Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigrants - When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.


The Immigration act of 1907 also barred these groups of wannabes:

All idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living . . .



When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.



A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.


Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.


It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Trump done in by Russian Dressing

White House press secretary Sean Spicer chided reporters on Tuesday for continuing to search for connections between President Trump and Russia.

“I’ve said it from the day that I got here, there is no connection,” a frustrated Spicer declared at Tuesday’s briefing.

“If the president puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that’s a Russian connection.”

Really this is not Fake News:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/326155-spicer-if-trump-uses-russian-salad-dressing-somehow-thats-a-russian

Friday, March 17, 2017

Be verrry verrry Quiet! The Russians are Listening.

OMG!  The Russians are hacking and wiretapping and bugging the USA!  What will become of US!

They have never done this before (or have they?)


It was almost 75 years ago when the Russians pulled off one of the most amazing and bold spying capers the world has ever uncovered.  They made a gift of an ingenious covert listening device to the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union.

The spying equipment was actually delivered by a group of Soviet Boy Scouts - Really - I'm not making this up!

The Ambassador placed the gadget on prominent display inside the US Embassy, where it remained to eavesdrop on the goings on for seven long years.  

Speak Directly into the Eagle, comrade.

What follows  is the amazing true story of spying with nothing much more than haywire, and tinfoil.  Imagine what can be done today with today's modern technology found in everything from televisions, to microwave ovens.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man leaned over his creation, carefully assembling the tiny pieces. This was the hardest part, placing a thin silver plated diaphragm over the internal chamber. The diaphragm had to be strong enough to support itself, yet flexible enough to be affected by the slightest sound. One false move, and the device would be ruined. To fail meant a return to the road work detail, quite possibly a death sentence. Finally, the job was done. The man leaned back to admire his work.

The man was Lev Sergeyevich Termen, better known in the western world as Léon Theremin. You know Theremin for the musical instrument which bears his name. In the spy business though, he is known as the creator of one of the most successful clandestine listening devices ever used against the American government.

 

Theremin, the man, was a scientist by training. Theremin, the instrument, uses the player’s hand proximity to a pair of antennas to generate electronic sound. As a young student, Theremin was an aspiring physicist. World War One saw him enter military engineering school for radio operations. After the war, he worked on experiments as diverse as a device to measure the dielectric constant of gases and hypnosis. Léon even did work in Ivan Pavlov’s lab.

In 1920, while working on his dielectric measurement device, Theremin noticed that an audio oscillator changed frequency when he moved his hand near the circuit. The Theremin was born. In November of 1920 Léon gave his first public concert with the instrument. He began touring with it in the late 1920’s and in 1928, he brought the Theremin to the United States. He set up a lab in New York and worked with RCA to produce the instrument. 




Theremin and his musical Instrument
Theremin’s personal life during this period was less successful than his professional endeavors. His wife, Katia, had come to America with him and studied medicine at a school about 35 miles from the City. For much of this time, Léon and Katia lived apart, seeing each other only a couple of times a week. While at school, Katia became associated with a fascist organization. The Russian Consulate caught wind of this and summarily divorced Léon from Katia. They couldn’t risk their rising star being associated with the Nazis.

Theremin eventually remarried, this time to Lavinia Williams, a ballerina. Lavinia was African-American and the couple faced ridicule in American social circles due to their mixed race. However, the Soviet Consulate did not have a problem with their relationship. In 1938, with the Nazi threat growing stronger, Theremin returned to Russia. He expected to send for his wife a few weeks after his arrival. Unfortunately, that wasn’t to be the case. Léon and Lavinia never saw each other again.

Upon arrival in Leningrad, Theremin was imprisoned, suspected of crimes against the state. He found himself working in a laboratory for the state department. This was not an unusual situation. Aircraft designer Andrei Tupolev and missile designer Sergei Korolyov were two of many others who faced a similar fate.
 

It was during this time as a prisoner that Theremin designed his listening device. 

Passive microphone / transmitter listening device

Placing the bug
 


The date was August 4, 1945. The european war was over, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was only two days away. A group of 10 to 15 year old boys from the Young Pioneer Organization of the Soviet Union arrived at the US embassy carrying a hand carved great seal of the United States of America. They presented the seal to W. Averell Harriman, the US ambassador to the Soviet Union. The seal was given as a gesture of friendship between the US and Soviet Union. Harriman hung the plaque in the study of his residence, Spaso House. Unbeknownst to Harriman, the seal contained Theremin’s sophisticated listening device. The device, later known as “The Thing”, would not be discovered until 1952 — roughly seven years later. 




Theremin's device inside of the Great Seal


Discovered!
 


