Islamic law a woman has not been raped unless four men witness the act and agree it was rape; otherwise, in the absence of four male witnesses, a rape accusation by a woman is paramount to a confession of fornication or adultery: fornication is punishable by lashes, adultery by death. In contrast, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Americans equal protection under the law, the Fifth Amendment provides protection against self-incrimination, and the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.

Islamic law allows for slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits slavery.

Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution says that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a Republican form of government. This has been widely understood to mean that Americans cannot Constitutionally have their rights denied. In the Reconstruction South, when former slaves were denied their full rights by local governments, the US Congress reasoned that these states were denying a Republican form of government to their people, and refused to seat Senators and Representatives from the south. Consequently, any effort to systematically infringe on or deny the rights of people would violate this section of the Constitution.

Furthermore, to look to international precedents – which should not be considered binding on America, since our supreme law is and should be the U.S. Constitution – Turkey outlawed one political party in 1998 because its goal was to implement sharia, and, on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, it was found that sharia was fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

So, it is not just crazy, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, intolerant, racist white folks who find sharia offensive; the government of a largely Islamic country, Turkey, found it offensive, as well, in 1998, and so did the Europeans who, despite their horrendous crime of being white, have been recognized by the Left in this country as being very "progressive" ( = "communist").

In short, Islamic law is un-American, and America is un-Islamic. With due respect to decent Americans who try to be good Muslims, and to decent Muslims who try to be good Americans, the reality is Islam and America are incompatible.

I refuse to sit by and allow America to be made into an Islamic state (which is the stated goal of influential Muslim organizations here). Any Muslim who leads a life compatible with the US Constitution is, by definition of more "devout" Muslims (the "extremists" who make up so much of the Islamic world), an apostate, under penalty of death.

Let me put it another way: there exists an organization called the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR. Why is there a need for an organization to deal with relations between America and Islam, unless America is un-Islamic and Islam is un-American? That a Muslim organization calls itself by that name is prima facie proof that the Muslims affiliated with that organization understand that America and Islam are antithetical.

Yet, despite this, there are judges who are ruling that Islamic law – sharia – can be considered in US courts.

This is no longer a series of stupid rulings that leave Americans wondering; this is now an attack from the judiciary on the very foundations of this Republic.

What is at risk is our Constitutional Republic. This must be stopped. I prefer and advocate peaceful means of stopping this, and I feel that peaceful means are far from exhausted. However, make no mistake about it: this must be stopped by any moral means necessary, most definitely including armed rebellion and civil war.

Since we are not at that point yet – despite efforts by various Islamic groups, their anti-America leftist allies, and the administration of our Terrorist-Loving-Pretender-in-Chief in the White House – we need to consider peaceful means of addressing these grievances, even as we refuse to surrender our guns, but rather arm ourselves further and prepare for what we hope will not come.

So, to the point: What do we do about a judiciary that is spiraling out of control?

Federal judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; the same is true of cabinet members.

Federal judges can be removed by impeachment: articles of impeachment are issued and voted upon in the House and, if passed, the trial is held in the Senate. By the way: the same is true of cabinet members.

With the Democrats in control of the Senate, it is questionable whether some of these federal officers could currently be successfully removed from office. However, why does the Republican-controlled House not at least try? Perhaps they should start not with a judge, but with our Attorney General, Eric Holder. So what if they fail... let's send a message.

Other judges serve at the state and local level.

Some state judges are nominated by the state governor, and confirmed by the state legislature, in a process parallel to that of the federal government. And, in a process parallel to that of the federal government, these judges can be removed from office through impeachment. Articles of impeachment are issued in the state assembly or state house, and the trial is held in the state senate. We should be able to win a few of these battles. ;)

Other state and local judges are elected. They can be recalled for rulings which are blatantly repugnant to the Constitution. The recall failing, judicial elections do not garner the financial contributions that legislative and executive elections garner. It would not take much money from good Americans around the country to influence a judicial election somewhere. We should be able to win a few of these battles, too. ;)

When you hear about a ruling that leaves you shaking your head, research it. Confirm the story, find out the details, and get information on the judge in question.

Then, if the judge is appointed, contact your Congressional Representative if the judge is federal, and an appropriate state assemblyman or state representative if the judge is a state judge. Ask them to issue articles of impeachment. Contact your local government, and ask that they issue a resolution calling for the impeachment of the judge by the appropriate legislative officials. Stir up trouble, and let these elected officials know that if they don't impeach this judge, you will seek to recall them (remember - state recall initiatives do not apply to US Congressional Representatives or US Senators) or to replace them at the next election.

If the judge is elected, move directly to recall the judge or replace the judge at the next election. Stir up trouble; contact friends all around the country, and get the matter the notoriety it deserves. If a million bikers can show up in DC to make a point (big hat tip to the bikers!), then we can easily find a few hundred people to contact elected officials and perhaps donate some money to a recall campaign or to the challenger in a judicial election, especially considering those few hundred people need not own a bike! :)

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Americans... it's time to rumble!

More to follow...

Waging Politics, Part 4

In Part 2 we looked at how to remove a deeply-entrenched Democrat from a Congressional district that will in no way support a Republican. In Part 3 we considered how to remove a deeply-entrenched Democrat from a state that can go either Democrat or Republican. These are two of the most common situations we deal with when considering Democrats that are destroying our country.

