Dan Perkins Best Selling Author and Registered Investment Adviser 

Editorial Series

82504916F069 Cover-of-the-Book-The-Brotherhood-of-the-Red-Nile-1     Book Cover 2  BOTRN_AmericaResonds_CoverImage

Dan Perkins,the author, is a Registered Investment Advisor and has written a trilogy on Terrorism against the United States. Mr. Perkins can be reached through his web site www.http://www.danperkinsatsanibel.com/

June 9, 2017 – Dan Perkins Contributor to the Constitution .com Blog

The vast majority of people never take off the mattress tag. It stays with the bedding forever. Over my lifetime I have given many mattresses to Goodwill and other organizations, and I would bet those tags are still on those mattresses.

With this concept in mind, think about your e-mails. If you store them on a cloud server, then shouldn’t your privacy protections under the 4th amendment follow your e-mails, regardless of where they are ultimately stored?

Data storage companies have server farms all over the world, and from time to time, they make decisions on what data is deposited where. One month that data could be outside of Chicago, and six months or more from now, the data is moved to different or new storage facilities, say in Ireland.

E-mails are not paper, but digits. They are still your communications to someone. Shouldn’t your 4th amendment rights be upheld, regardless of where the digits are deposited? Shouldn’t those e-mails have an implied mattress tag that stays with them all over the world? What if our government wants to see your e-mails? What do you want the storage company to say to the government so that they can protect your rights? Is there ever a time that the government can see your e-mails without your permission?

I’m not aware of any laws that say the government can take what they want, when they want without notifying you, with one possible exception. That is the IRS. They can take your money and assets without asking you first. But setting the IRS aside, let us go back to your e-mails. You have protections under the Constitutional provisions of the 4th Amendment against illegal searches and seizures.

If the government wants to come into your house, place of business, car, or bank vault, just to name a few places, it needs a warrant signed by a judge proving probable cause to take away your rights. Your e-mail account is protected space, subject to the protections of the 4th amendment. You could be a terrorist or just suspected to be a terrorist, and the government still would have to get a warrant to take your e-mails.

When I was a young man, I served in the Army. I took my basic training in Fort Knox, Kentucky. I was in love with the woman who would become my wife. Recently I found an old box, and in it were the letters she sent to me over 50 years ago, and she has the ones I sent to her. There were more from her than from me. The medium for communication has changed from paper to digits, but it doesn’t mean that the digits have less protection than my wife’s beautiful handwriting.

The personal computer didn’t exist when we were exchanging thoughts 50 plus years ago. The laws need to be updated to adjust to the changes in technology. But in updating the legislation, we have to make sure we don’t give up our protections under the Constitution. Perhaps new laws being contemplated should have a renewal provision every ten years, instead of 30 years, to keep up with the latest improvements in technology.

We have a right to protect what we say, whether to our wife or husband, girlfriend, friends, or business associates. We have to be diligent. This is because sometimes non-elected staff people in the government can take it upon themselves to make decisions as to what should be accomplished, regardless of the law.

We have seen many examples of US intelligence-gathering agencies monitoring e-mail traffic gone awry. The reality is that we are a global community, interdependent with communications that are moving at ever increasing speed. Yet individual citizens, at least in America, still have a right to privacy and a government that does everything possible to protect those rights.

I still like the hand written notes I get from my wife, instead of e-mails.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for several blogs including Constitution.com, thehill.com, the dailycaller.com, and thedailysurge.com among others. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile.

_________________________________________________________________________

Will the Democrats Believe the Special Counsel They So Desperately Wanted?

By

Dan Perkins

On May 19th, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA,) Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, if she had seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. She responded, “Still No Evidence of Trump Camp-Russian Collusion.”

On March 9, Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told ABC News he did not see anything to suggest that Russia successfully infiltrated Donald Trump’s presidential campaign or recruited any of Trump’s advisers — at least as of Jan. 20, when Clapper left office.

The most outspoken critic of Donald Trump, calling for his impeachment, is Rep. Maxine Waters, (D-CA.) She has repeatedly called for the impeachment of President Trump, but she has finally admitted in an interview with the Washington Post reporter, Jonathan Capeheart, “There is no proof of allegations by Democrats of collusion between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign.”

Last, but not least, Hillary Clinton speaking to the graduating class of her alma mater, Wellesley College, talked about the possible impeachment of Trump without mentioning his name. While talking about the Nixon presidency, she was actually making a comparison to Trump. This would be, in Hillary’s words, for obstruction of justice by firing the man who was running the investigation against him.  While this firing referred to the one by Nixon, she was making a silent comparison to the firing of James Comey by Trump for Comey’s role in a possible investigation of his campaign and any Russian involvement.

The Democrats wanted the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.  In addition to the FBI and five other agencies looking into these charges, there are at least five congressional committees who are investigating the charges against Trump.

If the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says they can’t find anything, then how many millions of dollars will be misused? Why am I saying misused, because I do not think they will find anything that will come close to an impeachable event. So the Democrats will spend tens, if not hundreds of millions of your dollars, and if they still don’t get the answer they are looking for, they will shout foul.

Look for the Democrats, no matter what the outcome, to ever realize they had a deeply flawed, narcissistic, egotistical candidate that flat out lost. She has to continue, along with her counterparts, to condemn the Russians for her failure. The Democrats believe that if they keep up the fake news, they will be able to convince you the American people to demand of their members of Congress to impeach Donald Trump.

I believe that the history books are already being rewritten by the liberal left that will state, regardless of the results of all the investigations, that Trump and the Russians stole the election from the first woman candidate that they thought was entitled to be elected President. Your grandchildren will be reading this false history.  If all the agencies and congressional committees find no evidence of wrongdoing, do you honestly believe that the Democrats will admit that they were wrong?

The Democrats have forgotten what Dennis Healy said, “The first law of holes: when you’re in one, stop digging.”  I think the Democrats have not yet figured out how deep the hole is in which they have dug themselves. They have been so intense in their condemnations that they are digging deeper and deeper, without ever stopping and looking up to see where they are. The deeper one digs a hole without shoring up the sides, the greater the chances are that the walls will collapse in on them.

As some people have said, the Democrats are doubling down with their, “Resistance Summer.” Some in the party elite decided that the people were behind them, so they wanted more rank and file to join the effort to keep the media pressure on the Trump attack. What they are trying to do is to stop him and his agenda. They have a YouTube site that so far has gotten 500, yes that’s right, 500 hits.

I believe that all the government departments and Congressional Committees investigating will not find anything significant against Trump. I expect that it will be reported just in time for the November 2018 elections. The Democrats will be outraged at both the timing and the outcome of the inquirers. We will be sitting around our TV’s on a Tuesday in November 2018, and the Democrats and their partners in the mainstream media will again be in tears. They will be asking themselves how is it possible that they lost more seats in the House and the Senate? Look for them to be asking the same questions they were asking in November 2016, “How did this happen?”

Dan Perkins is an author, radio and TV talk show host, current events commentator, and philanthropist. His books are available on Amazon.com. More information about him, his writings, and other works are on his website: danperkins.guru.

_________________________________________________________________________

Democrats Prove at the Oscars Why They Should Not

Be in Charge of Anything

By Dan Perkins  March 2, 2017

Published in the Constitution.com

The Oscars program ran three hours and 49 minutes, and like many other “Democratic” programs, it was over budget and missed the ending deadline. If you stayed up past 12:30 a.m., you had a surprise ending; they got the winner of the Best Picture wrong, or did they? Some of the press called this fiasco the most “Historic, Colossal, Ludicrous” Oscar Screw-up mistake in the 89-year history of the Academy Awards.

Just the day before, another awards show took place in Atlanta, Georgia, and it took two ballots to come up with the designated winner. The Democrats on Saturday were selecting a new DNC Chairman, and it took two rounds of voting to pick the new leader.   The outcome of that show had the loser receiving almost 47% of the votes. This result was hardly a unifying moment for the Democratic Party, nor a landslide victory for the winner. I look at the leading candidates, Perez and Ellison as a choice between Left and “Lefter.”

Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Chuck Schumer supported “Lefter,” while Hillary and former President Obama wanted Perez. Once again the Democratic Left gave it to Hillary. With 447 votes cast, Perez won by 23 votes and immediately appointed Ellison as vice-chairman of the committee. Switching back to the Oscars for a moment, one has to wonder if some people didn’t like the vote of the Academy on Best Picture. It seems they wanted to make a statement on a night that was full of political statements.

As I see it, either Emma Stone was in on the deal along with Warren Beatty, or somebody else gave Warren the wrong envelope. Hollywood may never know the answer to this question as to how this happened, just as on November 8, Democrats were asking the same question about Hillary’s loss. How did this happen?

Back to the DNC election, I have the same question about two possibilities. Will mainstream Democrats unite behind a Left agenda and vote to get the Senate or House back in 2018? Or is it possible that traditional Democrats will reject the Left-leaning leadership and return the party to Left-Center with a smaller minority after 2018?

By the same token, will the voters for the Best Picture ever trust that the system is honest, or will their votes only count when they are voting for what the elite, politically correct want? How is it possible that through Oscar weekend, Moonlight had gross box office receipts since October of only $22 million worldwide, while La La Land had $370 million worldwide?

Now it is time to see just how screwed up the Academy is. In these months of fake news charges and lack of fact checking, Hollywood didn’t check its facts. You see one of my favorite parts of the Oscars show is the time when the stars that passed away during the last year are identified. It is somewhat nostalgic for me as like many of you, I grew up during the lifetime of these stars. Well, you won’t hear much about this failure to fact check, but during this segment, the file clip said that Janet Patterson, a costume designer had passed when in fact she was in the audience and could be heard saying, “I’m here, I’m alive!”

We learned from the Obama administration that it could spend more and do less than perhaps any other government. Now we know that Hollywood has its own agenda and will make its point, even if it has to embarrass itself. The Democratic party leadership may well be out of touch with its rank and file, and like the 2016 elections, it may wake up in November 2018 and say, “There has to be a mistake about the election results!”

 


February 2017 Commentaries

This Commentary Appeared in http://constitution.com

February 13, 2017

Transition of Power  

By Dan Perkins

After the voters rejected the idea of 4 more years of the past eight years of President Obama, Donald Trump was invited to the White House for meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to set in motion an orderly transition of power from the Obama administration to the incoming Trump administration. The number of actions taken by Pres. Obama in the waning days of his presidency was a clear message to Donald Trump, “F**k You”, I’m going to make it difficult for you to change the direction of America I want to take, even if I’m not President.

There is no doubt in my mind that a lame duck president trying to create new policy and direction for the government in the last 30 days in office is a demonstration of the narcissism of Barack Obama.   Here are a couple examples of the narcissism and the F**k you attitude of the outgoing President. The United Nations took a vote on censoring Israel for the building of housing on occupied land. Every time in the past this motion was made United States vetoed the motion. The United States knew that if we didn’t stand up for Israel then nobody else in the UN wood. But this time when the vote came up United States abstained; the resolution passed 14 to 0 to censure Israel.

President Obama wanted the Israeli government to go back to the pre-1967 war and give all the land captured by the Israeli army back to the Palestinians. Somehow Barack Obama and John Kerry believe that the way to get Israel to work and do what they wanted to do is through alienation among the parties. John Kerry Secretary of State gave a one-hour major address on the administrations rationale is that Israel needs to cooperate in this two state solution by giving up conquered lands.

The relationships between the US and Israel were already severely strained prior to this vote and the speech given by Kerry a week later. So the only conclusion I can come to is that the President was purposely out to further degrade the relationship between Israel and United States and John Kerry was his partner in crime the speech that he gave at the State Department. Before I move on to the second example I’m us further comment that the president clearly must have known, based on the outcome of the election that Donald Trump was going to be predisposed to support Israel so the only reason I can conclude for this action was that he was trying to damage the relationship as much as possible and in turn to force Trump to spend more time then would otherwise have been needed to repair the relationship between Israel and United States and therefore have less time to focus on other important issues of the country.

The second example was the Executive Order forbidding the drilling on 93% of arctic lands and the restriction of 3.8 million acres of Atlantic Coast drilling Rights. Obama used a long forgotten 1953 law that put restrictions and protection of wildlife. Bill Clinton in his term of President used this 1953 law under an executive order to restrict the drilling for oil and natural gas on government lands. Bush 43 through a new Executive Order overturned the Clinton Executive Order. During the entire time in office Barack Obama has been President he has been opposed to developing America’s oil and natural gas resources. His paranoid commitment to global warming has been the bases for his restriction I’m not drilling for oil and natural gas I want clean, green alternatives. The liberal press in support of the President’s Climate Change agenda and have suggested that this move by Barack Obama has put Donald Trump in a corner and will delay the expansion of expiration of oil and natural gas in the United States. President Trump has the right to use as Barack Obama said, “ pen to accomplish things that the Congress would not give him.” If Donald Trump, in the first weeks of his term as president, uses the Executive Power to rescind many of Obama’s Executive Orders, including the prohibition of drilling in the Arctic Circle at off the Atlantic coast, then Democrats will surely claim foul. I would not be surprised that Democratic liberals we’ll try and sue President Trump to prevent the use of his Executive Order.

The restrictions that President Obama in the waning moments of his administration wants to put on limits of oil natural gas is clearly another attempt to put up a roadblock to try and stop Donald Trump from being successful with his agenda. As a registered investment advisor with over the 44 of experience, from time to time I’ve work with clients on the estate planning and some parents what a try and control their children from the grave. Barack Obama is trying to influence the Policy decisions of Donald Trump and his team not from the grave, but out of power he needs, in his mind, to be relevant.

I fully believe that within days of taking the oath of office President Trump will reach out to Israel and as President invite the prime minister to the United States as quickly as possible. I expect that he will try and do something about the resolution that was passed by the UN; Israel will have a friend an ardent supporter in Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump is also on a mission to make America great again, he wants to put millions of people back to, one of the reasons Barack Obama is trying to stop the expiration of the oil is because he knows that energy and development of America’s energy resources will be the biggest source of employment for Donald Trump and I believe we will do everything within his power to prevent that from happening.

I believe America will succeed and that millions of Americans now see the potential that they and America can succeed have a better future under Donald Trump. It will be difficult, if not impossible for the Democratic left to accept Trump’s idea originally promoted by Dr. Martin Luther King, that President Trump wants American to be free at last free at last.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for several blogs including Constitution.com, thehill.com, the dailycaller.com, and thedailysurge.com among others. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile.


JUMPING ON THE TRUMP TRAIN: Can A Leopard Change His Spots?

By

Dan Perkins

Published on February 10, 2017 ClashDaily Contributor

There is an old saying that a leopard cannot change his spots. Sometimes in the real world, a person is cast one way, based on what they have said and done in the past. If that person has acted the same way for many years, it is difficult for them to change what they believe and how they work.

Elon Musk is a very innovative person, and for eight years he has been a big supporter of the Democratic Party. Bloomberg reported a story headlined, “Elon Musk Helps California Rank No. 1 for Hillary Clinton Fundraising.” The fact that US Government tax incentives of about $5,600 per car have helped people buy his electric automobiles hasn’t hurt his position. The subsidy to Tesla was worth $139 million last year, based on a research report by Anton Wahlman on February 7, 2017.

Let’s say that a full-size leopard has 1,000 spots. Based on some of his most recent statements, one has to wonder if Elon’s spots are changing. He thinks Rex Tillerson was an excellent choice for Secretary of State, so let’s take away 100 spots. Next, he thinks that attacking Trump will not advance Democratic Party ideas, so he wants the critics to back off. How about we take off another 100 spots?

Musk believes that it will be in his and his companies’ best interest to stay engaged with Trump. He stands a better chance of continuing tax incentives from inside the administration, rather than standing outside and looking through the White House’s iron fence. One thing Musk will promote is a global warming solution by pushing for a carbon tax. Oh, his cars don’t produce a carbon footprint. Therefore, if the government encourages the purchase of zero carbon cars, he stands to gain. Because he may well be involved in this for his own personal gain, let’s put 50 spots back on the leopard.

President Trump is trying to rebuild the automotive industry inside the United States. The government is offering incentives to build new car plants and Elon wants to make sure he gets his incentives. Musk wants the money not only to expand his Tesla auto plant, but also to create new ones. Let’s put another 50 spots back on the leopard. By the way, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick recently resigned from the President’s Economic Advisory Council under pressure after 200,000 customers deleted their Uber accounts. Elon has seen some cancellations for his new Model 3, but nothing on the scale of Uber. So I think Musk is somewhat in damage control politically in order to keep his losses to a minimum.

The Left wants electric cars and clean energy, and Musk is trying to have, as they say, “his cake and eat it too.” He knows that he has angered some on the far Left, but Musk thinks he can weather the storm. Take 50 spots off the leopard. There is a last issue about Elon Musk that concerns me. I wonder if he has left the dark side as a progressive Democrat and become a 1960’s Democrat. Perhaps he is merely an opportunist who is trying to game the system to build his personal wealth? It concerns me when someone first takes the position of financially supporting candidates who ran against Trump during the Republican primaries, and then second, supports Hillary for President, and finally third, shifts back to Trump.

This person, Elon Musk, either doesn’t have a strong foundation, or is a consummate political opportunist. Now that all the Democrats have lost, I believe Elon has stuck his finger in the air and tested the direction of the country to decide what he wants to do next. I think that for him, moderation is the best opportunity, at least for now. Let’s take off ten spots. If Trump gets bogged down and starts to come up short on the border wall, immigration, Obama Care, or tax reform, will Elon bolt and move hard left? I think so. I will add 50 spots on the leopard. So here we are. We have looked at what Elon has said and what he has done. I have to conclude that no, a leopard cannot change his spots, especially when it comes to money.

 Dan Perkins is an author, radio and TV talk show host, current events commentator, and philanthropist. His books are available on Amazon.com. More information about him, his writings, and other works are on his website: danperkins.guru.

 


Published in The Daily Surge on 2-08-2017

By Dan Perkins

Sanctuary Cities Versus Legalize Marijuana – Federal or States Rights Issue?

There are some who believe that America is headed for a Constitutional Crisis between the Sanctuary Cities, counties, and states with President Trump and his Attorney General on enforcing the law. The State of California recently announced that they are retaining the former Attorney General Eric Holder and his law firm for the amount of $300,000 per year perhaps, even more, should there be a trial. California wants Holders law firm to defend the state against prosecution for supporting Sanctuary Cities in violation of the federal law. Recently California is considering becoming a Sanctuary State.

The publication, Liberty Unyielding reporter Deneen Borelli on February 4, 2016, published an article titled, “Guess how many sanctuary cities there are in the U.S.” Ms. Borelli suggests that the number could be as high as 300.The problem with Sanctuary Cities is that they are ignoring the federal statutes on the detention of illegal aliens who have committed crimes. Under the Federal law if an illegal alien convicted of a crime the local government is to notify ICE for pickup and deportation.

The Congress is responsible for immigration law, and the administration is responsible for enforcement of the law. For the last eight years, the Obama Administration and its two Attorney Generals have not prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  The legal authority has chosen the concept of “prosecutorial discretion” and not enforced the Federal law.  The most famous case is of Kate Steinle, the young woman shot and killed by an illegal alien who had five felony convictions. The shooter deported five times. Before he is alleged to have shot Ms. Steinle, he was in jail for another crime and the immigration authority asked the county sheriff to hold the felon until they could come and pick him up for deportation.  Unfortunately for Ms. Steinle, the lack of enforcement cost her life.

The sheriff said he would not hold him and he let the shooter free. He later obtained a gun and shot and killed Ms. Steinle. Several government agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and several state and county correctional departments offer us frightful numbers. The statistics show an estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants.

The ICE’s Secure Communities office reports approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free, or behind bars in the U.S. Each year, America arrests about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants.  Also, 700,000 illegals are released from jail, prison, or probation back into American communities. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens are at large in the U.S.

Mr. Trump ran his campaign on securing the borders and getting the bad guys out of the country. He and many of his 62 million supporters want to make America safe again, and these cities that are providing cover for illegal felons are endangering their citizens and the rest of us.

The second part of this article relates to a different conflict, and that is the state government legalizing the sale of marijuana. Some states have made it legal for medical use while others have made it legal for recreational use. Here again, the Federal government has laws on the books for controlled substances like marijuana, and yet the law is not enforced in the states with no penalty. Most people do not know that the sale of marijuana is a cash only business. The reason is that the Federal banking laws prohibit banks from participating in illegal drug funds. You can’t use a credit card, or a debit card, or write a check you can only pay cash.

I find it ironic that the states sued the tobacco companies for the damage they did in selling cigarettes and now they are selling drugs that will damage the lungs and with increased tar levels potentially cause cancer who will they sue down the road when many of the pot smokers need medical care.

So here we have states ignoring two Federal statutes and so far no consequences.  Will the Justice Department and Homeland Security under President Trump enforce both sets of laws?

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for several blogs including Constitution.com, thehill.com, the dailycaller.com, and thedailysurge.com among others. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile.


This Commentary Appeared in Reagan Baby on January 22, 2017

ADD “MEDIOCRE NEGROES” TO HILLARY’S BASKET OF DEPLORABLES

By Dan Perkins 
Posted January 22, 2017

 Any Black person who dares to talk with Donald Trump must henceforth be dismissed and branded as a mediocre Negro.

Mark Lamont Hill

 

The disintegration of the Left has made the Democrat Party a fringe party and can be seen as Democrats are now attacking their own.  In Cincinnati, Ohio, Hillary Clinton called supporters of Donald Trump a “basket of deplorable’s,” and not to be outdone by Hillary, CNN contributor and university professor, Mark Lamont Hill, decided that “Any Black person who dares to talk with Donald Trump must henceforth be dismissed and branded as a mediocre Negro.”

It appears that some liberal, African American leaders want to go back to their party’s roots where Democrats talked about branding Negros. I don’t know when African Americans decided not to use the word Negro and changed it to Black, but unquestionably the use of this term takes us back in time.  What I find amazing is that a black American college professor chooses to call blacks who disagree with him Negroes instead of blacks!  I don’t think Professor Hill’s use of Negro is accidental. I believe it is a way in which black people who do not agree with him can be denigrated and demeaned.

After meeting with Donald Trump, Jim Brown, the legendary football player, made the following statement, “I fell in love with him because he talks about helping African-Americans and black people, and that’s why I’m here.” Is it possible that some black Democratic leaders are afraid of losing their unilateral and multi-generational hold on the inner cities?  During the campaign,  Trump reached out to black leaders and people in black communities across the country by saying to them, “What do you have to lose?”

In addition to Jim Brown, other black leaders, including Martin Luther King III, have met with Donald Trump to see what can be done to improve the lives of their black brothers and sisters. In a sense, people like Mark Lamont Hill, are angry that Donald Trump is taking away some of their constituents. They see Trump as a threat to their power over black communities. In recent years, Republicans have sometimes been reserved in making contacts within black communities, which have historically, since the 1960’s,  been reserved specifically for Democrats.  Interestingly, the Republican Party was the political party for blacks– from the Civil War until the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

In his run for the presidency, Donald Trump destroyed or shook up many historical and political truisms. Elected leaders are now trying to adjust to a new paradigm that is coming not only to Washington DC, but also to cities and towns across the country.  Democrats see the changes taking place, and the results of this shift are a further diminishment of the Democratic Party’s power and influence. The Democratic Party plans for the Great Society, started by Lyndon Johnson’s, has failed not only the black community, but also the country.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was running for president against Jimmy Carter. During the campaign he asked Americans this question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” I submit two new questions that need to be asked of residents of black inner cities around the country, “After Barack Obama’s presidency, are you better off today than you were eight years ago?” “Do you think that race relations have improved under a black president, or have they gotten worse?” The black leaders who are attacking Donald Trump and his plans know the answers to those questions. As a result, they attack any black person who meets with Trump because they fear that black people are beginning to see that what Trump is saying is the truth.

If Trump can improve the lives of black people in the inner cities, the Democratic Party is no more. Democratic leaders are doing everything they can to discredit Trump and prevent him from succeeding in the black community.  These leaders do not care whom they offend or attack.

As Black leaders visit with Trump, and witness the confirmation of Dr. Carson, I believe enormous pressure will build on many radical leaders to ratchet up violence in the inner cities. They will try to blame any unrest on the failure of the Trump administration.  Make no mistake: the risks are very high and tens of billions of dollars are at stake.

Dr. Hill, I believe, is out of touch with millions of people in black communities around the country.  Millions more see the unrest and death and destruction in places like Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities across this nation.  They see the destruction of property and lives and families. Much of this is caused by dependency on the government for so many of their brothers and sisters, who do so for survival.  They want something better for their children and grandchildren. Trump just might offer them something better, something they haven’t seen in many generations.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for TheDalycaller.com, Reganbaby.com, Constitution.com and several others. He is the author of a trilogy on radical Islamic terrorism called The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. His web site is danperkins.guru

as a mediocre Negro.

Mark Lamont Hill

The disintegration of the Left has made the Democrat Party a fringe party and can be seen as Democrats are now attacking their own.  In Cincinnati, Ohio, Hillary Clinton called supporters of Donald Trump a “basket of deplorable’s,” and not to be outdone by Hillary, CNN contributor and university professor, Mark Lamont Hill, decided that “Any Black person who dares to talk with Donald Trump must henceforth be dismissed and branded as a mediocre Negro.”

It appears that some liberal, African American leaders want to go back to their party’s roots where Democrats talked about branding Negros. I don’t know when African Americans decided not to use the word Negro and changed it to Black, but unquestionably the use of this term takes us back in time.  What I find amazing is that a black American college professor chooses to call blacks who disagree with him Negroes instead of blacks!  I don’t think Professor Hill’s use of Negro is accidental. I believe it is a way in which black people who do not agree with him can be denigrated and demeaned.

After meeting with Donald Trump, Jim Brown, the legendary football player, made the following statement, “I fell in love with him because he talks about helping African-Americans and black people, and that’s why I’m here.” Is it possible that some black Democratic leaders are afraid of losing their unilateral and multi-generational hold on the inner cities?  During the campaign,  Trump reached out to black leaders and people in black communities across the country by saying to them, “What do you have to lose?”

In addition to Jim Brown, other black leaders, including Martin Luther King III, have met with Donald Trump to see what can be done to improve the lives of their black brothers and sisters. In a sense, people like Mark Lamont Hill, are angry that Donald Trump is taking away some of their constituents. They see Trump as a threat to their power over black communities. In recent years, Republicans have sometimes been reserved in making contacts within black communities, which have historically, since the 1960’s,  been reserved specifically for Democrats.  Interestingly, the Republican Party was the political party for blacks– from the Civil War until the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

In his run for the presidency, Donald Trump destroyed or shook up many historical and political truisms. Elected leaders are now trying to adjust to a new paradigm that is coming not only to Washington DC, but also to cities and towns across the country.  Democrats see the changes taking place, and the results of this shift are a further diminishment of the Democratic Party’s power and influence. The Democratic Party plans for the Great Society, started by Lyndon Johnson’s, has failed not only the black community, but also the country.

I remember when Ronald Reagan was running for president against Jimmy Carter. During the campaign he asked Americans this question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” I submit two new questions that need to be asked of residents of black inner cities around the country, “After Barack Obama’s presidency, are you better off today than you were eight years ago?” “Do you think that race relations have improved under a black president, or have they gotten worse?” The black leaders who are attacking Donald Trump and his plans know the answers to those questions. As a result, they attack any black person who meets with Trump because they fear that black people are beginning to see that what Trump is saying is the truth.

