Blake Williams, Gay American Patriot

Blake Williams was a close friend. He was Native American, conservative, and patriotic. As a religious man he always remembered the sabbath day and kept it holy.

This is not his obituary, but he recently passed away—suddenly, and unexpectedly—at the age of 59.

Blake was a famous New Mexico radio personality. He lived on a ranch with 10 pets and horses. When I last saw him for lunch he was driving an old pickup truck with cracked windshield and hay in the back. He wore a black cowboy hat, white canvas duster, jeans, boots, and toted a licensed, single-action revolver in an old-style  Mexican vacquero holster

Blake was gay. He was a man who had been with women, but preferred other men. He had been with one partner for 17 years when he died.

I point out his patriotic, pro-Trump background to maybe help dispell pre-conceptions or prejudiced thinking about “all gays.” Blake Williams was concerned about a perceived liberal tilt to all his gay brethren.

He said this of himself:

“Blake Williams was born and raised in a rural part the southwestern United States surrounded by cotton farms.  At 13 years old, he discovered the magic of radio broadcasting. 

“It’s been 45 years since beginning a life-long career in broadcasting which includes a year aboard the “pirate” station Radio Caroline off the coast of England in 1984….

“…Blake lives and works in a red part of the very blue state of New Mexico.”

Before Blake died he wrote me an email which I suggested he convert to an article and publish, which he did. I find it prophetically relevant to current day headlines, and compelling. It confirms to me that there are no monolithic voting blocs. That votes come from everywhere—from different philosophies, and ways of life. It makes me hope for sweeping conservative victories in November, and in 2020.

But, you must tell everyone what you read here. Vote for conservatives—and get others to vote for conservatives. This is a voting battle of Biblical import and consequence. This in fact may be one of the last great political battles between good and evil on Earth.

Blake would vote for the conservatives. I know because he told me.

Here’s Blake Williams’ article:


WHEN OBAMA WON I DIDN’T BREAK AND BURN THINGS

By Blake Williams, November 11, 2016

You know what?

I was incredibly depressed on election day.  I was pretty sure Clinton was going to win and our country was going to finally be over.  The Constitution would have a match put to it, and Hillary would have completed what Obama started as far as the “transformation of America”.  In four years no one would be able to recognize the land of liberty.

In four years the first and second amendment would have been “modified” to the point of being pointless.  Our taxes were certain to have been raised.  Obamas’ refugees would be overflowing in our streets (not that they aren’t already).  Police officers would have to hire politically correct protection.  Our military would continue to be diminished.  Political correctness would replace common sense completely.

But this didn’t happen.  Enough of us who have had enough of Obama came out and took to the polls.

I will tell you; I almost felt like breaking and burning stuff when Obama was elected and then re-elected.  I felt like rioting when Obama Care was passed without any representation from ANYONE on the right.  I bit my lip.

But, I did not go out and break other people’s things and burn their property.  Why?  Well, a long time ago it was instilled into me that it was wrong to do these things.  I feel it’s wrong to do these things even today.

We do not riot. We do not “protest.”

I have a pretty good idea where these “folks” are getting their marching orders from. And it’s not the U.S. Constitution.

One thing that really disappoints me is the lack of response from Obama.  As President of the United States he should take to TV and explain to these people that this is wrong.  He should explain how the rioting is only hurting innocent people and how it also hurts those who are acting like a bunch of nut-cases in the streets.  Nothing good will come of it.

Other people—-like me, or you—-we will therefore not listen to the arguments of these “activists” with compassion or care.  All that this sort of violent activity is accomplishing is angering people like us. It confirms to us that our decision to elect President Elect Trump was the right decision.

The hell of it is, that all this violence and intolerance’s is EXACTLY what the rioters are supposedly protesting against!

If Obama were a character on Star Trek, I can hear him say “Damn it Jim, I’m a Community Organizer, not the President!!!!”

Beam me up Scotty.

.

Forum: What’s Your Reaction to Mueller’s Indictment?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:What’s Your Reaction to Mueller’s Indictment?

Don Surber
: Indicting Mueller could not come soon enough.