The same methods can be used in similar circumstances elsewhere. For example, if one needs to remove a state legislator, or a county commissioner, or a city councilman, from a heavy Democrat area, the same basic strategy as suggested for Nancy Pelosi may work. (In fact, Pelosi's entire district is basically a big Democrat-controlled city ward.) If one needs to remove an entrenched Democrat from a state legislative district, county commission district, or city council district that votes swing or split-ticket, the strategy suggested for Harry Reid may work.

But, what can we do to pressure these guys in between elections? And, how can we get RINOs to toe the line?

For state and local elected officials, recalls are interesting.

Colorado gave us a nice lesson in how to recall elected legislators; a comprehensible review of the recent recall there can be found at No excuses: What was really behind the Colorado recalls. The analysis is interesting; it provides hope in the fight against politicians who are moving too far left, even for their Democrat bases.

There was also a recall attempt against Wisconsin's governor in 2012. In that election, Republican governor Walker prevailed, as did the Republican lieutenant governor.

Both of these recall elections – the one this year in Colorado, and the one last year in Wisconsin – went the way we would want, and this offers us hope. But another lesson to be learned is that recalls do not always work, and conventional wisdom about who is more organized, who has more money, and so on, does not always explain the outcome.

What can you do you short of a recall? This is an important question, since courts have upheld that US Senators and US Congressional Representatives are federal officers, and as such are not subject to state recall initiatives.

You can lobby your state legislature to pass a resolution instructing the state's delegation (Senators and Congressmen) to Washington, DC, to vote for or against a certain bill, to support or obstruct a certain policy, etc. Such a resolution is not binding; however, if the state legislature passes it, then that sends a powerful message regarding what the people back home want.

Your county commission, city council, town hall, or other local government body can also pass a resolution sending instructions to your Senators and Congressmen.

Keep in mind the relative impact these actions will have.

A resolution by a local school board from a rural area will have less impact than a resolution passed by a state legislature. A Senator may feel this school board's resolution does not represent a threat to re-election, while a resolution passed by the entire state legislature could mean a real fight for re-election, should the Senator not do as instructed.

The same school board resolution sent to a Congressional Representative from a rural district could have a significant impact, as that school board resolution may be considered indicative of the mood of the voters district-wide.

And don't let anyone tell you that passing such a resolution is not the purview of a local governmental body. Members of that governmental body can pass a non-binding resolution on whatever they want. Elected officials can weigh for themselves the merits of disregarding it, and the elected members of the body passing the resolution will answer to their voters for doing their job or not doing their job in the next election, or in a recall election if the situation warrants it.

This pattern of passing resolutions can be iterated, and used to bring leveraged pressure on higher-ups.

For example, the Hometown city council can pass a resolution calling on its Congressional Representative to issue articles of impeachment against President Obama. The same city council can instruct its representatives in the state senate and the state assembly to introduce a resolution calling for all federal officers from the state to support such a proceeding in Washington. If other city councils, county commissions and local governing bodies (and even non-governmental entities) do the same, pretty soon there is a bandwagon effect: RINOs are placed on notice, and Democrats have to decide between party loyalty to a President, who would sacrifice them at the drop of a hat, and complying with the instructions of the people of their state, who are ready to rumble. (And here's a hint on how that will go: when it comes right down to it, Democrat politicians generally lean whichever way the wind blows.)

With these thoughts in mind, it becomes fairly easy to stir up trouble for elected officials, even those from other states.

If a Democrat or RINO is supporting our nation's enemies from Washington, then Republicans in that official's state or district can have local officials introduce measures in local governmental bodies such as city councils and county commissions calling for that Democrat or RINO to do what's right, and later calling for that official's resignation, if necessary.

State legislators and local officials who fail to act to rein in their US Senators or Congressmen can find themselves targeted by a well-organized local electorate with support from all over.

Democrats can be opposed in local elections by Republicans with contributions from out-of-district and even out-of-state.

Democrats can also find themselves being removed from office in a primary election by a Democrat who is even farther left-wing than they are, but who is being supported by conservative dollars. Again, the goal is to remove an entrenched enemy and replace him with a new guy whom, it can be expected, we can then remove from office in the next election by supporting yet another challenger. In this way, Republicans can keep hard-core anti-American politicians off-balance, rather than letting them become powerful and entrenched, as has happened in the cases of Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein...

Districts that show themselves to be too unappreciative of America need to find themselves defunded of federal dollars for local programs. You can let your Congressman and your Senators know that they need to watch what kind of deals they make with Congressmen and Senators from districts or states that are hostile to traditional American values.

Thus, you are not powerless. You can intervene in local elections across the country, and leverage power into Washington, and you can intervene in Washington with your Congressional Representative and Senators, and leverage power into local areas across the country.

Knowing that you are not powerless, if you are aware of out-of-control government at any level anywhere in America, contact the officials involved and let them know you will exercise your rights as an American to hold them accountable for their conduct. Then learn about who is opposing these officials, and see if there is any way you can help this opposition, even if you have to hold your nose while you're doing so.