If Trump can improve the lives of black people in the inner cities, the Democratic Party is no more. Democratic leaders are doing everything they can to discredit Trump and prevent him from succeeding in the black community.  These leaders do not care whom they offend or attack.

As Black leaders visit with Trump, and witness the confirmation of Dr. Carson, I believe enormous pressure will build on many radical leaders to ratchet up violence in the inner cities. They will try to blame any unrest on the failure of the Trump administration.  Make no mistake: the risks are very high and tens of billions of dollars are at stake.

Dr. Hill, I believe, is out of touch with millions of people in black communities around the country.  Millions more see the unrest and death and destruction in places like Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities across this nation.  They see the destruction of property and lives and families. Much of this is caused by dependency on the government for so many of their brothers and sisters, who do so for survival.  They want something better for their children and grandchildren. Trump just might offer them something better, something they haven’t seen in many generations.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for TheDalycaller.com, Reganbaby.com, Constitution.com and several others. He is the author of a trilogy on radical Islamic terrorism called The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. His web site is danperkins.guru

November 2016 Editorials

The Oil War Is Over And America Has Won

By Dan Perkins

Printed in Daily Caller on 11/28/2016

Two years ago, Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC nations declared an oil war with America.  On November 30th OPEC will meet to admit they have lost that conflict.

At this month’s meeting OPEC will try to decide about the possibility of a global production cut or even a freeze in crude oil production in order to raise prices. The speculation about this conference is the fact that the production increase war failed and OPEC is on the verge of extinction.

The Saudi’s and OPEC thought by flooding world markets with oil, they could eliminate competition and also put oil companies in America out of business. Having done so, they would gain a larger market share and reassert their power to control global economies.  There is no question that many people lost billions of dollars in this power play by the OPEC countries. The mistake that OPEC and the Saudis made, in my opinion, was the failure to understand the resolve of American oilmen. This foreign effort did shut down production, closed down a number of rigs drilling for oil, and in some cases, caused companies to go out of business. While successful in the short term, Saudi Arabia and OPEC may have paid a very high price for this war

On Thanksgiving Day 2014, Saudi Arabia and OPEC declared war on the American oil fracking industry. I watched as on that Thanksgiving Day, the price of crude oil dropped by almost five dollars a barrel.  Later that weekend the Saudi oil ministry told us that they had declared war on American oil companies.  They wanted to drive these upstarts in the Dakota’s and in other parts of the country out of business. I first wrote about this attack the following week, long before anyone else was writing about this new war.

Saudi Arabia, who was the leader of this war, didn’t count on the possibility that Saudi Arabia and many of the OPEC nations would see the devastation to their own economies. The revenue loss from the reduced sale of crude oil put enormous pressure on the financial reserves of all the OPEC nations. The International Monetary Fund, IMF, said earlier this year that a drastic reduction of oil revenue could create such a significant problem for Saudi Arabia that this once mighty nation could be bankrupt by the year 2020.

Other nations in OPEC like Venezuela and Nigeria are probably already bankrupt, and the remaining members of OPEC are rapidly moving towards their own bankruptcies if oil doesn’t get above $60 a barrel. The “Independent” projected that Russia, if oil prices continued to stay low, would run out of financial reserves by the end of 2017.

How ironic that just two years ago Saudi Arabia thought they could conquer the world by driving down prices, and now they desperately need prices to go up in order to have a chance of survival.

One thing that will not be talked about publicly at this meeting is Donald Trump and his election as President of the United States. I believe his commitment to making America energy independent as quickly as possible will impact the decisions of the OPEC ministers.  In 2014 the Saudis said the reason they did not lower production was in order to protect their market share in the US.  If Mr. Trump is correct, then the Saudis and the rest of OPEC will have no market share in the United States. With Mr. Trump in office, I have no doubt that American oil companies will increase drilling and production because the President will want them to compete for market share in the world markets. He will want American oil companies to compete directly with OPEC and Russia.

If Mr. Trump can convince American business to expand and if companies in other parts of the world could bring their companies to the United States, US energy companies will find new customers for their oil and natural gas. An increasing gross domestic product in the United States will create a demand for labor.  People will go back to work and have the opportunity to compete for high-paying jobs that will further expand the US economy.  The dollar is already at a 14-year high against the basket of foreign currencies. With increased economic activity in the United States, interest rates will increase while staying low in other parts of the world. We’ve already seen a 50% move on ten year yields. If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates in December, as many anticipate, look for the dollar to strengthen even further.

The spread between the yields on the US 10-year Bonds will widen and the dollar will increase in relation to the lower yielding currencies. As a result, money from nations all over the world will start flowing into the United States because the yields will be higher, our currency will be stronger, and economic opportunity will increase.  So here we are, just about two years later, in a war that most Americans knew nothing about. Unlike the fighting in the Middle East with which we are still struggling, this undeclared war has been won.  We didn’t have to put boots on the ground, and we didn’t endanger any military personnel’s lives, yet we defeated some of the wealthiest nations in the world.

Saudi Arabia is bringing to the market an equity offering, covering some ownership of their oil assets.  They are doing this to raise money in order to fund their government operations, including trying to diversify away from oil. They need this offering to be very successful, and one of the factors influencing its success will be the stability of the price of oil. This particular offering has a high degree of risk for the Saudi government, as its price will track the price of oil.  If the price of oil is unstable, the value of the asset will decline and investors will be very unhappy.  If Saudi Arabia cannot stabilize the price of crude oil, it will be a long time before they can come back to the stock markets and offer additional investments in Saudi oil. It is possible that if the price of oil doesn’t stabilize many of the OPEC nations may no longer exist, as we know them today?

I think that some of the most recent run-up in the price of oil is the anticipation of new crude oil production levels. If the majority of the oil producing nations agree to these new cuts, I would expect to see the price of crude oil move quickly to the $52 to $55 range by the end of the year. After the first of the year, I would expect to see some downward pressure because of the significant short-term move up. But then I would expect some time in the first quarter 2017, an assault on $60 a barrel.

I believe the Saudi offering will now become the measure of what’s going to happen to the price of oil. Look for the announcement of the offering and put it on your watch list. In conclusion, let’s hope that Saudi Arabia and OPEC see the light and no longer make war on the American economy, a war they have already lost.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for several blogs including, Constitution.com, The Hill.com, Reganbaby.com and others. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States call The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. He co-hosts a nationally syndicated talk shows on W4CYradio.com. Dan’s web site is danperkins.guru.

 

 


New Racial Slur: Non-College educated white men and women. 

Printed in the Daily Surge on 11/14/201

How degrading on the part of the media and others was the chastising of white Americans for voting what they believe. The election night coverage was perhaps the most biased I’ve ever seen. Throughout the night the mainstream media reported the vote of Hispanics, blacks, Asians, gays, homosexuals, and women and men.

This time they added a new group and they attacked it, the new group was white, non-college educated men and women. According to the most recent census white people make up 63% of the population, Hispanic are next at about 20%, and blacks account for about 13%. White people are not racist just because they are white, but Van Jones a commentator for CNN called the white vote for Trump “Whitelash” against minorities.

In the 2016 Presidential election Trump attracted the highest percentage of both white men and women, which shouldn’t be surprising, given what you will see later, but it did seemed to surprise the mainstream media and others. To further discount the importance this group of Americans they put the prefix non-college educated to further classifies and degrades this class. How is it possible that the rubes and red necks impacted the political process by beating Hillary?  This is another example of the elitist looking down on common folk. This was what happened in England in the Briext vote, the elitist and the politicians believed the uneducated needed to be told what to do and they had to think and act on their behalf.

Lets look at the numbers in a different way. According to the Census Bureau, 25% of all Americans have a college degree. This means by simple math that 75% don’t have a degree. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently reported the 50% of the people currently unemployed in the United States have a college degree. So in reality the new minority should be employed white people with a college degree.

Charles C. Camosy writing in the Washington Post, said of the relationship between college and non-college educated people said, “Sometimes the college-educated find themselves so unable to understand a particular working-class point of view that they will respond to those perspectives with shocking condescension”

The idea that because a person that has a college degree they are superior to those who do not have a degree offends me, because it implies that you are superior to me because you have a degree. Debate.org posed the question, “Should only people with college degree be allowed to vote? The response shows the elite nature that has to overcome, the result was the 63% of the people who responded believed that only college graduates should be allowed to vote. With only 25% having college degrees then the elites believe that 75% of the country would be disenfranchised.

I suggest that colleges and universities are turning out graduates that are ill equipped to relate to 75% of America who are not educated. Now add to the mix that the elites think that the white men and women who voted for Trump have to be discounted because they are raciest. In essence if you are white and do not have a degree and you voted for Trump you must be a raciest. Hillary said that Trump was a raciest because of his strong stand against illegal aliens. If you are white and you voted for Trump you are a raciest by association. Let’s pose a new question, are all the Black, Hispanics, LBGT who voted for Trump raciest? The argument that non-college educated whites breaks down when you have to take into consideration non-white minorities who voted for Trump.

In the past many whites have not voted and the Democrats thought of themselves successful in that they had convinced a great many white people not to get involved and vote. But, the great silent majority that has been silent majority for 43 years has awakened in 2016 to reassert that power of the patriotic white voter that elected Trump.

They longer the mainstream media keeps using the white non-college educated as a class the anger will continue to grow. Democrats would be wise to keep in mind that 23 of the 33 senators up for re-election in 2018 are Democrats. Watch out for the gun totem, bible carrying, white non-college educated people who might have a thing or two to say in that election.

Dan Perkins is a novelist who has written a trilogy on a terrorist attack against the United States. The Brotherhood of the Red Nile series is available at Amazon.com. Mr. Perkins book web site is www.danperkins.guru.

November 2016

The Deplorable Are Two And Zero

By

Dan Perkins

The deplorables are back in control of America and I thank God.  I watched the results of the Presidential race and I could not help thinking about all the things I said in hundreds of interviews and commentaries from the day Mr. Trump announced his decision to run for President of the United States. As the evening progressed I found myself doing the same thing I did when I watched the Briext vote into the wee hours of the evening.  I closed my eyes and just listened to the words that were being spoken. I learned from the Briext vote that the words were much more important than the visual images.  As the people spoke the words from the news media in the United States were eerily similar to the words used by the British media who were astonished at the outcome.

The media on both sides of the pond were shocked at the magnitude of the defeat. What they did not understand was the fact that Middle America did not like being called deplorable.  If there was one thing that I believe turned off voters in the UK and the United States was the arrogance of the elite class and (especially in the USA) the “deplorable” comment, by Mrs. Clinton, cost her the election.  The American people rejected the idea, from the elites, that they were the only ones who knew what was the right thing, for both them and the country.  The middle class and the poor were basically told, that they were not smart enough to make a decision, as to what was best for them and the nation, the elites had to make the decisions for them.

The deplorables rejected Mrs. Clinton and her belief that she was above the law. Her actions proved to them that she was the ultimate elite.  Good and true Americans believe that nobody should be above the law.  It was all right for her to lie to the American people because she knew what was best for America regardless of her moral compass.

What this election showed is the very dark side of American politics and without the efforts of WikiLeaks we would’ve never known the extent of the corruption in the system. People in high places of our government have been shown to make decisions based on political opportunities rather than the law.  Our Justice Department has been severely damaged and its credibility with the American people will take a long time to repair.  The leadership of the FBI also has been damaged, when it interpreted the law to create an opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to escape prosecution.  Most Americans believe she broke the law and it was a political decision why she was not prosecuted.

Bill Clinton thought nothing of meeting with the Attorney General in private and the Attorney General in turn saw nothing wrong with meeting with the husband of a woman who was under a federal corruption investigation by one of her agencies.  It seems to me that many of our leaders in Washington, D.C. have lost their moral compass and are not upholding their oath to the people. I have grave concerns that a new Congress, which will be made up of a vast majority of those people who were already in Congress before the election, will not make any changes in their moral compass.

The Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, said of Trump, “He could hear what the people wanted.”

If we are truly going to take our country back and as Mr. Trump says, make it great again, the election may be over, but our job is not.  We must pay attention to what our elected leaders are doing, and not doing, and we must be prepared to replace them with people of similar values to ours.

The American people rejected the idea of globalism they want a leader who will put America first.  Mr. Trump has given an indication that he wants to put America first, only time will tell if he can fulfill that campaign promise.

Commentary on the election would not be complete without a discussion of the mainstream media and the role it had in trying to manage the outcome of the election.  I believe that their actions against Mr. Trump, shows to the American people that they are no longer a free press under the first Amendment of the Constitution, they are truly biased and an operative of the Democratic Party. I suggest that the Congress should investigate the range and scope of collusion activities of the media and the Democratic Party to influence the outcome of the election.

I am proud of who I am as a deplorable, and as a patriot, and as someone who believes in the vision of our founding fathers.  The Constitution is not outdated and therefore I believe the most significant part of the selection was the power given by the people to Donald Trump to replace members of the Supreme Court who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.

I am not so naïve as to think that Mr. Trump will accomplish everything he says he wants to do, or for that matter, that he will do everything I want him to do. On January 20, 2017 America will head in a new direction. I want to believe that it will be the right direction but as a current events commentator I assure you, my readers, if Mr. Trump goes off the rails you will hear about it from me.  For now enjoy the glow of our victory and share in the hope that America once again can become the greatest country on earth, the home of the free and the brave and opportunity for all.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for Constitution.com, The dalysurge.com, and reaganbaby.com among others. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan can be heard every Tuesday evening at 8 PM eastern on Two Guys From Verona on W4CY radio.com. His book web site is danperkins.guru.


October 2016 -Editorials 

Where did my America ago?

By

Dan Perkins

I am four-years short of having lived for three quarters of a century. I was born just before the bombing of Japan, so I was a first post-war baby. I grew up in the Midwest in the town of Columbus, Ohio, where even today people would not be surprised to see a farm tractor driving down Broad Street.

Growing up, we could go outside and play all day and our parents never had to worry about where we were or if we were safe.  We rarely had to lock the front door of our house during the day, and most of times not even at night. We celebrated America. We celebrated the men and women who gave so much in the Second World War to keep us free, and we celebrated our flag, and the Republic for which it stood.

In school every day we started with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stood. We went to parades on the 4th of July and Veterans Day and watched the men women who served, to protect our country, march in review. We were told that the policemen were our friends and if we are ever in trouble then try and find a policeman who will help you. Most of the time we did our homework from school, did our chores around the house, and we went to church every Sunday.

In school we learned about the history of America and the people who made it great.  Our teachers taught us about the men and women who formed our nation, what they believed, and what was their dream for America.  My generation saw a President assassinated; we saw his murderer killed on live television; and, we cried. We watched as his body was taken through the streets of Washington DC and on to Arlington Cemetery.

After Kennedy’s death, our government leaders made decisions that changed my country forever.  Lyndon Johnson committed more troops to Vietnam and young people in America were sent off to the war and died.  Other young people protested the war by burning the American flag and left the country rather than serve.  Some confronted the returning soldiers with distain and abuse.  Lyndon Johnson, while expanding the fighting in the Vietnam War, started a new war here in America, he started the War on Poverty.

This fight on poverty has forever changed the black family and in many respects the relationship between blacks and whites in America.  Martin Luther King Junior was assassinated along with Bobby Kennedy.  The nation that hadn’t seen an assassination of a political leader in over 62 years, in a short period of time, saw three go down to an assassin’s bullet. America erupted with violence at the death of these leaders and the violence is still with us today.

Many people began to think that America was wrong and needed to change. There were ever increasing tears in the fabric of America, segregation was made illegal which lead to protests, death and the destruction of property.  America had turned ugly, but I didn’t.  I believed that every American regardless of their race or religion have the right to be free.  But as I would learn in my advancing years, your freedom, in most cases, came at the expense of somebody else’s freedom.

Political correctness was driven by the intellectual elite around the world, starting with Germany in the 1930’s, and Karl Marx in Russia.  They believed that the state was the great arbiter of right and wrong.  When the war protest broke out in the colleges in the 1960’s, those students were converted to the influence of political correctness by their college professors.

Over the subsequent years and decades, I sat back like millions of Americans and watched what was going on, I didn’t give it much credibility and it didn’t get my serious attention. I went to work, I raise my four sons, and had a good life with my wife.  I had lived the American dream from a middle-class family in Columbus, Ohio to a successful businessman.  But with that lack of attention, I lost my country.

Now, towards the twilight of my life, I and many other Americans are desperately trying to atone for our sin of omission.  We didn’t take the protesters to heart, we didn’t pay attention to change in the curriculum in our schools, and we didn’t pay attention when the laws were changed that overturned our values.  We now have a deeply divided country.  For some time, we have had a portion of the community who believes that they are right and that anybody who was against them has no right to speak.  They question the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as being outdated, no longer functional in our contemporary society.  We built a society that has no understanding of its past, and if you have no idea of where you came from, how can you know where you are going?

The truth is, it is not the antiwar protesters of the 60’s, or the communist, the Nazis or fascist of the 30’s who took away our country.   The truth is, I let them take it.  I am the one responsible, I’m the one who didn’t pay attention to the people I was electing.  I didn’t follow what our country was doing while trying to be all things to all people. The old hymn sums it up very well, “Lord I was blind, but I could not see”.  I find myself wondering if, now that I can see, is it too late to save, “my country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.”  

Dan Perkins is an author in the current events commentator who writes for the Constitution.com, thedailycaller.com, the hill.com and Clash daily.com among others. Is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called of the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. His is website is DanPerkins.guru and he can be heard weekly at 8 PM eastern on W4CY radio.com.


September 2016    Editorials

Dan Perkins

Is This the Last Straw That Breaks Obama’s Legacy?

By

Dan Perkins

Recently I found an article on Google titled, “1,063 Documented Examples of Barack Obama’s Lying, Law breaking, Corruption, Cronyism, Hypocrisy, Waste, Etc.” written by Tim Brown on FREEDOM OUTPOST. I wondered how a person could have done all of these things and not be held accountable by the American people? How was it that no matter what he did, he only got credit for the good stuff, little as it was, he never got or took any of the blame for the bad stuff.  Much has been written about the President’s desire to protect his legacy and so the story that I’m about to tell you could be the last straw, or will it, like over 1,000 times before, be like the rest and not stick to his legacy.  I will warn you in advance that this story has a great number of tentacles that brings in some of the most powerful people in Washington. At the end of this story you may feel like you need a shower, but I’m not sure that it will restore your hope.

October 26 2016, WikiLeaks released emails that clearly indicate that Barack Obama knew of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, before he told the American people that he heard about in a story in news just like everybody else.  President Obama stated unequivocally he had no knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. During an appearance on ’60 Minutes’ last October, the President didn’t parse words. He didn’t issue a non-denial, denial. He flat out said “No” when asked if he knew of her server. You can see for yourself by going to the YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCqAVW8CpLg

President Obama clearly knew that Mrs. Clinton had an unsecured server because his communications with her were under a pseudonym, not POTUS. You can see in the first email that Cheryl Mills clearly indicates the President holds emails from Mrs. Clinton that are not marked State.Gov.

So why is this important? Isn’t it just another lie? Is it possible that the President may have committed an impeachable act? It is also very possible that the head of the FBI and the Justice Department violated their oaths of office. Here we go: officials in the White House declared that the White House is no longer going to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. This declaration was made on March 16, 2015. Now look at the March 7, 2015 date in the Cheryl Mills e-mail indicating there is a problem.

Why is this important? If the President admits that he was exchanging unsecured e-mails with Clinton, he has lied to the American people. We don’t know the content of the e-mails, but we can guess they weren’t about her yoga classes. Clinton told us that she never sent or received classified information. Was the President’s communication with Mrs. Clinton classified information on her private server? Did the President comply with the Federal Records Act in preserving these e-mails? If he didn’t preserve them, he committed a felony.

Now we move to the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails to see if she broke any laws. FBI Director Comey reported that she was sloppy and did not take care when handling classified e-mails. Based on his review, he did not recommend a grand jury to review the evidence, as he could find no intent to mishandle Federal Records. Why? Many of us were surprised at his recommendation, but I believe he had no other choice. If he were to recommend a grand jury to investigate the actions of Mrs. Clinton, then there was a possibility that the inquiry could not be controlled and the evidence would lead directly to the President. So in order to protect the President, Hillary got a ‘Get out of jail free card.’ No discussion of this subject would be complete without Bill Clinton being involved. Before Comey makes his announcement about Hillary, Bill meets the Attorney General of the United States in her plane on the tarmac in Phoenix. Lynch previously in 1999 was appointed by Clinton as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. I have no doubt that with this unplanned visit, Lynch was aware of the risk to the President should a Grand Jury be called.

One other twist to our story: the number two person in the FBI e-mail investigation was Andrew McCabe. His wife Jill received $675,000 from friends of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her campaign to run for the Virginia statehouse. McAuliffe is a long time friend of Bill and Hillary. McCabe did not recuse himself from the Hillary e-mail investigation, which I believe he should have, if for no other reason than optics. He was another gatekeeper to protect the President’s legacy.

Lying is not something new to Obama or Clinton, but now we have what I believe to be a cover-up of a Federal crime. I believe Cheryl Mills as a lawyer knew this would be a serious problem for the President and Mrs. Clinton, and if she could convince the White House and the President to suspend the FOIA, it would be his best protection against impeachment and the protection of his legacy.

There is not enough time left in his term to impeach President Obama, and if Hillary wins the election, she will not be prosecuted for her gross mis-management of her communications. In conclusion, I have a few questions for Mr. Trump if he wins, “Will you let it go, or will you endeavor to find the truth for the American people about the corruption in Washington? Will you endanger the legacy of Mr. Obama in trying to, as you say, ‘Drain the Swamp?’”

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for Constitution.com, Reaganbaby.com, Clashdaly.com, the dailysurge.com, and others. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic Nuclear Terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. His web site is danperkins.guru and he can be heard on w4cyradio.com on Tuesday evening at 8 PM Eastern.


Sept. 28 2016

Printed in Daily Surge

Hillary Clinton recently addressed, via conference call, the Laborers’ International Union of North America in Las Vegas. The former Secretary of State stated that she should be “50 points ahead” of Donald Trump in the polls. With that statement we need to ask the question, “Why is she not 50 points ahead?”

I believe that the Clinton campaign has yet to come to the realization that Trump is running a Democrat style campaign. He is beating Hillary by using her game plan. He is attacking her stronghold, blacks and Hispanics. Hillary can’t win the election without the support of the two major minorities supporting her.

We have all heard that some of the mainstream Republicans are against Trump because they think he is a liberal not a true conservative. When they read this commentary they will understand his true game plan. Go back to the Obama-McCain campaign in 2008, look how Obama used social media to his advantage while McCain was from a different generation not schooled in the ways of the Internet. Obama was on the campaign trail and used social media to talk about hope and change. The combination was deadly against McCain. John McCain tried to run his campaign from the Republican playbook of what to say and do when running for president, and that playbook did him in.

McCain never attacked Obama on his experience to be president, the street fighter Obama went after John, he had no response. Romney was from the same school, be a polite gentleman, don’t attack when you have an advantage. The street fighter won two times against the Republican gentlemen. Obama said recently about his rivals, the two of them didn’t have much of a chance against him in their elections.

So now we have Trump on the scene. He started against 16 opponents that had all studied the Republican playbook of what was expected from them during their campaign. They didn’t know for a long time that Trump was reading from the Democratic Play book.  Hillary for the most part had the nomination sewed up before the primary season got started and she started looking at the Republican playbook and was behaving more like a Republican.

Trump would win all the debates because his performance was driven by the aggressive Obama playbook. The more he won the more power and influence he gained. It wasn’t until the last few weeks of the campaign, that the remaining opponents Cruz and Rubio figured out what Trump was doing, but by then it was to late. Trump using the Obama play book knocked off all of his opponents. Trump was better than Obama and Hillary in using the Democratic playbook.

TRENDING ON DAILY SURGE

  • COMMENTARY: Taxes in America – A Historical Perspective
  • COMMENTARY: Donald Trump has Bill Clinton and the 900-pound Gorilla in the Room
  • Hillary: ‘Religious Beliefs Against Abortion Must Change’
  • Horrifying: Video Of ISIS Militants Executing 1500 Iraqi Army POWs

 

November 2016    Editorials

Nobody believed that Trump could win the necessary votes for the nomination, so when he won it, the Republican leadership started the “Never Trump” movement to try and get him replaced. They didn’t understand what he was doing.  He aggressively fought back at anything Hillary said. Hillary was sitting easy, at least she thought, the Republican party was being torn apart and Democrats were unifying. She had a cakewalk to the election to the White House, until Trump got focused on the Democratic strength the Blacks and Hispanic voters. Hillary felt that the Black and Hispanic votes were secure, she didn’t need to worry.

Hillary’s problems with her e-mails and the Clinton foundation started to take their toll on her because Trump used the Democratic playbook against her. The American people thought she was a crook and dishonest. He named her “Crooked Hillary” and his actions made the name stick. Trump pounded on the scandals and the crookedness of the system, to build attention. While Hillary was attacking Trump, Trump was attacking both Hillary and the Democratic Party especially in the Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. He went were no other Republican presidential candidate went, he went into the black churches and neighborhoods and talked about what they had achieved over 50-years of Democratic rule. He asked a great question, “What do you have to lose?”

His message began to resonate, not with the Black Lives Matter people, the Black Panthers followers or other militant groups. His message was to the hard working men and women in the Black and Hispanic communities, who wanted more for their children and grandchildren.

Does Mrs. Clinton own the Black and Hispanic communities? She has a significant lead, but if Mr. Trump continues his outreach in the minority communities he will gain a greater and greater share of the minority vote, perhaps enough to turn the tide of the election. So, Mrs. Clinton there are many people in the Black communities all over American who are warming up to the Trump message. With less than seven weeks till the election Hillary doesn’t have time for a new playbook. Look for her to be even more vicious in her personal attacks on Trump, she will spend millions of dollars attacking Trump and very little on what she is going to do for America. I don’t think the American people want four more years of what has transpired over the previous eight years. Is Trump’s message so powerful as to defeat Mrs. Clinton? We will find out on November 8.

Perhaps when this campaign is over, both of the playbooks will be tossed out, and an era of a new style of campaign will replace them.  Probably not!

Dr. Ben Carson spoke from both his heart and his brain when he said he would not support a Muslim, a follower the Quran and Sharia Law, instead of the Constitution if he or she were to run for President of the United States.

Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said. “Carson should withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”Awad’s through his comments is trying to say that Carson has insulted the entire Muslim population and his remarks continues the polarization of America by the left using political correctness to control freedom of thought and expression by trying to intimidate or drive off people who think differently than they.

Dr. Carson, because he is a candidate for President, then he must agree with CAIR or say nothing, he is not entitled to his own belief. In a nation that is supposed to have free speech it appears that CAIR can have there’s but Dr. Carson can’t have his. Wouldn’t this be a great question to ask Hillary, “Would you be in favor of a President, who doesn’t believe in the Constitution and would follow Sharia Law? Should the President have the right to follow whatever law he wants regardless if it is in conflict with our Constitution?

In Irving Texas we have the first Sharia Court, and when asked if you are asked to rule on a case will you use the Constitution or Sharia law they responded Sharia. Dr. Carson has said we are a nation of laws governed by the US Constitution. The American people have the right to know how all the candidates from both parties stand on this issue.