All joking aside, this latest batch of indictments — timed to draw attention away from the president’s trip to Britain and Peter Strzok’s bizarre behavior before Congress — are useless. None of those indicted will be extradited, thus Mueller can make whatever wild and baseless charges he wants and have the press parrot his unbelievable tales and outright lies.

The DNC computer was not hacked. It was leaked. An insider leaked it. After the leak became public, the DNC immediately purged its staff of potential leakers, including Seth Rich who was murdered days later.

Mueller is an abusive coward who should have been fired after the botched anthrax investigation. He went after the wrong man for 5 1/2 years and we had to pay the victim of his vendetta $5.8 million to settle litigation. President Bush failed America by not firing Mueller. Now President Trump must take out this trash.

Federal judges need to rein in prosecutors.

Rob Miller: As I watched the video of Rothenstein reading the so-called Mueller indictment, I started laughing uncontrollably, I really did! There’s nothing in here that’s remotely indictable. Russia and the U.S. don’t even have an extradition treaty. And even if we did, all foreign intel agencies spy on each other’s computers, including, of course, the good ol’ USA. Putin isn’t going to turn over any of his highly trained intel agents to us any more than we would turn ours over to him.

Anyone interested in exactly how ridiculously funny this ‘indictment’ is ought to read my parsing of this nonsense here. Of course, we also know that finally, Mueller has admitted that that no Trump campaign associates were involved in the hacking effort, that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign or that any Americans were knowingly in touch with the Russians. And he also had to admit that no vote tallies were altered by the alleged ‘hacking.’

And by the way, in order to prove hacking Mueller’s corrupt team would have had to examine the servers. But those were all wiped clean or destroyed a long time ago while the Famous But Incompetent stood by and did nothing, remember?

Whatever hacking took place involved classified intel Hillary’s illegal unprotected bathroom server and on her chief aide Huma Abedin’s laptop, the one she shared with Anthony Weiner. The DNC was released by a leaker, and to Julian Assange who made most of the WikiLeaks on the DNC public his source was not the Russians but someone inside the Clinton campaign. This was almost certainly Bernie supporter Seth Richards, who was murdered in what police branded as a robbery attempt…even though the body had $5,000 in cash and jewellery on it when it was found. The NYC cops confiscated his laptop as evidence and are still holding it, unless they destroyed it clandestinely. Since Julian Assange offered a $100k reward for info leading to the capture of Rich’s murderer, it’s implausible that Seth Rich wasn’t involved in the leaks in some fashion.

OK, so we now know that there never was any evidence of Trump’s collusion with the Russians. But we also know that a Democrat president misused the FISA apparatus and weaponized the FBI to illegally spy on an opposition candidate during a presidential campaign. That we know for a fact.

For me, that’s far more serious than Russian intel agents doing what intel agents from all countries including ours do, especially when a secretary of state commits felonies by having classified documents on an unprotected server in a bathroom, and on a laptop owned by her chief aide and her wacko husband. And the hypocrisy is compounded by the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama illegally intervened in several elections directly…the UK, Israel and Nigeria among others.

For me, the unfunny part of this is that is was timed to poison a badly needed summit conference between President Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. President Trump himself has remarked about how this idiocy has made any agreement s between America and Russia difficult. We have common interests with Russia to be worked out, especially now that Putin is realizing that Russia can’t control the Iranians any more.

Scott Kirwin
:I agree with Don.

As for my interest in the indictments themselves I’ll quote the illustrious George S. Kaufmann:

” Mr. Fisher, on Mount Wilson there is a telescope that can magnify the most distant stars to twenty-four times the magnification of any previous telescope. This remarkable instrument was unsurpassed in the world of astronomy until the development and construction of the Mount Palomar telescope.

“The Mount Palomar telescope is an even more remarkable instrument of magnification. Owing to advances and improvements in optical technology, it is capable of magnifying the stars to four times the magnification and resolution of the Mount Wilson telescope.”

” Mr. Fisher, if you could somehow put the Mount Wilson telescope inside the Mount Palomar telescope, you still wouldn’t be able to see my interest in your problem.”

