Posted on

NOT FAKE NEWS

Conservatism Bittersweet always endeavors to bring the latest insider news from the farthest reaches of politics. Consequently, we have received an insider transcript from a non-Russian source which we wish to share with our readers.

This revealing portrait of a conversation between two Democrat operatives is particularly relevant to today’s national debate over who should be President of the United States. We have hidden the actual names in order to protect our sources. We shall call them JP and TP. The actual conversation took place within the last two weeks of this posting. Please note, that verification of the conversation as provided to us (and you), is pursuant to the highest standards as set by the New York Times and Washington Post. You can trust us.

 

JP: Have you seen the latest Joe Biden gaffe?

TP: Now what? Joe said he protested in the South while campaigning in the 60’s and got arrested in South Africa while working with Mandela. We haven’t been able to sell that. Another gaffe and, well, we are cooked.

JP: It’s worse this time.

TP: Couldn’t be. What?

JP: He told a black man that he wasn’t black unless he voted for Joe.

TP: Isn’t that true?

JP: Yeah, but it is a statement that can easily be misinterpreted.

TP: Are you sure he was a black man.

JP: Granted, the DNA test hasn’t come in yet—we got a swab from a Pepsi can after our operatives followed him into a 7-ll maintained by an Indian.

TP: You mean, Native American.

JP: No, I mean an East Indian.

TP: Oh.

JP: So, we are pretty sure he was actually an African American.

TP: How could that be?

JP: He was very dark and had kinky hair.

TP: No, I mean, he might have been a disguised operative from the Trump camp.

JP: Not likely. The only people good enough with make-up to make him look like a black guy are on our side—you know, Hollywood make-up artists.

TP: You mean, the ones who try to make Robert De Niro look young.

JP: Yeah, they’d have to be even better than that.

TP: Okay, until we get DNA proof, we have to assume this guy was African American, but what was he doing talking to Joe?

JP: It was from the controlled basement setting.

TP: I think they need us. This is awful.

JP: True, but you know we have to stay hidden a little longer until the resurrection happens.

TP: Yeah, next year when Joe wins.

JP: Not so fast.

TP: What do you mean, not so fast?

JP: Well, there is a problem. It looks like the one sure bet—the African American vote didn’t like the comment.

TP: Just because he said you aren’t black if you’re a Trump supporter?

JP: They misinterpreted the comment.

TP: I don’t get it. How did they do that?

JP: They didn’t like the idea of a white guy telling a black guy that he wasn’t black, even though he was right. He should have said, you have been brainwashed by Trump lies.

TP: Ok, I guess that’s better. If this happens again . . .

JP: Won’t happen again. We’ve installed an earpiece into Joe’s right cochlea. Hillary is going to be whispering in his ear the correct answers by remote control.

TP: Can we trust her?

JP: Stupid question. She told me personally, she was only trying to help Joe win.

TP: So, after this all broke loose, what did Joe’s handler’s say?

JP: They said it was a joke.

TP: I see—to give the impression that Joe has a sense of humor.

JP: Exactly.

TP: Ah, brilliant.

JP: Well, not exactly. The brothers and sisters are still a little miffed.

TP: Can we get Kamala and Stacey to smooth things out.

JP: Yup, they are reliable. They will plead forgiveness.

TP: Isn’t that religious?

JP: Yeah, but it’s only temporary.

TP: But what if it happens again?

JP: I just told you . . .

TP: I know—Hillary. Then I have to ask, what else could go wrong?

JP: Hmmmm. Hillary might faint in the middle of an answer.

TP: Maybe CNN or Google can edit his answers.

JP: Of course, they’ll edit his answers O-U-T.

TP: We need something to stimulate her during her help sessions.

JP: True. How about some Vodka.

TP: Good answer.

JP: Anything else?

TP: Isn’t Joe looking for a black woman for Vice President?

JP: Yeah, probably need that more than ever now.

TP: Well, yes. I was at the drug store last week and I’m worried.

JP: Yeah, so?

TP: I saw Hillary at the counter with a bottle. At the time, I didn’t think about it, but now . . . .

JP: Okay, Spill it. What was she buying?

TP: Tanning lotion.

Posted on

TAKING CHARGE

Taking Charge

 

Photographs of President Trump often include a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the background, looking over the current president’s shoulder. This is no accident. From the beginning, The Trump administration seems to have channeled Jackson as if he were a spiritual essence haunting the White House. Jackson’s tenure as president was marked by political turbulence and controversy. Perhaps his greatest contribution was to avoid a civil war and hold the union together over the concept of nullification. Breaching the previous understanding of the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, South Carolina declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within that state’s boundaries. South Carolina viewed its rights as a state to be superior to those of the Federal Government on the grounds that states had the right to nullify federal laws within their own boundaries.

Although a southerner, Jackson, with authority granted from Congress signed the Force Bill in 1833, which authorized the president to collect the tariff. The concept of nullification slept for 28 years until the Civil War. There was a revival of the argument, that the states had formed a compact. The reason the states are called states has to do with the view that they retained a certain amount of sovereignty over their own existence and could ignore the federal government. The Confederate states argued that the rights granted the federal government were revocable. They paid the price in dead and generations of wasted human capital until the current modern era. Indeed, each state has an executive, judicial, and legislative branch in the same vein as the federal government. Jackson thwarted the effort of South Carolina to nullify the federal government tariff.

Today, we have a desperate left-wing in states again broadly trying to defeat a President by nullifying law. The Left has banded together to form a compact of their own. The National Public Vote law passed by many states requires that each state agreeing to the compact will honor the popular vote result even if it conflicts with the electoral college. President Trump beat Senator Hillary Clinton by winning the electoral vote although she polled about 3 million votes more. The Democrats are unhappy because they have been burned twice recently by this phenomenon. The last time it happened was when George Bush defeated Al Gore in a closely contested election. Before that, the last such circumstance was in 1888. The National Public Vote law may be illegal. But the courts will decide the next time there is a conflict between the two kinds of votes. Since Trump has appointed the last two Supreme Court justices, and there is a fairly solid Republican core of five usually reliable justices, it is unlikely the nine-person court will go for a coup and rule against the primacy of the electoral college.

Governors of the Left have been a little more successful at thwarting federal law by not providing information on illegal aliens and not turning over criminals in custody no matter how severe the crime. That story is not finished.