Would the new Sharia President of the United States be in favor of the destruction of Israel in 25 years? Would he or she think that America should lead the way in the attack? CAIR and other groups are not really attacking Dr. Carson as much as they are attacking the right of any man regardless of race, color, or position to speak his mind freely and not be intimidated, disgraced or driven out of a race by those who disagree with him.

Senator Cruz also spoke out against Dr. Carson saying that the Constitution does not call for a religion test to hold elective office. However the President must take an oath of office that says that, “He will protect and defend the Constitution so help me God.” How can a man or woman make that pledge if they believe that the Constitution is incompatible with the religious laws they follow the Constitution?

Parvec Ahmen a professor at the University of North Florida wrote for the Huff Post, on September 23, “Sharia to be more specific, Sharia to Muslims is what Halacha is to Jews and Cannon Law is to Catholics.” One could ask professor Ahmen where the Muslims leaders of CAIR were when Muslims in the Middle East started killing 10 of thousands of Christians. What does his book tell him about the people of other faiths and how they are to be treated?

This is exactly what Dr. Carson was concerned about that people will be told as the professor quotes, that there is no difference. If it is said enough people will believe it. I do not believe that these are equal and to try and convince the American public they are is part of the fraud being perpetrated on Americans. His article does not address the significant differences in the three religions but rather tries to lump them together as co-equal.

Clearly there are great differences between the three religions on the treatment of women and minorities are radically different. Would Hillary support Sharia law replacing the Constitution in America? She has told Donald Trump to apologize, for his failure in her mind about the comments and questions asked in his town meeting in New Hampshire.

One last question, when will the main stream media start asking Democrats the same got you questions they ask Republicans?” Will the CNN team be the same as the Republican debate? Will they ask Hillary about women’s rights in Muslim countries? Will they ask the relationship between her decision of Keystone pipeline and the contributions OPEC nations, including Saudi Arabia made to the Clinton Foundation? Will they ask about her role in protecting President Clinton from all of the women who have accused Bill of sexual abuse?

Are the outcries suggesting that Dr. Carson’s remarks should cause him to resign bogus or real? Look at what has happened to his, ratings, money, and popularity. They all went up because he is speaking the truth and the bell of freedom is ringing in the heads of people who are with him in his quest.

Dan Perkins is a commentator on current events and is the author of the trilogy on Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. He is a regular contributor to the Hill.com, the Daily Surge, and Reagan Babies.


August 29, 2016

Is Hillary Clinton Headed for A Willie Horton Moment?

by Dan Perkins

According to the 2010 Census approximately 112 million people in the United States were probably not old enough or aware of the role that Willie Horton played in the presidential election of Bush 41 in 1988. The Governor of Massachusetts in 1987 was Michael Dukakis. He was an early adopter of the progressive movement and political correctness at the state level. He believed a person who was convicted of a serious crime could be rehabilitated sooner if he or she was allowed to roam the streets unsupervised for months at a time. He created a program called the Prison Furlough. One has to wonder what he was thinking when he concluded, that letting out convicted felons without supervision was a good idea. Wait a minute, is it possible that President Obama’s inspiration for releasing tens of thousands of illegal aliens, who are convicted felons, to go out and commit more crimes on the American people, was inspired by Prison Furlough?

Governor Dukakis became the Democratic nominee for president and by June he had a 15-point lead over Bush 41. Convicted felon Willie Horton was released under Gov. Dukakis’s Prison Furlough program and did not return to prison after his allotted furlough was over. Instead of returning to prison he showed up in Oxon Hill Maryland at the home of Clifford Barnes and viciously attacked Mr. Barnes. Later Barnes’ fiancee, Angela, came home, and Horton viciously assaulted her, raping her twice, tying her up and taking her car to get away, but he was ultimately apprehended by the police.

Are you asking yourself, what does Willie Horton have to do with the current presidential campaign? This is an excellent question. This significant event had an impact on people’s decision and an impact on the outcome of the 1988 presidential race. A Willie Horton type of event for Trump or Clinton could affect the outcome for this election in a similar way. How many of you remember Romney and think of his the famous 47% quote by Mitt, it sunk his election chances. Both campaigns today are frantically looking for the next Willie Horton or 47% statement opportunity.

The Republican Party ran television commercials about Willie Horton and the Democrats ran with the 47% against Romney in 2012. The power of this significant campaign tactics was demonstrated in the outcome where Bush 41, 426 electoral votes compared to Dukakis 111. Bush also won 42 of the 50 states and won the popular vote 53% to 45%.

How was it possible the candidate who had a 15-point lead in June was so soundly defeated? I believe that Willie Horton, during the presidential campaign, had put the spotlight on the impact of the liberal policies in Massachusetts. His Prison Furlough program was responsible for the attack by Willie Horton and Dukakis needed to be held accountable for his actions. The American people rejected Dukakis and his philosophy and today whenever individuals, who were around at the time, mentioned Dukakis, they most surely also mention Willie Horton.

While Mrs. Clinton, has never been in a position to promote a law like Gov. Dukakis, she has been in public office for a long time and there could be her “Willie Horton” moment yet undiscovered. The Clinton campaign has a huge war chest and she is already spending millions of dollars in attacking Trump. The discovery of something akin to Mitt’s 47% remark could turn all of those hundreds of millions of dollars worthless.

If I had to guess, I believe it will come from an email that has not yet been released. The activity of the Clinton Foundation, while she was Secretary of State, may well be her Willie Horton moment. Perhaps it will be like Mitt’s 47%, it just came out and once it did, the election was over. If the Trump campaign can find a Willie Horton moment, its impact will gain traction almost immediately. We won’t know until after the election how significant the impact was on the voter’s decision. Polling data will tell Trump if he has a winner and if he finds a winner he will ride it to the end.

 

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for several National blogs including the Daily Caller, and the Hill. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan’s weekly radio show ‘Two Guys from Verona’ can be heard at 8 PM eastern on Tuesday evenings on W4CY radio.com.


August 2016  Commentaries

Mr. Trump, look there’s a bright shiny object.

By

Dan Perkins

In the Disney Pixar movie “Up” there is a talking dog name Doug, his problem is that he is easily distracted from whatever he is doing. In the scene were Doug is talking to the old man and the boy he is immediately distracted by a squirrel. He is frozen in time focused on the squirrel and then Doug comes back to the subject matter at hand.

Hillary Clinton has announced that her strategy for the month of August is not to talk about issues, but to attack and destroy the reputation of Donald Trump. She has the President and many other spokespeople launching daily assaults against Mr. Trump. Based on his current reactions her strategy seems to be working in that she is taking Donald off message and he is reacting to whatever she or her surrogates say.  It’s like the child being distracted by a bright shiny object or Doug the dog being distracted by colorful balloons. The attacks are not only coming from Hillary and her agents but also Republicans have joined the attack on Trump forcing him to defend himself to his own party.

Mrs. Clinton’s objective is based on the Clinton playbook that was used against Bush 41 and, I might add, it was successful. Bill Clinton controlled the agenda and as a result of his shiny object attacks, Bush 41 could never really address his agenda to American voters. Bill Clinton, who has been accused of raping and sexually molesting women by using the bright shiny object approach, was able to deflect any real criticism of his illegal activities and won the election as President.

Mr. Kahn started his criticism of Trump on the stage of the DNC.  Keep in mind that the things said in the bright shiny object approach don’t have to be true but just have to be something that is controversial that will distract Trump.  The President of the United States said in the press conference, “Donald Trump is not fit to be President of the United States, he doesn’t know enough about the economy or foreign affairs to be president of United States.” Not only did the president attacked Donald Trump but he also attacked John McCain and Mitt Romney, stating that they would not have been very good presidents if they had defeated him.

President Obama has consistently attacked Donald Trump’s fitness and mental stability to be President of United States.  These attacks come directly from the Hillary campaign by providing the talking points to all her friends and allies to attack Trump.  The biggest ally for Hillary, in the shiny object campaign, is the mainstream media.

When I was younger I wanted to believe in the first amendment that our press would be objective and impartial however the older I got the more convinced I was Pollyannaish in thinking that they would ever change.  We have the New York Times printing a front-page story that was wrong and when the reporter was interviewed by other media about the inaccuracy of his story he said, “the story stands on its own”. There are daily examples of the mainstream media printing stories that have no basis in truth, but are simply written to destroy the reputation and the momentum of Donald Trump, bright shiny at work.

 The real power in the shiny object strategy is the distraction of the American voter.  Just as Trump can be led off message, so the American voter through shiny object stories.  Focusing the attention on the suitability of Donald Trump in the minds of his supporters, speaks nothing of the ability, honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness of Hillary Clinton to be president.

 Hillary Clinton is trying to make this election about Donald Trump’s suitability to be president and not about her ability to help America.  She wants the American electorate to go into the voting booth on November 8 and vote against Donald Trump by pulling the lever for her.  She is feeding America all the reasons why they should vote against Trump without giving them any reasons why they should vote for her, other than she is the first woman to run for the presidency of United States.

I believe it is possible that with a little more focus on the credibility of Hillary to be President of the United States, Donald Trump can hold his own in the polls through the month of August.  If he stays close to Hillary in the polls, no matter how biased the polls are towards Hillary, the first presidential debate in September could be the end of the campaign for Hillary. I fully expect this debate to be the most watch event in the history of television, and the outcome of the elections could be decided at this first debate.  Remember back when Romney and McCain debated Obama, they were both given many opportunities to challenge Obama, but they did not, while these two men were intimidated by Political Correctness.  I hope Trump will not be like them this time.

If Donald Trump follows the playbook of the Democratic Party for the procedure in debates then he will, like Romney and McCain, capitulate to Hillary.  The reporters asking the questions will be biased towards Hillary and will try and limit the discussion in the favor of Mrs. Clinton.  Trump’s challenge for the rest of the campaign is to realize that Hillary Clinton and her supporters will be throwing hundreds of bright shiny objects towards Donald Trump, he has to train himself not to look.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the daily caller.com, the hill.com, Clash daily.com, the daily surge.com, and Reagan baby.com. Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the daily caller.com, the hill.com, Clash daily.com, the daily surge.com, and Reagan baby.com.


August 2016

How Much Power Do The Clinton’s Really Have? Is it all About the Money?

 BY

 Dan Perkins

 The conventions are over and now we head to the dog days of August the candidates will be out and about, but the real campaign will start after Labor Day.  Each convention had their own controversy: Ted Cruz was the controversial figure at the Republican convention. After his speech people were wondering if he is a very smart politician planning for a run in 2020 or is his political life over?

The Democrats had more than their fair share of controversy on the Friday before the convention, when WikiLeaks released over 19,000 emails that ultimately caused the resignation and quick departure of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  These emails showed that the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, Schultz among others, conspired to defeat the candidacy of Bernie Sanders for the nomination of the Democratic Party for president. The party, by its rules, was to remain neutral during the primary season, but the emails showed that it was far from neutral. This attack on the Sanders campaign was not isolated, but wide spread throughout the DNC

To people who followed the primary campaigns, this revelation is no real surprise, as Bernie had been saying it for months on the campaign trail.  The emails simply confirmed what everybody new to be true.  Of course, Mrs. Clinton denied any involvement in the strategy of eliminating Mr. Sanders as a viable competitor for the parties’ nomination. Mainly overlooked by the bulk of the media, was the content of how money was manipulated around the federal elections law. I thought it was fascinating when Mrs. Clinton, in her acceptance speech, said that she would work to overturn Citizens United, which went all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld. I find great irony in her objection to Citizens United when she uses the very law to attract huge sums of money, which were then doled out to buy influence on her behalf.

Money is always important.

 Bill Clinton was a professional student from 1964 until his graduation from Yale Law School in 1973. In 1976 Bill Clinton ran for and won the attorney general position in the state of Arkansas, and from that point on he fed from the public dole the rest of his life. He spent three years of his adult life working for a paycheck at the law school of University of Arkansas and while he was in school he spent a great deal of his time running for Congress against John Paul Hammerschmidt. When he left the presidency he needed to find something to do to pay his bills so he found a lucrative career of giving speeches but that wasn’t enough, he needed more money.  When Clinton was going through his college experience at Georgetown and Yale, he had no money; but, all the people around him who had money considered him to be a rube (a country bumpkin) from the hills because of his lack of money.  Clinton never forgot being judged how much money he didn’t have as opposed to being judged on his talent and ability.

 Hillary Rodham, and the thirst for wealth, the woman behind the throne.

 As you are about to see, the demand and need for money was the driving force for Hillary, and in turn, it drove everything for the two of them. She quickly realized that the path to true wealth was through politics and the presidency.

In 1977, Hillary landed a place at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. Founded in 1820, it was one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms west of the Mississippi River.

In the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton was making $35,000 as governor of Arkansas, Hillary was making $100,000 a year from her law firm salary and corporate board fees. A portion of her salary was from Lafarge, a U.S. cement maker, which was later, fined for pollution violations at its Alabama plant.

Hillary served on the boards of TCBY and Wal-Mart. The Clintons also benefited financially from Wal-Mart. Hillary Clinton was paid $18,000 each year she served on the board, plus $1,500 for each meeting she attended. By 1993, according to Bill Clinton’s federal financial disclosure forms that year, she had accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock.

When Bill Clinton was inaugurated as governor of Arkansas on January 10, 1979, Hillary wore a $20,000 necklace that contained the 4.25-carat Kahn diamond. The Kahn was mined at the Arkansas Crater of Diamonds State Park, the state park that holds the only diamonds ever discovered in North America.

When Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis sent a check to Bill’s presidential campaign in 1992, he immediately said, “We can’t cash this.” Hillary replied,” Make a copy, and then cash it.

The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading created a political embarrassment for the Clintons, who have sharply criticized a national culture of greed during the Reagan and Bush years in the White House. Hillary kept the money from the trades regardless of the controversy.

When Hillary Clinton encouraged White House chef Pierre Chambrin to resign in 1994, he was given $37,026 in exchange for his agreement not to discuss the Clintons or the circumstances of his dismissal. This severance bonus was unprecedented and was questioned by Congress.

Jerry Zeifman, was counsel and Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Whitewater investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book wrote about Hillarie’s dismissal, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.” The Progressive have no use for Roosevelt, Truman or Johnson.

Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, for her involvement with the Whitewater controversy in 1996, and to repeatedly be deposed as part of ongoing criminal and civil investigations, including Travelgate and Filegate. Bill and Hillary were the only first Couple to be fingerprinted by the FBI.

Many biographers and observers have voiced their suspicions that Hillary and Bill’s marriage was and is based on shared political ambition to revolutionize the Democratic Party and secure the presidency for Bill, and Hillary later, rather than on love.

While talking with public radio interviewer Terry Gross in 2004, Bill essentially defined their marital dynamic as being similar to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt who worked together in the White House, but led separate lives after she learned about his affair with Lucy Mercer Rutherford.

Bill said of Hillary, the night of his speech at the DNC, calling her “the best darn change maker I ever met in my entire life” and saying, “that she was never satisfied with the status quo.” I believe she will never have enough money or power. In many respects she is similar to President Obama in the quest for power. The President has in many cases ignored the Constitution in order to bring about change. Hillary has broken the law and because of her position nobody currently in the government has the courage to go after her in breaking the rule of law. The question that might be asked of Trump, “Should you be elected will you prosecute Hillary?”

The following is one example of the power of money and how Hillary used it to try and win the election. Among the leaked DNC e-mails is the story of how the Hillary super PAC Victory, bought super delegates, 33 state parties and skirted the election finance laws. How she did it by calling on her rich friends to donate to each state party. Under current Federal Election Rules the family that might have been limited to $2,700 per person can give a great deal more, see chart below:

This year, by comparison, Hillary Clinton’s organization can ask donors to give nearly three-quarters of a million dollars each. Here’s how it works:

Donors who are rich — and willing — can give $5,400 ($2,700 each) to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the Democratic National Committee and $10,000 to each of the state parties, about $360,000 in all per person. A joint fundraising committee lets the donor do it all with a single check. So a couple like George and Amal Clooney can give $720,000, but that is not the entire story. A state party can provide funding from Hillary to local candidates, perhaps a super delegate who will pledge to support Hillary at the convention. There were 33 state parties that were in financial difficulty, so money from the Victory Fund can be given by the DNC to help support the problem states and in turn they would support Hillary’s campaign.

One more thing, the person in charge for distributing the Victory Fund money is the treasurer of the Clinton Campaign Fund. For now the above headline is true for Hillary, it’s all about the money and she will never have enough. She is clearly the driving force raising the money and she knows that the one who controls the money controls the power.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the daily caller.com, the hill.com, Clash daily.com, the daily surge.com, and Reagan baby.com. He is the author of The Brotherhood of The Red Nile trilogy, which is a fictional account of a radical Islamic nuclear terrorist attack against the United States.  He can be heard on W4CY radio.com on Tuesday evenings at 8 PM eastern.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


July  18, 2016 

Hillary is not too big to fail nor is she too big not to go jail

By

Dan Perkins

I was watching the head of the FBI, James B. Comey, make his announcement about the e-mail investigation conducted by his agency of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server. To say that many people were shocked at the outcome would be an understatement. The Director basically rewrote the law by inserting language that was not in the law, in order for him to make his recommendation not to prosecute Mrs. Clinton. He used the word “intent” as a basis to excuse her and her staff’s behavior. The Federal Records Act of 1995 does not use the word “intent”.  This interpretation was much like Chief Justice Roberts creating a new law to permit Obama Care to proceed. One could ask if General Petraeus can appeal his verdict based on the new interpretation on his “intent”?

After I listened to his prepared remarks, the thought came to me that regardless of the outcome of the November election, Bill and Hillary Clinton have changed the meaning of two words in the English language forever.  Bill changed the meaning of the word “sex”, while Hillary forever changed the meaning of “integrity” for public officials.

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have used the word liar throughout the primary campaign to describe Hillary’s moral fiber. The Director of the FBI showed us, by using examples, the extent to which Hillary lied to the Congress and the American people. He pointed out that Mrs. Clinton indicated that she never sent or received e-mails that were marked classified.  He went on to say, “110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received by Mrs. Clinton. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and, eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.” The bottom line is that every time she said, she never sent or received classified information, she lied to us.

 The following quote is from Adolf Hitler he said, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” The question is, did Hillary reach a point that she believed she was telling the truth? Were her lies making her a pathological liar, read on?  She told all of us that she only had one server yet Comey reported that she had several. Did she not remember she had more than one? She told us that what she did was permitted by the State Department to use private servers but yet the Inspector General for the State Department, Steven Linck, said that, “Mrs. Clinton never asked for a separate server capacity.” He also indicated in his report, “that had she asked she would have been denied.” Did she think she had asked and it was approved?  Perhaps she intended to ask but for some reason didn’t remember she hadn’t asked for permission. Is it possible that she is in early stages of dementia as a result of the very serious head injury a few years back when she fell and hit her head and was hospitalized for an extended period of time? Could the accident be the root cause of her confused memory?

 Some will recall the special glasses she had to wear for blurred vision both at her first testimony on Benghazi and earlier this year on the campaign trail. Is her inability to focus or remember another side effect of dementia or this injury? These questions might lead one to ask is she stable enough to be commander and chief? Comey questioned her “reckless approach”, in handling sensitive communications.  Her actions have made her a security risk. The Speaker o the House has suggested that she should be banned from receiving classified information until after the election.

 The FBI Director focused on the lack of security in handling classified documents. The Director reported, “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” If she could not distinguish what was classified and what wasn’t, then this may be another example of potentially diminished mental capacity? The Secretary is the senior official in the Department of State and is accountable for the actions of her staff. It appears that she delegated to certain individuals, who were not cleared for handling classified documents, the day to day responsibility for transmission of such documents, therefore potentially jeopardizing national security.

 One has to asked, based on the FBI director report, if Hillary Clinton is fit physically and mentally to be President. By Comey standards she may not be prosecuted but she is not innocent. Now you understand the title of this commentary, “Hillary is not too big to fail nor is she too big not to go to jail.”

 Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the Daly Caller.com, Thehill.com, Reganbaby.com, the dalysurge.com. He is the author of the trilogy of Radial Islamic Nuclear Terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. His weekly radio show can be heard live on W4CYradion.com on Tuesdays evening at 8 PM eastern.

The Elites want a do-over.

By

Dan Perkins

A few days after the results of the vote on Britain leaving the European Union, the academic elites and the liberal leaders have concluded that the common man and woman in Britain can’t be allowed to make such an important decisions as to whether to stay or leave the EU. One of the great ironies in this situation is that the elites were convinced they were going to win and through the power of their intelligence they were able to intimidate the middle class into voting the way they wanted them to vote, or so they thought. They now have decided that they want the 1,450 ministers in parliament to vote to override the will of the people.  They are confident that the middle class didn’t know what they were voting for or against, and that their responsibility, as the elite, is to make decisions on behalf of the common man.

They want a new vote that requires two things, a 60% majority and 75% voter turnout.  If those two criteria are not met, then the referendum fails. I was watching the vote tally on the BBC television, and I found my sensitivity to the words being spoken was enhanced if I closed my eyes.  As I listened well into the early morning hours I heard many of the same issues spoken by the average person that are talked about in the United States: issues of immigration, falling wages, no growth, high taxes, dilution of the public services, etc.

All the issues that I heard and more are being discussed right now in the US.  We have questions about border security, illegal immigration, high unemployment, declining productivity per worker, lost jobs, and the government seems to be out-of-control.  So, as I was listening I began to wonder if what happened in the UK is a precursor to what might possibly happen in the USA come November.

Many of the issues that were important to the middle class in Britain are clearly important to us in America. We have politicians who asked us, “give us the House and we will succeed” but nothing happened; and, those same politicians asked, “give us the Senate and we will succeed”, but nothing happened.  The politicians who promised a better America if we would vote for them, are the same politicians who are today rejecting the wishes of the American people.  They want to do what they want to do regardless of the wishes of the people.

It is no wonder that with no increase in wages, lower hours working, higher costs for healthcare, an exploding government, and a debt out-of-control, the American worker wants something different!  Prime Minister Cameron staked his career trying to convince the British people that he knew what was right for them and they should agree with him and support Britain staying in the EU.  Some might say that Prime Minister Cameron and the other leaders and elites in the UK lost touch with the British people. Can the same be said about America’s leaders and the elites rejecting the will of the people of America?

There is no doubt that the people who are supporting staying in the EU we’re shocked at the outcome of the vote because they didn’t get what they wanted, and they’re now questioning the whole process and the right of the English people to decide their own destiny. Perhaps the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can be attributed to speaking to the American people about the things that were important to the people not what was important to them. Sanders was perceived to be a socialist and Trump is perceived to be a nationalist.  They both ran for the nomination of their traditional parties and as a result have brought about change, if only temporary, in both parties.  I find it interesting that the mainstream leadership of both parties doesn’t know what to do with Trump or Sanders and their supporters.

The party that ignores the demands of the middle-class in the United States will be the party that will lose the presidential election regardless of how many billions of dollars is spent trying to convince the American people that the wolf in the sheep’s skin is not a wolf.  America, just like the people of Britain, wants to change the direction of the country, and in both cases, the elites who had control for long period of time are fighting tooth and nail to maintain control. There were many banners all over England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland the message on the banners was in the headlines of the newspapers, on billboards, and street corners it had a simple message from the middle class that June 24th is our “Independence Day”. We in America may well declare that November 8, 2016 is our new, “Independence Day.”

The day after the vote the capital markets around the world sold off primarily because of the uncertainty of what will happen to the power and influence the EU will have without Great Britain.  That volatility will continue for some time until the world adjusts to a new order. Questions are now being asked about other countries who are members of the EU, who’s people might be interested in having there own Independence Day.  The greatest risk to the world of the elites is the dismantling of the European Union and over 40 years of the great experiment known as political correctness.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the hill.com, the daily surge.com, Reaganbaby.com, and clashdaily.com.  He is the author of the trilogy about radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. He can be heard live on W4CY radio.com Tuesday evenings at 8 PM eastern.

____________________________________________________________________

June 2016

Is the blood on the dance floor in Orlando is on the hands of 5 Supreme Court Justices?

By

Dan Perkins

As the author of the trilogy on Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States called of the Brotherhood of the Red Nile, I spent an enormous amount of time doing research on the Koran and Sharia Law. The first Book in the trilogy has a subtitle, “A Terrorist Perspective”. My intent in this first book was to help the reader gain a basic understanding of why the Muslim people are determined to destroy America and the gay population therein. It is not hard if you look outside the United States news media to find many examples of Islamic nations throwing gays off of the top of buildings, beheading, stoning to death and many other punishments for those people they believe are acting in such a way to attack their beliefs.

We in America many times make decisions without understanding what the unintended consequences maybe of our decisions.  Look at the administration’s decision to have regime change in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. The President recently admitted in the case of Libya, that they, the President and Mrs. Clinton, did not think through who would replace Qaddafi.  The results of their poor judgment are countries in total chaos and coming under the control of ISIL.

Now we come to the Supreme Court, a significant number of the world population believes from the beginning of time that God intended marriage to be between a man and woman, Adam and Eve. For thousands and thousands of years in the evolution of man marriage was still defined as between a man and woman. In our own nation the determination of the laws regarding marriage were established by the states not the central government. So when the 5 justices of the Supreme Court in their arrogance decided that they we’re going to tell the people in the United States, and the rest of the world, that they decided that marriage was no longer just between a man and woman.

Their decision of defining marriage in the United States was no longer limited to a union between a man and woman, but could now be between a man and a man, and a woman and woman.  Those true believers in the Koran were outraged not only by the 5 to 4 decision of the court but also that the house of the President was illuminated with the gay pride flag lights.  This told the true believers that America no longer believed in it’s past, nor the history of man. America has become, in their eyes, a decadent nation, and was attacking their core beliefs.  The Supreme Court and the administration sent a clear message to the Muslim community without thinking about the consequences of their actions.  The gay community and the President and Michelle Obama many leaders of the Democratic Party and others celebrated the diversity and the change of the historical definition of marriage.

The leaders of the Islamic movement told us last week that the debauchery in Europe and United States left them a no other choice but to attack both the United States and Europe in retaliation for the attack on their religious beliefs. Mohammed told his followers that they were given the mission to lead the world to the end of times.  The only people that could enter into heaven were Muslims, and everybody else were infidels: and, they either converted to the Islamic faith or they were to be killed. The action of the young man who killed 49 people, and injured 53 more in the largest mass shooting in our history used his cell phone while he was killing people to communicate his support for the principles of Islam.  It would be foolish for us in America and the people in the LGBT community to believe that this was a singular incident, I believe there is a potential for more attacks by Muslims in America on the LGBT Community. I looked at the reaction in the mainstream media as the Democratic leaders suggested this weekend that the killings are because of the Second Amendment. It seems that the media in their rush to judgment reported the wrong rifle that had been used; it was not an AR 15 but rather a Sig Sauer mcx carbine.

Years ago when the world was more isolated decisions could be made in one country without dramatically affecting what happened in another, but those days are forever gone. The government leaders, judges and politicians need to think carefully about what they say, and study what the potential consequences of their actions might be. One last question for the 5 Supreme Court justices, how many more gay and LBBT people have to die before you start to question your decision?

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator that writes for Reagan baby.com the daily surge.com, and thehill.com. Mr. Perkins is the author of the trilogy one radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, the Brotherhood of the Red Nile.  He can be heard on Tuesday evenings at 8 pm eastern, on w4cy radio.com.