Fausta Rodriquez Wertz:More kabuki


Patrick O’Hannigan
:The Mueller indictments look a lot like a nothingburger. Twelve Russian intelligence officers, none of which will ever be convicted of anything in an American court, and note, please, that every computer system they either hacked or supervised the hacking of was in the possession of Democrats. The Mueller indictments prove that Trump was right about the whole Mueller investigation being a witch hunt aimed squarely at him.

After almost two years in the headlines, trying to gin up support for overthrowing the electoral will of the American people, Mueller had to indict at least the proverbial ham sandwich to justify all the money he’s spent. Meanwhile, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is not yet in jail for handing Democrat servers and email accounts over to IT experts from Pakistan (Were they “doing jobs Americans won’t do”?). Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of the money laundering and obstruction of justice charges that she so richly deserves. James Comey still plays “holier than thou” on a book tour. And the FBI’s executive leadership continues to disgrace itself.

Dave Schuler:The most recent indictments, of a dozen Russian intelligence officers, actually contained two interesting points. First, to the best of my knowledge it’s the first official claim that the DNC was actually hacked by the Russian government. That’s actually a pretty important disclosure.

Second, there is still no evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

As I have said repeatedly over at my place, I’m content to let the Mueller investigation play out. And I think that just about everybody will be disappointed by its outcome. President Trump and his campaign won’t be exonerated outright; he also won’t be impeached as a consequence of the investigation’s findings.


Laura Rambeau Lee
:The Mueller indictment insults the intelligence of we smelly, Walmart-shopping hillbilly deplorables. In an interview on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business, Rep. Devin Nunes stated the House Intelligence Committee released this information in March, only to be mocked by the Democrats and the media. There was even more information in the committee report than in the Mueller indictment. Rep. Nunes stated they essentially wrote this indictment for the Mueller team.

The longer this investigation goes on the more it becomes clear what a waste of time and money has been spent by Mueller and his team. Whatever Russian interference occurred had little impact on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. And after nearly two years there is no evidence anyone connected with the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the election, which was the whole reason for the appointment of a Special Counsel investigation.

These indictments of Russian intelligence officers will go nowhere. And we know we will never discover the truth with these circuses like we saw last week with Peter Strzok. President Trump must instruct the DOJ to declassify documents related to the Russia investigation so that Americans can see the House report in its entirety without redaction.Most importantly we need to know if our counter intelligence agencies were utilized by the Obama Administration to obtain questionably legitimate FISA warrants to spy on individuals in the Trump campaign. This is supposed to be provided by the DOJ to the committee by July 31st. And so we continue to wait.

Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

Forum: What’s Your Reaction to the FBI IG Report?

Every Monday, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question:What’s Your Reaction to the FBI IG Report?

Bookworm Room: The report seems like a proper, and rather ironic, companion piece to Comey’s July 5, 2016 press conference. Back then, Comey laid out facts that ought to have sent Hillary to prison for 100 years. Just as we were all expecting him to say, “So we’re going to arrest her,” though, he abruptly announced a nonexistent legal standard, assured us that Hillary didn’t mean to do something naughty under this new standard, and gave her a get out of jail free.

The IG report does the same. Horowitz blandly dismisses any FBI actual wrongdoing affecting the outcome of the Hillary investigation, but lays out facts that ought to send all of the FBI’s upper management for 100 years. The only exception to that bland dismissal on those ugly facts is . . . Comey. There’s irony for you.

I find delusional the IG’s definition of “bias.” Here’s the way it goes if you’re a lawyer, sizing up a jury: Everyone has biases, or filters, filters through which he or she views the world. In many situations, biases are are acceptable. For example, the fact that you are fond of cops because your dad was a cop is a fairly irrelevant matter in most areas of life. You might like donuts more than the next person, or follow a police-friendly feed on Twitter, but your preference (or bias or filter) does not affect justice or safety or honor. However, if you’re being sized up for a jury in a DUI case, and the defense is police malfeasance, your strong fondness for cops is an unacceptable bias. The defense attorney will act strenuously to ensure that you’re not on the jury.

Likewise, if you’re an FBI agent who loathes Trumps and loves Hillary, but your beat is organized crime in North Dakota, your political preferences in the run-up and follow-up to the 2016 election are irrelevant. However, if you have those same biases and you’re working on either the Hillary or the Trump investigation, those biases should presumptively disqualify you, in the same way that the cop lover shouldn’t be a jury on a case that has as its central issue police behavior.