The most recent left-wing attempt to thwart the President has been the agreement among a group of states to go their own way in opening up their state quarantine orders. California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Colorado have agreed among themselves that they will coordinate the stages reopening their states to education, commerce, and the usual routine business of people currently fettered by the orders of the state governors. Siting’s of large numbers of beach goers in California show that the people may decide for them. For his part, the president has ceded the operation of each state to the governors, although he still remains hands on regarding the administration of certain federal responsibilities.

Reopening the states have devolved into a partisan tool. Democrats are apparently willing to stop commerce in their states for the purpose of sabotaging the economy just enough so that Trump has difficulty getting re-elected. Trump, for his part, is intent on getting the economy going for just the opposite reason. Trump’s communicating ability with his supporters in arenas are threatened by a prolonged closure of close contact. That any leader in America would hurt people in this way for political gain shames the country. They are biting on what they see as a no-loose scenario. If Trump violates the states quarantine guidelines, they will say that Trump caused X amount of deaths, whatever the figure is at a given moment in time before the November election. If states remain closed and the economy does not rev up soon, they have the argument that it is Trumps fault, as they tie him, no matter how unfairly, to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. From here on in, it will be necessary to trust the American people with good judgment.

Posted on

TILT THE BOARD AND RUN OVER THE LITTLE GUY

California, Oregon and the State of Washington (also known as the Left Coast) are known as left-wing elitist bastions controlled by one-party Democratic majorities. They have sold their futuristic world-based electorates on climate scares, imminent environmental disasters, abortion restrictions, government compassion and other modern slogans granting passage to the favorable future. But they are the Democrats, the party of compassion—that is until you encroach on the turf of the moneyed class. Then it becomes the party of the rich.

 

Proof of this lies in a National Review article by Michael Gibson who reports that “San Francisco has virtually banned new housing. It forbids apartments of all shapes and sizes, limits the number of units per property, caps the number of small “shoebox” units to a few hundred and has outlawed building anything higher than 40 feet in 80 percent of the city.” He goes on to say: “The medium price for a one-bedroom rental is the highest in the nation, at $3700 per month. To buy a single-family home, a starter home with flaking and rotting surfaces, a family needs $1.5 million on average and had better be paying cash. The cost to construct a single new apartment unit is over $700,000 nearly triple what it was a decade ago.”

San Francisco has robbed its citizenry of the means to live in their own city. Teachers, police, and other emergency personnel can’t afford to live in the city they protect. Through environmental and historical preservation rules and regulations, the city has made it nearly impossible to build new shelter. The city government accommodates this arrangement. The canary in the coal mine is African Americans. Their population has gone from 13 percent in 1970 to 5 percent today. When did the Democrats become the party of racism? Perhaps a little affirmative action is due our friends in the cable car city.

 

In another article in National Review, Kevin D. Williamson describes how Aspen, Colorado has become a play center for “billionaires and baristas.” Millionaires need not apply. You haven’t got what it takes to break into this elite spot unless you own something really big or important—a football team, a large dotcom corporation will do nicely. Another legal monopoly insulates the moneyed class from the rest of society. The baristas are regarded as a needed exception to the rule. Lesser mortals need not apply.

 

Portland, Oregon is undergoing a similar transition to an elitist playground. What it is becoming is the result of spillage from some of California’s lesser lights who have left the Bay area for cheaper, more politically neutral territory, not unlike the homey places some of them grew up. Portland has the virtue of being an incipient San Francisco. In an effort to trump the agents of change, the governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, placed the territorial designation intended by the Trump Administration as an “Opportunity Zone” on some of the most valuable property in Oregon. The purpose of the opportunity zones was to help develop impoverished and blighted inner cities by making tax concessions to developers in the area who were least likely to need any help. She placed the opportunity smack dab in the middle of the most prosperous growth area in downtown Portland. No doubt, this was intended as a smackdown of Trump Administration Populism, despised by the ruling class, and also the effect was to give impetus to cheaper construction of expensive properties, many of which would have happened anyway. Other than spiting Trump, a part of the motivation for the curious designation was the Governors desire to benefit the city’s client construction companies, which in turn rewards the city with “affordable housing.” Cheap housing is not possible in much of the downtown environment, so the Federal advantages cover some of the extra cost of the affordable housing. Affordable housing is in the eye of the beholder though, and for sure, affordable in the swank area does not even enter into the conversation of the homeless lying in tents in the street below. Another strategy redistributes the poor to the better-off  outlying area of town so they reap the benefits of suburban life and learn from the example of middle class Portlanders. It is a condescending approach to social engineering that will fail as the affordable homes become less affordable over time.

 

Sadly, the egalitarian spirit which once limited the elites to their closely held property has been lost. Now the monopolistic tendency reinvents itself as a modern version of the serfdom of the Middle Ages in which a large castle surrounded by a moat separates the producers from the users. Human behavior remains the same. Uniting with those with whom you have something in common and separating from the “other” is a common value of wealthy elites. They might make the argument that it is genetics, but why bother. They have it and you don’t. Some separation is a quality of the huddling effect our ancient ancestors felt when they were small in number, couldn’t explain much about their environment, and heard the growling of sharp-toothed carnivores off in the distance during the night. The fear of the unknown has been translated into its modern equivalent.

 

The nature of huddling is also a power move. It gives the appearance of elevating the one in charge at the expense of the obedient servant. To the elite, it gives the false impression of security. But security is an illusion. Just ask Marie Antoinette. Actually, you can’t. The legal exclusion of the larger piece of society as determined by power and wealth through legal means, will only put the revolution off so long.

 

For most people, living in San Francisco does not have great value. Average citizens make themselves happy or unhappy, wherever they are. But the use of legal means to determine a narrowing of the human race, is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a spreading disease of bad faith. The social contract is a myth, but we live together in a common desire for peace. There is a struggle going on. Rules still apply, but only barely. The practice of not enforcing laws as a matter of acquiring political mileage is another step backward. Those who profess opposition to exclusion are often the leaders of the most exclusive clubs. In Los Angeles, the golden triangle of Beverly Hills, Holmby Hills, and Bel Air lie well above the day to day events of the common folk in the smog filled low lands. But here is a lesson. You must look the part and act the part. Just ask Charles Belk. A black man with upright A-credentials as an upstanding citizen was humiliated and arrested while walking black in Beverly Hills. Officers on the scene identified him as the perp in a Citibank robbery. He matched the description of the thief—a tall, bald black man. Turns out there are more than a few of those in LA. However, none of the others were handy, so Mr. Belk became the catch of the day.

