In Focus: Diane Feinstein's End Game

We all know what enhanced interrogation really means, we all know that it isn’t something to be exactly happy about doing. No one wants to have to water board another person after all. But it is ahistorical if she’s trying to say the CIA and Military acted without the people’s approval to do these things. I can say they had mine; my perspective was and is that those individuals lost the right not to be interrogated the way they were when they sided with the people who took away the right of 3000 people to have a peaceful life on 9/11. But where is this woman going with this? What’s her end game?

Feinstein is dangerously close to being at Henry Kissinger level, Kissinger in my eyes is a scavenger picking the carrion of our dead soldiers and quenching his thirst on our living American warriors’ blood and sweat. When people say things like what Diane did it’s to put people on the defensive, that’s the whole goal but when I see things like this on instinct as a gut reaction I go on the offense but before I speak I do my research and in this case what I found was motive and precedence that could explain Diane’s possibly ill guised actions. And I say ill guised because after you consider another event that happened this week then you realize what is really going on here.

Immediately if you are a conservative you’re thinking well this is supposed to distract from the Gruber case, no it isn’t that’s not the point. Everyone is still watching that and nothing will change regardless what Diane says. While it may work as a boon for her party with a niche group of the population the average American is more interested in what’s in their wallet and Gruber’s case has been explained enough for us to not care what Congress says to him, we expected the government to take action on the AHCA repeal with or without Gruber, if they don’t there will be a constitutional crisis at a level not seen since the years before the civil war.

But I digress Feinstein has a special interest and as I mentioned before about bad policy crafting the second person needed to craft a bad policy about what she intends is a useful idiot aka the person who wants to do the right thing. The special interest is vested in her husband who is heavily invested in Chinese firms and has scored in the past hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts in part thanks to the hard work of his Mrs. Feinstein and the tax payer to fund legislation that funnels money to those Chinese firms.

The event that happened this week was that Congress completed a 1.1 Trillion dollar spending bill… The bill will be hated for now and rightfully so because concessions were made after the voter had established a mandate on Congress to act in reversal of the Democrats and Presidents agenda. However it will be later lauded for having been fiscally responsible, that’s just the ebb and flow of the news cycle. The issue for Diane and the reason for her release is that the bill did not have a resolution in favor of China with regards to IMF control.  What the Chinese wanted from the spending bill was for America to allow a governing board change from 5 to 10 positions, presently there are 24 total so this would allow for stronger representation by China and Russia in the IMF.  The new top positions would then be appointed by the current members and China, Russia and the olive branch Korea. -The focus is on China reader, stay focused, Korea doesn’t matter because the Chinese can exert military pressure on them to make favorable appointments- It wouldn’t be the Chinese without a second distraction from the point of this power play and the second distraction is that there would be a quota increase from developing countries into the fund by 6% and a decrease 6% from the largest contributors. The numbers stay around the same but the end result is China asserts an incredible amount of control over the value of goods in America.

Either with forethought or out of sheer ignorance of the depth of passing a spending bill with those concessions Republicans dodged the bullet that would have sent and rightfully so every sensible American to grab their fire arms once the fact that they essentially sold America sunk in.

Now I understand that this post has been rife with mention of armed rebellion, but such is the state of the union. Diane Feinstein owes Americans an apology for her inconsiderate march to profit.  But I can’t hold it against her though, she’s a politician, she isn’t interested in the truth; she’s interested in legacy and wealth.  

Al Sharpton in Focus

The sinister Al Sharpton is a little man with a simple ambition so this will be brief:

Martin Luther King did the most damage to those of a darker complexion in America than three hundred years of slavery ever could have done. King died a martyr and either he created for himself or had created for him an elevated status to where he can only be accountable to god. This means criticism of King has been subverted by faith and as a result King in death achieved the status of a Monarch... a King. And when criticism and rational argumentation is by and a large no longer considered seriously anything becomes possible. Even something like Al Sharpton who is a phoney, a con artist, a scammer, a liar, a charlatan, a smile in a cheap suit and a really bad person  who can accumulate credibility by putting actions, words and ideals in mouths of an entire demographic in the name of a dead man... if this sounds familiar reader then we probably agree.


We live in America we have no national 'community leaders' that are not in Congress or in the White House.

Vetting Obamagration

I could simply say that Barack Obama has broken the law by unilaterally taking an action outside of crisis that will have long term implications on three hundred million American citizens. However the reason my posts are at length is because I hope for my readers that whatever I type isn't enough detail; skepticism till it hurts is my motto and I want to give as much of the context and my argument as possible with each word.

I covered wage stagnation before and the effect this will have in raising the minimum wage argument in the coming years. In short raising the minimum wage on a national level is the most damning thing that could happen to Americas global competitiveness, more businesses will flee this country because the incentive will be to go to where opportunity is and it wont be here. There are varying data points that could change this though but the end result are determined by one thing and one thing only: the consumer. If the consumer can shoulder the burden without inflation then we will be fine however you don't have to be a cynical thinker know that isn't a trend when these sequence of events start to roll.

Let's throw away the constitution for a second, and look at the common sense solutions using history as a back drop. I think this is the problem for most Americans that support the argument that the President was right to act alone and that it was legal, the problem is that those Americans may not have historical context... the further problem may be that they have no respect for the context. The boogie man of all rationality is that even if you are right the other side has faith in their position. Historically and as a consequence the moment one man tells a thousand others what to do with force to ensure his dictate is done that man has become a tyrant, this is simple definition. The natural state of men has two fronts we will seek to do things that advance us and what advances us has values assigned to them that are unique to the individual. Becoming a slave for instance is not something people normally want, enslaving others is something some people could want. How we rationalize that situation is to say that the want not to be a slave ought to be considered when willfully attempting to enslave someone else.

Since no force is used to back that consideration up a person can get away with enslaving others, in the case of those in positions of legislative and executive powers the temptation is always present. However we have laws already established that prohibits slavery in the United States so no matter what is done to enslave people it must not be called enslavement.

In the end the President of the United States broke the law intentionally and with premeditation. He also aided and abetted people who trespassed into the United States which makes him an accessory to a crime. Since any American who stands up and acts against his executive action would lose their job or face other punitive measures then by definition he is a tyrant.