Remember: the Left has been doing this and much worse for decades. In Wisconsin's recall election, for example, lots of people were coming up from Chicago to protest and even vote. We, on the other hand, are not advocating bussing in professional malcontents, thugs and homeless people, nor are we advocating for voting rights for dead people and non-citizens. But, we do have a legal right to make our voices heard and to make legitimate campaign contributions to any race in the country, as allowed by law.

The enemy of America's enemies is your friend, even if this "friend" you are dealing with is a snake of the same species as your enemy – one who will eventually try to bite you.

Encourage these snakes to fight it out, then stomp the winner.

__________

Some final thoughts...

I knew what kind of a guy McCain was when he ran for President in 2008. I was aware of his connections with ethnic Albanian organized crime which, in turn, was connected to Islamic terrorists. I knew heroin money, money from trafficking in human body parts, money from trafficking in weapons and women for forced prostitution... it was all finding its way into McCain's campaign and, in return, McCain was using his position in Washington to help the enemies not just of America, but of humanity.

I refused to vote for McCain in 2008.

Obviously, there was no way I was going to vote for Obama, so what could I do?

Later, people called me a fool for not supporting McCain – as if it were my fault Obama got elected.

But, with McCain's waffling on the bank bailout scheme from 2008, with his support of Obama since then, my analysis from back then turned out to be correct: Had McCain won, things would not be substantially different, though perhaps we would not be going downhill so fast; however, the Republicans would be getting the blame for what was happening, when the blame really belongs to the anti-American element of the Democrat Party (which is huge) and to RINOs.

McCain was the lesser of two evils.

And, the devil keeps doing this to us.

He offers us two choices: Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Then, like that Far Side cartoon, he stands behind us with his pitch fork, prodding us to choose between the lesser of two evils, and we agree with the devil on one of the two evils.

Why don't we turn the tables on him?

Why don't we create a situation where the bad guys have to choose between the lesser of two goods?

In God We Trust... but, do we really?

Because with His help, we can do this.

Then David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, Whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you and take your head from you. And this day I will give the carcasses of the camp of the Philistines to the birds of the air and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord's, and He will give you into our hands."

1 Samuel 17:45-47 NKJV

More to follow...

Waging Politics, Part 3

In Part 1, we did a general overview of the government landscape in this country, and in Part 2 we looked specifically at a strategy that might help us unseat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Now, let's look at more big game: Democrat Harry Reid from Nevada.

Ballotpedia has information on Senator Reid, including his most recent election victory in 2010.

There is also information on Nevada's other US Senator, Dean Heller, including his victory in 2012:

Democrat Reid won in an off-year election with more votes than all his opponents put together. However, Republican Heller won in a Presidential year with a closer margin.

To do proper electoral targeting, one would need to look at all the other partisan races in every precinct, and compare that data for various Presidential and off-year elections. However, such analysis would not impact the basic strategy for unseating Senator Reid; this strategy can be adequately understood by comparing the data provided.

Unlike Pelosi's district in California, which is solidly Democrat, Nevada – taken as a whole - swings (votes for one major party in one election year, and the other in another election year) and votes split-ticket (for a Republican in one race, and a Democrat in another, in the same election).

Reid is a powerful incumbent. This swing/split-ticket factor helps him, as people tend to support incumbents, even in years when "throw the bums out" is the battle cry. Consequently, in addition to solid support from Nevada's Democrats, he can typically count on swing and split-ticket voters who might otherwise support the Republican, as well as some fringe party voters who swing/split-ticket vote between their own party and the Democrats.

His power base is difficult to attack: rank-and-file Democrats are going to vote for him. But, if we can split off the swing/split-ticket voters, we can make him fight. And, if we can make him fight, those who are buying his influence may realize they need to hedge their bets. A few subtle adjustments to the dynamics can easily result in success for us and a disaster for Reid.

The approach needs to be two-fold, both parts dealing with challengers in the Democrat primary.

First, there needs to be far-left-wing challenger and a more conservative, middle-of-the road Democrat. They need support from outside Nevada, just like Harry gets. Reid needs to be simultaneously accused of being too far left, and not far enough left. These need to be serious, documented allegations, and the primary needs to be heated.

We can anticipate the media will do contortions to defend Reid, just like it does to defend Obama. However, those who vote in the primary are more likely to think more for themselves and have hot-button issues than are those who only show up in the general election, where turnout tends to be greater. Thus, even though the media may be defending Reid, direct campaigning, such as buying radio spots and doing targeted mailouts, can have its impact.

Reid will, of course, win the Democrat primary.

So, second, these challengers who lost in the primary need to throw their support to other candidates.

Here's a problem: most of the third parties in Nevada would be more likely to strip votes from a Republican than from a Democrat.

However, if one of Reid's Democrat challengers can take his supporters to the Green Party, and if the more mainstream guy can take his supporters to the Republican candidate, then we could peel away enough votes for Reid to lose. That failing, as we mentioned above, the special interests that buy Reid may see the need to hedge their bets, and this could mean Reid's challengers are stronger in the next election.

Waging Politics, Part 2

Okay, the preliminaries are over: see Part 1.