The discovery of the great seal listening device is an interesting one

British broadcasters reported hearing American voices on the their radios in the vicinity of the American embassy. No Americans were transmitting though, which meant there had to be a bug. Numerous sweeps were performed, all of which turned up nothing. Joseph Bezjian had a hunch though. He stayed at the embassy pretending to be a house guest. His equipment was shipped in separately, disguised from Russian eyes. Powering up his equipment, Bezjian began a sweep of the building. With his receiver tuned to 1.6 GHz, he heard the bug’s audio, and quickly isolated the source in the great seal. Close inspection of the carving found it had been hollowed out, and a strange device placed behind the eagle’s beak. No batteries or wires were evident, and the device was not powered through the nail which had been hanging the seal. Bezjian removed the device from the great seal and was so cautious the he slept with it under his pillow that night for safe keeping. The next day he sent it back to Washington for analysis. 


Theory of Operation
 




The great seal bug quickly became known as “The Thing”. It was a passive resonant cavity device, containing no batteries or other power source. It consisted of an antenna and a small cylinder. One side of the cylinder was solid. The other side consisted of a very thin diaphragm, obviously some sort of microphone. Passive resonant cavities had been explored before, both in the US and abroad, but this is the first time we know of that was used for clandestine purposes. In his book Spycatcher, British operative Peter Wright claims that the US came to him for help determining how the device worked. However he is not mentioned in other accounts of Theremin’s bug.

Regardless of who figured out the device, the method of operation is devilishly simple. The Soviets would sit outside the embassy, either in another building or in a van. From this remote location they would aim a radio transmitter at the great seal. The bug inside would receive this signal and transmit voices in the room on a second, higher frequency. It did all of this with no standard internal components. No resistors, no tubes, no traditional capacitors, or the like. There were capacitive properties to the mechanism. For instance, a capacitor is formed between the diaphragm and the tuning peg of the device.
 


Receive tuning (if it can be called such) was achieved by the precisely cut antenna. The RF carrier transmitted by the Russians would be received at the antenna and travel into the body of the device which was a resonant cavity. That resonant chamber was capacatively coupled to the thin conductive diaphragm which formed the microphone.

Sound waves would cause the diaphragm to move, which would vary the capacitance between the body and diaphragm, forming a condenser microphone. It is important to note that the bug didn’t transmit and receive on the same frequency. According to Peter Wright, the excitation frequency used by the Russians was actually 800 MHz. The cavity would resonate at a multiple of this base frequency, producing the 1.6 GHz output seen by Bezjian.

While bugs of this type have fallen out of favor, the idea of “illuminating” a device with an external transmitter lives on.  Resonant cavities have found common use as well. Every microwave oven or radar system with a magnetron uses one. 


Henry Cabot Lodge Spilling the Beans on them pesky Russkies

A Political Pawn
 


The great seal bug disappeared for a number of years. The Russians knew we had caught them, and moved on to other espionage devices. It finally reappeared in 1960 at the United Nations. During the Gary Powers U2 incident, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. presented the seal as concrete proof that Russia was spying on the Americans.

A replica of the great seal is on display at the NSA National Cryptologic Museum.


Afterward
 

Theremin and Robert Moog

Léon Theremin was released from his camp in 1947. He married Maria Guschina. This time the state did not intervene, and the pair had two children. In 1964, Theremin became a professor at the Moscow Conservatory. He lost his job after an article published in the New York times was read by the assistant director of the conservatory. The assistant director stated “Electricity is not good for music; electricity is to be used for electrocution” before throwing Theremin and his instruments out of the establishment. Through the 1970’s, Theremin worked in Moscow University’s Department of Acoustics. While there he built a polyphonic version of his instrument. Stored in a back room, the instrument was looted for parts by students and professors. Meanwhile, Theremin’s instrument was returning to vogue in the western world. Electronic music was hot, spawned by instruments such as the MiniMoog, and the Arp Kitten.

Theremin finally visited the United States in 1992, reuniting with old friends. He performed in a concert at Stanford and was interviewed by Robert Moog, who considered him to be a hero of the electronic music world. After filling in many of the blanks of his story, Theremin asked Moog and co-interviewer Olivia Mattis to be responsible when writing up their story. “But if you write that I have said something; against the Soviet government and that I have said that it is better to work elsewhere, then I shall have difficulties back home [ironic laughter]”. Even then at the twilight of his life, with the fall of the Soviet Union underway, Theremin was still looking over his shoulder, worried about what the government might do if he offended them.

Theremin passed away in 1993. The unlikely master of this spy-gadget was 97 years old.

Always remember to forget the friends that proved untrue, but never forget to remember those that have stuck by you


Irish saying from 1934

In case you may be coming in after the latest rapid-fire "Smear Donald Trump" news cycle, the loony left is now saying some Nigerian poet wrote this ditty in 2001 and it was co-opted by President Trump.

This has got to be the most onerous example of fake news I've seen to date - however I am confident there will be many many more to come post-haste.

 Here is a more appropriate rendition:
Always remember to forget the FAKE NEWS that proved untrue, but never forget to remember there are few that have not lied to you

This particular bit is so easy to dissemble that only liberal-progressive mental midgets could possibly fall for it.