 

The quintessential modern mote is found in the State of Washington. Bill Gates and a host of Microsoft digital cowboys have come to rest behind the safety of Lake Washington. Reputedly, Gates has drilled a hole for access to the grounded earth through the hills backstopping his estate. Mountains and water are visual proof of the landed plutocrats running a portion of the left coast not generally accessible to the public.

 

The holy alliance between elitist Democrats and America’s version of the landed gentry is an ever-expanding growth opportunity for two parasites feeding off each other in an unholy symbiotic arrangement that marginalizes everyone else. It is as if the plutocrats where ahead in the game, dumped the board, and announced, “I win.”

Posted on

A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES

We are often charmed by the mistaken words of children who mangle new sounds or fall awkwardly as they try to take their first steps. Not so charming are the flubs and failures of older children—especially those called Democrats.

Here is the explanation. The long-awaited Iowa Caucuses descended on that great State yesterday (2/3/20). The Republican version, with a single candidate, Donald Trump, passed by the public quietly. Progressive, Democrat politics, with its polyglot, babbling team of desperate power seekers, was where the action was. As of the next morning, the results were not in. The reason: Democrats had arranged to report the individual caucus results by way of a high-tech app prepared by the Democrats themselves. The idea was to bring instant results to the news-hungry press awaiting the kickoff event of the next presidential election cycle.

The app and the backup provisions failed dramatically. Even the sycophantic left-wing press was left out to dry. The Progressives provided Conservatives with a dramatic metaphor illustrating the weakness in the idea that Progressive wisdom anticipates the future with brilliant plans. If only the rest of the world could understand their genius. Conservatism Bittersweet has compiled some of the internet comments generated after the Iowa fiasco. At last report, every candidate declared victory and is moving on to New Hampshire.

(All comments are original spelling and grammar)

Vote for me I’ll give ya free food housing school medical, the evil rich can paywe will force them to stay and pay pay pay   —Mystateisbroke.mmmm

Put a fork in the dem party, they’re done. LOL   —PamMar

Whole lotta Russian Trash posting here.   –MyNameisNoneOfYourBusiness

DemocRATS can’t run an impeachment, DemocRATS can’t run an election, and we should all make sure that DemocRATS can’t run the United States government.   –JeauxBleaux

Only the Dims cold make things worse by using technology.   –stillfree2

Bernie Sanders was correct iin saying that the Iowa Democrat Caucus would be a reflection of the 2020 Elections.    –DeBugsy338

Dems – “We have met the Russians, and they are us.”   —walawalabingbang

Once again, the dems prove that they are the best campaigners for Trump’s re-election.   –AlGoreinventedEverything

They should have let the Caucus-goers count themselves…   —LongDucDong

AND; If all else fails the alledged Democrat party has their elite “super-delegates” to rig their primary however they see fit. What a screwed-up party.   –JDJacobs

For the Republicans, Iowa really IS heaven.    –EaglesSBchamps

They are hoping JFK comes wandering out of a corn field.   –PhilSS014

Hillary’s IT people mravon619

The Dems can’t stand Bernie, it’s an all out internalized war within the party..good entertainment   —Momma’sLilSnowflake

Not that you need additional evidence, that Democrats are inept. However, marinate on this thought for awhile. The dems can not run a voting Caucus that they themselves deigned. Trump 2020   —-OutOfTheirSkulls

“It will take some time for the results.” Isn’t this what they told us about Obama Scare?   —IMINCHARGE165

For the Democrat establishment this is an outcome that is much worse than an outright Bernie victory. It reflects on the party as a whole! Ask yourself qui bono? That is why some rank and file Democrats this morning are asking Adam Schiff to investigate a potential Trump-Putin collusion to sabotage the Iowa Caucuses. No hacking necessary, the software had probably been tampered with before it was installed.   –nikolaus

Those darn Ukrainians, they are messing with our election process.  YRUsoPC

We’re not keeping score. All candidates will get a participation trophy!!   —BlahDeeBlah

“Don’t worry Iowans, we are rigging this as fast as we can” –IDP   —MacWatts

Ghose Russians, again..   –Loshonores

Anytime you want ANYTHING turned in a massive Charlie Foxtrot, hand it to the minority and poor-exploiting, dishonest talking points belching, divisive lie-fueled identity politics dependent DEMS.   –ChromeSteedRider

I don’t understand how the democrats can use a caucus instead of a full primary vote. Aren’t they the ones that are concerned that every vote counts? And isn’t a caucus just a few people voting for the rest of the citizens of Iowa?   —Statoil 

Paper Ballots…..THINK about it   —FightCensors

Now let us run the country say the Democrats.   –paramenides

You simply can not make this stuff up….take a good look America….when you vote democrat, you are voting to make America a third world Country…none for me thanks!   —Askmeno

Dems trying to rig another election   —captrob68

I smell BleachBit…..Clacald

LOL. This is why you don’t let the dems run the country. LOL. DonaldTrumpWON

Is Brenda Snipes counting the votes in Iowa? “Failing Together: should be the motto of the Dem party. The Democrat Party interfered in another election – their own, in Iowa. They did a better job voting in Iraq. TrumpIsLegend304

It doesn’t matter who votes ! It only matters who counts the votes !   —angrytaxpayer2

Pretty clear who will win in November. Hence the coup attempts.   –Emperor

The bottom line here, much like with the partisan impeachment campaign, is that in 2020 all Democrats are the losers.   –5326American

Shadow app developers “advanced progressive causes through innovative communications” worked for Obama and Clinton’s. What could go wrong?   —brother11

Next, AOC will be serving drinks at the bar in New Hampshire   —FightCensors

Well, Iowa used to be known for politics and hogs. Now, just hogs.   –BTodd

They even cheat against each other. Is there one competent, honest, and decent Dem? I’m still looking. C’monSense690

Calm down dems. You’ll get your results as soon as they know that Biden is the winner. Infidelophile

Democrats can’t even win their own rigged elections….–Beanomac169

Eventually they will find some missing ballots in Hillary’s car trunk   —viknat556

Are they re-distributing the votes?   —DisplayName075

This is great!!! LMAO Watching the Snakes start to eat each other.   –TomWorthley1703

They should have learned from Obama. On caucus day, you bus in supporters from Chicago giving you the option to tally the votes several days in advance and therefore put a stop to embarrassing count discrepancies. Now that is being efficient! (Yes, I know it is illegal, but it is only a problem when you get caught.”   —GoferBaroque644

President Trump will have more FLEXIBILITY after this re-election and the House switches back to the GOP   —TimeForAmerica2WakeUp

Looks like Trump won the democratic caucus.    –RussianCollusionHoax

The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only Person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is “Trump”   —Donald J. Trump

Posted on

THE THIRD CHARGE

Most Americans have noticed that the President of the United States has been impeach by the House of Representatives. For many, it has been a big yawn. It shouldn’t be.