Now we address the real question. What do you do if this elected official refuses to do her or his job? What do you do if this official is part of the problem? You have contacted these guys, and you are fed up. You are perhaps frustrated and angry enough that you feel ready to resort to violence, but, being a good citizen, you do not wish to start a civil war, and you believe your elected officials have themselves not yet crossed that line themselves, though they are close to it. What do you do? How do you take action?

How do you go all-in for defense of your family and friends, your community, and your country, and wage politics until such time as 1) you win or 2) this enemy of our country crosses the line and starts the shooting?

Let's examine some scenarios. Specifically, let's start out hunting big game: Nancy Pelosi.

We are going to wage politics on her; the rules are we will not do anything that is wrong; that is to say, we do not wish to break any American law (I'm not talking about speeding here) nor do we wish to do anything that would displease our Creator. We disagree with Congresswoman Pelosi, but it's professional; personally, we render to her and her family and friends every kind consideration that we know our Lord expects of us. So, how do we help her move on to a new job in the private sector, or perhaps into retirement?

We begin by examining her current situation and that of her district.

Ballotpedia is an excellent resource to provide a quick overview of the situation. From there, click on the state of California, tab over to federal officers, then scroll down until you see Pelosi, then click on the link for her 12th Congressional District.

The statistics are interesting (see also Wikipedia: California's 12 Congressional District). This is an urban district in San Francisco; the median income is nearly $70,000, with a more than 50% college graduation rate.

These are the rich liberals.

Think about that.

The 2012 election was the first election after redistricting. Significantly, it was also held under the rules of California's new Top Two Primaries Act, which limits participation in the general election to the two candidates who gained the most votes in the primary election.

In the November, 2012 general election, of the nearly 300,000 votes cast in the Congressional race in this district, Pelosi took over 85%, while the Republican candidate took less than 15%. There is no way a Republican will win in this district any time soon (short of a miracle from the Lord), and Nancy Pelosi really needs to go.

We need to consider a realistic, attainable objective: replacing Pelosi with someone else from the extreme left wing. The benefit of this is simple: any time you can remove an entrenched enemy, and replace him with an enemy who is not entrenched, you make that enemy position easier to assault. By eliminating a political leader who has been in power for a long time and who has built up a solid powerbase of campaign donors, and replacing that person with someone new, we weaken the other side.

How do we do this?

First, due to the Top Two Primaries Act, there were no fringe candidates in the 2012 general election. But, in the 2012 California 12th District Congressional Primary (scroll down to page 5), there were three Democrats besides Pelosi, as well as a Green Party candidate.

The Republican easily came in 2nd place in the primary, winning a place in the general election which, in turn, was even more easily won by Pelosi.

However, the Green Party candidate came in third.

What would have happened if the Republicans – who want to see Pelosi taken out – had thrown their money and support to one of the Democrats and to the Green Party candidate, instead of supporting the Republican candidate?

What would happen if Republican money from all over the country came in to all the candidates opposing Pelosi, except to the Republican?

Any Republican there who wants to be the Congressman from that district needs to understand: the district, as it is now, will not send a Republican to Washington. Let's work to unseat Pelosi.

What if there were no Republican opposing her, but other Democrats, a Green... a socialist, if we can find one... got plenty of Republican money, with the goal of getting Pelosi out.

Obviously, these other candidates, and the voters who support them, feel their district could do better, or there would not be three other Democrats and a Green running against her, and over 14,000 voters supporting someone other than Pelosi, but not a Republican.

But, we still have a problem: in the primary, Pelosi took nearly 90,000 votes – roughly three times the number of votes that were cast for someone else.

You know, most of Pelosi's money came from special interests. She took money from Goldman Sachs, she took money from defense contractors... money came from big business and from out-of-state... is this the kind of representation her constituency is looking for?

The primary campaign has to be bitter. Every candidate needs to direct his attacks at Pelosi over these issues. The candidates need to agree on one thing: Pelosi needs to go, and all opponents will unite to oppose her in the general election.

Now, instead of facing off a Republican in a general election in a predictable district that is heavily Democrat, Pelosi will be under attack for being a sell-out to her constituency, and will face a Democrat opponent in a Democrat-controlled cauldron. And Republicans will have to vote for the left-winger who opposes her.

And, yes, Republicans may have to support a candidate who is laughable. The goal is to replace a powerful, traitorous, laughable official with a less powerful, less dishonest, but perhaps even more laughable, official.

The Republican position is simple and principled: We Republicans disagree with Pelosi's politics, and we disagree with the politics of the candidate who is opposing her. However, as Americans, we are tired of being sold out to the highest bidder. We would rather the election go to an honest, principled person, with whom we disagree on nearly everything, than to someone who sells out the very people who put her in power – someone with no honor and no integrity.

Approached from this perspective, Pelosi can expect a fight in every election, assuming she wins the previous election, and the Democrats in Washington will be in the difficult position of having to betray their power base very openly, very blatantly, and very repeatedly, in order to keep her in power. Or, they can sacrifice one of their own to stay in power themselves. Either way, it's good for U.S.

