Wednesday, December 9, 2015

So Trump wants to restrict Muslims... What's that you say? Obama wants to restrict Christians...tsk, tsk, shame on him!

The Trump Comment Trumps All Naysayers
By Norman E. Hooben

This from CNN: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."
CNN continued with their negative slant towards Mr. Trump and even quoted the White House’s adverse opinion:
Obama administration condemns proposal:Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes reacted to Trump's call Monday on CNN, calling it "totally contrary to our values as Americans" and pointed to the Bill of Rights' protection of freedom of religion and pointing to the "extraordinary contributions" Muslim Americans have made to the U.S.
So let’s stop right there (you know that I could go on with all the other high profile candidates running for the presidency and their not-so-thought-out comments…and yes, this includes Hillary Clinton, Karly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and all the rest) for Obama’s (dba Ben Rhodes) comments are simply not true.  What does Obama mean by ‘contrary to our values as Americans” and "extraordinary contributions" Muslims have made to the U.S.?  Name one, Obama, name just one positive contribution Muslims have made to America. 

So all the know-it-alls running around the news media trouncing Donald Trump for something he said he was going to do with the Muslim problem in America…and it is a huge problem.  And then there’s Obama using Trump’s idea to prevent Christians from entering the country.  The last I knew, I never heard of any Christians blowing up buildings, shooting and beheading people all over the world.  The Muslims…yes, they’re the problem.

Now if I may borrow the opening paragraph from s’ January 7, 2015 editorial, “No room in America for Christian refugees”:
‘At the end of World War II, the Jewish survivors of Europe’s Holocaust found that nearly every door was closed to them. “Tell Me Where Can I Go?”, was a popular Yiddish song at the time. Decades later, the Christians of the Middle East face the same problem, and the Obama administration are keeping the door shut.’ 

From the outside looking in, it appears Obama and most of the main stream media don’t give a damn about Christians*, but let’s stick to the refugee situation and all the negativity towards Trump.  Will all the naysayers (Trump haters) apologize if they found out that whoever the President is, whether it is Obama or Trump, that the president has the authority to restrict the entry of any class into the country that would be detrimental to American interests?  I dare say that Obama uses this authority just the opposite of what the intent of the law… Wait!  Did I say, “Law”?  Is there a law that covers this controversy?  You bet!
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
Not that it matters to the un-informed naysayers but this law has been around since 1952 and it was signed into law by, you guessed it, a Democrat, Harry S Truman.
Note: This commentary is in no way whatsoever an endorsement of Donald Trump for President…I'm just trying to set the record straight.


Tuesday, December 8, 2015

The China Take-Over ~ the Chinese have become the top foreign buyers of US houses and apartments

Source: Asia Times
Wealthy Chinese snapping up US commercial property
By Asia Unhedged on December 8, 2015
For those of you hiding under a rock the past few years, wealthy Chinese investors have been ramping up their purchases of US real estate, reported the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

After a five-year spending spree, the Chinese have knocked the Canadians from first place to become the top foreign buyers of US houses and apartments for the 12 months to March, according to the National Association of Realtors.
In the wake of China’s summer’s stock market crash, the devaluing of the nation’s currency and with a slowing economy, wealthy Chinese have been moving more money out of China and into US property to get a bigger bang for their buck.
Prior to the summer the big worry of wealthy Chinese was the fear that the government would probe their holdings, but now they worry about the authorities undercutting the value of their money with more devaluations or letting inflation run rampant.