 

The Democrats have been trying and trying to nullify the last election by any means possible for nearly three years. The Mueller investigation was the first big attempt at a purge. The Mueller report, authored by nineteen Hillary Clinton supporters could not come up with any indictable wrongdoing by President Trump. With that failure in mind, the Democrats made another attempt. This time the effort was led by Rep. Al Greene (D-TX) who managed to gain a whopping 58 Democrats to support his effort at impeachment. The rest of the House of Representatives, all 356 Republicans and Democrats opposed that effort. Representative Greene stated his reason for launching the effort was that the president would be reelected if they didn’t succeed. They didn’t. Democracy has not been the long-suit of the Democrats for a long time. Slavery was the peak of their historical performance.

 

Now the Democrats have put together a new effort. The latest attack has bee nearly totally along partisan grounds with all but two Democrats voting for impeachment and all Republicans opposing it.

 

  ABUSE OF POWER OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
DEMOCRATS 230 229
REPUBLICANS 197 198

 

One Democrat, Jeff Van Drew, switched parties to Republican, rather than remain with the Democrats. Rep Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) voted present, and a third Democrat split the vote between the two charges.

 

The largely partisan vote shows the desperation as well as the uncertainty felt by Democrats as a presidential election looms over them in less than a year. There nervousness arises out of the recognition that their current crop of candidates is flawed and points to a loss against President Trump November 3, 2020. They know that a host of candidates who believe in open borders, fantastic spending plans, and inflated ideas of the power of government, opens the door to failure next November.

 

In impeaching the President, the Democrats have now mangled the Constitution so badly it is hardly recognizable. There are two Articles of Impeachment released by the Democrats. The one pertaining to the Biden’s is abuse of power. Joe Biden famously told an audience that he had gotten a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by withholding aid authorized by Congress. The prosecutor was investigating a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, one of whose directors was Hunter Biden, Vice President Biden’s son. The charges against President Trump are based on a phone call to the President of Ukraine in which President Trump asked for a favor by looking into the matter. The President pointed to the unethical, if not illegal, act by which Hunter traded on his father’s name in order to receive an impressive salary which may have been as $83,000 per month for three years. Joe Biden is currently running for President in Democrat primaries which may lead to his running against President Trump. The President should be given some slack in this case as being a rookie president he did not realize that you are not allowed to expose and investigate the unethical behavior of a Democrat running for president. Never mind the treaty of cooperation between the United States and Ukraine which provides for such an exchange of information for the purpose of rooting out corrupt and illegal acts. In the view of Democrats, Joe Biden enjoys immunity from prosecution or scrutiny because he is a Democrat. There is no evidence that Republicans enjoy such immunity. As a rare example of consistency, Democrats believe Hillary Clinton is exempt from such scrutiny also with regard to her illegal use of a private server. Five server technicians were given immunity from prosecution after they were interviewed by the friendly FBI. Nothing there to see! But don’t look, just the same, the Democrats have said, just close your eyes because we are the friendly FBI. As an untouchable elite Democrat, Hillary was briefly questioned and let go to continue running for President.

 

Hunter Biden has admitted that he got the job at Burisma because he was Joe’s son. Joe’s famous brag that he used one billion dollars in US aid to leverage the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Burisma doesn’t count because the Democrat own a special exemption. Rookie presidents like Donald Trump don’t know the rules about putting high-ranking Democrats behind bars. It’s not allowed.

 

The second charge against President Trump is obstruction of Congress. The alleged abuse of power arose out of the President’s opposition to the Democrats effort to take away his job without an election. Again, let’s give the first-time politician a break here. How was he to know that he was supposed to act powerless, give the Democrats documents belonging to the Executive Branch, and admit his guilt on the spot. We should not really believe in the Separation of Powers doctrine in the Constitution because it was written by old white guys. Again, a rookie presidential mistake.

 

One thing the Democrats deserve credit for is their futuristic view of America. Once Socialism rules the land, it will fail and degenerate into dictatorship as it attempts to keep power. Remember, Democrats are thinking ahead. Nullifying the Constitution is merely a phase necessary before we achieve equality in poverty. Separation of Powers, the right to face your accuser, the ability to call witnesses in your favor, the right to cross examine opposing testimony, and the right to remain silent, should not impede historically determined progress.

 

The Democrats have made only one mistake. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress have been laid powerfully in front of America, but Democrats left out the third Article of Impeachment—anti-Soviet Activities. At least in similar past judicial examples, that charge was also used.

Posted on

Conspiracy TV-THE BIG SCOOP

Conservatism Bittersweet has received from an anonymous source a new recording of a secret meeting between Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. We have withheld the name of our whistle-blower on this major story as our last correspondent responsible for recording such a meeting has lost his hearing when a professional screamer caught him dining at his favorite restaurant. Below, you will find a transcript of that secret meeting, exclusive to Conservatism Bittersweet.

[ For previous transcript revelations, see April 1, 2019; Conservatism Bittersweet transcript]

 

Pelosi: Sit down Schiffty

Schiff: Please don’t call me that, Ma’am.

Pelosi: I thought it was a badge of honor.

Schiff: Please, Adam.

Pelosi: Enough of this small talk.

Schiff: I don’t do small talk.

Pelosi: Good. Here’s what I want you to do. So far, we have lost everything with this President. We could lose the next election. I don’t want to even think what that could mean to our long-range plans. How do those Republicans elect a teflon president every time out? I don’t understand.

Schiff: I think it was Hillary’s fault. She didn’t get her story lined up.

Pelosi: I’ll pretend I didn’t hear those sexist words.