Once Horowitz identified the blazing, oozing contempt that animated top FBI officials on the Hillary and Trump cases, that should have been game over. Just as Comey overreached by imputing a lack of intent to Hillary, so did Horowitz overreach by stating that, manifest bias notwithstanding, it was still possible that this bias did not affect the FBI agents’ behavior. It was not Horowitz’s responsibility to speculate about the effect of the bias. It was enough that the bias was there and that the FBI not only didn’t bar these agents from working the cases, it encouraged them. (And yes, I’m perfectly aware that the facts Horowitz adduced showed that the Fibbies repeatedly acted on their bias, all to Hillary’s benefit. I’m just challenging Horowitz’s own standards, rather than making a whole argument about his erroneous conclusions.)

I applaud Horowitz for honestly reporting the facts; I consider him a coward and a failure for refusing to reach the obvious conclusion to be derived from those facts: the Clinton investigation was completely, irreparably, and possibly criminally compromised by agents whose biases went to the heart of the case.

Patrick O’Hannigan: I agree with Bookworm’s answer to this question. Another thing that strikes me about the Inspector General’s report (which I’ve only read summaries of) is that IG Horowitz seems to have left his office some wiggle room, and his presumably careful word usage has so far gone unremarked. What I mean is that the conclusion that media outlets have been pegging their report stories to, namely, that there was allegedly “no political bias” in the FBI’s conduct in the run-up to and aftermath of the 2016 election, isn’t just a denial of the obvious; it’s also an evasion of Clintonian proportions, and the kind of thing that Barack Obama would have introduced by saying “let me be clear…”

If you fixate on that “no political bias” conclusion like a kitten chasing the red dot made by a laser pointer, you forget that senior FBI officials had other investigatory handicaps. That’s why the Inspector General’s report runs more than 500 pages. You don’t need “political bias” against Republicans to fuel talk of double standards. The players whose names have become tiresomely familiar to anyone following national news all had the functional equivalent of political bias. They suffered from personal animus against Donald Trump, or deranged hatred of the man and blistering contempt for the people who voted him into office.

In other words, the IG report makes it too easy to trip over that adjective, “political.” Hillary Clinton would have whined just as much about losing to Carly Fiorina or Ted Cruz as she has about losing to Donald Trump. and the upper echelons of the FBI would still have been populated by craven hacks willing to do her bidding, and people who think that Eric Holder and Barack Obama were right to weaponize the Justice Department against their ideological opponents. But there are other kinds of biases in play. too.

Rob Miller: It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves. The IG report struck me with its similarity to James Comey’s whitewash of Mrs. Clinton. ‘Mistakes were made, policy was violated but no evidence of political bias.’

Horse manure, when you have dozens of agents receiving gifts and incentives on the side from reporters to leak info that was designed to hurt the Trump Administration, when Comey and his wife were linked to Hillary financially. And sheer coverup when a FISA warrant was obtained under false pretenses to spy on an opposition campaign during an election year.

This was an attack on a sitting duly elected president.

With all respect to my esteemed colleagues, while I could be wrong I doubt Jeff Session is going to do diddley squat with this report. That’s exactly why he and Rod Rosenstein need to be fired forthwith and a new attorney general hired who will hire a special prosecutor to investigate Mueller’s bogus investigation, the many felonies Hillary Clinton committed as Secretary of State and FBI collusion in the cover up and in attempting to bring down President Trump.

Of, course, this all leads back to Barack Hussein Obama. He’s the only one who could have orchestrated this and given the orders to follow through. Since he’s no longer president, he is chargeable and indictable if evidence arises of his part in it from say, Loretta Lynch or others who can be squeezed to drop a dime on BO in exchange for not doing hard time in a federal penitentiary. Trump might choose to pardon him if he’s found guilty, but the truth would be out at least and his ‘legacy’ would be revealed for what it is as well. Yes, simply trying him would likely cause some civil unrest, but there’s a time tested and efficient remedy for that too, if necessary.