June  2016

November 8, 2016

The Start of a New American Revolution?

 By Dan Perkins

As I sat and watched the returns from the British election something struck me, so I closed my eyes and just listen to the discussion. I was greatly surprised at the words used to describe what was going on in Britain, as they were very similar to the words that I heard on American TV recently.  What happened in Britain is a revolt, a rejection of the elite class and the Government rulers by the middle class. The very same things are happening here in the United States, Americans are rejecting the government leaders and the politicians who have, for many years, made promises that they never kept.

 

 

 

As was pointed out in the analysis of the returns, the middle class turned out in greater numbers across the country. The middle class is much larger than the elite class so the elite were overpowered by the shear number of middle class voters. The middle class, for a number of years, has told the elite and the government that they wanted things to change and the politicians ran for office on the idea of trying to bring about change for the people, but when they got in office they ignored the middle class needs, wants, and desires and did what they wanted to do with total disregard for the needs of the people.

 

The economy, jobs, safety, and immigration were the key issues that caused the greater turnout from the middle class than the elite class. I find it amazing that 72% of eligible voters voted in this election in Britain and in our last presidential election 57.5% of American eligible voters voted. Perhaps the anger and frustration by Americans will see a greater voter turnout this November. Before the vote, there were rumblings about the possibility that if Britain were to exit, then there could be votes in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and France causing a cascading exit of the EU and its eventual collapse.  Europe has experienced a more protracted economic malaise than what we have experienced in the United States.  The flood of immigrants has placed an enormous pressure on services like healthcare, housing, food, and education. The resource pot has to be deluded in order to provide some level of benefits for all the needy people.  That means that citizens of countries who have been hurt by the economic downturn are sharing resources with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees coming into the EU and in turn getting less benefits for themselves.

Those people who objected to the depletion of resources to take care of the immigrants, in lieu of their own people were sometimes being called racist both in England and the United States.  The idea of a non-elected central government, a bureaucracy if you would, dictating laws, rules, and regulations to the individual members of the EU has never been well received.  Many in Britain feel that the Central Government in Brussels was slowly eroding their identity as a nation.  The unelected Central Government was taking away their freedom.  The combination of pressure from immigrants and the Central Government to change the culture of many of the EU nations has left many Europeans wondering if they are losing their country, their heritage, and their culture.  Now, with Britain leaving the EU, expect more EU members will want to leave.

One of the most important points about what’s happening in the American election is that many of the same issues that were in play in Briton are in play here. In the fall election Americans will have an opportunity to decide the survival of this once great nation or take it down a path that leads to diminished individual freedom and a larger more intrusive government.  Is it possible that a concept of “Make America Great Again” can cause the Second Great American Revolution?  Will historians someday in the future look back at this time and say this was the time that America went back to its founding fathers and embraced the Constitution and made all Americans proud to be an American.

 Dan Perkins is a current events commentator writing for the hill.com, the daily surge.com, Reagan baby.com, and Clashdaily.com.  He is the author of the Trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan and his cohost of Two Guys from Verona can be heard on Tuesdays at 5 o’clock eastern on K JAG radio.com and at 8 o’clock Eastern on W4CYradio.com his web site is danperkins.guru.

 



5-27-2016

Every household in America has a second mortgage of $613,531

By

Dan Perkins

Home ownership is enjoyed in the United States with about 66% of the population owning a home. The average mortgage is about $172,000.  According to the United States Treasury Department the average household share of America’s outstanding debt of an excess of $19 trillion is $613,531.  If you don’t own a house and you’re living in your parent’s basement, in addition to your student loans, your share of the national debt is $237,384. The United States as a nation represents 5% of the world’s population yet according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), America’s debt at the national level alone is 32% of the outstanding World debt.  In the six months ending in April of 2016 America added an additional $1 trillion to its outstanding debt.

I think it’s difficult for even me to fathom the magnitude of $19 trillion in debt, so I thank the Department of the Treasury for breaking it down so we can all understand.  Another fact that might be interesting to some of our readers is that the average rate of interest that America pays on its $19 trillion is 3.29%. Let’s compare that rate to things we might know about.  The average 30-year mortgage rate is 3.44%. The 15-year mortgage rate is 2.75% and the 10-year Treasury note has a yield of 1.85%. The Treasury tells us that the average duration is 63.9 months, just over five and three quarter’s years. Based on the current market rates we are paying in excess of $400 billion per year in interest on the debt or about 13% of the budgeted revenue. The White House estimates that the budget deficit for 2016 will be about $500 billion.

In the same report the White House estimated the Gross Domestic Product for the US economy in 2016 is estimated to be $16.5 trillion, so the debt at the current level exceeds the entire GDP of the United States by about $3 trillion. So probably by now your eyes have fogged over and you’re wondering what is the point of this story.

The Federal Reserve who is charged with the responsibility for controlling inflation and stimulating jobs apparently has decided that they are going to raise interest rates starting in June or July and may increase rates perhaps two or three additional times in 2016.  One has to wonder what numbers the Fed is reading to make this decision.  The government just reported the second revision of gross domestic product for the first quarter of 2016 at .81of 1% on an annualized basis. To break that number down even smaller, the GDP for the first quarter was less than one quarter of one percent.  Given that number, this is not a robust economy that would give the Federal Reserve concern about inflation.

If we look at the Feds other roll, Jobs in the month of April 2016 we reported to be a disappointing 160,000 new jobs but we also reported 560,000 people left the workplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is reporting that the unemployment rate is 5%. Because of this rate the Federal Reserve is concerned that the new normal for unemployment being 5%, as oppose to the traditional 4%, that there could be inflationary pressure. The Federal Reserve wants to move preemptively not to slow the economy but to slow what they perceive to be the potential of an employment squeeze should the unemployment rate drop much below 5%.

I believe there is a different motive on the part of the Fed.  They increased rates by one quarter of 1% in December of last year and saw the economy get into trouble. They feel that one quarter of 1% is not much of an option to lower rates to spur the economy.  By raising interest rates 2 to 3 times the Federal Reserve could have as much as a 1% rate that they can use to help stimulate the economy should it, as Dr. Greenspan has projected, “Run into a difficult economic period.”

The market has already begun to pay the price in rate increases by the Federal Reserve therefore making the cost of money slightly more expensive. I do find it hard to believe that raising the cost of money will increase GDP.  In an already weak economy higher cost of doing business might well lead to increased layoffs and therefore an increase in the unemployment rate.

Other things are also confusing to me, for example, the employment participation rate, meaning the percentage of the people in the economy who can work that are working.  The participation rate is the lowest on record at 62.8% so it doesn’t seem like a lot of upward pressure on wages. The Labor Department reports approximately 94.4 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed. It seems to me that’s a lot of people that could come into the labor force that would keep unemployment at an acceptable level.  So perhaps the Federal Reserve has a better crystal ball than all of us and they see significant economic recovery in the future and significant pressure on the unemployment rate.  Perhaps they believe the economy will overheat after eight years of tepid growth and they must be prepared to take action on the inflation front.

The federal government because of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve has enjoyed an incredibly low cost of borrowing just like homeowners taking advantage the lowest mortgage rates perhaps in their lifetime.  But based on the forecast from the White House we will add another $500 billion to the deficit this year perhaps more. If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates 1% then the cost to the budget could be as much as $5-$7 billion more interest that will have to be paid.

There are two dynamics working against us, rising interest rates and budget deficits.  These two dynamics working together will take an ever-increasing share of the operating budget of the country, which will mean cuts in defense spending and social programs and most assuredly increases in taxes.  If the Fed goes to far in raising interest rates they could be the cause of a significant recession. They have a fine line to walk, and perhaps they need to have installed on their iPhones an application called US debt clock.org, it will show them in real-time the consequences of their actions. 

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator writing for the hill.com, the daily surge.com, Reagan baby.com, and Clashdaily.com.  He is the author of the Trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan and his cohost of Two Guys from Verona can be heard on Tuesdays at 5 o’clock eastern on K JAG radio.com and at 8 o’clock Eastern on W4CYradio.com his web site is danperkins.guru.

 

Think Of Oil As Cocaine And Saudi Arabia Is Still In Control

Published in the Daily Surge 

05.10.2016

Dan Perkins

In 2015 the average price of crude oil was $49 a barrel and Saudi Arabia lost 25% of its gross domestic product or one hundred and fifty billion dollars.  So far in 2016 the average price of crude oil is $29 a barrel and Saudi Arabia could stand to lose another hundred billion dollars. However, their actions hardly seem like a country who the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has quoted as saying, “if oil prices stay in the $40-$50 a barrel range Saudi Arabia will be bankrupt in 4 to 5 years”.

Before Saudi Arabia could be bankrupt most of the rest of the 12 oil producers in the world would have long since been in bankruptcy. Some OPEC nations like Venezuela are on the verge and are expected to go into bankruptcy by the end of 2016.  The battle over a world domination of oil has four players, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and the United States. Weaker OPEC nations going into bankruptcy creates market share opportunities for the four major powers. The greatest threat to Saudi Arabia, in reality, is the United States not Iran or Russia, as many would say.

Saudi Arabia is the largest producer in OPEC and because of the volume it pumps it has the greatest amount of influence on the other 12 members of OPEC. If Saudi Arabia wants to do something by and large the other OPEC nations follow suit. The attack by Saudi Arabia on the American fracking industry, starting in November 2014, had the objective to destroy the American oil industry. At the end of 2015 the rig count from Baker Hughes was 1,600 rigs in production. By April 2016 the rig count was down to 440. The rig count is the number of rigs actively drilling for oil or gas in a country. For the same period of time Baker Hughes reports that the number of active rigs in Saudi Arabia went from 115 to 6.

Declining rig counts indicates that the flow from existing wells is sufficient to meet demand not only for today but also for an extended period of time. Given the significant declining revenue, one has to ask why Saudi Arabia is jeopardizing its country by possibly driving it to the verge or into bankruptcy. Think of oil as cocaine, the OPEC nations have been on a high by controlling the world economy by increasing or decreasing the flow of crude oil.  The United States is just like the drug enforcement agency, by isolating the drug user away from the drugs.  The American oil industry, in a very short period of time, has made America energy independent; and, now that it has the ability to export unlimited amounts of crude oil, America will become an even greater challenge to the dominance of Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

Recently the leaders of Saudi Arabia have announced a scheme that would transfer the oil assets of Aramco into a public entity that the Saudis say is worth $2 trillion. It appears that the intention is to sell 5% of Aramco.  The proceeds of the sale will be used to transition the Saudi economy away from oil. The key architect of the diversification plan, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, said that if it works Saudi Arabia “can live without oil by 2020”.

 

What they are proposing is the setting up of a sovereign wealth fund and then they’ll do a public offering initially of 5% of the fund.  I think Salmam is mistaken about the ease in which the world will buy the 5% stake.  I think investors may well be reluctant to make an investment in Saudi Arabia where at any point in time the government could take control, they’ve done it before and they could do it again. The second and much bigger point is how you change the culture and the attitude of the people in four years. Much is been written about the strict nature of sharia law enforcement in Saudi Arabia. The diversification into other businesses is going to require talent that may not currently exist in the Saudi economy. That will mean Saudi Arabia will have to go out into the world and recruit perhaps non-Muslim individuals in order to assist the government and making the change. I believe it will be difficult for the Saudi government to maintain the Islamic traditions, and the life and culture will have to be driven with a western attitude in order to succeed.

One other factor that will affect the change is the Wahhabi sect in the Muslim faith. Some have suggested the Wahhabi is the most radical sect in the Muslim faith and perhaps the most violent.   The Wahhabi may fight the propose change and create additional turmoil that would restrict non-muslims from coming to Saudi Arabia and working. Under normal circumstances the transition of a government from one direction to another can be difficult, but for Saudi Arabia it could be catastrophic. The turmoil created by this change may in fact be the catalyst by which Iran becomes the leading force in the Middle East. As the American government seems to be leaning more towards Iran and away from Saudi Arabia in terms of balancing the power, the turmoil currently existing in the Middle East maybe dwarfed by what is about to come.

Dan Perkins is a novelist who has written a trilogy on a terrorist attack against the United States. The Brotherhood of the Red Nile series is available at Amazon.com. Mr. Perkins book web site is www.danperkins.guru.

Read more at http://dailysurge.com/2016/05/commentary-think-oil-cocaine-saudi-arabia-still-control/


April 19, 2016 – Published  in Clash Daily 

Call it what you like: Saudi threat Is Blackmail!

By

Dan Perkins

 President Barack Obama is headed for Saudi Arabia this week under a threat from Saudi Arabia that if America releases the 28-page report on the involvement of Saudi Arabia in 9/11, they do so at their own peril. The Congress is considering a bill to allow individuals to sue the Kingdom as a result of the Kingdom’s involvement in 9/11. The Saudis say, “if the Congress takes actions and the President signs the bills they will sell $750 billion of US assets and put the American economy at risk.” The most liquid assets that they would have to sell would be US treasury securities.  At a time when Saudi Arabia has seen no significant movement in the price of oil, and Saudi Arabia finds itself strapped for cash to run its government, it makes no sense, when you’re strapped for cash, to sell your most liquid assets.

Let’s deal with the $750 billion amount.  According to the US Treasury Department and the US Federal Reserve, OPEC nations in total, own approximately 1.5% of all outstanding US Treasury debt as of the summer of 2014. The government does not breakdown what percent of the 1.5% Saudi Arabia owns, but the point is that, with the US Government debt market at $19 trillion, one and a half percent if it all, would not move the market. The rest of the Saudi money is tied up in equities, hotels and other forms of real estate. Stocks could be sold and cause some short-term dislocation in the markets but everything else would take a much longer time to liquidate. So the question becomes, why would they threaten to sell $750 billion dollars worth of assets when they can only sell a small portion of those assets in the market?

As you may recall, I was one of the first to write in November 2014, over Thanksgiving weekend, that Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC had declared war on the United States by refusing to reduce production of crude oil.  The slide in the price of crude caused a significant slide in revenue to all the OPEC nations including Saudi Arabia. Their actions put the world on the verge of a recession. The current market price for crude oil is woefully short of what Saudi Arabia needs to balance its budget. Given the prospects of continued oil prices below the cost of what it needs to avoid a deficit in their budget, Saudi Arabia could be marching closer and closer to bankruptcy.

Under the present US law, remote countries have a level of safety from being sued in American courts. The Outside Sovereign Immunities Demonstration of 1976 is one reason why victims groups of the September 11, 2001 terrorist assaults neglected, to a great extent, to convey to the court that the Saudi Imperial Family and foundations provided monetary support for the assaults.

There is legislation in the US Congress started in the Senate that would waive the insusceptibility for cases including terrorist assaults that murder US subjects on US soil, as an example the World Trade Center Bombing on 9/11. Introduced by Republican Representative John Cornyn and Democrat Congressperson Toss Schumer, Congress figured out how to overcome factional divisions in the US enactment and went without difference through the Legal Board in January.

Couple to this legislation is the increasing demand for the release of the 28-page section of the 9/11 report, which was never made public.  This report is so secret it can only be viewed by certain members of Congress with specific clearances and is available for read only in a secure room in the bowels of the US Capitol.  No notes, no photographs, nothing can be made of this 28-page document by visitors. While nobody knows for sure what is in the 28-page document those who have read it have indicated that it is indicting to the Saudi Arabia Government and individuals within the country.

Here’s the dilemma for President Obama, with a Republican controlled Congress there is every likelihood that the legislation will pass, and that would allow American Family members of those who died in the 9/11 attack to sue the Saudi Arabian government if the President signs the bill. In addition, in separate legislation there may be an order to release the 9/11 28-page report for everybody to be able to read.  I have no doubt that with the President’s visit to the Kingdom both of these issues will quickly come to the surface.  I do not know what commitment the President of United States we’ll make it to the Saudi’s about his intention to veto both pieces of legislation, but I believe he will try to defeat it before it gets to him so he will not have to veto the bill. The question that must be going through his head, can he kill these bills?

The risk that the President has is that members of both parties are behind the legislation and the release of the 28-page document is making it very difficult for the President’s veto to be sustained. The rationale to the American people as to why the President would veto this legislation, could be very damaging to the Democratic Party in general, and in specific the November election.  With Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders both avid supporters of what the President has done while in office, it may be very difficult for them to sustain his veto.

Is this intimidation or, as my headline says, blackmail on the part of the Saudis? The President has been to the Kingdom before and has bowed before the King and the country apologizing for America’s imperialism. I have no doubt the President Obama will say to the King that he will do everything within his power to protect the Kingdom from harm, for America has already harmed the Kingdom enough.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the hill.com, the daily surge.com, Reagan baby.com and clashdaily.com.  He is the author of the trilogy of radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan can be heard on Tuesday evenings at 8 PM eastern on W4CYradio.com.


Has Ted Cruz moved to the Dark side?

By

Dan Perkins

The results of the Colorado caucus have been the most contentious so far in this presidential primary season.  Emotions have run high in both camps over the outcome and the ramifications of the decision. The critics of Mr. Trump have used the outcome to suggest that he is a, “paper tiger.” Mr. Cruz has been given kudos for the strategy of establishing a ground game that ultimately enabled the Republican State committee to award Mr. Cruz all the delegates. In fact according to Andrew Galbreath of Inquisit, “Senator Ted Cruz won all 34 Republican National Convention delegates from the State of Colorado without any votes being cast by citizens.”

Mr. Trump was outraged on several different fronts. He said that he believed hundreds of thousands of Colorado voters were disenfranchised. He said that the Republican Machine made the selection not the people. Last August when all the changes were made, Mr. Trump was the leader and some of his followers are suggesting that the changes were made to empower the elites to make the decision. Some wonder if this was the first subtle manipulative attack, by the party leadership, to try to prevent Mr. Trump from winning the nomination. Should we have national elections like Colorado and just let the elites pick the leaders?  Haven’t we just proven in Colorado that we don’t need the people to vote? Doesn’t Mr. Cruz support this with his actions?

Strangely enough, if you go back to the New Hampshire primary, you can find many articles where Mr. Cruz was saying the same thing about the governor of New Hampshire being part of the Washington cartel against him. Several of the candidates on the ballot in Colorado indicated that, given the change in the rules, they didn’t have much hope of winning the delegation,so some of the candidates, including Mr. Trump, decided to bypass Colorado. They decided that the people were not going to decide the outcome, it was the cartel.

On the other hand, Mr. Cruz built a ground game in Colorado, and working with the Republican cartel, was able to gain all the delegates in the state of Colorado.  Some pundits have suggested that Mr. Trump got “thumped” by Mr. Cruz and his failure to win any delegates represented his inability to run an adequate campaign for the presidency, should he actually win the nomination. Lets be clear, Mr. Trump and all the other candidates were not going to get any delegates no matter how many visits or ground troops they brought into the state.

Clearly, Mr. Cruz’s work with the cartel leadership in Colorado paid a benefit to him and his objective of defeating Trump.  I believe that the Washington leadership, and Mr. Cruz, both want to defeat Mr. Trump, but I also think you have to be careful when you make a deal with the devil. The idea that the mainstream Republican leadership is going to support Ted Cruz because he defeats Donald Trump for the nomination is unrealistic on Mr. Cruz’s part. I believe the leadership of the Republican Party, wants nothing to do with Mr. Cruz, they are simply using him to achieve their objective of eliminating Mr. Trump, and once that objective is achieved, I believe, they will turn on Mr. Cruz.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ted Cruz is a very smart man, but keep in mind he is still a first term Senator.  I believe the Republican leadership has other things in mind to get what they want.  I was told this week of a meeting, between the head of the Republican Party and significant donors, that a strategy may be introduced at the first rules committee meeting next week.  Currently, Governor of Ohio, John Kasich, does not comply with the rule that says you must win eight states in order to be included on the first ballot. The story is that the leadership of the Republican Party is considering a rules change that would allow delegates to pledge their support for a person who had not won eight states prior to the convention.

The story goes that the chairman holds power over five Islands which will contend our states for the purpose of the convention, one example would be Guam.  These five islands have a very small number of delegates to the convention and so with three additional states the rules could be changed to nominate somebody on the first ballot who never actually won a primary or, for that matter, never competed in a primary. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Ryan, said that he was not interested in the nomination, would not serve if drafted, and believes that the candidate should come from the people who ran in the primaries.

We will know by the end of next week whether this end run will be successful, and, if it is, expect that John Kasich’s name will be on the first ballot in Cleveland.  I wonder if Sen. Cruz thinks he can outsmart the party leadership and win the nomination by cobbling together his supporters, along with Marco Rubio supporters and uncommitted delegates to win the nomination.  With a rule change like the one suggested, I have to wonder who else will be on the ballot? When you sell your soul to the devil, he wants payment.

Dan Perkins as a current events commentator for the hill.com, thedailysurge.com, and Reagan baby.com.  He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States called the brotherhood of the red Nile.  He can be heard on Tuesday evenings at 8 PM Eastern on W4CYradio.com.

 

March 31, 2016

Is Obama the cause of the decline in the American Presidency?

By

Dan Perkins

March 31, 2016 Published in the Daily Surge

Many political writers, politicians, and candidates for the office of President of both parties have openly criticized the nature, and style, of the presidential primaries. One of the common themes about all the complaints about the campaign is that it is diminishing the office of the President of The United States. I think a great deal of the blame for the diminishment of the office of President must lie at the feet of President Obama.

When a President of the United States makes a historic visit to the country of Cuba and is snubbed by Cuban leaders who are not at the airport to welcome him to their country, how can the office of the President not be insulted? I agree with those commentators who said the President should have just got back on the plane and returned to Washington. When the Cuban government is willing to give the President an honorable welcome, then the President could return.

If the snub at the airport wasn’t enough of an insult, Fidel had some harsh words for the President. Fidel who did not meet Obama during the Presidents three-day visit, chastised the American President in a 1,600 word letter that appeared in the communist newspaper Granma shortly after the President left. The lengthy letter in which Fidel recounted the history of United States’ aggression against his country, including the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and the decades-long economic embargo of the island, which he noted is still in effect. He chastised Mr. Obama, 54, for his youth and for failing to recognize what Mr. Castro said were the major accomplishments of Cuba’s Communist revolution, such as state pensions and salaries, the steps to eradicate racial discrimination and the role of Cuba’s indigenous people in society.

Our President went to a baseball game rather than returning to Washington after the devastating attack where Americans were killed by terrorists and hundreds were seriously injured in Brussels. He could have returned after the visit to Cuba and offered his assistance and support but instead headed for Argentina to dance the night away. He also did not meet with Cuban dissidents that were scheduled to meet with him to discuss their life in Cuba and ask for his help to make Cuba better for its people.

If we looked back at the 7 ½ years the President of the United States traveled around the world so many times apologizing for America, it is no wonder that the prestige of the Presidency of United States is at an all-time low. The people who are criticizing the candidates about the tone of the Republican campaign don’t seem to be willing to criticize President Obama in his diminishment of the office of the Presidency on a worldwide basis. Former President Bill Clinton said of Obama in a recent speech. “Awful legacy of the last 8 years.” To the best of my knowledge this is the first time that a former President has been so openly critical of a sitting President.

Perhaps the goal of President Obama is for the role of the President to be the same role that he has for America as a nation, and that is, he wants the President to lead from behind. If its current holder has diminished the office then the rhetoric by the Presidential candidates reflects that diminishment. The President sets the tone and therefore he is responsible for the decline in the civility in the campaign. The nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said recently, “Obama’s trip to Cuba was a farce and an embarrassment” for America. With all due respect to Mr. Krauthammer, we have moved past an embarrassment a long time ago and moved into a constitutional crises of leadership. It wouldn’t surprise me that one day soon President Obama will answer a question with, “Let them eat cake.”

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the Hill.com, the daily surge.com and Reaganbaby.com. He is the author of the radical Islamic nuclear terrorism threat against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile.   His website is DanPerkins.guru.

 

 

 

 

 

March 16, Published in the Daily Surge

Commentary: Ted, Marco, and John: Snap judgment is bad Judgment

By Dan Perkins

Donald Trump’s appearance at a Chicago rally was shut down by Protesters against his campaign and fights between the protesters and his supporters spilled out into the street of Chicago. Mr. Trump’s rivals Ted, Marco, and John immediately blamed Mr. Trump for the violence at the rallies. I’m reminded how many times President Obama commented, without facts, on violent situations like Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, Charleston, and many others, to the point he was further inciting the riot because he had a political agenda.

Before the facts where in, Mr. Trump’s competitors were criticizing him as the cause of the riot because of the rhetoric in his campaign. After a few days of gathering some facts, we find that the three Republican candidates misspoke when they charged that Mr. Trump was responsible for the unrest. By their own admission the leadership of Moveon.org admitted that they were not only responsible for disrupting the rally and inciting the riot in Chicago, but they plan to do more to shut down Mr. Trump’s freedom of speech in future rallies.

Now that this Democratic front group Moveon.org has claimed credit for the actions, where are Bernie and Hillary or the Republicans in denouncing this attack on freedom of speech? The Democratic Party and its leaders provide financial support for Moveon.Org. According to FactCheck.org, “MoveOn.org has grown into a major political force — both at the grassroots and national level. It was a 527 committee that took in unlimited contributions from major Democratic donors. During the 2004 presidential campaign, MoveOn.org was the seventh-largest 527 committee and spent $21 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Initial donors included billionaire George Soros, a major donor to liberal causes, who spent millions in 2004 trying unsuccessfully to defeat President Bush.”

Because Trump is the front-runner, Moveon has decided to try and defeat him thereby increasing Hilary’s chances to win the presidency. Their actions are designed to disrupt the assemblies of people that are supporting Trump and taking away their freedom of speech. If they can create enough fear in the minds of potential Trump supporters about their own safety they will not go to his rallies, and in turn, Moveon hopes his support will decline out of fear and intimidation. The Drudge Report published an article that said that the man who rushed the stage in an appearance by Trump in Dayton Ohio, on Saturday, was found to have a web page that’s showed him dragging the American flag on the ground and reported that the attacker was an ISIS supporter.

The real issue here is the attack on freedom of speech by Moveon and Trump’s rivals. Trump has reacted to people who attack his audience and take away his constitutional right of freedom of speech.  In a way, America wants America to respond to those who attack us verbally and physically.  Trump’s comments reflect what America is thinking, “Get them out of here.”

As to the Chicago riot, Trump responded to a CNN, question about his decision to postpone the event, by saying, “I sacrificed my Freedom of Speech for the safety of my supporters.”  I think that in the future, Ted, Marco, and John should be careful what they say because their campaigns and their freedom of speech that could come under attack.

Moveon and Trumps competitors made a mistake in thinking that they could disrupt the momentum of the Trump campaign. His competitors thought they could gain ground and slow down the Trump campaign by attacking Trump for the riots. The CNN video of the attack has probably gone viral by now and has been seen by millions. The image of the Secret Service standing between the attacker and Trump has made him more real. If you watch the video you will see that Trump stands his ground and he doesn’t cower and run. Watch the polls and especially watch the votes on Tuesday for reaction by the voters on both sides of the aisle. Read more at http://dailysurge.com/2016/03/ted-marco-john-snap-judgment-bad-judgment/


March 2016

The Three Amigos of Economic Destruction.