For information on which political offices are up in state and federal elections, please look at Politics1. Specifically, the page on California has links to Pelosi's opponents. The one Democrat candidate so far listed, David Peterson, seems to understand that Pelosi is corrupt and in bed with the Washington crowd, and that war profiteering is having an impact. I can support his candidacy against Pelosi, and work with him as he looks into and tries to stop profiteering. The rest of his agenda... well, the Democrats are pushing that anyway. I would rather have Peterson than Pelosi; wouldn't you?

As mentioned in Part 1, information on the challengers to your Congressional representatives can be found on websites such as Politics1 and at your county elections office.

In Part 3, we will look at hunting more big game.

Waging Politics, Part 1

This series outlines a multi-pronged approach that can be used to retake America's government within the bounds of the peaceful measures foreseen and codified by our national Constitution and by such Constitutional federal and state laws as have been established.

America is under assault by elected and appointed officials at all levels who, at best, do not have the balls to stand up for what is right. Towards the bad end of the spectrum, these officials hate what America stands for and seek to undermine our nation; they are also corrupt, having sold out to potentially hostile foreign powers and to transnational organized crime, which itself is often associated with organizations that are ideologically opposed to everything America stands for.

This is a radical and dramatic change from times when American officials stood up for what they believed in, when they were raised with an understanding of and love for what made America great, and when corruption among political leaders meant working deals with American organized crime figures, rather than with foreign cartels that are tied to terrorist groups.

This series will address practical means of pressuring government and replacing defective government officials. The fact that the American people are serious about doing so and know how to go about it may cause such officials to toe the line, making the need to replace them less immediate. The focus will be below the Presidential level, and will address federal, state and local officials, both elected and appointed. I am going to assume you have basic knowledge of how government is supposed to work, but will nonetheless review some key points.

As you of course know, the US government has an executive lead by the President and Vice-President. Also, there is a bicameral legislative branch consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These are all elected officials. This structure is paralleled at the state level with a governor and lieutenant governor, as well as a state legislature, typically comprised of a state senate and a state house or state assembly.

Just as each state has two Senators in Washington, and each state is divided into one or more Congressional districts, so are states divided into districts for the state senate and the state house or state assembly. Additionally, states often have other statewide elected officials; at the national level, these officials might be part of the President's appointed cabinet, but at the state level, they are directly elected by the people.

Similarly, counties in the United States tend to be divided into districts for a body often known as a county commission, which is a legislative-type body. Executive authority at this level may be held by an executive officer who is appointed by elected officials, or by someone directly elected by the people. Also at the county level are county sheriffs and other county officials who are elected.

There are also municipal governments, with a chief executive – a mayor – and a legislative body, often a city council. Members of the city council are elected from districts within the city, in a manner similar to the way Congressional Representatives are elected from districts within the country, while the mayor is generally elected by the entire city.

There are also township and other local government structures, in addition to school boards (both state and local), as well as elected officials for various other purposes, which can be quite diverse in some states.

In addition to all of this, we have judges. Federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. At the state level, judges may be appointed in a similar manner, by the governor with consent of the legislature, or, more often, they may be elected by the people. Then, there are local judicial positions, many of them elected.

This, then, is the general landscape of government in our country.

But, what is government for? It is here to serve the people, though this fact often gets lost on those who are supposed to serve us. Thus, one can get help from many government officials, but in a situation where a government official is doing what he should not be doing, or not doing what he should be doing, the key to changing that is to pressure the appropriate elected official: this guy's boss who can compel him to do something or fire him, a sheriff who can arrest him, a legislator who can impeach him...

Before we can do this, we need to identify who our elected officials are and how to contact them. In the case of the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, it is very easy to go to the appropriate websites and find out who these people are, and communicate with them directly through their official website. Similarly, states maintain websites for state offices and state legislatures, through which one can find out who one's elected officials are and communicate with them directly through their official website.

However, a more systematic approach is to go to one's county elections office, which should maintain a list of every elected official who has a district which includes places within the county. As election time approaches, a county elections office also usually has available for the public a list of all candidates who have filed to run for an elected office, as well as contact information for that candidate, such as a candidate's home address. For some municipal offices, one may need to go to a city elections office for the information. States usually have some kind of elections office (see my sidebar), often under the secretary of state, which may have helpful information, as well. In any of these places, employees are generally quite happy to help residents, citizens and voters find out districting information and learn who their elected officials are and how to contact them. Much of this information is available online; I have plenty of useful websites linked in my sidebar.

So, you have identified a matter you want addressed. Begin by contacting whatever official may be able to address it, whether elected or not. Some of these people actually care; in any case, give them a chance to do their job. Assuming the matter is not addressed in a satisfactory manner, you have identified an elected official who has power over the matter, or power over the people who have power over the matter. Contact that person. Be polite, be professional, explain your position, and offer to provide the official with more information.

But, what if your elected official won't play ball?

What if your elected official is the problem?

More to follow.

Resisting Unlawful Searches

Good vid. People are resisting unlawful searches.

Mainly, these are Border Patrol agents, but they are some distance from the border. I support the Border Patrol when they patrol the border. I understand the need to have Border Patrol working in depth, in case they have to intercept someone who got past our guys at the border. But, that does not give them the right to search everyone traveling along a US highway dozens of miles from the border.

When they stop you, they ask if everyone in the car is a US citizen. I think they need to ask if everyone who lives in the White House, or who travels on Air Force One, is a US citizen.