New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
Investors have been aggressive buyers of commercial property. Earlier this year, a Chinese insurer spent a record price for a US hotel buying New York’s Waldorf-Astoria hotel for $1.95 billion. In addition to big name properties, the Chinese are looking at unlikely investments such as small office buildings, chain hotels and other nondescript properties in and around big US cities, seizing an opportunity to place greater sums of money outside government reach, reported the Wall Street Journal.
“It isn’t just about finding yield, but about parking their capital,” Joshua Zegen, co-founder at New York-based Madison Realty Capital told the WSJ.
The paper reports that over the past couple of years, Chinese investors have acquired a strip mall near Long Beach, Calif., a Marriott hotel near Los Angeles International Airport and a waterfront office building on New York’s Staten Island, helped fund at least two big condo projects in Westchester County and purchased large swaths of property in the Queens, N.Y., neighborhood of Elmhurst.
Wealthy individual investors have long ignored Beijing’s rules limiting the amount of money allowed to exit the country by sending capital to the US. through family and friends, wealth advisers and private bankers say.
And on Monday it was reported that China’s foreign-exchange reserves in November fell to their lowest point in two year, fueling concerns about Beijing’s ability to stem capital outflows.
In an effort to stem the tide of cash flowing out of the county, Beijing tightened control over foreign-exchange transactions in September. Yet, this could lead to the opposite effect and force the ultra wealthy to pull even more money out of China, Katie Kao, a New York real-estate broker, told WSJ.
“They want to move faster and make more investments in the US,” said Kao, who is also a founding president of the Asian Real Estate Association of America’s New York east chapter.
As for getting a total on how much U.S. commercial real estate the Chinese actually own. That’s made difficult because many make the transactions through private companies or through a local partner.
...and if you're not worried about China, you should be listening to this ↓, not your politicians!

Hey Joe...careful what you say...a rant like that could get you elected President (regarding Joe Walsh's firestorm remarks to Atty Gen Loretta Lynch)

The following from: Truth Revolt
AG Lynch Walks Back Remarks on Anti-Muslim Hate Speech: I Meant 'Deeds, Not Words'
So, back to freedom of speech then?
By Trey Sanchez
Monday morning, Attorney General Loretta Lynch found herself needing to backtrack on her comments last week that seemed to imply that the Department of Justice will come after anyone speaking disparagingly to Muslims.

"Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words," Lynch said at a press conference.

Last week, the attorney general was speaking to a group called Muslim Advocates in Arlington, Virginia, days after the California attack. (Yes, she met with Muslims to console them, not the victims of an Islamic attack.) She complained that the First Amendment allows people to say hateful things and noted that many do so from the safety of their computer keyboard. It's something, she said, the DOJ would "take action" against, especially when that speech "edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift...that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric."

This set off a firestorm from conservatives who saw her statement as a direct threat to free speech. One of the most vocal reactions came from former U.S. congressman and radio personality Joe Walsh who addressed Lynch directly for being more concerned about Muslim backlash after the attack. He spoke his mind about Muslims and then taunted her to prosecute him:
Hey Joe, you could run for president with rants like that! ~ Storm'n Norm'n
On another note, you don't suppose Loretta Lynch walked back her remarks after seeing my response to her hate speech: Loretta Lynch an accessory after the fact !

Monday, December 7, 2015

The Foggy Mind of Hillary Clinton...she admits it!

in a fog
phrase of fog
1.  in a state of perplexity; unable to think clearly or understand something.


Click here for full story.

With allies like that, who needs enemies...

Meanwhile...         ↓                                    ↓

More on Obama's speech here:

Sunday, December 6, 2015

My take... "Standing" and the Constitution

Whenever a judge declares that one does not have 'standing' before the courts regarding Constitutional matters...those judges are WRONG!  Every American, young or old, has standing when the Constitution ‘For’ the United States is questioned. The Constitution was not written for a select was written ‘For seen here:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."*
It doesn't say anything about selective standing now does it! But by their arrogance those judges have in essence bastardized that part of the Constitution that clearly states, "We the people..."
Does 'people' have some kind of a different meaning here? Here's what the dictionary states:
people plural noun: men, women, and children. Used to refer to persons in general or everyone, or informally to the group of people that you are speaking to.
*The Founding Fathers were explicit in that they wrote ‘for’ and not ‘of’ “… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
by Norman E. Hooben…you don’t have to be a lawyer to interpret plain English.