Schiff: Thank you, Ma’am

Pelosi: Remember, it is the Russians.

Schiff: Oh, Oh, I forgot.

Pelosi: Now here’s the problem. The Mueller report didn’t work. Angry citizens screaming didn’t work. Kavanaugh didn’t work. That leaves just one thing.

Schiff: What’s that?

Pelosi: Impeachment.

Schiff: Impeachment! That is exceptional.

Pelosi: You and I need to work out a plan.

Schiff: Why me? Nadler is head of Judiciary.

Pelosi: That idiot. Why would you call Trump’s campaign manager as a witness? Why not just let Teflon President in here and let him run the House? Why not let him run your [redacted] committee? Why not make him Emperor of the Imperium? Why not . . . [unknown suction sound]

Schiff: Can I help you with that?

Pelosi: Get your [redacted] hands off my teeth.

Schiff: Yes, Ma’am. I’ll wait a moment while you . . . uh, adjust yourself.

Pelosi: Look, here, Schiffty, we need this done right. If I give this assignment to you . . .

Schiff: If not me, then who? Agriculture?

Pelosi: Alright, you got me there. On the other hand, I could put Al Greene in charge of your committee.

Schiff: Hold on! I’ve got some ideas.

Pelosi: Shoot, metaphorically, I mean.

Schiff: I know this guy with the spooks. He can get anything done. I’ll have him send someone over from the administration that doesn’t like Trump. He told me there’s this fellow who worked for Biden that hates Trump. Phase one, we get him to do a whistle-blower job on Trump. That way we can prevent them from knowing who the snitch, I mean, the whistle-blower is.

Pelosi: Brilliant, Adam. I love it. Keep going.

Schiff: The key to the whole thing is secrecy. We can bring in witnesses from the State Department. No one, except Trump appointments, is happy there.

Pelosi: Why the State Department?

Schiff: Because they’re smooth talkers. They can make a cesspool sound like Shangri-La. They can even say two opposite things that contradict each other and make it sound like, “You can keep your policy if you like it, but I know you won’t like it.”

Pelosi: Ok. I can see that. What else.

Schiff: Well, just to avoid the Nadler problem, we hold all the interrogations in secret.

Pelosi: Is that Constitutional?

Schiff: As a lawyer, I can easily make the case. I went to Harvard, you know.

Pelosi: I thought you went to Stanford? In my home state.

Schiff: That was my undergraduate work. I have broad experience.

Pelosi: Oh. I just had a thought. We can’t expose our winning candidates in Trump districts to electoral peril.

Schiff: That is the beauty of secrecy.

Pelosi: You mean, I don’t have to call for a vote?

Schiff: I told you, I am a Harvard Lawyer. We can eventually release the transcripts as long as we don’t let Republicans get answers to their misleading questions.

Pelosi: What about claims of Due Process?

Schiff: Don’t worry. The ACLU is on board.

Pelosi: I think I’ve made a wise choice for this job. But . . .

Schiff: But what?

Pelosi: But we have to make it last. We all know, that when you are telling a story, there is just the right time to end it.

Schiff: The media, the Department of State, the press, academe, Robert De Niro, it will never end.

Pelosi: Excellent start. But what if that doesn’t work?

Schiff: I thinking of several disgruntled generals we can influence. Mass marches on the capital—no, no, every state capital. Ma’am, what are you doing?

Pelosi: I’m praying for you.

Posted on

THEY HAVE NO ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION

Recently, the Kennedy avatar known as Beto O’Rourke, who is still running for President of the United States was asked a simple question by a man in the audience. “I was born September 8, 1989,” he stated, “and I want to know if you think on September 7, 1989, my life had no value.”

A somewhat befuddled O’Rourke answered that he did think that the young man’s life had value and then proceeded to tell the man that his mother would have had the right to kill him if she had so chosen. While it is true, that left-wing Democrats have no problems with the numerous internal contradictions of their thoughts, this one seemed particularly stark considering the subject of abortion has been around for a long time.

Recently a news story broke concerning the abortionist, Ulrich Klopfer, who stored the remains of 2,246 babies he had killed in utero. Klopfer, deceased on September 3rd of this year, shocked the conscience of many when it was revealed he had retained the remains of the children he had killed.

One wonders what it is in the barbaric mind of the executioners that allows such carnage. Most of us will never see an abortion, or the tiny body parts torn away and flushed down the toilet, or caste aside as medical waste, or in the case of Klopfer, bagged as a curiosity. Humanity cries out for a better answer to the moral misjudgment that allows abortion to happen.

The religious devotion to this point of view takes on a life of its own for Democrats because it is tied to the left-wing view of the women’s equality debate. Equality is a slippery slope [see September CB]. In order to have equality (with men) you must kill your child. That frees the would-be mother to pursue career goals, personal desires, and a trouble-free life. That little romantic encounter with that fellow, what’s-his-name at the party, shouldn’t hold you back from becoming CEO of Giant Corporation of America. Babies are as disposable in the left-wing world as a tissue. Even more so, if you claim poverty. You can get it paid for by a third party—the tissue costs money.

Here is one of the ironies of this issue: If you talk to the pro-abortion side, they will say that it is wrong to deny women reproductive healthcare. In what sense is it healthcare to kill a child in the womb? Maybe they mean that healthcare will never be a problem if the child is dead. What if they mean it is reproductive healthcare for the mother? It certainly isn’t “reproductive” anything because the abortionist elimination the product reproduction.

In order to advance the pro-abortion argument, you must deny humanity to the unborn, deny human rights, deny equal protection under the Constitution, deny representation by an attorney who might fight for her or his life, and deny paternity rights to the father of the child. That is a lot of denials, both legal and moral, required to sabotage the life of the unborn. Yet, that was the effect of Roe v Wade, the single legal precedent based on “the right to privacy.” Prior to Roe v Wade, a first-year law student using a broadly stated ill-defined, term such as this would have been laughed out of law school. While the Constitution does embody the right to privacy, it does so by enumerating these rights. The right to be secure in our homes and possession is specified in the IV Amendment to the Constitution. Other rights are granted, but they are specified. A “right to privacy’ does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and for good reason. Any statement of personal preference can be used as a right to privacy. Countries, like individuals, need boundaries, and that is one thing the Constitution provides.