Just sayin'...

The Problem is the Republicans

There's a political satire called G20 Ends Abruptly as Obama Calls Putin a Jackass that is making the rounds on the social media. It is an article in the Borowitz Report at the New Yorker.

People on the right side of the issues :) are sharing this and commenting on it as if it were true.

IT'S SATIRE!

I am reminded of when that Stink Bomb Donald Trump got on the birther issue. If that wasn't planned...

And all the conservatives were talking about having Trump, a big supporter of Obama and the Democrats, run for President.

These are the same conservatives who were voting for McCain in 2008, and are now beginning to realize something is wrong with the Senator from Arizona.

Why is the country in the trouble it is in now?

It is NOT because of Obama. There have always been people like him... slick-speaking, no morals, no honor, no integrity. In the past, they worked as con men; now, we elect them President.

It is NOT because of evil people who hate America. There have always been people who hate America... they can't stand success, they hate our freedom, they are jealous, they are criminals, or they just want to control everyone and everything, often under the guise of doing it for our own good. ;) In the past, such people had to attack us militarily, and when that happened, we stomped them; now, we fund them.

It is NOT because of the stupid people who vote for someone like Obama. There have always been stupid people... In the past, they had trouble in life, because they were so stupid, and smart people outnumbered them, so it wasn't a problem; now, we subsidize them, and so they outnumber us, and they have time on their hands while we don't because we work so hard to support them.

It is NOT because of mainstream media with its anti-American agenda. There have always been incompetent journalists, biased media, with no clue, with an agenda... In the past, we just chuckled and moved on, knowing they would speed the downfall of the agendas they pushed, because there were enough smart people who knew how to check things out that their bad info wouldn't get too far. But, now... well, see the comment above about stupid people.

No, the problem is Republicans.

Didn't anyone else check into Donald Trump when he started talking his crap? Am I really the only one?

Don't tell me I am the only one that knew something wasn't right with Obama, even before others started looking into his past and exposing him.

I know I'm not the only one who knew about McCain. But, I was called a fool for not voting for him.

If McCain had won, things would not be substantially different. We would still be supporting terrorists, because the organized crime that funds terrorism pays McCain off. Oh, we might not have Obamacare, but we would have something else. Do you think the borders would have been secure under McCain?

The major difference if McCain had won is that the Republicans would be getting the blame, and that would set things up for a Democrat victory, just like Trump's attack on Obama about the birth certificate set Obama up to spike the ball with a new fake birth certificate, making it look like Obama settled the question once and for all to the humiliation of the birthers, even while the question still hangs in the air, because we know he's a fraud!

In fact, as I think about this now, I am beginning to think the guys who support Obama - not the rank-and-file hate-America-first give-me-something-for-free crowd, but the real guys who pull the strings - screwed up. Many of them are also behind McCain. I think their plan was to push Obama, hoping we would run to McCain. Much to everyone's surprise, Obama won, and now they are realizing they have overplayed their hand. I wonder if this isn't what really happened.

We don't have real Republican candidates to offer (don't even get me started about Romney) because we don't have real, thinking Republicans voting in the primaries. McCain and Romney never should have been more than fringe candidates.

We've screwed up, and now those who seek to destroy this country have made tremendous progress.

But, we are Americans.

Things have been tough before, and Americans have pulled through.

Get your heads out of your asses, and start checking, verifying, digging. Stop being spoon-fed dupes, and start being the kind of real, thinking Americans who founded this country.

If I've offended you, good. You needed it.

Funding for Terrorism, Senator McCain, and Punishment for Treason

I have been rather actively involved in the social media. Lately, I have not done so many blog posts here as I have created images and made comments for posting on social media.

There, I notice a trend of patriotic Americans who are complaining about Senator McCain. McCain's viewpoints and proposals on many issues have people outraged. They call it treason. The more polite commentary blame it on senility. They want him imprisoned.

I have done tremendous research on the crowd in Washington. What got me started was hearing about Sibel Edmonds case. Honestly, I think I have forgotten more about her case than most of my readers will ever know, unless someone actually bothers to read her book - and that person may have to read it more than once to know more than I have forgotten.

However, I did not stop there. I began my own research. I dug. I mean I really dug. I mean, I really, really dug, looking in places other people do not look, for things other people do not seek, and cross-referencing a wide variety of data. A quick glance at the sidebar here at the blog should convince anyone of the possibility that, when I do research, I do way more than most bloggers, and way more than nearly anyone in our mainstream media.

I present this as factual, but make no effort to prove my statements. In many of my posts, I give links, I show images from documents... here, I merely tell you what I know, and hope you will independently verify the information and conclusions provided.

Based on the material I have seen, some of it posted on the internet by other bloggers and by competent journalists from outside the mainstream, there is no doubt in my mind that the problem of corruption in Washington, DC, goes far beyond the extensive situation described by Sibel Edmonds.

In particular, I am convinced that Senator John McCain of Arizona has been connected to foreign organized crime for nearly two decades. The cartel in question is of primarily ethnic Albanian origin, and is based in the Balkans. This cartel was closely linked to ethnic Albanian and Islamic terrorists who have also operated in the Balkans, but who operate elsewhere as well.