By

Dan Perkins

As I listened to the rhetoric coming out of the most recent Democratic presidential debates one word they used sticks out, and terrifies me. Both Bernie and Hillary when speaking about new programs use one word that I’ve heard before that was the precursor of almost bringing the world economies to their knees.

Both Democratic candidates when speaking about free college tuition and healthcare use the word “right.” As if everybody in the nation has a right to unlimited healthcare and unlimited education.  We know that Democrats have a difficult time in accurately estimating the cost of anything, just look at Obamacare, so when Hillary says that the right to free education will cost $350 billion over the next 10 years, she is just wrong, and she is lying to the American people.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for the academic year 2010 and 11 the total amount of money spent in both public and private institutions for tuition, room and board, was just under $400 billion for the year.  That would mean if tuition, fees, room and board, do not go up in the next 10 years the total cost for free college over the 10 years, would be about $4 trillion, not anywhere near the $350 billion Hillary and Bernie are talking about. Perhaps the Democrats are misleading Americans as to who will get free college and who will not, or they have no idea what it actually cost. What do you think?

A new federal program that offers $35 billion a year would only cover about 8% of the current college expense, assuming no increase in college costs over the next ten years. They both claimed that the rich 1% must pay more income taxes to offset the budget shortfall caused by the right of free college. So is the shortfall $35 billion or $400 billion? If the Democrats truly want to make college free, then in reality we’re looking at a $4 trillion program not $350 billion. With the current budget at approximately $4 trillion a year, this educational program could in fact be the most expensive right benefit in the history of the country. The true cost to provide free college is 12 times what they have projected. Just how silly is Hillary’s projection? Well, given current costs Mrs. Clinton’s entire 10-year projection of cost would be eaten up in less than 11 months of the first year.

The last time the Democratic Party said that Americans had a right it almost destroyed the world’s economy. President Clinton sign into law the community lending legislation that was designed to make housing more affordable for the poor and required lending institutions to set aside with certain amount of money to lend to poor families. Two Democratic Congressman and one democratic Senator we’re responsible for almost bringing the world’s financial markets to its knees because they felt that every American Family has a right to own a home. The three amigos are Maxine Waters, Christopher Dodd, and Barney Frank.  These three legislatures demanded of the Presidents of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they must make more loans so that every American could have a home regardless of their ability to pay the loan back. Ms. Waters said that she didn’t care if the loan could be paid or not poor people had a right to a home.’ In fact on September 2, 2011 “Maxine Waters said,  “Government should extort banks to make mortgages affordable.”

 The only way that lenders could have the ability to raise enough money to fund mortgage programs was through the process of securitization, lenders would sell the loans in packages and generate more capital to make more loans.  A lot has been said and written about the abuse that took place in the mortgage market that almost led to the collapse of all the worlds’ economies. Our three amigos started the ball rolling and now they want to try it again.

The assumption of the original Three Amigos we’re flawed, just as the assumptions of the new amigos, Sanders and Clinton are also flawed. College debt has exploded for various reasons, the principal reason is that it’s taking 5 to 6 years to earn a four-year degree.  The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reports that almost a third of all outstanding student loans are delinquent. The Bank also reports that the class of 2015 graduated with the highest debt in the history of higher education at over $40,000 per student.  Of course if you go on for Masters or PhD the cost of credits are much more expensive and it would not be uncommon for an individual graduating with a masters degree having student loans of between $80,000 and $100,000.

So, you two new amigos have so blatantly underestimated and misled the American people as to the cost you’re going to require the issuance of bonds secured by these loans in order to have a pool of capital large enough to fund 400 billion dollars of college expense on an annual basis.  These loans like the mortgages before them will be packaged and sold as safe and secure investments.  At the height of the mortgage collapse according to the Federal Reserve Board the delinquency default rate on residential mortgages was 10.2%.

As was pointed out above, approximately 30% of all student loans are delinquent and if the students can’t make the payments the government will have to step in and bailouts the bondholders or let the government guarantee bonds go into default and investors loose their investment. Let me ask the two amigos, “are student loans the next, “ to big to fail “institutions?

My dear two amigos, we have been down this path before when Democrats wanted to institute a program of providing something for everybody, a right and the rest of us we’re left with cents on the dollar. The American people know that Democrats hearts are in the right place, we know it sounds great to say, “You have a right and we are going to give to you for free.” The problem is that Democrats were out protesting when the professors we’re teaching mathematics.  For some strange reason they just don’t do math very well. America needs new leadership that knows how to add.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for the Hill.com, the dailysurge.com and Reaganbaby.com.  He is the author terrorist thriller about radical Islamic nuclear attack against United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile.  Mr. Perkins is a nationally syndicated talk show hosts on Two Guys from Verona, heard live on Tuesdays at 5 PM Eastern on KJAGradio.com and at 8 PM Eastern on W4CYradio.com.  Rebroadcast can be heard on I heart radio.

 


 

Editorial from 2-17-2016

Can Obama Pull It Off? A Double Switch Trick With The Supreme  Nominee

This past weekend America lost a great jurist who not only loved this great country but loved the Constitution. He saw his role as a jurist to interpret the Constitution but in so doing stay close to the intent of the framers. Pundits were trying to predict who the President would nominate as his replacement within hours of the death of Justice Scalia. Nobody in Washington expects the President to appoint a conservative and very few believe he will find a moderate no, the President will try to appoint the most liberal justice in the history of the court. This appointment will be without question the most important, should he be successful, in President Obama’s term. How is it possible that a Republican Senate would vote in favor of the Presidents nominee?

What you are about to read comes solely from my mind as someone who has been observing the Obama administration for the last 7 plus years. Shortly after the announcement of the death of Justice Scalia, Mitch McConnell the majority leader of the Senate said that he believed that’s the next president should fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Scalia. Leaders and members of the Democratic Party felt differently, so they began to demand that the Senate start hearings as soon as possible after the President makes his nomination. On one hand you can’t blame the Democrats to want to change the nature of the court from 5 to 4 conservative to 5 to 4 liberal. The Democrats know that if they lose the election in November the next President could very well name 3 to 4 judges to the Supreme Court and change the way things are done for generations. They know that the fall election it truly about the court.

The Constitution is clear that the Senate must review under the advice and consent rules, the nomination of any justice to the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not set a time frame that a vacancy needs to be filled, only that the Senate must confirm the appointment. Since t is the right of the Senate to advise the President they are well within their rights under the Constitution to tell the President, don’t submit a nomination. You will see shortly why they are saying they want the President to act quickly, but in reality I think they want a delay.

America Online was quoting on Presidents’ Day that insiders in the White House think that the President will nominate current US Attorney General. Loretta Lynch as is pick to the court. One has to ask why the President would pick a person who just barely made it through the approval process for Attorney General to go through the scrutiny for Supreme Court justice review.

I believe there are two reasons why this pick would make sense to the President and the Democratic Party.  First, the nature of the administration and Democrats in general is that if you disagree with them and what they want to do you’re either a racist or sexist, with Attorney General Lynch he gets 2-for-1 a Female, and a black.  So those people who might oppose Ms. Lynch can be called racist and or sexist. I believe that if he puts her name in nomination there is every possibility that Ms. Lynch will resign her position as Attorney General so that she could devote full-time on her confirmation process.

If this were to happen the President will be required under the advice and consent rules to submit a new name for Attorney General, but here is my question is if the FBI is ready to make an indictment recommendation on Mrs. Clinton with no attorney general who do they give it to?  Will the FBI be required to withhold its indictment until a new Attorney General can’t be named and go through the confirmation process?

Is there enough time for the Senate to vet an Attorney General and the Supreme Court Justice before the election? It is possible that there could be a temporary attorney general who could receive the indictment from the FBI, but my guess is that temporary attorney general would not take on the risk of calling a grand jury to deal with the recommended indictment by the FBI.

The Republicans have an opportunity to control the approval process of any recommended candidate by the President and if they have the will they can postpone the selection of the new justice until after the presidential election.  Strange things happen in Washington DC when the Democrats use sexual and racial prejudiced against the Republicans in either Houses of Congress. If what I’m suggesting happens look for a full court press by the Democrats.  If the Republicans turn over control of the Supreme Court because of their fear of being accused of racism or sexism or both, then our country is doomed.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for thehill.com, dailysurge.com, and Reaganbaby.com.  He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Mr. Perkins commentary can be heard on W4CYradio.com on Tuesday evenings at 8 PM eastern time


 

Editorial from 2-15-2016

Editorial By 

Dan Perkins

                                         A Special Place in Hell for Hillary Voters                                                                                                                                                                                          

Madam Secretary, Presidents should not be decided on Race or Sex.  At a campaign appearance on the weekend before the New Hampshire primary Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State was traveling with the Clinton campaign and on one of its stops she made the following statement, “There is a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women.” Many women especially younger women objected to her bias that women should vote for a woman who was running for president without regard to her qualifications to be president.

If an individual would criticize Mrs. Clinton for her qualifications to be president they are chastised as sexist, and in much the same way that people who support the president call people who criticize him as racist. When we decide to characterize legitimate dissent as either racist or sexist we use these two qualifiers to excuse the behavior of the people involved. When I listened to Mrs. Clinton claim that she “Never sent or received classified information using her private e-mail server when she served as Secretary of State.” I found it hard to believe that the Secretary of State could not tell that e-mails contained classified material or not and apparently it was not her job to classify e-mail content in her possession. Her lack of responsibility concerning national security raised a concern to me about her judgment to be president.

The White House said, that at least 12 out of over 1,200 messages were found on her server that were classified above top secret and they would not be released. Do you remember when Bill Clinton stood in front of the cameras and shook his finger at the American people and said, “ I never had sexual relations with that woman”, or the over 20 times President Obama told the American people that, “They could keep their plan and if they liked their doctor they could keep their doctor, both men lied to the American people. Now Mrs. Clinton has been accused by 62% of the American people as being a liar. Should the people in the 62% who have expressed that Mrs. Clinton is a liar have a special place in Hell because they vote for her?

Those elected leaders who refused their constitutional responsibility to check the president refused to because they would be called a racist also need a special place in Hell. The people gave the Republican Party landslide victories in 2010 and 2014 have refused to do what they said they would do, need a special place in Hell. The failure to confront the President when he has violated his oath of office under the Constitution, is because they would be called racist, they deserve a special place in Hell. Is their lack of will in preforming their sworn duty just another lie, like both the Clinton’s and Obama?

It is no wonder that the American people are angry, they are angry about being lied to by the leadership of both parties and they will not vote for a woman or a person of color to avoid being called a racist or a sexist. The mainstream party leaders better start paying attention to what the electorate wants.

Those so-called leaders will find that the voters will find a special place in Hell for those that don’t listen to what the people want. Americans want leaders who will tell them the truth and do what they say they will do and those that do will have a special place in Heaven.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator who writes for thehill.com, dailysurge.com, and Reaganbaby.com.  He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Mr. Perkins commentary can be heard on W4CYradio.com on Tuesday evenings at 8 PM eastern time


Editorial from February 5th 2016

Is Russia playing Russian roulette with crude oil?

By Dan Perkins 

oilcontainers_fileIn an Article I wrote on December 3rd I suggested that the price of crude oil could fall to between $20 and $30 a barrel. A little over a month later, crude oil hit a price of $27.15 a barrel, not quite $20, but close enough to scare a lot of people. As the price dropped from $41 a barrel on Dec. 3 to the current level to just over $31, the devastation that I predicted for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has materialized.

Late last week, the price of crude oil quickly spiked to over $34 a barrel on the rumor that Russia and Saudi Arabia were in talks to possibly cut production by 5 percent. The current surplus of supply versus demand is about 2 million barrels a day and a 5 percent reduction in just Russia’s and Saudi Arabia’s production alone would cut 1 million barrels out of the supply.

The rest of OPEC, especially countries like Venezuela and Nigeria, have been vocal proponents of cutting production. It would be easy for the balance of OPEC to make up the additional million barrels per day; however, Iran, which wants to bring 500,000 barrels a day, has indicated that it would not support the reduction. The New York Times over this past weekend reported that there was no substance to the rumor of possible production cuts.

When OPEC member nations on Thanksgiving 2014 decided that they were not going to cut production and that they wanted to use the existing production level to retain market share and destroyed American oil interests, I do not believe that they anticipated that they were risking their nations. While it’s almost impossible to determine where the price of crude oil will be in 12 months, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported last week that if the price of crude oil stays in the $30 to $35 range, then Russia will be bankrupt in 18 months, with Saudi Arabia following in another 18 months.

The OPEC nations did not anticipate in their Thanksgiving attack that the U.S. government would lift the 40-year ban on the exportation of crude oil. This legislation, passed by Congress in December and signed by the president, puts OPEC’s survival in jeopardy. If OPEC decides to drop production by 5 percent, that American oil interest would keep the market oversupplied, thereby further reducing the revenues that the OPEC nations receive. For the first time in 40 years, control of the energy markets seems to be moving away from OPEC to the United States.

What Russia and the OPEC nations learned in the last week of January is that even a hint of a production cutback moved the price of oil almost $7 a barrel. The question is, will Russian President Vladimir Putin try and broker a deal that will in fact reduce oil production to levels blow consumption? I believe the rise and ensuing fall in the price of oil is sending a clear message to the OPEC nations: Cut production and have a possibility of surviving or keep it at this level and bet your country. The new Russian oil roulette game could have some very big losers.

Perkins is a current events commentator and contributor to The Hill. He is the author of “The Brotherhood of the Red Nile” trilogy, a fictional account of radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States.

 

January 2016 Editorials

13 HOURS: THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO DIE

By Dan Perkins

January 17, 2016 

I just came from the theater watching the new Michael Bay film about the events in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. As I watched the movie unfold, one thought would not leave my brain: “They didn’t have to die.” It is important to note that at the beginning of the film Mr. Bay reveals that “This is a true story.”

He could have said that his movie was based on a true story, for when a director uses the words “based on,” he is using artistic interpretation of the story as to how the events unfolded.  The brave soldiers who fought the battle in Benghazi were the authors of the book. Bay is presenting their work, their first hand account, of the events of that day.

I have written several articles in advance of this movie’s release raising the question; “Will this movie be the equivalent for Hillary Clinton as it was the Swift Boaters when John Kerry was running for president? Millions of voters have heard about Benghazi, but for many it is an abstract thought–without images to match, yet combining abstract thoughts and images may help many American gain a better understanding of what really happened.

The images on the movie screen will give the viewer a harrowing insight to the sacrifice made and clarity to what actually happened–without political spin. The audience will see the dangerous ineptness of our government.  As a veteran,  I am very ashamed of my government, the President of the United States, and the Secretary of State for their lack of concern about the well being of the government employees and the soldiers who fought and died. It seems that nobody could make a decision as what to do. There were many things I learned about the attack from this movie. One was the inability of our government to function and help Americans under attack.  The most shocking revelation occurred at the end of the movie–our government did not send one of our own planes to bring home the dead bodies of the soldiers who gave their lives in service to our country.

We know that the administration lied to us about the reason for the attack. They continued to lie for days after the bodies came home. The destabilization of Libya allowed ISIS to take control of the country and  is a direct result of the administration and the Secretary of State’s desire for regime change in Libya. This is not the first time that regime change in the Middle East was carried out by this president and Secretary of State and no attention has been paid to this outcome. The ability to ascertain who is going to replace the government that you are taking out should be a critical part of the decision making process, it obviously was not in this case.

American’s who want to have a better understanding of the events in those 13 hours need to see this movie and may agree with me:  the blood of the four dead Americans in Benghazi is on the hands of the leadership of our country, including Mrs. Clinton.

Dan Perkins it’s a contributor to the hill.com and the dailysurge.com. He is also the author of the trilogy radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called The Brotherhood of the Red Nile and his commentary can be heard on W4CY.com radio, Tuesdays, 8:00pm ET.

 

Which will hit bottom first, oil prices or Hillary’s poll numbers?

 By

Dan Perkins

 The price of crude oil closed below $31 a barrel.  Polling data released this morning showed that 20% of registered Democrats we’re seriously considering voting for a Republican. Goldman Sachs this past fall thought that crude oil could fall to $25 a barrel. Some analysts have predicted that is much is 50% of the oil drillers will go bankrupt this year if oil prices stay at these levels.

Turning back to Hillary, the elections in Iowa and New Hampshire are almost too close to call and with the release this week of the movie about the attack in Benghazi title 13 Hours one has to question will it impact peoples decisions as they go to the voting booth or caucuses?

Not only will lower oil prices adversely affect the drilling companies in America, several OPEC nations maybe on the verge of bankruptcy. The most recent extraction cost for Saudi Arabia is $73 a barrel, Russia is $93 a barrel, and Iran has a cost of approximately $113 a barrel. Nations cannot fund their budgets while they’re only earning $30 a barrel to extract crude oil. Those that can, will borrow money to fund their state budget and given the financial state of some of these nations the cost to borrow could be extremely high.

I have written before that I believe the Saudis will be successful in destroying a percentage of American drillers, but the price they are going to pay maybe the destruction of their economies. I fully expect in the next 90 days there’ll will be two emergency meetings, one conducted by OPEC trying to determine if production cuts will help increase oil prices. The second meeting will have Hillary Clinton if the attorney general gets recommendation from the FBI on an indictment for several felony charges against Mrs. Clinton will she fight on or resign?

Both meetings will be about survival, OPEC we’ll be discussing production cuts in hopes of burning off inventory so that the supply is shrunk and prices can rise. My guess is that if OPEC does meet to curb supply American oil companies we’ll pump an equal amount of reduction by OPEC keeping prices low it eventually destroying OPEC economies in turn America will get control of the worlds energy markets.

The meeting at Mrs. Clinton’s offices in New York City will be to discuss the concept of indictment, is not a conviction and she should be allowed to run.  They will try and develop a strategy to convince the Democratic national party leadership to allow her to continue her run for the presidency. If she runs and is indicted and wins the presidency and is later convicted, the only way she could be removed is through impeachment. Therefore, whoever the candidate will be for vice president with Mrs. Clinton couldn’t find him or herself sitting in the Oval office.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator for the hill.com thesurge.com; he is also the author of the trilogy of radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States, called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Mr. Perkins’s is a Registered Investment Advisor with over 40 years of investment experience in Managing money for individual investors

 


December 2015  Editorials

With rate hike, Fed gives itself some room

By

Dan Perkins

federalreserve_111115gn2As a result of the economic collapse of 2008, the Federal Reserve Board dropped the interest rate on short-term treasuries to 0 percent. It remained at that level until Dec. 16, 2015. The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee vote was unanimous; all members of the board of governors voted for the increase. Chair Janet Yellen said in her news conference that the board’s future decision on interest rate hikes would be driven by economic results. Steven Wieting, the global chief strategist at Citi Private Bank, said last week that he’s actually concerned about the possibility of a recession in the next couple of years. He thinks that there is a 65 percent chance of a recession in 2016. J.P. Morgan economists Michael Feroli, Daniel Silver, Jesse Edgerton and Robert Mellman released a report in which they declared that “the probability of recession within three years” has risen to “an eye-catching 76 [percent].”

It seems odd that the private-sector strategists are looking for a recession in 2016, yet the Federal Reserve is increasing interest rates. The question is, why? With interest rates at zero, should the economy — as some think — go into recession in 2016, the Federal Reserve would have some ammunition to try and stimulate the economy out of recession. I do not subscribe to the philosophy that the Federal Reserve’s move was “one and done.” I personally believe that the Federal Reserve will make at least three additional moves in the first half of 2016. This would make the yield on 90-day treasuries around 1.25 percent.

The mandate of the Federal Reserve is twofold. First, to control inflation, and second, employment. The significant decline in the price of energy will risk the possibility of actual deflation over the next 12 months, so there is no reason for the Fed to increase interest rates to combat inflation. The second issue of employment is much more challenging — the recent labor and employment report show that 94.5 million Americans have given up looking for jobs, their unemployment benefits have ceased, and if they can find work, the income level is greatly reduced from what they had when they were employed full-time.

The formula for determining the unemployment rate does not include these people in the calculation, so when we say we have a 5 percent unemployment rate, that number is false. The Fed is telling us that we are approaching full employment when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. If we add back in the 94.5 million, the unemployment rate is approaching 11 percent. So again, with an 11 percent real unemployment rate, there is no reason to raise rates, so why are rates being raised? The answer is that the Fed wants to have some room before it ultimately has to go to negative interest rates similar to what we are seeing in Europe. Currently, Germany has negative interest rates on its government debt out to five years maturity. If the stimulus through quantitative easing in Germany and other European nations does not produce the growth anticipated, it is certainly possible that negative interest rates could extend beyond five years. So is it possible that negative interest rates could be coming to America?

Yellen, as San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank president, said in a February 2010 speech that “Accommodative policy is appropriate, in my view, because the economy is operating well below its potential and inflation is undesirably low.” Later, she added that “If it were positive to take interest rates into negative territory, I would be voting for that.” So, five years ago, the current chair of the Federal Reserve was thinking about the possibility of negative interest rates in the United States. By pushing interest rates up, it gives the Federal Reserve some room to operate to try and stimulate the economy. The Fed trying to stimulate the economy from the zero level of interest rates would be impossible; the Fed would have to immediately go to negative interest rates to try and save the economy.

It seems hard to believe that there is a possibility that we will have to pay the government to take our money. Today, a German investor who wants to buy a five-year bond with the payment of principal and interest guaranteed by the German government will lose money — they will get back less than what they put in at maturity right now. But if the current level of quantitative easing doesn’t work, then interest rates will go more negative in Germany.

82504916F069-240x300Europe is struggling to get its economy growing again; China has seen four reductions in the value of its currency in 90 days and its economy is dropping. Many South American countries have hyperinflation. The global prospects are for a slowing global economy, and I do not believe America will be immune to the general global slowdown. So the chair of the Federal Reserve will use the 25 basis points bullets in her gun to try and stimulate the American economy. I’m afraid that the strategy would have worked better had the Fed begun loading its gun much sooner. With the OPEC nations suffering significant economic hardship over the decline in the price of crude oil, they have had no choice but to sell assets in order to fund their budgets. My greatest fear is that low oil prices continue well into 2016 and will cause many nations to begin to liquidate their sovereign investment funds in order to feed their people. Vast amount of assets coming to the markets will depress market prices and, in turn, create the need for negative interest rates. I can find no example in tracking U.S. government interest rates of any extended period of time where interest rates were negative. We have just come through almost seven years of zero returns on short government securities; I wonder how Americans will respond to the idea of having to pay the government to take their money.

Perkins is a contributor to The Hill and DailySurge.com. He is the author of “The Brotherhood of the Red Nile” trilogy, a fictional account of radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States.


 

Is OPEC about to go to financial war?

 By

Dan Perkins

oildrum_013014thinkstockOn Friday, Dec. 4, the OPEC oil ministers met and as I anticipated, they decided to leave production levels unchanged. The official target for production is 30 million barrels a day; however, OPEC is actually producing about 31.5 million barrels a day. Many of the oil ministers discussed the economic problems that their countries were having with the price of $40 a barrel. These nations wanted production cuts, hoping that prices would rise. Five are running out of money, what OilPrice.com calls the “Fragile Five”: Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela. As I pointed out in our article earlier this month, many of the OPEC members are running out of money and these financially strapped nations’ oil ministers at the OPEC meeting begged for production cuts in hopes that prices could rise in turn, helping their economies. Their requests fell on deaf ears.

The ministers were concerned that current production level will be elevated when Iran, Libya and Iraq potentially bring an additional 4 million barrels a day to the market. All of this production will not come on at the same time, but the run rate should reach 35 million barrels a day by mid-2016. It’s hard to imagine that oil prices could rise with so much excess capacity coming into the market. One of the challenges with these three nations coming on board with more capacity is that the volume of oil inventory around the world is reaching capacity. The U.S. Department of Energy indicates that America has storage capability for approximately 520 million barrels of crude oil; currently 487 million barrels are in storage, so America doesn’t have a lot of room to store, especially if the economy falters and demand starts to fall.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) “Oil Demand Report,” there is an excess of 3 billion barrels in current inventory. If the three nations come back to the oil markets offering close to 4 million barrels a day, then short of a significant reversal in the global economy and increasing demand, inventories will grow by another 1 billion barrels from these nations alone, putting downward pressure on prices. The economic outlook for world growth according to the International Monetary Fund has been reduced for 2016 to 3.5 percent. Citibank issued a report on Dec. 2 saying that it sees a 65 percent chance of a United States recession in 2016.

So with global economies in trouble, demand for oil will not recover and in turn, I believe prices may fall to perhaps $30 a barrel. The economic risks of a global recession at this time could blow up OPEC. The non-Middle Eastern oil producers like Algeria, Nigeria and Venezuela will see their economies destroyed by falling oil revenue. The desire to try and survive will, I believe, cause the possibility of a possible split within OPEC when the price drops below $35 a barrel. The discussions will accelerate if the price breaks $35.

In my headline, I use the word “war.” If the weaker nations try and pull out of OPEC, then look for the stronger nations, such as Saudi Arabia, to threaten to attack their market share and take the market share of the weaker nations as a way to punish them for trying to break away from OPEC. With so many OPEC members in dire financial straits, lower prices will bring significant pressure from citizens demanding services from governments that do not have money to make the payments. The people in these non-Middle Eastern countries will take to the streets and force governments out. As we saw when the Venezuela government changed hands, the professionals who were running the oil refineries and pipelines left the country. Venezuela found itself with some of the largest reserves in the world, but nobody with the skills to get it out of the ground and process it. Now a nation with some of the greatest reserves in the world is importing oil.

No discussion about the OPEC meeting would be complete without some comments on the price of gasoline in the United States and what’s going to happen to the energy industry in the America. The American Automobile Association’s “Daily Fuel Gauge Report” currently shows a national average of $2.02 for regular gasoline. The Detroit Free Press reported that at $1.53 a gallon, Detroit has the lowest price in America. The market did not sell off appreciably after the OPEC meeting report was announced, closing the day at $40.14. So if crude world to drop another $5, we can see the pump price approach a national average of $1.75 per gallon, with prices in some areas of the country lower and in some areas higher.

The ministers were concerned that current production level will be elevated when Iran, Libya and Iraq potentially bring an additional 4 million barrels a day to the market. All of this production will not come on at the same time, but the run rate should reach 35 million barrels a day by mid-2016. It’s hard to imagine that oil prices could rise with so much excess capacity coming into the market. One of the challenges with these three nations coming on board with more capacity is that the volume of oil inventory around the world is reaching capacity. The U.S. Department of Energy indicates that America has storage capability for approximately 520 million barrels of crude oil; currently 487 million barrels are in storage, so America doesn’t have a lot of room to store, especially if the economy falters and demand starts to fall.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) “Oil Demand Report,” there is an excess of 3 billion barrels in current inventory. If the three nations come back to the oil markets offering close to 4 million barrels a day, then short of a significant reversal in the global economy and increasing demand, inventories will grow by another 1 billion barrels from these nations alone, putting downward pressure on prices. The economic outlook for world growth according to the International Monetary Fund has been reduced for 2016 to 3.5 percent. Citibank issued a report on Dec. 2 saying that it sees a 65 percent chance of a United States recession in 2016.

So with global economies in trouble, demand for oil will not recover and in turn, I believe prices may fall to perhaps $30 a barrel. The economic risks of a global recession at this time could blow up OPEC. The non-Middle Eastern oil producers like Algeria, Nigeria and Venezuela will see their economies destroyed by falling oil revenue. The desire to try and survive will, I believe, cause the possibility of a possible split within OPEC when the price drops below $35 a barrel. The discussions will accelerate if the price breaks $35.