The idea that a mother can conspire with her doctor to kill her unborn baby is bizarre in the first place. No one else has this privilege. It is a medical fact that a mother is attached to her baby. In rare cases a mother may die (i.e. in an automobile accident) and the baby might be saved. The child is an independent actor as well as dependent on her or his mother for life support in the womb. Who would not try to save the baby? Yet, the people who call themselves pro-choice, give no choice to the unborn.

Finally, let us address the issues raised by the abortion side. A recent conversation went something like this:

“Women have the right to do with their bodies, what they want.”

“Why is that.”

“Women are victims of rape, incest, or their lives may be threatened by the birth itself.”

“Alright, join me in a Constitutional amendment in banning abortions, except for those reasons.”

“Oh, no. a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants.”

Thus, it becomes a tautology; a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants because a woman has the right to do with her body what she wants.

 

Sadly, there is neither logic nor comfort in the answer that allows the most barbaric acts of the current generation to prevail over acts that can only be describe as a crime against humanity. The act of being human contemplates a reverence for life. The death of one person is diminishing to all humanity. The death of millions is more than a statistic, it is a tragedy linked forever to humanity which passes by this issue and says, “I don’t care.”

 

Posted on

HEADING FOR THE DARK AGES

The devotees of the philosophical underpinnings of Socialism depend on entangled ideas that form a confused string of concepts based on a utopian ideal. There are two ideas for the virtuous socialists that are frequently mentioned together: equalizing the masses and bringing down the wealthy. For the sloganeering socialist this process is defined in terms of absolute equity and equality. The opposing conservative point of view focuses on equality of opportunity. The socialist view determines success in terms of equality in result. Although socialism is primarily an economic concept, it cannot be separated from the social or political contexts of the day.

 

Equity and equality are two words normally associated together, but are in fact, words with two different connotations. Also, equity and equality serve the master of fairness. Fairness is an undefined term in any natural state. It stands for whatever the user of the word wants it to stand for. These three entangled words, equality, equity, and fairness have no standing in nature by themselves such as the right to choose one’s leaders. There is no structural reason for their existence. To clarify, equity and equality imply slightly different connotations. Equity is more of a social construct whereas equality is measurable in units of equal measure.

 

The socialist asks, why should one man have more than another? The religious point out that we are equal under God, the atheist points to our state in nature. “All men are created equal . . . .” The latter question is a little confusing. The former state is that all humans are born such that “Naked we enter the world . . . ,” We all enter the world with nothing intellectually or physically. Even if a child should be born and the single parent mother dies at that same moment so that the child inherits the mother’s estate, that child is, as a child, still naked for a moment and in a state of equality with all other just born children. But it doesn’t take long for inequities to develop. Mother-1 may be wealthy, therefore her child becomes wealthy. The child is still a child, only trivially different compared to others in the amount of clothes she wears. Child-2’s mother dies also, but leaves the child only debts to the hospital for the cost of being born. The two children as individuals are equal, but their estates are not. In order to achieve equity, they must achieve equality, therefore estate-1 pays (usually through insurance) for Estate-2s medical bills.. In other words, they are now equal and that is fair (fairness is achieved). A mathematician might put it this way:

 

ei (equity) + ea (equality) = fairness.

 

The involuntary arrangement where the estate of mother 1 pays the hospital bill for mother 2’s child seems fair to the socialist, and as a matter of humanitarian concern, perhaps to anyone else where the unexpected randomness of life creates damage to one’s life. After all, child 2 is not responsible for where he is at the moment of birth. These value judgments are often made. That is fairness is a desired state, fairness is defined as equity in action, which achieves fairness.

 

Since Child-1, let us call her, Mary, is too young to complain (and is orphaned) she has no say in what has happened. This is a blissful state for the socialist who believes in both equity, equality, and fairness. Not so surprisingly, the genetic code and environment of Mary and Child-2, we shall call her Jane, are not the same. In real life, the two children as they mature will set off on different paths. The socialist rolls on also, but realizes that equity and equality are distorted over time. Mary becomes wealthy and Jane has a drinking problem and slumps into poverty. The Socialist does not give up. Fairness is a maintenance concept requiring adjustments on the way.

 

Here is the second part of socialist entanglement theory. Uppity rich people need to be brought low. Fairness is related to the need to bring down the high and the mighty. Accommodation is made for elite members of the ruling class. They are the last ones to starve. Doing so is the only way to achieve fairness. The only way to do this is to divide the gross national product by the number of people in question. Entanglement theory posits that we are all together, as far as we know, on the great, blue marble known as planet Earth.

 

So, what happens when Governor Nanny grabs takes the wealth of Mary? Does that make Jane wealthier? That might happen in the short run, but Jane, with a different genetic code, different experiences, different desires, and different environment is not capable of reproducing Mary’s success. Jane dissipates her wealth in Las Vegas, buying expensive cars, and enjoying the wild life. For a moment the economy of Las Vegas grows which benefits everyone. But when Jane runs out of money, Governor Nanny turns again to Mary. But Mary has become an artist. Why should Mary continue to support Jane, whom she doesn’t even know. Was she working 60-hour days for the fun of it, or was the idea of financial success a part of it? Governor Nanny doesn’t care. The reduced circumstances of Jane need to be addressed.

 

The socialist state does not build wealth. It doesn’t even pretend to build wealth. American socialist Bernie Sanders has three homes and is a millionaire. He makes no apologies and does not attempt to explain the contradiction, just that he wrote a successful book and he was happy to keep the money. That he seeks redistribution of wealth in the United States, appeals to a different side of him; that is, socialists seek wealth in the form of power. They may even hoard wealth and power becoming the elites of the nation. Elitism is a requirement of the socialistic model because Socialism is not a natural state in complex economies. It is a top down philosophy in which experts, including elite leaders, rule for the sake of the masses in a form of noblesse oblige one relegated to the Lords and Ladies of European society. Socialists seek self-aggrandizement in their own way. That is why Communist and Socialist governments rule by fear. Even within early societies there was a hierarchy based on a skill set in demand for those societies. Early societies had no choice. Living in a tribe of a few dozen surviving humans is not a test of socialism. Rather, it is the confinement by the natural environment that imposed itself on early humanity; poverty was not a community goal.

 

The Free Enterprise philosophy is a bottom up system with a regulatory device called competition. There is, of course, government for the purpose of establishing the rules of the game. But it serves a purpose to create its own equality. It is a mistake to think that it guarantees success to the entrepreneur. Perfection does not happen. But when the rules are the same and the rules are just, the idea of equity and equality merge into fairness in the same idealistic way claimed by Socialists.