Famous But Incompetent started out as a fairly sleazy and corrupt home for chair warmers benefiting from political patronage. Then J. Edgar Hoover took over and changed it into an incorruptible entity feared by wrongdoers and noted for its dogged efficiency and success in its mission. If I  were the president, I’d seriously consider putting together a new organization for the FBI’s mission, disbanding Famous But Incompetent,  getting rid of the corrupt agents and other deadwood ASAP while keeping the agents with integrity… and finding another Hoover to run it.

If these swine are allowed to get away with this, we might as well not have a republic or even any laws anymore.

Dave Schuler: I thought this was the most significant passage in the IG’s report:

Comey’s description of his choice as being between “two doors,” one labeled “speak” and one labeled “conceal,” was a false dichotomy. The two doors were actually labeled “follow policy/practice” and “depart from policy/practice.” Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment.

Following policy should be a shield from accusations of wrongdoing. Contrariwise, departing from policy is damning. The obvious conclusion is that Trump was right to fire Comey.

As John Kass pointed out in a recent column the “lack of political bias” finding is persiflage. If Comey and the other FBI officials who violated policy were doing so to protect the FBI, they failed miserably, accomplishing exactly the opposite of the presumed objective.

A more reasonable inference is that they were acting, not to protect Hillary Clinton, but to protect Obama. Since Obama clearly knew about Hillary Clinton’s pirate email server and lied about it, you couldn’t recommend Hillary Clinton to a grand jury without accusing Obama as well. Protecting the president by violating established policy is political bias.

Laura Rambeau Lee: What the FBI IG report told us was that what most reasonable people might consider to be political bias was determined to be a serious error of judgment but in no way affected the outcome of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton investigation… I mean “matter”. The IG report confirmed the political bias of FBI employees at the highest levels in the agency through their texts and emails, particularly FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok who steered both the Clinton email matter and the Trump-Russia investigation. And when it became clear that Trump would be the Republican candidate running against Hillary Clinton, Strzok sought to quickly wrap up the Clinton matter so they could invent and pursue a case against Trump to make sure that he would not be elected or that they would have a case for impeachment if he were to be elected.

The IG report does nothing to settle this matter in the eyes of most reasonable people. We know these two investigations have not received equal treatment under the law. We know the political biases of the investigators guided their actions, decisions, and judgment in both investigations. We know this because although the IG report deemed no political bias influenced the Hillary investigation, FBI Director Christopher Wray ordered anti political bias training for agents working in the FBI.

Don Surber: A reader who is a corporate compliance officer read the IG report with different eyes. He believes Horowitz did exactly what needed to be done. He gave his boss, Sessions, the facts and the tools to make his own decision about the FBI. Sessions has already selected John Huber of Utah to decide whether there should be prosecutions.

We shall see.

Well, there it is!

Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.

Obama’s Marxist predestination v. Trump’s free will future

The video that Trump showed to Kim Jong Un is a direct challenge to Obama’s Marxist predestination; it promises the triumph of great men with free will.

President Obama always had a lot to say about history. More specifically, he had a lot to say about future history.

As Obama made repeatedly clear, he believed that has a “right” side that will inevitably unfold if the world implements Obama’s policies. History also has a “wrong” side, which means doing anything counter to President Obama’s beliefs about how the world should be run. I won’t bore you with his “wrong” side critiques, but I find it quite instructive to see assembled in one place all his “right side of history” statements he made during his presidency:

  • Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.” The President’s News Conference, June 23, 2009 (remarks about those who died in Iran protesting the mullahs, a protest Obama refused to support).
  • I think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt, that we were on the right side of history.” The President’s News Conference, February 15, 2011 (speaking of the Obama administration’s support for the radically Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, a political leadership so vile that millions of Egyptians later turned out to overthrow it).
  • Those around him have to understand that violence that they perpetrate against innocent civilians will be monitored and they will be held accountable for it. And so to the extent that they are making calculations in their own minds about which way history is moving, they should know history is moving against Colonel Qadhafi and that their support for him and their willingness to carry out orders that are direct violence against citizens is something that ultimately they will be held accountable for.” The President’s News Conference With President Felipe de Jesus Calderon Hinojosa of Mexico, March 3, 2011 (justifying his decision to betray an ally — admittedly an ugly ally, but still an ally — during the Iraq War).
  • And I think that the region [the Arab Middle East] will be watching carefully to make sure we’re on the right side of history, but also that we are doing so as a member of the world community and being willing to act on behalf of these values, but doing so in a way that takes all the various equities into account.” The President’s News Conference With President Felipe de Jesus Calderon Hinojosa of Mexico, March 3, 2011 (justifying, again, the decision to throw American weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood).
  • And whether it’s helping the people of Haiti or it’s helping the people of Japan, whether it is being on the right side of history in the Middle East and North Africa or making sure that innocents who are seeking their freedom aren’t slaughtered by tyranny, what we’ve been able to do is to once again form the kind of American leadership that brings people together, as opposed to drives them apart, and that renews old alliances and creates new coalitions.” Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in New York City, March 29, 2011 (justifying yet once more his decision to throw America’s weight behind the Islamists during the Arab Spring).
  • That’s why we’re on the right side of history now throughout the Middle East, because we believe in preventing innocents from getting slaughtered, and we believe in human rights for all people.” Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser in Chicago, April 14, 2011 (Obama seems to be getting a tad defensive about allying himself with the Islamists).
  • And as Clay has said, nothing is going to stop us from getting this done, because we’re on the right side of history. It is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our economy, our businesses, and our families.” Remarks at Temple Emanu-El in Dallas, Texas, November 6, 2013 (after the disastrous Obamacare launch, trying to get people to sign up).
  • But we’re on the right side of history on that issue.” Remarks at a Democratic National Committee Reception in San Jose, California, May 8, 2014 (expressing befuddlement at people who don’t like Obamacare).
  • We’re on the right side of history.” Remarks on Signing an Executive Order on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Employment Discrimination, July 21, 2014.
  • What gives me confidence is that we’re on the right side of history here.” Remarks at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Fundraiser in Baltimore, Maryland, September 12, 2014 (commenting about the fight against ISIS, a fight, incidentally, that he barely waged for, as he later told Americans, it was enough to contain it. Trump, of course, thought it was enough to destroy it completely).
  • We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth. And we call upon others to join us on the right side of history.” Remarks to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, September 24, 2014 (offering bold criticisms about Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, a situation about which Obama ultimately did . . . nothing).
  • America is leading the effort to rally the world against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Along with our allies, we will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy. And this week, I called upon even more nations to join us on the right side of history.” The President’s Weekly Address, September 27, 2014 (see comment above).
  • My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history.” Address to the Nation on United States Counterterrorism Strategy, December 6, 2015 (speaking about counterterrorism efforts after the San Bernardino attack — efforts that expressly included refraining from conflating Islam with terrorism, while conceding delicately that a subsection of Muslims are not nice people).
  • If we don’t do what’s required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course—the right side of history and of justice and our best American traditions—was clear.” Remarks on Closing the Detention Facilities at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, February 23, 2016.
  • And so it’s important for the U.S. President—and the U.S. Government—to be able to work with people who are building and who are creating things and creating jobs and trying to solve major problems like climate change and setting up educational exchanges for young people who are going to create the next new, great invention or scientific breakthrough that can cure diseases. We have to make sure that we lift up, and stay focused, as well, on the things that are most important to us. Because we’re on the right side of history.” The President’s News Conference With President Mauricio Macri of Argentina in Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 23, 2016.
  • By the way, what’s happening with respect to her position on refugees here in Europe, she is on the right side of history on this.” The President’s News Conference With Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in Hannover, Germany, April 24, 2016 (proving to his own satisfaction that Merkel was right to open Europe’s gates to millions of Muslims, a policy that has not turned out well, both because it turned the 1683 Battle of Vienna to save Europe from Islamic imperialism into a delayed defeat and it led to a populist uprising that horrifies Obama and his fellow ideologues).
  • You will never be strong enough to destroy America or our way of life. You are going to lose. But part of that is because we’re on the right side of history, and part of it is because we can mobilize others to work with us.” Commencement Address at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, June 2, 2016 (applauding his ineffective anti-ISIS policy).
  • In every position he held, Ab’s integrity and wisdom consistently put him on the right side of history, from fighting against prejudice and discrimination and for free speech and civil liberties. He reformed Illinois’s criminal code, defended consumers’ rights, and although his decision striking down the ban on gay Americans serving in our military was overturned, history proved him right.” Statement on the Death of Former White House Counsel Abner J. Mikva, July 5, 2016.
  • Standing here now, in retrospect, I think what I can say is that the United States was on the right side of history when it came to the cold war.” The President’s News Conference in Vientiane, Laos, September 8, 2016 (Finally! Something about which Obama and I can agree, although he seems strangely disappointed in being forced to make that statement).