If you go back to the Cold War, terrorism was easy to understand: the Soviet Union was behind much of it, and it was aimed at the West. Whenever a terrorist organization tried to bite the hand that fed it, the KGB, whose job was protections of Soviet assets worldwide, would spare no expense to teach that organization a lesson and redirect its activities.

In the 1980's terrorist organizations began to diversify their sources of funding. In particular, they teamed up with drug trafficking organizations (DTO's). The alliance was natural: they both had the same enemy - the government - though one fought for an ideological reason, and the other for monetary profit.

The DTO's discovered that terrorists were ready-made anti-government militarized forces, trained and equipped, which could provide considerable balance in the fight to protect drug trafficking operations against government counternarcotics forces which themselves were becoming heavily militarized in much of the drug-producing and drug-transiting regions of the world.

For their part, the terrorist organizations saw the profit in the production and trafficking of drugs. Cocaine, in particular, is so profitable that even if a small percentage of the total amount produced gets sold rather than interdicted, the DTO is still making good money. DTO's have always been able to get several times more product through to buyers than the bare minimum needed for solvency. Terrorists saw that production and trafficking of drugs exacerbated problems for their enemies in the government, a situation which could then be leveraged politically and militarily. Furthermore, the immense profits available in drug trafficking could finance terrorist activities in a way that state sponsors never could: virtually unlimited money was available, with practically no strings attached.

Narcoterrorism was born, and the monster had the "DNA" of both its parents.

It was in Latin America, in places like Colombia and Peru, where some of the earliest innovations in this area took place. But, it happened elsewhere. The Palestine Liberation Organization - the well-known PLO - was trouble for its Arab and Soviet sponsors - so much so that Jordanian security forces drove it from Jordanian territory across from the West Bank. The PLO landed in Lebanon, where it found the Bekaa Valley a perfect place to produce narcotics. This was when the PLO began to become less ideologically-centered, and more centered on profit. Its nickname was the "Poppy Lovers' Organization"; suffice it to say that its leader, Nobel Peace Prize Winning Yassir Arafat, died a very rich man indeed - and its award to a drug-trafficking terrorist should tell you something about the Nobel Peace Prize.

The US government was not immune to the lures of easy money.

In Latin America, the US was dealing with the threat of communist subversion. Maoist rebels were fighting to take over Peru, and other communist groups were battling the government in Colombia; both nations had an extensive problem with DTO's as well.

But, Nicaragua was special. There, taking its name from a legendary bandit of the late 1920's whose forces were defeated with the help of the US Marines, a group called the Sandinistas deposed President Somoza and established a communist regime. This regime was a threat to the security of the whole region.

In particular, Costa Rica, Nicaragua's neighbor to the south, did not even have an army, rightly concerned that standing armies and the constant coups they produce were a scourge to Latin American countries. Costa Rica's neighbor farther south, Panama, considered contingency plans to move Panamanian troops north into Costa Rica, should this become necessary to answer communist aggression from Nicaragua.

To Nicaragua's north, communist infiltration through a stretch of Honduran jungle supported an attempt by communist-backed forces to seize power in El Salvador, resulting in a long, brutal civil war there.

All this trouble could easily be traced back to Managua, and from there to Havana and Moscow.

The US had to do something to keep the cancer of communism from spreading, so the US began supporting the "contras", people who were against the Sandinista revolution and the resulting communist regime.

However, the Reagan Administration had to deal with a deeply-entrenched Democrat Congress - one which too often sympathized with the communists.

The "solution" discovered by certain relatively low-ranking players was to traffic cocaine to America. The money could be used to fund the contras, and since the money was illegal, it was "black" money for black ops, out of reach of Congress. It was far from an ideal solution, but the reality was that Americans were getting their cocaine - they were going to buy from someone - and if the intelligence community provided some of it, then at least the profits could be channeled to a productive purpose, the defeat of communist subversion in the Americas. The laudable ends "justified" the criminal means.

Predictably, the drug money soon corrupted the laudable ends. Drug trafficking became an end itself, with support for the contras becoming merely a cover story for corruption. According to some accounts, the operation worked so well that corrupt US intelligence operatives had to start supplying arms to the Sandinistas, lest they be defeated, the war would end, and there would be no need for the profitable drug trafficking black op to continue. According to some accounts, the DTO's were caught in the middle between heavily-armed communist forces and heavily armed anti-communist forces, so corrupt US intelligence operatives had to supply arms to the DTO's so the drugs could continue to be produced and shipped. If all of this is true, US intelligence operatives were supplying all sides and making real money doing so, all under a cover story of stopping communist subversion.

The same recipe was used in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to greater effect, and with greater official sanction. Poppies grown along the Durand Line (the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) could be refined into heroin, and much of this heroin could be shipped into the Soviet Union and "sold" there. The Soviet ruble was not considered hard currency, but barter to rogue Soviet officials for arms and supplies could always be arranged. The heroin destroyed the infidel godless communist regime from the inside, while the arms helped support the jihad in Afghanistan. Once again, it was black money for black ops, well out of reach of Congress, but this time with fatwas avowing Allah's approval. The war in Afghanistan, fought right outside the Soviet border, became Moscow's "Vietnam", and kept Moscow from dealing more harshly with Poland and from causing problems elsewhere; in fact, the war in Afghanistan and the resulting stress in the Soviet Union proved to be the straw that broke the communist camel's back in Russia.