 

The frightening part about Socialism is that it is an economic system seeking a bottom in a downward spiral. Socialism seeks the lowest common denominator. It averages down until it finds the authoritarian floor in which the Orwellian state must regulate the details of an unnatural system not suited to the human experience.

 

Hong Kong, which is the economic jewel of China is in the throws of that environment. They know their freedom is at stake. The equality of socialism and the forces of government enforcing it in a system where the rule of law does not exist points to the loss of liberty, not equality of wealth and status. Imagine a world of equality. It suppresses the skilled at the expense of growth. Riots and violence between the free Chinese and the restricted Chinese will likely result in an averaging down of the Hong Kong people. Venezuela has seen the same process, there is only averaging down and loss of liberty—the life blood of economic success and scientific discovery that makes life better for a country’s citizens.

 

Science will die because it depends on the wealth an economic system brings. The degree of freedom counts for something, for if socialism averages down, free enterprise averages up in the opposite way. Equality among the unequal does not exist. Ideological Socialist puritanism is a prescription for a new Dark Age. A period of economic and scientific decline will not stop until the people are starving and overwhelm the elites with revolution. History can repeat itself. Americans will have restricted healthcare because there won’t be enough money to pay for it, nor enough skilled physicians to undertake the rigors of medical training and cost of medical school for little pay. The pulse of the economic system that creates wealth, rather than redistributes it, will end in zero.

Posted on

NGO GOOD

Portland, Oregon has seen its share of peace signs. It was a hotbed of flower power in the 60’s in opposition to the war in Viet Nam. The slogan back then was, “make love, not war.” Leftist radicalism was at the root of Oregon politics. That the left did not live up to the “love” part was always understood. Eugene, Oregon was also the sight of vandalism. The University of Oregon ROTC building was torched and vehicles at a car dealership were destroyed. Tree spikers risked the lives of loggers in order to stop logging. Still, it was a national problem.

Some groups were violent or threatened violence. Patty Hearst was kidnapped on February 4, 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). The next year, another domestic terror group, the Weather Underground, bombed a State Department Building. No one was killed, but the following year they perpetrated 25 bombings. The group was corralled by improved police work but lasted into the mid-‘80s when the last members of the group stopped the attacks, although some did not answer for their crimes for decades. The Revolutionary Black Panther Party carried guns and advocated for black nationalism and was perceived as a threat to order by the police of the day.

Since the 60’s, the sense of moral entitlement has been retained, but now violence from the Left has been directed at conservatives, the most recent of which has been Andy Ngo. By way of background, Ngo, an Asian American of slight build and pacific temperament, is conservative writer. He also happens to be gay. None of this is relevant to the issue of the crime committed against him except it bears on the motive for the hate crime perpetrators who caused him brain and other injuries. He was known to Antifa thugs and so it was not surprising when they spotted him during one of their controlled riots. In a recent Fox News interview, he stated that he was struck with a brick or other hard object and was dazed as a result. As he ambled off the scene, visibly shaken, he was continuously assaulted and humiliated by masked assailants.

Meanwhile police lined the street and did nothing to stop the assault. When Ngo, dazed and confused, was able to make his way to an officer away from the frothing demonstrators, he was told by the officer that he could get a ride in an ambulance, but only if he walked to the police station. Ngo was eventually evacuated to a hospital where he says he was diagnosed with bleeding in his brain and numerous cuts and abrasions caused by the pummeling he took, including, he thought, from milkshakes laden with cement. Throwing milkshakes on conservatives has been a recent method of protest by protesters in Great Britain.

The attack on Ngo was part of a wider unpermitted conflict labeled by the police as a “civil disorder,” thus defining the conflict below the status of riot. The Oregonian [July 2, 2019] described some of the Antifa violence that occurred in addition to that against Andy Ngo, as follows:

“Gage Halupowski, 24, of Portland, faces a second-degree assault allegation, accused of repeatedly using a baton to strike a man near Pioneer Square. Police said Halupowski also turned on a second man, Adam Kelly, who tried to help the man who was no the ground and bleeding. An officer watched Halupowski deliver a ‘full overhead swing that struck the top of Kelly’s head from behind’ and reported that the ‘sound of the blow was sickening,’ causing many in the crowd to collectively gasp, according to a probable cause affidavit. Kelly received more than 20 staples to close wounds to his head and suffered a concussion.”

Violence against Conservative supporters of President Trump has been a recurring tragedy. The Trump campaign and the Trump presidency have been subject to violence of one kind or another—everything from egg throwing to vandalism, to bodily threats, to political suppression by indifference.

Those who blame the president need to know that they will not succeed in their tactics. Attacks on free speech as has been seen at the University of California at Berkeley teach violence.

The same The Oregonian article also noted that “ . . . public safety advisor Robert King was telling reporters that police are directed to enforce all laws as they’re ‘able to’ and work to keep feuding demonstrators separated. Would they act the same if their salary was paid as the city was able? Would the city’s Mayor and Commissioners behave differently if they were paid as the city was able?

Recently, violence in this country was attributed to White Nationalist. Political violence is not justified in a Democracy. Judging by the City of Portland, violence is allowed. Violence will beget violence regardless of the inner political meaning intended by its sponsors.

Some have blamed President Trump for hostility and violence in America. Two recent gun attacks sparked sadness and outrage in the country. One in El Paso, Texas where twenty were recently reported killed and twenty-four wounded and Dayton, Ohio were nine dead and twenty-six wounded were also reported shocked the nation. The President denounced White Supremacy, although White Supremacists were not involved in both cases. The perpetrator in Dayton was said to have been a support of the left-wing Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. The El Paso shooter released a racist “manifesto” condemning Hispanics entering the United States which was, in his view, damaging to the environment. The Left seized on half the truth and blamed President Trump, which caused him to, once again, condemn White Nationalism. Most Americans have, by now, become used to the half-truths and lies propagated by the “fake news” media. They ignore Madonna having thoughts of threats of bombing the White House, Kathy Griffin holding a severed fake Donald Trump head, and many other vicious attacks on the President.