According to Stephen Stanley, chief economist of Amherst Pierpont, “Every penny that gas prices decline puts about a billion dollars into Americans’ pockets.” One year ago, the average price of a gallon was $2.75 vs. $2.05 today. If gas prices hold at this level, then the savings will be 70 times a billion, or $70 billion. If, as Citibank suggests, we have a 65 percent chance of a recession in 2016, then low pump prices could soften the blow.

One last thought: Two giants collide on the price of oil. Goldman says it thinks crude will hit $25 a barrel and T. Boon Pickens, the well-known oil man, thinks oil could be $70 by mid-2016, if not sooner. In over 41 years of investing, I have never seen such a spread in one asset class. Any further significant decline in the price of crude oil will have a devastating impact on the drillers, more than any other segment of the energy industry. The pipeline companies and the refiners probably have the best chance of holding value because they don’t take the risk of finding the oil. In reality, it is only a matter of time until energy will reverse its direction and go higher; the question is, can it go up enough to be worth the risk? Enjoy the savings that these low gas prices are producing and set some of the savings aside, just in case Citibank is right on the recession.

Perkins is a current events commentator and contributor to The Hill. He is the author of “The Brotherhood of the Red Nile” trilogy, a fictional account of radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States.

 

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a terrorist.

 By

Dan Perkins

82504916F069-240x300There was a shooting today in San Bernardo California, and early indications are that some 20 people were shot, and perhaps as many as 14 people were killed.  The preliminary description of the shooters was that they were well armed, and it is believed that they were wearing armor protection; this is not what you would be expecting a person with a mental illness to be wearing.

It isn’t known yet whether the shooters were terrorists but in reality how can you call them anything less than terrorists. We know from the FBI that they have open investigations of terrorist activity in all 50 states. Clearly the shootings by terrorists in Paris have changed some people’s minds about how safe and secure we can be in the United States. It was amazing to watch the German Chancellor agreed to send 1,200 German troops to fight terrorists in Iraq and in Syria. Yet at the same time the President of the United States was committing to send a Special Forces unit to the Middle East between 150 to 200 soldiers.

We do not know if the individuals who took those lives in California we’re not terrorists, they could have very well at been lone Wolf terrorists similar to those who attacked in Texas.  We may not know for sometime, if they were terrorists or not, but I thought it was interesting when each of the presidential candidates was asked for their reaction to the shooting, Mrs. Clinton said this, “Hillary Clinton took to Twitter on Wednesday to condemn the shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., and call for stricter gun control measures.”

The other candidates by and large basically said that the families of the victims would be in their prayers. It seems it was more important for Mrs. Clinton to make a political point about gun control then to show any significant sympathy for the victims and their families. If we don’t know whom the shooters were then how could we assume that stricter gun control measures per Mrs. Clinton would is done anything.  People who are in this country to do us harm will not be governed by stricter gun control laws. This seems to be for some reason an incredibly difficult point for the Democratic Party to understand why greater gun control or surrender of guns will make us more secure. They can’t seem to understand that no matter how strict you make the gun laws the bad guys will always get guns.

After the last shooting in Oregon the president said that we should adopt a philosophy about guns that has worked in Australia.  After a massacre the people Australia voted to turn in their guns, and according to President Obama they don’t have problems like we do in the United States. What the president forgot to mention was that Australia has the strictest immigration laws on the books. They don’t accept illegal aliens in to their country. This is a lesson that both Europe and America are learning the hard way. The influx of refugees into Central and Western Europe has seen a significant increase in the sale of guns where they are legal to be owned. The largest purchaser of weapons in Europe are women, people who are concerned about their own personal safety. The events in Paris showed all of us that bad guys can get guns and kill many people.

I personally believe that the killings in California will not be enough to raise the level of concern in Americans that the Democratic Party once to take away all guns. The president has indicated that his principal objective in the last year of his presidency just to make gun ownership akin to trying to build a coal-fired power plant, it will never happen. Warren Mass wrote an article on October 28 that was titled “Europe Rethinks Guns.” He finished with this thought; “I can tell you first-hand that people in Europe now wish they had a second amendment.” Let us hope we can keep ours.

Dan Perkins is a current events commentator for the hill.com, Thedailysurge.com, and Reaganbaby.com. He is the author of the trilogy that deals with radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile.

OPEC Decision On Quotas Could Destroy The Cartel

By

Dan Perkins

 82504916F069-240x300From December 2 to December 5 the organization of petroleum exporting countries better known as OPEC, we’ll be meeting to discuss the direction of the oil markets.  Just about a year ago the cartel attack the American oil Fracking Industry they said in order to protect their market share.  They in essence said they wanted to put the fracking Business in the United States out of business.  OPEC was concerned that America was moving rapidly to energy independence and would no longer need to import OPEC Crude oil.

Last Thanksgiving the price of crude oil dropped just under five dollars a barrel and today it is close to its bottom of $40. The chart below shows the price of West Texas compared to the Oil exchange traded fund over the last year.

BBC news online reported in January of this year that for every one dollar decline in the price of oil, Russia loses $2 billion in income. At the time that article was written crude oil was selling at $70 a barrel so the $30 decline from the $70 level in January has been devastating for the Russian economy and other oil exporting nations.

I do not think when OPEC made the decision to hold production that prices would stay down as long as they have, some OPEC nations need a significantly higher price to break even. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates the break even price needed on crude oil. Below is a list of some nations and what they need in price for OPEC members to break even remember current price is around $41 a barrel:

IRAN $131

Venezuela $118

Russia $105

Saudi Arabia $104

Kuwait $78

I recently reported that Venezuela has resorted to selling its gold position as it has spent all of it cash and the oil revenue is vastly short to fund the government. Trading Economics reported that the inflation rate in Venezuela is 68.5%.  Other OPEC nations are finding significant budget shortfalls. The IMF reports that Saudi Arabia has a deficit of $150 billion while Russia has a deficit of $50 billion.

As I see it the discussions can only have one of two outcomes. First, they can leave production levels as they are currently and risk triggering a further decline in prices of crude oil to perhaps the high $20s or low $30 a barrel price because the glut will continue to grow on a global basis.  The risk in this move is that OPEC nations that already find themselves strapped for income will see significant further declines in revenue from current levels. This stay the course choice may push many of its members on the verge of bankruptcy. The stock market would see this move as mostly positive for the economy and the American consumer, but the oil patch could see a decline in prices as the expectation for diminished revenue makes the oil stocks less attractive.

The second option is to cut the production levels so that the current demand will eat into the excess inventory crude oil in turn reducing inventory. The stock market will see this as a positive for the future of oil prices and for oil stocks. The initial reaction would be that the oil sector would rally greater than the overall market. The risk to OPEC in this latter move is that the American fracking oil industry may begin to uncap their wells in in tern bring more American oil on the market replacing what OPEC has reduced.  OPEC may find that they will lose market share because they will not be able to compete with America on price.

A collapse to twenty dollars to thirty dollars a barrel for crude oil would have a significant impact on the OPEC nation’s ability to run their governments and supply money to various terrorist organizations.  As the disposable money dries up and funding is diminished to various terrorist organizations I would look for these terrorist to begin attacks within the OPEC nation states trying to blackmail the Governments into making payments.

While a decline in the price of crude oil will mean lower energy costs in the United States which is a positive. The negative will be increased terrorist activities on a global basis. Dramatically reduced oil prices will make it difficult for alternative sources of energy to become competitive with cheap oil so we may see as a result of lower prices bankruptcies in the alternative energy space. My guess is, that OPEC will side with some revenue as opposed to risking and waiting for increase revenue in the future.  I think OPEC will choose to keep production at the current levels, if I’m right we may see $1.50 a gallon for regular gas by next summer perhaps even lower.

Dan Perkins is it current events commentator and contributor to the hill.com, the daily search.com, Reagan baby.com and clash daily.com.  He is the author of the brotherhood of the red Nile trilogy which is a fictional account of radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against United States.


 

November  2015 Editorials

THE MUSLIM CRUSADES: Is America Going the Way of Europe?

     By Dan Perkins

        11-07-2015

Screen-Shot-2015-11-07-at-5.09.03-PM-300x180-300x180I recently wrote a commentary titled The Muslim Crusade to Western Europe. Some reports have the number of illegal immigrants in Europe approaching 1,000,000 with close to 800,000 people in Germany alone. Spiegel on line reported in a posting on October 14 that a town of 100 people was told that over 1,000 emigrants were coming to their town. Refugee’s arrival puts enormous pressure on the food, housing and healthcare resources available to take care of not only the native population, but also a swelling immigration population that are invading small towns all across Europe.

While the problems in Europe are somewhat different than those in United States there are similarities, which are very significant. Neither Europe nor the United States have any idea for sure how many people good or bad have crossed into their countries. We in the United States have had serious illegal crossings in our southern border for years to the point of immigration and naturalization has given up counting. We have no idea how many illegals are in the United States. I believe that anybody telling you that it’s 11.4 or 11.7 million illegals is guessing at best. This past summer Breitbart published an article that said 347,000 convicted criminal immigrants were at large in the United States. Because they are at-large they are dangerous people that are in our country and we don’t know where they are, we are all at risk. I believe that Europe is not far behind us in dealing with the same issues.

Europe is just now beginning to deal with this undocumented alien problem and they too will fine that the bad guys come in just as easily as the good people. Look for their crime rates to rise and four ethnic and regional conflicts between the immigrants and the natives, which could become violent with many, many people being killed perhaps next year. I would not be surprised that in some countries of Europe there will be out right wars between the natives and the immigrants. As more and more immigrants come into Europe the natives see potential for the destruction of their culture, their language, and their identity and some number of them we’ll fight ferociously to cling to what they believe. The central governments of Europe are ill equipped to deal with this migration and the potential destruction of their culture and heritage by this mass of people. There is no common language in Europe while many of the countries came together to form the European Union under a single currency they did not unite under a single language or history or culture, so the challenge of multiculturalism will be significant because there are so many different languages spoken.

America has experienced multiculturalism for many years with not much resistance until the dramatic increase of illegals coming across the border in the last few years. We have been told that we need to become a multicultural nation allowing for every culture to continue its history, heritage and language at the abandonment of assimilation into the American culture. We have Spanish radio and television stations, Spanish newspapers, we have Spanish signs on roadways and even in stores all supporting the new multiculturalism. The history of immigration in the United States has been to bring legal immigrants into the culture of the United States teaching in the laws, and the language so that they can be part of the American culture. The destruction of our language, our history and our Constitution is what we are facing today; America through multiculturalism is the same problem that is about to root itself throughout Europe.
In response to this humanitarian crisis in Europe, the Obama administration proposed to significantly increase the number of refugees the United States accepts each year—from 70,000 in FY 2015 to 85,000 in FY 2016 and 100,000 in FY 2017—and scale up the number of Syrian refugees admitted to at least 10,000 for the current fiscal year, which began October 1. Griff Witte writing for the Washington Post said the number of refugees in the world today is over 50 million people, which took it past the number of refugees during the Second World War. I believe we are seeing the systematic destruction of the European Union, as we know it today. I don’t think the governments of the 29 member nations will give up on the concept of unification even if their cities in countries are being destroyed in the process. Who would’ve thought that the destruction of Europe would be the result of one red line in the sand.


October 2015  Editorials

Is Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC broke?

By

Dan Perkins

10-13-2015

82504916F069-240x300Last November when we were enjoying our Thanksgiving meal, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC oil ministers met in Vienna and decided not to cut oil production. The outcome of that decision had far reaching effects much more devastating then OPEC realized at the time.  On that day the Price of West Texas intermediate crude oil dropped $4.95 a barrel.

The weekend after Thanksgiving Saudi Arabia announced that OPEC’s intent was to drive down the price of oil specifically with the intent to put the frackers in United States out of business.  If America were allowed to continue to expand its energy resources it would become independent of OPEC oil and might begin to export oil and compete with OPEC for global market share. Increased competition from the United States, which as we will see shortly, could cause significant financial difficulties for OPEC and Russia.

Speaking of Russia they built their budget for fiscal year 2015 based on the price of oil of $96 a barrel. Ekaterina Grushevenko, writing for the National Bureau of Asian Research in May of this year said, “that should oil prices stay in the $45-$55 range then the Russian economy could contract by 4 to 5 % and the deficit could be as high as 17% or $45 billion. One could ask, was the eagerness but Mr. Putin to be involved with Syria away of gaining influence in the Middle Eastern oil markets. Only time will tell remember that Iran has a very large oil reserves that because of sanctions has not been able to come to the market. Controlling the flow of oil from Iran would help stabilize oil prices at current or higher levels which will be good for the Russian economy and Mr. Putin.

Somebody should have told OPEC the potential consequences of their assault on American energy production.  Their hope was by driving down the price of crude oil the frackers couldn’t afford to stay in business and once OPEC put them out of business they could diminish the supply then prices would rise. I think the oil ministers believed the capitulation of American energy developers would be quick unfortunately for them, America did not capitulate and OPEC now finds itself on the verge of being broke.

The international Monetary Fund (IMF) reported recently that Saudi Arabia as a revenue shortfall in the amount of 21% of their GDP. That means that the revenue generated through the sale of crude oil is not sufficient to run the government on a day-to-day basis.  For the year 2015 and for probably five more years, IMF is suggesting that Saudi Arabia will be in this predicament although diminishing overtime. To put a fine point on it Saudi Arabia has a revenue shortfall of approximately $150 billion to bring their budget into balance. Other OPEC nations find themselves and more difficult problems Libya for example as a 98% shortfall others are flat but we’ll begin to fall into negative territory starting next year if oil prices stay around this level.

The IMF estimates that Saudi Arabia needs a price of $100 a barrel revenue in order to balance its budget.  So if the Saudi government doesn’t have the money where they getting it? Recently the Saudi government raised over $27 billion through the sale of bonds to provide operating cash/flow for the government in addition the Saudi government has taken over $70 billion out of the global equity and fixed income markets so far this year. In addition Saudi Arabia has increased its oil output over 1 million barrels a day assuming they can put pump seven days a week 52 weeks a year that would add and additional $18 billion in revenue.

The problems that the Saudis have is that there’s still about $35 billion short which means they’re going to have to cut about 5% of the budget for the country. I am sure that the Saudi people will have some very specific things to say about a 5% budget cut.

In the third book of my trilogy, the Brotherhood of the Red Nile, America Responds I wrote that the time may come very soon where the OPEC nations are going to have to make decisions about continuing to fund terrorist organizations or taking care of their people.  I believe that time forecasted in my book is now. If the Congress passed the keystone pipeline and suspended the 40-year ban on the exportation of crude oil, America will have the opportunity to destroy OPEC.

If America continues to convert its economy to a natural gas based fuel then crude oil becomes a byproduct of the expiration for natural gas.  Because it is a byproduct we can sell it on the open market at any price we choose. The longer crude oil prices stay around these levels the pain, disruption, and unrest in OPEC will grow every day. I believe that OPEC nations, which have been a principle funding source for terrorists for many years will be forced to make a decision between feeding their people and keeping their power or sending money to fund terrorist organizations. I believe they will choose their people and I also believe that terrorists will lose their will to fight with an empty stomach and no bullets for they’re guns.

Dan Perkins is a contributor on current events to the hill.com, the daily serge, and Reagan babies and is the author of the trilogy of Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile.

         


September  2015  Editorials 

 SAUDIS ARE DEMANDING THIS FROM HILLARY:

So That America Can Be Their Slaves

By

Dan Perkins

9-24-2015

82504916F069-240x300On September 22, Hillary Clinton indicated that she was tired of waiting for the administration to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline. She told her audience in Iowa that she was against building the pipeline. There could be many reasons why she decided against it, she could’ve been trying to appeal to Obama’s green energy base and keep it away from her potential competitor Joe Biden. She could’ve decided that she just didn’t believe that it was the right thing to do to build another pipeline in the United States. Or perhaps the contribution on the part of OPEC nations to the Clinton foundation and more specifically a significant contribution by Saudi Arabia to the foundation had some influence on her decision.

Forty years ago the American Congress passed legislation to prohibit the export of crude oil and natural gas from the United States. Our economy was under attack from OPEC for the second time in a decade and we were importing close to 65% of our energy needs. Another Democrat at that time told us that perhaps America’s best years were behind us, we needed to turn down our thermostats and we were not going to light the National Christmas tree. Iran was one of the OPEC nations that lead the embargo held Americans hostage.

Here we are 40 years later with a Democrat as President and last November while we were eating our Thanksgiving Day turkey, OPEC launched another attack on the US economy. The energy sector in the United States that was using fracking to find vast amounts of oil and natural gas in The United States was their target. The Saudis said, in no uncertain terms on Thanksgiving weekend, that they had to stop the expansion of energy exploration in the United States before America reached the point of energy Independence.

There is no doubt that some of the wildcatters were put out of business by this OPEC attack. Larger oil companies have suffered from the precipitous decline of crude oil and its protracted low price level. The OPEC nations are suffering with significant declines in oil revenue because of the low price of crude. Recently Saudi Arabia came to the debt markets with the $27 billion bond issue indicating that the cash flow from the sale oil wasn’t sufficient to meet their current expenditures for their people.

If the Keystone pipeline were to be approved, estimates are that 50,000 people will be hired to build a pipeline and perhaps as many as 50,000 more would be necessary for the factories to build the components for the pipeline. The pipeline will not be built in the year and it may take as much as four years to complete; but Saudi Arabia is concerned that when the pipe line starts to deliver oil from Canada that the United States will be more than energy independent. So the Saudis want two things from Hillary Clinton: to be against both the Keystone pipeline and the lifting of the export ban on crude oil.

I find it interesting that the television commercials that are supporting the listing of the ban talk about how the labor unions are in favor of lifting the ban. The labor leadership knows that most of the equipment necessary to build the pipeline will come from factories that are unionized. The unions see this as an opportunity to put hundreds of thousands of their members back to work as energy expiration expands new union members. So it would appear on the issue of the ban of exports that many of the unions have abandoned the Democratic party, and eventually Mrs. Clinton, if she is the candidate. When was the last time that you can remember any labor union supporting the ideas of Republicans? Times have really changed.

As an individual who’s been investing in the energy markets for over 40 years, I believe that the Keystone pipeline and the lifting of the export ban could create the greatest economic expansion opportunity for America in the last 100 years. Mrs. Clinton doesn’t want us to build the pipeline but rather spend our money on developing alternative sources like wind and solar. So far, the federal government hasn’t shown a very good track record in investing our tax money into alternative sources of energy. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton thinks she is a better stock picker than the president. She does have a track record on picking successful investments. So when Mrs. Clinton speaks out against the ban on exporting and stopping the Keystone Pipeline is she speaking, or is it the Saudis?

Dan Perkins is a registered investment advisor with over 40 years of experience investing in energy. He is a contributor to the Hill.com, the daily search, and now Reagan babies. He is the author of the trilogy on Islamic and nuclear terrorism against the United States called The Brotherhood of The Red Nile. 

   

 THE MUSLIM CRUSADE AGAINST WESTERN EUROPE

By

Dan Perkins 

September 22, 2015

82504916F069-240x300I believe that history is repeating itself only this time in the opposite direction. The massive migration of Muslims from the Middle East is in fact an invasion of central and Western Europe–with the intent of taking over those countries and making the Muslim states. The refugees have been told to:

Go to Western Europe, integrate with the people, inseminate the women, and conquer their countries. This Muslim Crusade comes at a time when Europe finds itself facing the dilemma of diminishing re population rates among its’ natives.  Consequently, European countries have a desperate need for labor to fill jobs that remain unfilled by an insufficient native population. Al Jazeera reported that Germany now expects approximately 1 million Muslims to enter this year. Andrea Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, said recently that she believes Germany can handle 500,000 refugees a year for the foreseeable future.

The German government along with many other European Union governments are under attack on two fronts: first, the legal residents are complaining about the ability of the country to absorb this massive wave of refugees, yet on the other hand, the refugees are complaining that they’re not getting enough attention from the government; and two, the EU governments seem ill-equipped to handle the explosion of Muslim refugees.

There is no question about the declining birthrates in European countries. The drain on financial and human resources is significant and many government leaders are concerned about how they can feed, house, and provide medical care within the existing infrastructure for millions of refugees. The United States has come under significant criticism for its lack of participation in providing refuge. The Department of Homeland Security has the responsibility of securing the borders and processing refugees, but has indicated that it takes a significant period of time to vet these immigrants to ensure we are not letting in terrorists.  The number of refugees we can take will be constrained by the processing system. The US immigration system is already overwhelmed by the massive number of illegals coming into United States through the southern border and is strapped for resources, thereby limiting the number of Middle Eastern refugees who seek refuge in the states.

With the formation of the EU, the free and open movement within the countries has reduced the border control among its’ members. We have all seen the pictures of EU border agents standing by–as illegals break through the wire fences.  These illegals may remain unaccounted for as they enter these countries.  Similar pictures have been taken at our southern border.

On September 10, 2015, Aaron Brown reports that 4,000 ISIL members were mixed in with the refugees heading to the EU.

In the middle ages Western Europeans, of all classes,  joined in a series of attacks on Muslims in order to gain, among other things, access to the Christian shrines in the Holy Land. These Crusades went on for hundreds of years. Counter to popular, cultural/ideological opinion, the Crusaders we’re not all knights. History accounts that even peasants without horses became Crusaders.  These Crusaders were told by Pope Urban that fighting in the Crusades could eradicate some of their sins. Muslims believe that their reward in fighting to the death will be 72 virgins.

The radical Imams are encouraging ISIL members to join the Muslim Crusade to make the EU a new stronghold for the Muslim faith. I was struck by the photographs of the refugees trying to get to the EU, the Times of London as well as other newspapers have reported that about 75% of the refugees are male between the ages of 18 to 35. In the photos I have seen they seem to be well dressed and, in one photo one of the men seems to be wearing a gold watch. The men depicted in the photographs are of fighting age–yet they are fleeing their homeland than staying on to fight for their own homeland?

In 622 Mohammad ordered the first Hijrah in the new Muslim faith, it was the first Muslim Crusade, today the world is experiencing a new massive Hijrah designed to change the world. I have concerns that the massive influx of Muslims in the EU will eventually see riots and mass killings in Europe as it struggles under the weight of diminishing resources and angry citizenry. Is this in fact the beginning of the end of the free world? The Muslim faith teaches in the Quran that the Muslim faith will lead the world to the end of times, is this the beginning?

Dan Perkins, is a contributor to DailySurge.com and TheHill.com. Perkins, is a master writer and author of The Brotherhood of the Red Nile Trilogy, which centers around Islamic nuclear terrorism against the USA.

 


       August Editorials  

      IRAN: Déjà Vu, All Over Again

By

Dan Perkins

8-06-2015

82504916F069-240x300In the mid-to-late 1970’s the OPEC nations, including Iran, attacked the United States by reducing the flow of crude oil through an oil embargo. In the period of time from late 1973 to early 1974 the price of a barrel of crude oil went from $3 to $12 a barrel. The shock to the US economy was dramatic. At that time America was importing close to 60% of its energy needs so the crimping off the supply by OPEC put them in control of the  American economy and the American people.

If you were old enough to remember, gas was rationed, there were limits on how much gas you could buy, and when you could buy it. Some people from the “Greatest Generation” talked about how much this resembled rationing in the Second World War. The scheme to ration was not consistent across the country. One system used alternating house numbers, if you’re house number was an even number you could buy gas on Monday. Wednesday, Friday. If your house had house numbers were odd then you could buy on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, if you could find gas. Another odd and even system used your license plate numbers.

The longer we sat in the lines, the angrier we were at our government, and Iran. As a people we were dealing with the energy crisis, and low morale, the country was further demoralized by the capture of American citizens as hostages by Iran. President Carter tried to do his best to deal with the long gas lines, but when America attempted to rescue the hostages, it was an incredible disaster, and made us look to the world and ourselves as a nation that was impotent, along with its people.

I still remember today the President indicating that in order to save energy we are not going to lite the national Christmas tree, and he told us that we shouldn’t light ours either. No outdoor decorations because they wasted energy. He told us, turn down your thermostat, put on long sweaters it’s about the best we can do. He didn’t offer any real ideas on how America could become energy independent, and shift the power the energy from OPEC to the United States or get our hostages back. It is now 40 years later and have things really changed.

We have been sitting at the negotiating table with Iran discussing how to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East for years. Strangely enough that same nation that had American hostages has them again. Not as many this time but still American hostages and all the time the negotiations were taking place we have been assured by Secretary of State Kerry that their release was brought up every day. There is no indication as to when or if the hostages are going to be released, perhaps much like last time, with philosophical change in leadership in the White House, Iran will once again release the Americans.

America’s never been in a position to use energy as a geopolitical weapon, but with the expansion and the development of the energy reserves in the United States the fear that we would not only be energy independent, but that we would lift the ban on the exportation of energy has caused OPEC to once again try and influence economic policy in the United States. OPEC is much more astute at using energy as a weapon then the United States.

Many of the OPEC nation’s economies, including Iran, are driven by the revenue generated through exporting crude oil. The recent decline to retest the low under $50 a barrel for West Texas intermediate crude, has put American oil interests under financial pressure. America is not the only country whose energy sector is experiencing financial difficulty. In many cases OPEC nations are also under a great deal of financial pressure, if we go back and test the $42 level, I have no doubt that a number of energy companies in the United States, will go into bankruptcy, which is exactly what OPEC is trying to do. Destroy our economy. They want to destroy the American energy industry so us to keep America dependent on foreign oil imports. What grate irony, 40 years ago they try to destroy us by raising prices and now they’re trying to destroy this by lowering prices.

The profits from OPEC oil have been used too fund terrorist organizations and as revenue has declined from the sale of oil, less revenue is coming into the coffers of the OPEC nations. The President of Shell Oil recently told his shareholders, that he believed the price of energy may stay low for extended period of time, and he is adjusting the size of his company, to reflect the reduced demand, and over supply on a global basis.

If he is correct, that prices will stay range bound for an extended period of time, then the revenue available to fund terrorist groups will diminish. OPEC governments are going to have to make some serious decisions, especially if revenue continues to diminish, about what they should provide to their people and what they can afford to give the terrorists. My guess is, because they like being in charge, they will take care of their people first, so that the funding to terrorists we’ll have to decline.

Some people have talked about the growing influence of Russia and China on the world economic stage. Lower oil prices will have a significant impact on the Russian economy. If the United States were to lift the ban on the exportation of crude oil the American oil companies we’ll be free to go to Western Europe and negotiate with them to replace Russia as a primary source of oil and natural gas. As America continues to convert more and more to its abundance of natural gas to an alternative to crude oil, then America we have, an every decreasing demand for imported crude oil. America will begin to build significant surpluses of crude oil, which will allow us to actively compete against OPEC.

If Royal Dutch Shell has the process that converts natural gas to engine oil, and other companies are testing the conversion of natural gas into diesel fuel and gasoline, then our need for crude oil will diminish rapidly, as these new technologies come on-board. Crude oil will in fact be a throwaway item that will allow us to attack all of the customers of OPEC based on price. We have a chance to break the back of OPEC and Iran by becoming the biggest exporter of oil. We can deal with the 93 million Americans who are out of work. We don’t have to worry about a minimum wage of $15 per hour people will have an opportunity to make more money than they ever dreamed.