By the 1990's, the guys who came up with this recipe had moved up in rank in government service. Add to that the intrinsic corruption of the Clintons and their Administration, and the Clinton Administration became the most corrupt Administration in US history: no one else was even close. The cold war was over, but government officials were dealing with DTO's which, in turn, were connected to terrorist groups, including Islamic terrorist groups connected to the Arab-Afghan Mujahideen - "Al Qaeda" - and to the Poppy Lovers' Organization.

Bush-43 took was inaugurated in January, 2001. As a dedicated Republican, I was happy to vote for him after the outrages of the Clinton era, and I was confident America was on the right track again. Little did I realize...

Information that these Arab-Afghan Mujahideen were planning terrorist strikes against the US was not lacking. They had planned many attacks involving aircraft, including the Bojinka plot. They had attempted to crash planes into buildings, kamikaze style.

And, information was coming in that something was afoot for later in 2001. Blueprints to US skyscrapers had been sent to the Middle East - and, if you are going to crash a plane into a building, why do you need blueprints of the building? Guys affiliated with Islamic terrorist organizations were learning how to fly big commercial jets, and the way they were doing it looked suspicious.

So, there was background to this - Condoleezza Rice lied when she said she didn't "think anyone could have predicted" this - and there was hard intelligence coming in that it may have been about to happen.

The trouble is, an attack this big had never happened before. It was considered very unlikely.

Much more importantly, though, the intelligence coming that it could be about to happen was not coming in through counterterrorism channels; it was coming in through counternarcotics channels: the intelligence apparatus targeting DTO's was picking up information about possible ops being planned by terrorist organizations affiliated with the DTO's.

This was a major problem. An investigation into this could conceivably lead to highly-placed US officials, both elected and appointed, who were on the payroll of these DTO's. By this time - mid-2001 - this included Republican Dennis Hastert, who at the time was the 59th Speaker of the House, and who was on the payroll of Turkish organized crime.

It should be noted that by this time, Senator John McCain was already doing favors for the Albanian cartel described above. McCain was steering US policy in a direction favorable to the cartel and its terrorist allies; in return, a PAC affiliated with that foreign cartel was laundering illicit money from foreign organized crime activities into McCain's campaign coffers.

This illicit money wasn't just from moving Afghan heroin into Western Europe and America; it included the profits of operations for trafficking arms, for trafficking women for forced prostitution, and for trafficking in human body parts from living non-volunteers - Serbian prisoners of war and even civilians captured in the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. This money was mixed in with legitimate, legal campaign contributions from decent, honest, hard-working Americans of ethnic Albanian descent, and given to McCain. In return, McCain, who as a Republican in the Senate was aware of the reports about these terrorists and criminals that the Clinton Administration had been supporting (and that the Bush-43 Administration was now supporting - oh, yes, Bush-43 and even Joe Biden took money from the same guys), was helping Clinton to support them.

McCain went into this with his eyes open, he knew what he was doing, he knew where the money was coming from, and he knew that he was hurting innocent people in the Balkans and betraying US security interests.

An investigation into the intelligence about upcoming terrorist attacks - intelligence that was mainly coming in through counternarcotics channels - would inevitably lead to highly-placed, powerful people in the US government, and would be very embarrassing for them, implicating them in extensive, treasonous corruption.

So, they buried it, instead.

Then, when 9/11 hit, the cover-up began, and from the very beginning, Bush-43 was deeply involved in steering the investigation away from the corruption.

Meanwhile, these guys who came up with the idea to fund anti-communist groups with drug money in the 1980's... they had moved up in rank, and now found themselves under another Republican administration. They were calling the shots now.

This, coupled with the Bush-43 Administration's cronyism, made the Bush-43 Administration more corrupt than the Clinton Administration. And, when one considers how Clinton was giving critical military technology to Communist China in exchange for Chinese money laundered into Democrat campaign coffers, that's saying something.

I mentioned Condoleezza Rice above... she was involved in the Chinese espionage. While working at Stanford, she discretely failed to investigate a Chinese spy ring that was stealing critical technology there. But, that's another story.

Fast forward to the Obama Administration: we now have a "President" who openly, obviously hates America. He was raised by communists and nursed with communist propaganda. He received a strong dose of Islamic indoctrination - and Islam, like communism, is antithetical to everything America stands for.

On top of that, he has no integrity, no honor, no moral compass... in short, he's a perfect example of the worst the far left has to offer.

The treasonous corruption is now so bad, even the Clinton years look good by comparison.

Back to McCain.

As far as I'm concerned, McCain served his time in prison in the Hanoi Hilton. Provided he will cooperate fully with the investigation, I believe his time should be served restricted to the grounds of senior officer's quarters on a military base, where his family can stay with him and visit him, and where he will be safe from the criminals he will need to betray to recuperate some degree of honor.

The others... well, I want them in a federal prison. And, I think we need to build a new one, one big enough to house them all. We need honest investigators, answerable to an honest President, a real American, and we need those investigators to go through Washington, DC, with a fine-toothed comb.