It’s easy to lead from behind if you already know where the parade is going to end.

As with all things Obama, there’s nothing original in his “right side of history” idea. It’s simply a shorthand for Marxist historical predetermination. If you believe in Marxist theory and act accordingly, history is already written, with the winners (the proletariat and their wise leaders) and the losers (anyone who gets in the winners’ way on this march to predestined future history). Murray Rothbard explains:

Thus, to be moral means to be “progressive,” to be in tune with the inevitable future workings of the laws of history, whereas the harshest condemnation is reserved for those who are “reactionary,” who dare to obstruct, even with partial success, such allegedly predestined turns of events. Thus Marxists are particularly vehement in denouncing revolutionary moments in which the existing rule of “progressives” is replaced by “reactionaries,” and the clock is, miraculously, in the metaphor of historicist inevitability, “turned back.” For example: the Franco revolution against the Spanish republic, and Pinochet’s overthrow of Allende in Chile.

But if a certain change is truly inevitable, why is it important for human agency to lend a hand, indeed to struggle mightily on its behalf? Here we turn to the critical matter of timing. While a change may be inevitable, the intervention of man can and will speed up this most desired of happenings. Man can function, in one of Marx’s favorite obstetrical metaphors, as a “midwife” of history. [Footnote omitted.] Man’s intervention could give the inevitable a helpful push.

Obama couldn’t have put it better himself. Marxist historic predestination holds that the world is moving in an inevitable direction that will see pure Marxism dominate. Still, it helps to have a midwife and Obama saw himself in that role. As he understood things, when future history is finally written, historians will say that Obama, with his exquisite understanding of Marxist dynamics, midwifed this inevitable future into being. In other words, the Marxist baby was always going to be born, with Obama’s greatness lying in the fact that he took rigorous steps to ensure a swift, safe birth.

Thankfully, Obama is no longer president. In his rush to be on “the right side of history,” he committed a variety of political sins, including but not limited to:

  • Paying off tyrants in Iran and Cuba;
  • Abandoning America’s allies in freedom, whether in Israel or the streets of Tehran during the Green Revolution (and all points in between);
  • Slowly strangling the U.S. economy; devastated American healthcare;
  • Attempting to destroy U.S. sovereignty by opening the borders to swell the ranks of Democrat party voters;
  • Inflaming racial divisions that were steadily dying a natural death;
  • Relentlessly attacking our inherent rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights;
  • Refusing to fight Islamism, which is an existential threat to the free world; and
  • Corrupting our civil service (or, perhaps, just completed its corruption).

Obama’s acts may have been “right” for Marxist predestination, but they were a lousy deal for the American people and for liberty-loving people around the globe.

Now that Obama (thankfully) has finally become part of the history he kept anticipating, it’s reasonable to ask why I’m bringing him up in this post and, moreover, doing so at such great length. The answer is that the video that President Trump showed Kim Jong Un reveals that our past and our current president could not be more different in their understanding of their role and of history.

To reiterate, Obama sees history as already written (predestined), with his sole job being to accelerate the inevitable. And then there’s Trump. President Trump sees the future as unwritten. There are myriad paths the world can take and it behooves the bold and creative leader to take a path most likely to result, not in an inevitable outcome, but in the best possible outcome. This is the triumph of individual free will over Marxist predestination. People matter. They’re not just mindless cogs driven by Marx’s fatally flawed economic understanding.

Watch and see:

Here’s the transcript:

Seven billion people inhabit planet Earth. Of those alive today, only a small number will leave a lasting impact. And only the very few will make decisions or take actions that renew their homeland and change the course of history.