We need to say no to Iran’s nuclear program, we don’t send them $150 million in cash. According to Business Insider on line, Iran has the third largest reserves in the ground at just over 88 years of proven reserves. Why doesn’t the President go back to the table and ask them to stop wasting their money on trying to build an outdated technology like a nuclear bomb, and let him show Iran Americas green energy success. By the way we also in order to show you our success we will need our people back now. But, don’t forget the sweater, because deserts can be cool at night.


June 2015 Editorials

Volatile can make the markets hard to follow. How I look past the volatility to find out what is happening? Think about your hand for answers.

The Vanishing America 

 By

 Dan Perkins

June 26, 2015

82504916F069-240x300The reaction to the events in the Emmanuel Church in Charleston South Carolina may well be the end of America, as we have known it.  The political left was not prepared for the reaction to the murders. The members of the congregation and general community of Charleston South Carolina came together peacefully.  The idea that the relatives of the victims would forgive the killer so quickly after the killing was not an acceptable outcome for the Left.  If the people of Charleston we’re not going to attack each other like Baltimore, and Ferguson then the Left had to find a way to use the events in Charleston to their advantage.

So they went after the Confederate flag, claiming it to be racist and a symbol of slavery. The flag needed to come down and be become confined to a museum, not flying on the Statehouse grounds.  In a very short period of time other symbols came under attack.  Should we tear down the Jefferson Memorial because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves?

The next move was to attack the images on the currency because some of the people on the currency we’re slaveholders. John Daly raised the question should black people have to ride on freeways or streets named after Confederate General’s who fought to keep them slaves?  His suggestion along with other people suggested that we needed to change the names.  Well he did not suggest what the names should be; clearly they don’t want anybody associated with the Civil War, especially on the southern side.

So I begin to think about who else should be erased from American history?  George Washington was the only one of the seven founders of this nation who owned slaves any own them to the day he died. Should we erase George Washington from the history of America because he owned slaves? Should we tear down the Washington Monument should we change the name city of Washington DC. We would take Washington off the dollar bill we would change all the towns, cities, streets, and avenues and freeways that are named after George Washington. All colleges that use Washington in their name would have to change, as would those who are named after confederate generals. All would have to create a nondescript names, all in the purpose of being politically correct, by eliminating those signs and symbols that some people feel that are the signs and symbols of slavery and racism.

All the military installations named after confederate generals, would require names changes to something not offensive to anybody. Recently Mitch McConnell, senator from Kentucky, and leader of the Senate, suggested that it might be advisable demolish the statue of Jefferson Davis the president of the confederacy. So in order to be consistent all statues of Confederate Generals and individuals who fought on the side of the south wherever they’re located throughout the United States would have to come down. We could not discriminate by only taking down some of the statues, only changing some of the streets names, in only changing some of the cities.

Louis Farrakhan said in the speech this week that he is less concerned about the prejudice in the Confederate flag but he is more concerned about the prejudice in the American flag, and he thinks it should also come down. By implication he would banish the American flag from every place it is used today. We could not use the flag on the 4th of July or any other holidays. All American flags as we know it today would vanish. He’s not saying what it should be replaced with, he saying it must come down. People use signs and symbols to preserve a portion of the country’s history, so the generations in the future can have an understanding of where their forefathers came from, what they believed, and what was most important of them.

There are some on the left who think that America in of itself is evil and the country should never have attained what it did because they did it on the backs of slaves not only domestic but foreign. Some may read this and say it could never happen here I’m here to warn you that is happening right now and we are in danger losing our history and what lessons we learn from it, we could loose America. If we tear down the symbols that represent our history as a nation then what are we, but more importantly who are we?

Will it make a difference in our grand children’s lives if there are no signs and symbols of George Washington? Do our children need to know that George Washington was one of the founders of our country and what he believed about freedom? Will our children have a new American history books, but it doesn’t speak of our history, because the peoples history will have vanished from those books being replaced what it politically correct.

The events and the attitudes around the Confederate flag has shown us all, that the goal of the politically correct people, in United States, is to have America as we have know it, Vanish.

Dan Perkins is a contributor to the Hill.com it is the author of the trilogy on the Islamic terrorism against the United States the Brotherhood of the Red Nile Series.

Editorial 

By  Dan Perkins

June 2, 2015

82504916F069-240x300I have been an independent money manager for over 40 years, and clients have told me, “ I can’t follow the markets, I don’t understand the volatility, do you have some simple keys that I can watch, that will give me an indication of what’s going on in our economy?”

I thought about that request for a long time, how can I boil down into simple keys that anybody can follow, and will give them a good indication of what’s going on in the markets, and the economy. So, after careful consideration I have come up with the “One hand” approach to monitoring the markets.  You will see how, by following five indicators, you can quickly figure out for yourself the long-term direction the markets and the economy.  I will explain why each is important, and why I selected it. By looking at all of these together, the five indicators can help you understand the economy.

The first indicator is the price of crude oil, more specifically, the price of West Texas crude. Crude drives our economy, the cost of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, plastics, pharmaceuticals, and on an on. The price of energy is like a tax increase that rises when the price of oil rises, or a tax cut when prices fall.  Just look at what happened to the price of gasoline over the last 12 months, for as prices fell you had more and more money in your pocket to do something else.  You could buy a car, or bigger television, or bigger house.  You can afford more, because an important cost to you has declined.  For every penny decline in the price of gasoline that is sustained for 12 months, adds  $1.3 billion to the US economy. The longer crude oil stays low, around $50 a barrel; the impact will grow in magnitude across the economy. Lower costs for imported energy will reduce the balance of payments, and will create deflation. Energy is the most important indicator because of the significant impact on our economy, and our way of life.

The second indicator is interest rates, more specifically the yield on the 10-year Treasury Bond. The cost of borrowing also has a significant impact on corporations, individuals, and governments. When interest rates are low we can borrow more money, so we as individuals can have a bigger house, corporations borrow money to a expand their business, which means they can hire more people and buy more plant and equipment.  Governments can finance their debt at a lower cost therefore creating less strain on the budgets and stability of the taxes we have to pay.  Simply put, a higher cost of money makes it more difficult for individuals, corporations, and governments to operate efficiently. Short-term interest rates, the money we earn on money market funds or CDs at the bank, will affect our income.  For almost 8 years money markets and CDs have been paying minimal returns and are no longer the source of supplemental income for retirees. These people have been forced to extend their maturity or look at alternative income producing investments that may increase their risk, in order to gain the income they need.

The third indicator is the price of gold.  In times of global turmoil and accelerating inflation, gold has been a hedge to protect the value of your assets. Gold has dropped over $700 an ounce from its high.  The price of gold will give us an indicator of inflation and high levels of economic growth. At its current level of $1,200 an ounce it is not signaling any significant inflation on the horizon. By following the price of gold you can get an indication of the direction of inflation and economic growth on a global basis. If you start to see the price of gold move higher, pay attention to the other indicators as the economy may be heating up.

The fourth indicator is the value of the US dollar against other major currencies.  Currently the dollar is at five-year highs against all global currencies.  There are two reasons for this first the decline in energy prices and second growth in America outpacing the rest of the world. As the dollar strengthens more and more people will be switching out of the euro, the yen, and the pound to the US dollar. A strong dollar benefits America in that imports will be cheaper, everything from clothes, cars, to oil.  So, think about planning a trip to Europe, this maybe this summer to do it, as it is possible that the euro, by this summer, will be 1to1 versus the American dollar.

The last item is unemployment. Don’t look at the published unemployment rate because it’s not an accurate reflection of what’s going on in the economy.  Rather focus on the percentage of people employed out of the potential workforce. Currently that number is under 63%, the lowest in almost 40 years.  This statistic is important because it tells us the demand for labor.  Currently out of every 10 people willing to work and capable of working only 6.3 have jobs.  If this number starts to rise more and more people are going back to work, which is a good thing, for the economy and for the unemployed.  The longer it lingers at 63% or less, there will be little expansion and job creation.  If the number moves up then we can expect inflation to pick up, the price of gold’s will rise, and so will the price of energy.  But as long as we stay at this level we won’t see much change.

The challenges after we’ve studied all these numbers, “What do I do with my money?” If you have question about investments please send your questions to Dan Perkins.

Dan Perkins is a Sanibel resident and has a private wealth management practice Daniel M. Perkins, RIA, LLC. He has been managing money for over 40 year. His articles should not be construed as investment advice. Always check with your broker or investment advisor for specific recommendations.


May Editorials

Well I think blank; Then you are a blank

 By Dan Perkins
 congress-blog
                      This Editorial was in The Hill -Congress Blog on May 13, 2015

Well I think blank; Then you are a blank

82504916F069-240x300The headline above reflects the state of free speech and communication in the United States today. And if you are anti-gay marriage then you are homophobe. If you are in favor of supporting the police then you are a racist.  And lastly if you’re anti-Hillary you’re sexist.  I have written several pieces dealing with this issue of free speech and communications in the United States and the significant decline of open and free discussion of opposing views.

You may recall the incident last spring, when Brendan Eich the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign, because he made a contribution to a ballot initiative in California, that was banning gay marriage.  The gay community sent out e-mails, instant messages, and tweets encouraging their followers not to use the Mozilla search engine. The company board met and decided that the Eich had to resign in order to protect their company.  In essence the gay community use blackmail to get their way. The gay community did not want anybody saying anything against gay marriage, any thoughts their opponents had were not of value, and so they should just shut up.

Eich of Mozilla never had a chance to discuss openly and freely why he was against gay marriage, his opinion didn’t matter.  He was opposed to what they believed and therefore he had to be destroyed. My guess is that he will never be able to work in this industry again for he will always be tainted as a homophobe. I believe that in the 6+ years that Obama has been president that this idea of anti-free speech has accelerated.  Any time somebody challenges a policy or decision of the president he or she is called a racist.  Even Hillary, when she was running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008 said that it was appropriate that people should have right to criticize President Bush. But when it came to Obama, we do not have the right to criticize him for his policies or his bad judgment because if we do we are called racist.

Now the president finds himself at odds with many of his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate over issues that are important to them.  The Senate recently voted 98 to 1 in favor of requiring President Obama to bring the Iran treaty to be reviewed before it is effective.  Now the junior senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren (D) is challenging the president on his foreign trade bill.  The president when asked about Warren’s objection said, “She is just wrong.”  There was no discussion where she was wrong: she was just wrong.

One last example of the problems with communication is what happened in Baltimore.  In almost any other City in America if the events would’ve happened that took place in Baltimore the race mongers would’ve been out in force.  Baltimore has a black mayor; a black chief of police, black states attorney and a police force that was at least 50 percent black and the mayor suggests racial prejudice was still an issue.  The mayor raised the question of racism and bias in the police force, she requested an investigation of her own police force, by the Treasury Department. If anybody raised the question about what happened to the 1.8 billion dollars given to the City of Baltimore from the president’s stimulus package, they were called racist.

We have a new word when we talk about freedom of speech, that word is but. The people in Texas had the right to hold their meeting in private. When people were asked should they have held a meeting? Do they have the right to hold the meeting is it free speech? A growing swell of people responded to the question. “Yes they do, but.”  I have studied the Constitution for a long time and as I read the section concerning free speech I can’t seem to find the word, yes we have free speech but, is not in there.  Whenever we put a qualifier on speech that is not free. You might disagree with gay marriage but that doesn’t automatically make you a homophobe.  You may believe that the police charged in the incident in Baltimore are innocent until proven guilty under the law but you’re not a racist. You should be able to question the qualification of a person running for president without being called a sexist. If a society cannot have an open and free exchange of ideas without labels then a society is not truly free.  What we as a nation must decide is how free do we want to be, or do we want a small minority of people thinking for us because we are to bigoted?

Perkins is an author of a trilogy on nuclear terrorism against United States. He is a registered investment advisor with over 40 years of investment experience. He has appeared on over 500 radio and TV shows in the last 12 months speaking about current events.


 

April  2015 Editorials

By     

Dan Perkins

4-05-2015

Are There Any similarities between the attack in Kenya and Virtual attacks in Indiana and Arkansas?

82504916F069-240x300Many of the students at Garissa University, in Kenya, believed the Shabab terrorists when they told the students to come out of the dorms, and that they would be safe, the problem is that to many students trusted the terrorists.  They were also told that if they didn’t come out they would be killed in the dorms.  Hundreds of students, believe the terrorists and left the dorms hoping that they would be safe. As they came out they were asked to lay down in neat rows where they were shot in the back of the head. Some reports from bystanders indicate the Shabbat Terrorists were laughing and joking as they pulled their triggers, and killed the students.

 At least 150 students were killed, however we don’t know for sure how many survived in the streets that were wounded.  Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta vowed to take harsh measures against the Islamic militants. It is believed that these are the same terrorist who also attacked the West Gate mall in the center of Nairobi.  In both of these attacks a small number of terrorists carried out the mission.

 I have been concerned that terrorists need to step up the size of their attacks against civilians in order to keep the level of fear high in the community.  I believe that unless the governments Africa and the Middle East step up and become more aggressive against the terrorists the size and magnitude of the genocide will increase. The Dictionary defines a terrorist as, 1.Someone who through the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

If you look at the definition above can we draw parallels between the Shabbat terrorists and a American political left. The result of the reporter doing a story on a small-town Pizza Place  and the possible violation of the rights of gays, lesbians, homosexuals, transgender, caused a virtual attack on the owner of the restaurant. Under the definition above the left was clearly using threats to intimidate or coerce the shop owner to do what they wanted him to do.  He was being attacked because he might not cater a gay and lesbian wedding. He had never been asked to cater a gay wedding, but he was attacked. The attacks from the left while being virtual, at the moment, cause the owner to treat them as just as real as someone throwing a bomb through the front window of the shop. To protect his family, he was forced to close the business.  He indicated that he received death threats and physical destruction threats to his property for his beliefs.

Many Americans who disagree with the left position on the religious freedom act came to the aid of the pizza shop owner by raising over $500,000 to rebuild his business. The 150 children and perhaps more, who were slaughtered on the streets of Garissa, were also innocent victims.  The question that we must think about in the United States is, will a small band of fanatic liberals take to the streets, with weapons, and use small business owners as their Kenyan students? Will the American people of faith, continue to hold onto the principles of their religion to the point that they will find themselves, saying out loud, “Hands up don’t shoot.”

 

Will Iran abandon Taqiya  by signing a nuclear treaty with the West?

By

Dan Perkins

82504916F069-240x300The deadline in the nuclear talks between Iran and the West is fast approaching.  The self-imposed deadline was March 31, but it appears that agreement may not be reached by that date.  I would expect to have pronouncements that they’re making progress that they need to extend the time needed to complete the agreement. I believe that the President of United States will want this interim agreement to try to convince the Congress of United States not to pass any more sanctions against Iran.

There has been a great deal of discussion of the terms and conditions of this potential treaty.  President Barack Obama announced this week that some of the terms and conditions may be held in secret and never disclose to the American Congress or the American people. I am concerned that if we are not to know all the terms then how will we know if they are in compliance with the accord. This paper will not try to explore all the details, that maybe in this accord.  What I want to explore is the likelihood that Iran will in fact, honor its commitment when it signs the document.

The vast majority of Americans do not understand many of the principles that are laws as to how Muslims are to interact with infidels.  Infidels are the rest of the world that is not Muslim. The principles of behavior between Muslims and infidels are outlined in Sharia law and the Quran. One of the guiding forces is called Taqiyya. This principle is sometimes referred to as dissimulation. Dissimulation, is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth from another, in our case an infidel. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth.

Muslims are taught from a very young age, that when they deal with infidels they do not have to do what they have said they’re going to do. When Iranian says to the west, that they do not want nuclear weapons, they just want to generate electrical power through the use of nuclear energy, I believe they are invoking Taqiyya.  A Muslim learns to achieve the goal by any means necessary including lying, misleading the infidel, all are acceptable.

In trying to figure out what Iran will do after they sign the treaty, we have to ask will the ayatollahs want the Iran Government to comply or will they tell leadership that under Taqiyya they are not bound by the terms and conditions of the treaty? The parties on the other side of the table, I believe, have very little experience in negotiating with Muslims and may in fact be incredibly naïve in believing that they will comply for 10 years. If you believe that you are negotiating a good faith then you assume that the other party is also negotiating in good faith. The Iranian side is agreeing with the west but knows it will not comply.

Neville Chamberlain, representing the Allied Nations went to meet with Adolf Hitler and came back with a signed agreement as to how the Nazis would behave.  We know that Hitler did not negotiate in good faith, but Chamberlin, left Hitler believing him at his word.  We were surprise when he didn’t live up to the terms and conditions of the agreement.  So, with Taqiyya in place as a guiding principle for the Iranian negotiators why should we trust them to comply with the treaty, especially if it doesn’t fit their goal. George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

To ignore the beliefs that drives the person you are negotiating with is a dangerous position to take. Any treaty between Iran and the West, must have very specific terms and conditions.  It also must have specific actions taken by the west anytime Iran violates the treaty. Continued violations of the terms and conditions of the treaty will result in more severe economic sanctions. If the impositions of economic sanctions are not sufficient to bring Iran into compliance with the terms of the treaty, then swift military action will be necessary to degrade and destroy their nuclear capability.

Taqiyya has been around for almost 1,300 years why should we believe that in this day and time the Muslims on the other side of the table are going to abandon their way of life when dealing with infidels. The stakes are so high, and the risk is so dangerous, that we should be guided by the words of Ronald Reagan when he was associating a nuclear treaty with the Russians what he said, “Trust but verify.” It we do not have the ability to verify and specific actions to be taken against Iran government for noncompliance then we should not sign this treaty.

Giving Iran the ability to build a nuclear bomb will results in an ultimatum to the world “Convert or die” For more information on Dan Perkins go to www.danperkinsatsanibel.com


March  2015 Editorials

Are John Kerry’s hopes for a Nobel Prize fading, did Hillary leave too soon?

By

Dan Perkins

3-9-2015

82504916F069-240x300 Barack Obama has already won his Nobel Peace Prize and there is no precedent for one person winning a second prize. Henry Kissinger was the last US Secretary of State to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in bringing the Vietnam War to a close. It is certainly possible that if there is an agreement with Iran then John Kerry could win the Peace Prize.

 With all the recent controversy around Hillary Clinton, perhaps if she had stayed on as the Secretary of State, she might have been in the running for the Nobel Peace Prize. Was her departure from the State Department recognition by both the President and Hillary that she was not going to make the Iran agreement happen.  She may have thought that her skills were not great enough to carry it off and bring the parties to a solution. If you think about it, if she had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, she would have been a lock for President in 2016.

Perhaps Hillary believed that there would not be a successful negotiation with Iran and the talks would fall apart with no solution. If that were to have happened on Hillary’s watch, it would have been tagged a failure in foreign-policy and jeopardize her potential Presidential run. Knowing that she could not trust Iran she had no choice, she just couldn’t take the risk.

 I think the risk is not ultimately bringing Iran to the table but rather making the treaty effective. The Constitution of United States stipulates in article 2 section 2 the President Shall have the power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two thirds of the Senate present concur.

With the change in makeup of the Senate the President, after the November midterms, no longer had a majority of the Senate, so his chances of getting senate approval with the Republicans in control diminished. The question now becomes will the President use his executive power to bypass the Senate and Constitution and agree to the treaty? Will reporters ask Mrs. Clinton, “Would you support the use of executive power by President Obama to enforce a restrictive nuclear treaty with Iran and bypass the Constitution and United States?

Will the mainstream American media ask John Kerry, a former Senator from Massachusetts, “Would you support abandoning the Constitution by the President and signing the treaty without Senate concurrence?”

Does the President of the United States have the power to override the Constitution and the execution of foreign treaties? If the President tells the Senate he is not going to send them the treaty for verification and he will sign it without their consent what should the Congress do?

With just a year and a half left in his presidency, there is not enough time for full impeachment of the President. I believe a move like the one suggested here would create the greatest constitutional crisis in the history of our country.  I would hope that the Democratic leadership from the Senate and the House would call on the President, in a private session, and strongly suggest that should he sign the treaty with Iran, without Congressional approval, the Democrats will support a bill of impeachment.

Regardless if there is enough time for an impeachment trial,  the President will have the distinction of not only being the first black President, but his history will record that he was also    impeached for disregard of the Constitution.

Regardless of whether the treaty is signed or not, Secretary of State John Kerry will not win the Nobel Peace Prize and Hillary may just choose not to run for President.


February  2015 Editorials

 “Senator McCain, your wrong on boots on the ground”.

 By

Dan Perkins

2-22-2015

82504916F069-240x300 Sen. John McCain speaks for a growing number of individuals who believe that the only way to defeat ISIL is with American Boots on the ground in Iraq in Syria.  I think that conventional ground forces are not the answer to defeat ISIL. We heard this week another alternative, what we need to do is find jobs for all the terrorists, hardly realistic, especially when the president thinks we have been too intrusive in the way foreign governments operate their countries.

We must take a fresh look at what’s going on and how we can affect the outcome in the Middle East. If we can come up with an alternative then we can destroy the terrorists and bring stability to the Middle East. It all begins with oil and the flow of money from oil.  The president is correct in one sense that the economies of the Middle Eastern nations away from the oil are almost nonexistent.  The terrorists are not employed, but are supported by the Middle Eastern nations and wealthy individuals, through their oil revenues.

So the governments and the terrorist organizations are dependent upon oil revenues for survival. The dramatic decline in crude oil prices will, if they continue around the current price, put pressure on the ability of the governments to continue to support their people and terrorists.  OPEC decision on Thanksgiving Day to keep production levels at the current level was a conscious decision to try and influence Energy expiration and the development of resources that would make America and Canada energy independent.

Some of the OPEC nations are already feeling the impact of the decline in oil revenue, so much so that they are already spending some of there sovereign wealth funds to fund their nation. The longer oil prices stay down the greater the pressure will build on the funding sources of terrorist organizations.  Oil exporting nations that need $100 or more per barrel we’ll want to push OPEC to cut production. The idea is if we can cut production then the price will rise.

In 1975 in response to the Arab oil embargo we passed in United States for law forbidding the exportation of American crude oil.  That law has been on the books 40 years, it is time to repeal this law.  If we want to defeat ISIL then we must take away their money by reducing their revenue and financial support.  Sen. McCain if OPEC meets  in Vienna, sometime in the next few months to try and cut production hoping in turn to  increase prices,  then America should bring to the market an amount of crude oil  equal to the amount whatever OPEC wants to cut. Buy keeping supply high, then prices will stay low and more and more pressure will be put on the OPEC nations forcing them to reduce the amount of money available to fund terrorist’s organizations.

Sen. McCain the Congress should also bring significant pressure on the administration to use airstrikes to destroy the captured oil infrastructure currently controlled by ISIL.  The terrorists are funding in part the food for the soldiers, the equipment and ammunition necessary to continue their reign of terror, this has to stop and airstrikes will set the oil fields on fire and ISIL income will go up in the flames.  I believe that many OPEC nations will support America taking off the market oil that is currently being sold by ISIL.  I believe that many OPEC nations believe that the reduction of ISIL’s supply in the marketplace will increase prices.

There is a long history of nation-states and wealthy individuals supporting terrorist organizations with the revenue from sale of oil.  For the last 40 years OPEC has had undue influence in the world economy’s by controlling the price of energy.  It is time to break the cycle of undo influence by OPEC nations, and open up the oil markets to a free and fair market and in turn make the world a safer place..

By making America the largest exporting nation of energy we can send a very clear message to Mr. Putin about his future activities.  By letting America’s oil producers to have access to the world markets with both oil and natural gas, we can go to our friends in Western Europe and offer to replace all of the oil and natural gas currently supplied by Russia in turn eliminating Western Europe’s dependency on Russian energy. Mr. Putin we’ll find that the loss of revenue from Western Europe will in fact create the collapse of his economy and perhaps his government, and his job.

Sen. McCain now is the time to take the bold action that capitalizes on the abundant natural resources of the United States for good in the world.  We have a chance for the United States to use energy as a geopolitical weapon to defeat terrorism. We do not need more American troops on the ground fighting ISIL, we need to put America back to work making it the supplier of energy to the world.  If we can do this we can make the world a safer place.  Without money the leaders of terrorist organizations can’t buy bullets, they can’t buy guns, they can’t buy trucks, and most important they cannot buy food and clothing.  I ask sir, how long will terrorists want to fight with no food in the belly, and no bullets for their guns. For more information on Dan Perkins or to order his books go to www.danperkinsatsanible.com

2-11-2015

“Assimilate or Leave”  

By

Dan Perkins

 82504916F069-240x300One of the lessons learned by the French government from the deadly Islamic terrorist attack in Paris was that using Political Correctness was a failure.  The government didn’t require the Muslims to assimilate into the language, culture, laws of France, they just let them go their own way and build a separate country. The French government admitting that, hindsight being in 20/20, Political Correctness was a mistake in how to treat the Muslims. They now openly admit that things have gotten out of hand and they don’t know how to reverse things, they don’t want to offend the Muslim population by making changes that assimilates them into France.

France has a sizable Muslim population, about 5.8 million out of 61 million French people. The recent terrorists’ events in Paris would help you understand why the government might be afraid to rock the boat. The fear of an armed reprisal has to be on their minds. They also know that if nothing is done the Muslim population will continue to grow and slowly change the culture of France to that of a Muslim country.

We in America are even more naive than the leadership thinking in France. People say, America will never turn into France, America will never be a Muslim country.  You must understand that a takeover of a country doesn’t happen all at once, it evolves over a long period of time. As the Muslim population grows they ask more of the government and then when they think the time is right they start demanding from the government. The “No Go” zones, in many Western European nations, are an example of ever increasing Muslim pressure to control the nation. We must never forget that radical Islam believes that Islam must rule the world. The problem is already significant in America.

In France, the “No Go” zones are fracturing the land into France and the new Muslin Country. As more and more land is converted to “No Go” zones the sooner the takeover will be complete.  FBI Director James Comey recently said in a speech in Mississippi that his, department is diligent everyday to the threats against the United States by ISIL.  Director Comey said “We have Muslims in every state.”  America has 6.6 million Muslims and the population is growing rapidly. Based on a Pew research study of the attitudes of American Muslims, 26% of those responding said that suicide bombings can be justified.  The 26% equates to 300,000 people living in America think suicide bombings can be justified. Will the 300,000 become bombers? Hard to believe, but look at what happened in Paris where 4 people closed down the city, think what 10,000 radical Islamic Terrorist could do to America? We have a problem and we must address it now.

I believe we have to be more diligent about what this Muslim population is doing in America. If we do not require assimilation into the American culture we could soon go the way of France. This requirement for assimilation must be required not only of Muslims but any foreign national entering America.

Recently it came to my attention that America has it’s first Sharia court. It is located outside of Dallas, in Irving Texas. The court will initially handle civil cases not criminal ones, but that is I believe is just a start. One of the judges was asked if there is a conflict between Sharia Law and American law, which will govern?  His reply was Sharia. I think this is a terrible mistake. Setting up a separate court system for one nationality degrades our own justice system and sets up an opportunity for Muslims to gain more power. Will the next step be setting up “No Go” zones in the United States? So how do we as a nation protect ourselves?