No president has ever had to endure the kinds of political attacks that President Trump has had to absorb. The highlight of these might include the false charge of collusion that has dogged his presidency since the beginning of this presidency. Based on no justifiable facts, nineteen Lawyers were assembled to provide a report to the Attorney General on Trump’s involvement. Th result of the investigation was a legal document known as the Mueller Report. It revealed no criminal guilt against the President, yet the nineteen Democrat lawyers writing the report were sure to insinuate there was proof of a kind, only if Congress continues to investigate the President. Even the lack of evidence does not stop the accusations. And in dogging the President, the President’s opponents have not only called him racist, misogynist, treasonous, and many other names, but maligned him and his family, including his children and wife, and anyone who touches him.

Not only that, but members of Congress and many others have encouraged their supporters to verbally assault the President, Cabinet supporters, and employees of the President in public places—anywhere they might be in order to attack the President. Yet they claim President Trump is the cause of internal conflict in America. The Big lie is always preferable to the Left and is reminiscent of Nazi claims against Jews.

Political violence in America is not new. The Civil War took 700,000 lives and claimed to make the point that violence is the answer to divisions in America. But the left in the 20th and 21st century has set the tone by directly assaulting Democracy. In America, there is no place for hate speech of any kind. From Andy Ngo to President Trump, the Left knows no bounds in their attack on Democracy. Small targets to big targets receive whatever treatment is necessary to discredit the Conservatism that created America and culminated in a Constitution that set the limits of government and defined personal freedoms. The Left assures us that their moral superiority is all that we need. The worst-case scenario for America is to allow complacency to replace the noble values our country has fought for over its history. The Leftward vision projects a one-party state run by elite bureaucrats and politicians who design governmental policy in backrooms based on secret manifestos of their own which are designed to remove individuality and decent from their decisions. In Congress, the left labels itself “the resistance.” The election of President Trump exposed the failures of the Left and revealed much more truth than they could have envisioned. Just the same, Americans must lawfully oppose in a long struggle the uncivilized barbarism of the hallucinating heads on the necks of left-wing agitators whose nihilistic bias is the enemy of America.

Posted on

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2019

Flag of the U.S.S.Constitution

A country is like a person. It is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Countries have a lifetime and display national characteristics by which they become defined. The French are romantic, the Italians are creative, The Germans are precise, Americans are extroverted and brash. Any sort of generalization is both correct and incorrect at the same time.

On the fourth of July, Americans celebrate themselves, the founding of their country, and their country’s achievements. Celebrations are good as they force the negative, combatively contentious personalities to rethink their nature, ideals, and history in the form a more complete view.

Now that the left has taken to criticizing Donald Trump for everything and anything, they have also seized on the extravaganza he is planning to celebrate the Fourth as a day for criticism of his plans for a more military inclusive demonstration than some of his predecessors. Conservatism Bittersweet will pass by their carping and whining, because it is more important to reflect on the meaning of American history than it is to acknowledge the irrational hate speech of a deranged opposition.

The United States was the first nation to establish a modern Republican form of government, the significance of which cannot be overstated. Providing a constructive mechanism for disagreement and debate allowed the country to adjust to historical changes as it grew and matured based on established principles of equality in discourse. The founding of the United States Constitution has been the country’s finest achievement. The one great failure was the Civil War. But even the great failure was turned into a triumph when the country defeated the Confederacy after choosing Abraham Lincoln, the finest president since George Washington. Slavery, an archaic legacy left by the English, was eliminated and opened the door to other changes to the countries oppressed minority. Thus, the greatest of the Constitutional achievement has been the ability to change over time—to adjust to the evolving problems.

Contrary to the Marxian, Socialist view, the future cannot be predicted. The future is like the weather and is the summation of forces too complex for even supercomputers to understand. What took humanity so long to evolve to this point of industrial and intellectual accomplishment? Partly it has been a matter of scale. There must be an underlying economic base to produce what the world has produced in its abundance. But it has also been the ability to achieve free thought and innovate based on that free thought, where others feared to go or could not imagine. Greatness does not come so much from overcoming fear as it comes from individuals acting fearlessly for the next great idea that moves the world. All democracies owe the United States for the precedent that allows them to achieve and grow. The top ten innovative countries in the world are all democracies. The United States is third in per capita patents in the world. We are the engine of successful world economies, and have been so for many years.

Among the great achievements of the United States, has been the reaper by Cyrus McCormick, innumerable inventions from Thomas Edison, and many other Industrial achievements by Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton, Samuel Morse, Elias Howe, and a long list of others who facilitated economic growth. That the United States grew into a mighty industrial and international power allowed it to defend itself and others against dictatorships and oppressors around the world. One thing leads to another for a country as for a person.

Social growth has been marked by many successes. Overcoming slavery and granting women’s suffrage broadened the countries world view. Providing a haven for masses of poor from oppressive or depressed countries from around the world has benefitted the growth and understating of Americans and made the point that there is value in people around the world who only need a haven to survive and succeed. America has been that umbrella for the world—a place of comfort, opportunity, and rest from malevolent oligarchy.

Nothing is more significant than the amount of wealth America has produced. Sometimes this concept is maligned as greed or selfishness. But economic wealth has allowed the country to defend itself against vicious foes who do not uphold basic human rights. It has allowed the country to develop life saving drugs, medical devices and procedures for the entire world. The nation’s wealth has fed the world when a part of it would otherwise have starved. For many, the United States has been the savior from oppression of the body, mind, and soul. From the very founding of the country, disparate peoples have been saved by American generosity, openness, and innovation founded on a powerful economic engine.

Perhaps one of America’s great strengths is to acknowledge its failures. Slavery, mistreatment of native peoples, and the exclusion of women from political decision making, reflected poorly on the country, though world conditions were no better. In contemplating our ideals of democracy and capitalism, we can look backward and see how our democracy has led the world in human and material advancement.

We can and should salute our flag proudly for what we have accomplished. We can look upon our beautiful land as a gift from God. It is a gift we must work and nurture, for nothing is certain except we shall be rewarded for doing what is right, just, and fair in a world where these values do not always survive or flourish. We also salute those of us who never made it. We salute the dead of our wars who fell on beaches and fields so that the rest of us could carry on in their name. They rest in peace on foreign lands as well as domestic, and in our memorial to them we pledge a better life for those who arrive in the future. Individually we remember the immortal words of an American who did what no human could ever do again by establishing our flag on the infinities of space, as we live our principles, both individually and collectively, for every day; we take “one step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”