History may appear to repeat itself for generations, cycles that never seem to end. There have been times of relative peace, and times of great tension. While this cycle repeats, the light of prosperity and innovation has burned bright for most of the world.

History is always evolving, and there comes a time when only a few are called upon to make a difference. But the question is, what difference will the few make?

The past doesn’t have to be the future. Out of the darkness can come the light. And the light of hope can burn bright.

What if, a people that share a common and rich heritage, can find a common future? Their story is well known, but what will be their sequel?

Destiny Pictures presents a story of opportunity. A new story, a new beginning. One of peace. Two men, two leaders, one destiny.

A story about a special moment in time, when a man is presented with one chance that may never be repeated. What will he choose? To show vision and leadership? Or not?

There can only be two results: one of moving back, or one of moving forward. A new world can begin today. One of friendship, respect, and goodwill.

Be part of that world, where the doors of opportunity are ready to be opened, investment from around the world, where you can have medical breakthroughs, an abundance of resources, innovative technology, and new discoveries.

What if?

Can history be changed? Will the world embrace this change? And when can this moment in history begin?

It comes down to a choice. On this day. In this time. At this moment.

The world will be watching, listening, anticipating, hoping. Will this leader choose to advance his country and be part of a new world? Be the hero of his people? Will he shake the hand of peace and enjoy prosperity like he has never seen?

A great life? Or more isolation? Which path will be chosen?

Featuring President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, in a meeting to remake history. To shine in the sun.

One moment, one choice, what if?

The future remains to be written.

Those references to “history” in a video that Trump certainly approved and perhaps helped write reveal the opposite of Marxist predeterminism, which sees a “great man” defined merely as the one who speeds the inevitable. Instead, Trump’s video articulates the “great man” theory of history in a free world. This approach holds that history is something we see in the rear view mirror, not something we predict and, indeed, write in advance. Instead, free people make choices as we stand the millions of crossroads throughout our lives.

The more powerful the people making these choices, the greater their ability to effect changes that will be historically noteworthy. We act in the present; we hope that the future looks back on these acts with approval.

Trump is offering Kim Jong Un, a man steeped in Marxism yet raised in the West, the opportunity to get off a dead-end Marxist historic predestination treadmill and, instead, to create something entirely new and unanticipated. He’s saying to Kim, “Don’t just strut like a great man; BE a great man.”

We are at a very exciting time in the world in large part because Trump, unlike the Leftists who helmed American from 1993 through 2000 and from 2009 through 2016, understands that real change comes from seizing the moment, rather than using a script drawn from history books that have yet to be written.

I can think of two ways to end this post, so I’ll do both. The first way to end this post is to suggest that you view Scott Adams 18-minute-long video raving about how brilliantly persuasive the Trump summit video is. I agree — and I would add only that part of the persuasion is that Trump has abandoned stale, failed Marxist predestination in favor of the exciting possibilities inherent in the free will, great man school of history:

The second ending is a poem that I learned in fifth grade and have never forgotten, Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken. Obama, constrained by his Marxist vision of a predestined future, could not take any but predestined roads. Trump, notwithstanding all the advice given him by experts steeped in the same rut of historic predestination, took a different road, and that may make all the difference:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

“What did the president know and when did he know it?”

Will a famous quotation from the Watergate hearings about presidential involvement in a scandal come back to haunt former President Barack “Nixon” Obama?

If you were around during the Watergate hearings, even if you were a disinterested child, as I was, there was one question you simply could not avoid. Sen. Howard Baker’s simply phrased focus on Richard Nixon’s role in Watergate resonated loud and strong throughout America: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

The question today is “What did President Obama know and when did he know it?”

This morning, Former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer sent out a tweet reminding Americans that, when the press was still denying spying (rather than admitting to it but arguing that it was for Trump’s own good), they didn’t yet see any reason to hide Peter Strzok’s admission about Obama’s involvement:

To clarify what he meant in the above tweet, Fleischer referenced one of his tweets from yesterday:

It’s difficult to imagine that “the White House [was] running” the trumped-up Trump counter-intelligence investigation without Obama’s knowledge. It’s possible the investigation was a rogue activity (or a Ben Rhodes activity), but I’d say that possible is not the same as probable.