First, we must in force the law by sending Director Comey, FBI and Homeland Security agents into the Muslim communities and inform them, no courts and no segregated communities with formal boundaries. Immigrants of all nationalities will have their pass ports and visa checked. If any including Muslims are found without visas then they will be jailed and deported. We must keep an active database of who is in the country and how long they can stay. If their time is up and they have received citizenship or a legal extension they will be arrested and deported. Individuals who espouse separation from the language, laws and culture of the United States will be arrested and deported.

The bottom line is, if we want to keep America the home of the free, all immigrants must “Assimilate or Leave”. We must not start down the path of Political Correctness in the treatment of immigrants for if we do we will be like France and other countries of the world, we will loose our history and culture. For more information go or to order his books go to www.danperkinsatsanibel.com


January  2015 Editorials 

               Twelve People Are Dead At The Altar Of Political Correctness In Paris

By

Dan Perkins

1-13-2015

82504916F069-240x300In 1996 the French government decided that political correctness was the way to treat the incoming Muslim population.  Over the ensuing years the Muslim population in France grew dramatically. The creation of the European zone and its free and open borders are also part of the problem. With no restrictions on travel France decided not to require any assimilation into the French culture of these new Muslim immigrants. As Muslims entered France in ever-increasing numbers they established their own neighborhoods and communities.

Today some of those areas are called “No Go” zones. These “No Go” zones are predominantly Muslim and they restrict access to their community for police and fire and other services. Police and fire personnel are reluctant to try and go into these “No Go” zones because they believe their lives maybe endangered.

Many of these Muslim territories have set up their own court system and use sharia law as a basis in which to conduct trials. In a very real sense France has been turning over its territory, its home state, its sovereign nation, to the creation of a new Muslim nation state with its own borders. All this evolved because the politicians thought it was politically correct to allow the Muslims to keep their culture and their heritage independent of the rest of the people in France.

As the population grew the Muslims demanded more and more from the government, in some cases at the expense of the French people. This is not a new phenomenon; it is happening in many countries of Europe. European capitals with ever-increasing Muslim populations who have through political correctness encouraged the separation are now finding that they made a mistake. The French government openly admits it has no idea how to create assimilation of the Muslims in the French culture. The Muslims are a growing political force in many European countries much like what they are doing in France.

The attack by the Muslim terrorists against the newspaper in Paris that saw 12 dead at 11 injured, I believe is the direct result of political correctness in France. For many years any French people who raise the question of assimilation of the Muslims into French culture were labeled bigots and anti-Muslim.  It is only recently that some politicians have begun to openly discuss the problem. The French people feel their culture and their heritage being challenged by the political correctness of the treatment of Muslims in deference to the French people.

The evening of the assassination of the 12 people at the magazine 10,000 people gathered in central Paris protesting not only the death of the people but the lack of the government to do anything about the political works. The central government of many European nations are going to have to deal with this problem of political correctness or their countries will be destroyed.

America as a nation has been dealing with political correctness for almost 40 years. Now we must ask ourselves, can the events of Paris and the failure of political correctness come to American shores? How many Americans have to die under political correctness, before we make changes before it’s too late?  For more information and to purchase Mr. Perkins books The Brotherhood of The Red Nile Series go to www.danperkinsatsanibel.com

1-12-2015

by 

Dan Perkins

Hands Up Don’t Shoot: Charlie Hebdo Edition

82504916F069-240x300By looking at the title you might think this article is about Ferguson. But in fact if you look at the raw video above of the terrorist attack in Paris you will see the person on the ground, a police officer, who has already been shot, will be shot at point-blank range. The victim has his hands up asking not to be shot again. The terrorist can be seen stepping over the victim on the ground, he turns and shoots.

Why this daylight attack? Why this magazine? France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. France has been both a supporter of the United States in fighting ISIL and yet France has sent more of its people to fight with ISIL than any other nation in Europe.

I have written many articles and op-eds on the need for ISIL to ratchet up the nature of its attacks so its followers are engaged and retained. Many people feel that this attack at Charlie Hebdo was retaliation for the cartoons the publication ran mocking Islam. Other think the attack was the result of the magazine poking fun at Islamic State Chief Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi.
My guess is that both are true, but not the only reasons for the attack.

The ever-increasing population of Muslims in France, and in Paris especially, has caused a clash in culture. The Muslims want to change France into a Muslim state and the local French have started to resists. The same is true of several other nations in Europe; people are resisting the loss of their culture and heritage.

The growing Muslim population wants to get control of these nations and they also know that the natives are tired of the political correctness that has been used in the past to deal with the rising populations of Muslims. The native French, Spanish, Swiss and English are all protesting the Muslim invasion and the challenge to their history and heritage.

The terrorist could not let this criticism of Baghdadi and ISIL go unchecked. The terrorists needed to send a message to France and the people of Europe and in fact the rest of the world that message is: “We are in charge”. Even if you raise your hands to surrender, we will still kill you.

How successful was the attack? Just look at the coverage they have received around the globe. Their message of fear and intimidation is being spread across all media. One very important question that has to be asked, Will this type of terrorism come to the United States? Ask the families of the two assassinated New York City policemen what they think. If you think it is not the same just wait and American will find out what it means to say “Hands Up Don’t shoot” to a Muslim terrorists.
Read more at http://dailysurge.com/2015/01/hands-dont-shoot-charlie-hebdo-edition/

Why this daylight attack? Why this magazine? France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. France has been both a supporter of the United States in fighting ISIL and yet France has sent more of its people to fight with ISIL than any other nation in Europe.

I have written many articles and op-eds on the need for ISIL to ratchet up the nature of its attacks so its followers are engaged and retained. Many people feel that this attack at Charlie Hebdo was retaliation for the cartoons the publication ran mocking Islam. Other think the attack was the result of the magazine poking fun at Islamic State Chief Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi.

My guess is that both are true, but not the only reasons for the attack. The ever-increasing population of Muslims in France, and in Paris especially, has caused a clash in culture. The Muslims want to change France into a Muslim state and the local French have started to resists. The same is true of several other nations in Europe; people are resisting the loss of their culture and heritage.

The growing Muslim population wants to get control of these nations and they also know that the natives are tired of the political correctness that has been used in the past to deal with the rising populations of Muslims. The native French, Spanish, Swiss and English are all protesting the Muslim invasion and the challenge to their history and heritage.

The terrorist could not let this criticism of Baghdadi and ISIL go unchecked. The terrorists needed to send a message to France and the people of Europe and in fact the rest of the world that message is: “We are in charge”. Even if you raise your hands to surrender, we will still kill you.

How successful was the attack? Just look at the coverage they have received around the globe. Their message of fear and intimidation is being spread across all media. One very important question that has to be asked, Will this type of terrorism come to the United States? Ask the families of the two assassinated New York City policemen what they think. If you think it is not the same just wait and American will find out what it means to say “Hands Up Don’t shoot” to a Muslim terrorists. For more information go to www.danperkinsatsanible.com

   Is John McCain attack on the Tea Party an attack on Americans right to free    speech?                                                      

By 

Dan Perkins

1- 02-2015

82504916F069-240x300Newsmax reported on December 30, that Arizona Senior Senator’s staff wants to purge the leadership of the Republican Party, in Arizona, of any Tea Party members. They are doing this in order to assure the senator has the best chance for reelection in 2016. People on the staff have indicated to Politico, that the Senator is not part of the team attacking the Tea Party leadership, but he has also not condoned their action either.

The results of the Mid-term election is a clear message if you are a moderate Democrat or Republican up for reelection in 2016. You have to be a little scared about your reelection chances based on how you voted on the bill. Those Congressmen and Senators that voted for the Presidents 1,600 page continuing resolution, have raised the anger to those voters who wanted a change out of the Mid-term election, not more of the same.

The conservative movement made significant gains all across the nation and they are not looking for moderate Democrats or Republicans to lead the country. The Senator and his staff have decided that the best strategy is to eliminate the competition. So, if you eliminate their voice then they can’t be heard. Take away their freedom of speech and focus all of your attention on the Democratic or Republican opposition.

One of the reasons McCain chastised his fellow Republicans was that if they voted against the bill the government would be shutdown. He was not going to vote in favor of a government shutdown. Was the Senator and others like him afraid of the repercussions of a shut down?  I for one felt that the American voters said in over whelming number in the November election “Shut it down, but stop the Madness.” The Congress didn’t listen to the voters. When an elected official goes against the wishes of the voters and they do everything they can to shut down opposition, then he or she is a terrorist.

It is truly hard to call a sitting Senator who was a prisoner of war for so long a Terrorists. But if you make the decision that descent cannot be heard and it must be silenced at all costs then you are a terrorists. All we have to do is look around and we can find many examples of government quashing descent. ISIS says to the concurred people convert to what we believe or die.

Mitch McConnell said during his campaign for reelection to the Senate on March 9, 2014 this about the Tea Party, “We are going to crush them everywhere.”

I have to wonder why in our country we are attacking and assaulting people’s right to say what they think is best for America. Young men and women are fighting and dying for our right to disagree and discover what is best for America, not so that one side can deny the right to speak our mind. Is it possible that the people who are trying to destroy free speech are actually afraid that they are in the wrong?

Dan Perkins is a nationally known commentator who is also a writer of fiction. His trilogy the Brotherhood of the Red Nile is a fictional account of a terrorist’s nuclear attack on the United States. Mr. Perkins can be reached through his book web site www.danperkinsatsanible.com

 


December 2014 Editorials

12-19-2014

Editorial By Dan Perkins

Obama to Castro, “Close Gitmo”

82504916F069-240x300When Senator Feinstein’s committee released a report about the integration tactics at Gitmo I wondered as many other people why her committee released her report without talking to the person who developed the protocol and supervised the implementation.  Why now, when these interrogation tactics were stopped at least 6 years ago. Why now?

I got my answer on Tuesday, when the President announced an agreement to end the embargo with Cuba, I believe that Feinstein new what was going on in Canada in the secret talks, and she needed to give the President cover, so he could turn over control of Gitmo to the Cubans and let the Cubans release the terrorist’s prisoners.

The President has not had a foreign policy success in his term and normalizing relations with Cuba will give him a notch on his belt. At the same time by having the Cubans releasing the Terrorist the President has fulfilled a 2008 campaign promise to close Gitmo.

I believe it will take some time for this to come out in the media, but it will come out. I raised this issue in two radio interviews this past Wednesday evening and again on Thursday afternoon. Last night on Fox news Megyn Kelley made a passing comment about the agreement and the ability for the Cubans to close Gitmo, but she did not tie the two events together as I have, but I believe she and others will connect the two events.

The President has stated that he does not believe that he needs congressional approval to sign the deal with Castro. He made comments about the 50 years of embargo didn’t work and we need a new approach. If we can just talk with each other we can solve our differences. There was no discussion as to what Cuba is contributing to the deal. Based on early reports it appears they are doing nothing. The fact that we are making all the concessions tells me that the President wanted something really bad in order to give everything away. What he wants is for Castro to justify Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize by agreeing to normalize relations between our two nations and close Gitmo.

The impression of Gitmo in the world is that it is a terrible place and if Obama can get the Cubans to close Gitmo, he reinforces the justification of the Peace Prize. Can the congress do anything? The normalization of relations is not a formal treaty so it does not need to be ratified by the Senate. The question is will the new Senate call it a treaty and demand the right to approve? I hope so, but I doubt it will happen. Some Senators will complain, but nothing will happen.

So, the President and Senator Feinstein have deceived the American people to further a campaign promise to close Gitmo and we are being sold a bill of goods by the administration that it is good for us and it is good for the people of Cuba. There is a reason things have not changed in Cuba for the 50 years of the embargo, that reason is that the leadership is oppressing its people and they have not demonstrated any desire to change and this recognition requires no changes on their part. This is just another example of a misguided and naïve administration focusing on one thing, “Please Mr. Castro Close Gitmo”.

Dan Perkins, is an author of a trilogy on Islamic terrorist nuclear attack against the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Mr. Perkins is a Registered Investment Advisor with over 40 years of global investment experience. He has appeared on over 150 radio and televisions shows offering commentary on current events. Mr. Perkins can be reached at his book web site is www.danperkinsatsanibel.com

 


November Editorials 2014 

          The Iranian Nuclear Talks Are Like An Over Done Turkey, Dry And Brittle!

By

   Dan Perkins

11-25-2014

82504916F069-240x300The Iranian nuclear talks saw their deadline of Monday the 24th of November came and went without a settlement. They failed because Iran agreed to nothing, so the 5+1 nations have extended the deadline an additional seven months in hopes to come to a settlement. Iran, by forcing the next round of talks out seven months leaves President Obama, with just 14 months to the end of his Presidency. I believe that the leadership of Iran and other nations looked at the November election results and they think they will have a much stronger hand against the President by waiting out the negotiators. The Iranians they see Obama as a lame duck with rapidly decreasing power and influence. They are in no hurry to reach a settlement everyday postponed get them closer to a weapon.

On the other hand, President Obama has not had a significant foreign policy success in his Presidency. Should a nuclear accord in the Middle East be reached it would help his legacy. Benjamin Netanyahu the prime minister of Israel, has to be asking himself a very serious question, “Who is representing my countries interest at the bargaining table? The longer the 5+1 wait to reach an accord the more Israel security is in jeopardy because Iran will be closer and closer to having a bomb.” Israel may well strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities to protect its own interest, regardless of the outcome of the talks. My guess is that Netanyahu feels like he has very little support from the American government and he may well have to go it alone.

Netanyahu has warned the West on many occasions, that Hassan Rouhani, “Can not be trusted, “He lies.” It appears that all the concessions are on the part of the West and Rouhani is not willing to concede any points. In the last sessions, in Geneva, he came out and reported that the Iranian nation defeated the west, “We gave away nothing.” No matter what the West says they need in concessions Rouhani Affirms, “We are not building weapons, my nation just wants to have energy security through nuclear power.”

Iran wants to be the dominant force in the Middle East and nuclear arms will give them that control. If they are forced to give up their nuclear capabilities, they will become a lesser nation. ISIL, has its eye on Iran and their nuclear capabilities. The terrorists desperately want nuclear weapons, not only to attack the United States, but to expand their span of control throughout the world. If Iran holds off the West and builds its weapons, then look for ISIL, if they are still around, to set their sites on Iran.

One last question that seems obvious to me. “Have the wrong people been at the table? Sharia law has an Old Testament flavor, but is the law of the land in at least 12 nations. Laws that we would think archaic providing, for example, public lashings for certain offenses, and death by stoning for women convicted of adultery are real today. The leadership of Iran has very strong opinions about the role of women. John Kerry is the first male Secretary of State in almost 14 years. Catherine Ashton from Briton and the EU has worked in the process. I’m not saying that all the high-ranking women are not gifted, but the reality is that the other side of the table may find it difficult to deal with women as equals. I have said on many occasions that if we want to defeat the terrorists, we have to understand what drives them to believe what they believe. No matter how sexists you may think they are, if a different team could increase the chances of success, I say put them in and give them a shot. We have staff trying to work the deal right up to the end, and they couldn’t get the job done. When Nixon wanted peace with North Vietnam he sent Kissinger to Paris and he was told to stay there until he has a deal. I think its time, if Obama is serious about a fair and equitable deal with Iran, then he needs to take out a long-term lease on a suite at the Four Seasons George the 4th hotel in Paris, for John Kerry. My guess is that Benjamin Netanyahu will pick up the hotel tab.


 

September 2014 Editorials

Sign at the border from Obama, “Cum on Down”

By

Dan Perkins

 9-13-2014

82504916F069-240x300The leadership of ISIS and many other terrorist organizations considering sending their members to America just got a get out of jail free card last weekend from President Barak Obama. The president last spring gave the terrorists a heads up that he was going to make a decision on immigration and the border by Labor Day. The terrorist’s plans had to be accelerated in order to get as many terrorists and or bad guys through the Mexican border and into the United States as quickly as possible.
It was reported by many major media outlets that the parlous journey from Central America to the Mexican U.S. border took about 45 to 60 days. I would imagine that for terrorists to get from Iran or Syria would take a lot longer. So when the President said, “I will make my decision by the end of summer, Labor Day, the bad guys that were in the pipeline were it.  They had to decide that there wasn’t enough time to get more terrorists into Mexico and the United States.

Now the president has told the terrorist and the bad guys “I’m not going to make a decision until after the election in November or perhaps later.” The IS tour bus leaving from Tikrit, Iraq for Vera Cruse, Mexico just got filled and they are making extra runs.

I think the president would have been better off by not saying anything and left it open-ended because by doing so the terrorists leadership would be like deer on a dark night and be frozen the headlights of an oncoming Abrams tank.

The commander and chief doesn’t seem to know about military tactics rule one, Never tell your enemy when you’re coming and when you are leaving. So the Department of Defense puts Ft. Bliss Texas right across the border from Vera Cruse on high alert of a possible ISIS attack. I guess the person that released the announcement about Ft. Bliss went to the same military tactics class the president took on the element of surprise.

Dan Perkins is the author of the trilogy on terrorist attacks on the United States called The Brotherhood of the Red Nile, his books are available at Amazon.com and his book web ite is www.danperkinsatsanibel.com. Mr. Perkins can be contacted through his web site.

 

The Border Will Continue to Be A Sieve Until After The Mid-Terms

9-8-2014

By

Dan Perkins

82504916F069-240x300National Security takes a back seat to politics once again; the president wants to delay any action by him on securing the border until after the mid terms. How many times have decisions been post pone until after an election? It is clear to me that somebody has gotten to the president and convinced him that he should postpone an executive order on immigration and the border until after the November election. The concern may be the push back from the voters. It seems to me that every time a voter hears the term that we will postpone this until after the election should be a warning to the voters that they will not like what is to come. As the old saying goes, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”

Over the almost six years of his term many items, including laws passed by congress have been postponed until after an election. The reason is simply the democrats must know what they are proposing may not be acceptable to the majority of voters, so they wait until after a election when you and I can do nothing about it for several years and they hope we will forget about the issue. Can it be that America is full of voters who are willing to be fooled by politicians not telling them the truth over and over again?

My concern is that we already have had terrorists crossing the Southern border in significant numbers while the border patrol is distracted from catching them because they were too busy changing diapers. Based on the presidents’ action on Saturday, he has in essence told the terrorist, “Come on Down, the door is open,” “If you are not here now, then this the time to come, you may have three to four months perhaps longer to cross with probably a good chance of success  of getting into America undetected.”

The New America web site, (http://www.thenewamerican.com/) states that people from 75 nations have illegally crossed the border. The last time I looked at a map there were not 75 nations in Central America. The border patrol reported that they have detained 1,100 people from China. Why would people from China cross through Mexico? The only answer I can think of they couldn’t get into the United States legally. With people from 75 nations crossing our border one has to ask, how are these people getting into Mexico in the first place? Is the Mexican government cooperating with these foreign nationals to try and cross the border?

Now we turn to those people who came in legally and have not reported their whereabouts.   A recent article in the New York Daily News stated that the whereabouts of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who overstayed their student visas in the U.S. remain unknown after a security lapse at the Department of Homeland Security. The colleges and universities are responsible for keeping track of the foreign students and reporting them to Homeland Security. Project Atlas reports that America has over 760,000 foreign students. I have no doubt that the vast majority are going to school, but what about the thousands who got the visa and never went to school and are not hear to learn but attack us?

We are coming up to the 13th anniversary of the terrorist attack on America, will we see an attack this year from IS? I don’t think an attack, should it come will be on the scale of 9/11 and I would be surprised that attack would come on September 11th. I do believe they are mustering their forces already in the United States and we will see a number of coordinated lone wolf attacks across the United States.

I agree with former Vice-President Dick Chaney that we will be attacked within the next 10 years and hundreds of thousands of Americans will die. We have to close the border, find all the illegals in the country and deport them, and destroy IS if we want to survive.

Dan Perkins is the Author of a trilogy on terrorist attacks upon the United States called the Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan is also a Registered Investment Adviser with over 40 years of investment experience. The Brotherhood of the Red Nile web site is www.danperkinsatsanibel.com


Is America divided because of Political Correctness?  

By

Dan Perkins

8-18-2014 

82504916F069-240x300You can hear almost daily that the country is so greatly divided on many issues. A significant example of this division and the ensuing lack of progress is the US Congress.  The once great body of debate is getting nothing done to solve our problems. If we are divided into rigid camps then one has to wonder if Political Correctness is in fact the problem. Rather than attacking the problem we are attacking each other and nothing is being solved.

You can’t disagree with the president without being called a “Raciest or a bigot.” It appears that anytime you disagree with the other side you are chastised and accused that you have one prejudice or perhaps more than one. If we truly have a free and open society then we must have unfettered and respectful debate in making America and its people the best it can be. If you disagree then disagree but be human enough to allow both side to be heard don’t call them a bigot because they don’t believe what you believe.

Take a look at the historical origins of Political Correctness, according to Wikipedia. They say that the source of the concept of Political Correctness was developed in the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists.

The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist “party line“, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s, “The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.”

In the above cite there is a very important phrase as to how PC was used, it “was used disparagingly”. Mr. Kohl goes on to say that, “to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics.” Clearly the use of Political Correct statements today has lead to bad policy and has over ridden human compassion and may in fact have dramatically inhibited problem solving in America.

I believe Political Correctness has stifled American thought and it has forced its people to suppress their ideas because what they might want to suggest will not be received as not being politically correct. America has many problems and if the sharing of ideas is met with attacks then the potential ideas to solve our problems will never see the light of day. One party, or one group can never be right 100% of the time. I find interesting that Political Correctness came from the interactions between Communist and Socialists not Americans. Are we as Americans adopting through Political Correctness the ways of Communists and Socialists.

To ignore or openly condemn people who think and believe differently can have good ideas or at the very least ideas and solution that deserve a fair hearing is not Political Correctness but repression of freedom of speech and thought. If we do not begin to open all of our minds and abandon Political Correctness I believe we are doomed to be a second class nation in a world filled with wide spread terrorism and domination by one faith. It is time for the American people to say to our elected leaders, ENOUGH!!!

Dan Perkins is an author and Registered Investment Adviser with over 40 years of investment experience. You can contact Mr. Perkins through his web site www.danperkinsatsanibel.com

_________________________________________________________________________

Nancy Pelosi, Illegal children her human shields.

Editorial by Dan Perkins

One question for Nancy Pelosi, “Should any child be turned away from the southern border?” Based on her public position one could easily conclude that she feels that no child should be turned away. The border patrol now estimates that in 2015 they expect 250,000 illegal minor children to cross the boarder. Based on the New York Times article of July 5, 2014 the ratio of minor children to adults crossing the boarder is 5 to 1.

 If the Boarder Patrol is correct that they expect 250,000 children next year then we should expect 1,250,000 adults crossing illegally. The 1.5 million equates to over 4,000 people a day every day. Does Nancy have a limit on the number? Would Nancy be willing to take every child in the world who wants to be free or only some? Then the question is which some?

Nancy should we take all the children from Giza, they are in danger? Oh Nancy what about all the children in Africa, they too are in danger. We should take any child that wants to leave their place of their birth to be safe. Even Nancy, I would hope would say, “We can’t take all the children? If she believes that we can’t take all then how does she decide who can cross illigaly?

Wikipedia defines a human shield as, “Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets. Using this technique is illegal by nations that are parties to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions.

Nancy is using these children as human shields to deflect any criticism about the administration including the Presidents actions dealing with all of the illegal immigrants children and adults alike.  Phrases like, “We must save the children, or Republicans hate children distract many Americans from the real issue. The images form the world media focuses on the children and speaks very little about the 5 times as many adults that are illegally coming over.

Nancy always talks about the children never the adults or for that matter never the number of illegals coming across the border, why? Nancy does this because she is using the child and the images of the children as shields to distract Americans away from the real issue of national security. The democrats have always put a stake in the ground that says we have compassion and anybody that disagrees with us, in this case Nancy, is anti Hispanic. Democrats want to be judged on their intentions rather than their actions.

No one in the mainstream press has ever asked any Democrat how many is enough? My guess is that they never will ask that hard question. I have been lead to believe that the president will issue and Executive Order in September giving some form of legal status to 5 million illegals in America. I do not believe he will do anything to secure the border rather I think the president will in effect use the executive order to shore up the support for his fellow Democrats before the mid-term elections.

If the President issues the order look for Nancy to be in front of the cameras talking about how many children will be given a better opportunity’s and it will save thousands of children’s lives.  With the border almost nondescript we are exposed to great national security risks. We know that people from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and even China are crossing the border into the United States through Mexico. We need to ask ourselves, why are they coming? Nancy is using the children as a shield and like a magician she is telling us don’t look at the people other than the children, focus your attention on the children.

Our leaders should not be distracted by the tactics of Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in making decisions about our security. As a sovereign nation we must secure our borders and we must learn to say no.

Editorial 

 By

Dan Perkins

                           

 

82504916F069-240x300An Army, is invading America!  The New th 300,000 illegals entered the United States on the southwestern boarder. It is difficult for most Americans to comprehend 300,000 of anything, much less that many people in 90 days. I thought about it and I have come up with two ways to look at this number and a few ideas of how to stop it. D Day had 150,000 troops.

 Many people reading the article in the Times probably had no idea of D-Day and why it is important in world if not American history. I’m not sure this important historical fact is still taught in public schools. The Allies had to assemble the largest armada in the history of mankind to move 150,000 troops across the English Channel to the French beaches in Normandy. Want another example? How big is an Army infantry division?

 According to the Department of Defense the typical size of an infantry division is 10,000 soldiers. The 250,000 adults that have entered into the United States in the last 90 days is equal to 25 divisions invading America and make no mistake they are coming to take control. It was estimated by the border patrol there be as many as 400,000 more are on the way. The army has some new recruits. 

We are now seeing, drug dealers, people from Asia, and people from the Middle East just to name a few who are illegally crossing the border.  There is no question that terrorists are using the on slot of illegal activity at the southern border to gain entrance to the United States. If the terrorists can find a weakness then they will exploit it to their advantage.

Some of the recruits can’t be seen. We have no medical history so we have to wait until somebody gets sick to see what germs are being brought to us. World Net daily in an article on June 17th said,” Carried by this tsunami of illegals are the invisible “travelers” our politicians don’t like to mention: diseases the U.S. had controlled or virtually eradicated: tuberculosis (TB), Chagas disease, dengue fever, hepatitis, malaria, measles, plus more.” This army attacks the young, the vulnerable and the elderly. When they get sick and die they are just as dead as if they were shot by a soldier’s rifle.

How do we stop the invasion? First, we notify the governments of the countries the immigrants came from: We should redeploy the returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to the southwest border with order to repel all person trying to cross the border illegally. Upon placement of the troops they will immediately start deploying concertina wire in multiple layers. Next the Corp of Engineers will start to build walls of sufficient height as to prevent infiltration. Guard towers, close circuit cameras will monitor the walls and armed drones will work as observers and deterrents for illegals trying to cross. Neutral zones will be established well in advance of the border and warning signs in many languages and images will be posted and warning shots will be fired to individuals breaching the zone.

America currently has no enforceable border with Mexico. In 90 days 25 divisions of illegals have crossed our border, they have invaded our country.  Our country is being attacked and our country estimates another 40 divisions are on the way. We are a sovereign nation, and we like any other sovereign nation has the right to establish and protect its borders. It is time for America to enforce its borders to protect its legal citizens.

For more information on Mr. Perkins or to purchase his books go to his website at www.danperkinsatsanibel.com