A cursory review of just about any search engine will reveal that this poem, proverb, saying, witticism, blessing, or whatever you'd like to call it, has been circulating for nearly 100 years.  It has been written in many books, printed in many newspapers, magazines, greeting cards, trinkets, placards, and other sundry publications.  It is most frequently attributed as being of Irish origin.

Is it any surprise that the crux of this biscuit is a claim from a Nigerian that he wrote it?  I wonder if that is the same Nigerian that just sent me an email advising that I am the recipient of 5 million USD and all I need to do is send him a 10-percent finders fee?

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Does anyone at CNN know how a cellphone works?

Russians "wiretapping"  Hillary Clinton's tin-can-telephone.

CNN wants us to believe that the term "wiretapping" only applies to land-line telephones.

In a literal sense, in order to have actual "wiretapping" a wire is needed. If we are to swallow what the maroons in the Media are peddling, that means cellphones, tablets, wi-fi, cannot be "wiretapped".

Furthermore, they seem to believe that telegrams are are cutting-edge communications technology

Geez Louise!

Here is a direct quote from CNN:
 "Wiretapping is a narrowly defined surveillance activity that involves tapping into "a telephone or telegram wire in order to get information,"

Did you see that?  TELEGRAM - They actually said TELEGRAM.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/sean-spicer-donald-trump-wiretapping/

How many of those CNN reporters do you think are fluent in Morse Code?

Monday, March 13, 2017

When Children Were Subjects, Not Royalty



I recently asked a married couple who have three kids, none of whom are yet teens, “Who are the most important people in your family?”


Like all good moms and dads of this brave new millennium, they answered, “Our kids!”


“Why?” I then asked. “What is it about your kids that gives them that status?” And like all good moms and dads of this brave new millennium, they couldn’t answer the question other than to fumble with appeals to emotion.


So, I answered the question for them: “There is no reasonable thing that gives your children that status.”


I went on to point out that many if not most of the problems they’re having with their kids — typical stuff, these days — are the result of treating their children as if they, their marriage, and their family exist because of the kids when it is, in fact, the other way around. Their kids exist because of them and their marriage and thrive because they have created a stable family.


Furthermore, without them, their kids wouldn’t eat well, have the nice clothing they wear, live in the nice home in which they live, enjoy the great vacations they enjoy, and so on. Instead of lives that are relatively carefree (despite the drama to the contrary that they occasionally manufacture), their children would be living lives full of worry and want.




This issue is really the heart of the matter. People my age know it’s the heart of the matter because when we were kids it was clear to us that our parents were the most important people in our families. And that, right there, is why we respected our parents and that, right there, is why we looked up to adults in general. Yes, Virginia, once upon a time in the United States of America, children were second-class citizens, to their advantage.


It was also clear to us — I speak, of course, in general terms, albeit accurate — that our parents’ marriages were more important to them than their relationships with us. Therefore, we did not sleep in their beds or interrupt their conversations. The family meal, at home, was regarded as more important than after-school activities. Mom and Dad talked more — a lot more — with one another than they talked with you. For lack of pedestals, we emancipated earlier and much more successfully than have children since.


The most important person in an army is the general. The most important person in a corporation is the CEO. The most important person in a classroom is the teacher. And the most important person in a family are the parents.


The most important thing about children is the need to prepare them properly for responsible citizenship. The primary objective should not be raising a straight-A student who excels at three sports, earns a spot on the Olympic swim team, goes to an A-list university and becomes a prominent brain surgeon. The primary objective is to raise a child such that community and culture are strengthened.


“Our child is the most important person in our family” is the first step toward raising a child who feels entitled.


You don’t want that. Unbeknownst to your child, he doesn’t need that. And neither does America.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Great Britain does indeed still have a castle doctrine in practice, but it only comes in play if you own an actual castle

Our social fabric is dependent upon the policeman or the member of the armed services who has sworn an oath to the Constitution to defend us. Their very oaths imply the threat of gun violence. We may sleep secure in our bed at night or feel we can walk our streets in complete security. When we do so, it’s because some hard men and women watch silently and protect. Are we reduced to the place where we consider these men and woman morally bankrupt in comparison to the cubicle worker or the hairdresser who refuses to own a weapon? Is a mother who would defend her child morally inferior by definition?

The police aren’t always there. An old farmer in the remote Scot border country, a place with centuries of violent history, said once, “The police are thirty minutes away. In that thirty minutes, I am the only law.” This same farmer’s daughter, also a lawyer, explains, “Great Britain does indeed still have a castle doctrine in practice, but it only comes in play if you own an actual castle.”

Gun violence, any violence, is an amoral term. Before a violent act is judged as right or wrong, our legal tradition demands the circumstances be examined. If we say all violence is wrong, we’re accepting that an individual has no right to live and breathe, if someone, anyone, decides it’s time for him to die. If the individual has no right to physically contest anyone’s decision to end his life, then this individual can be said to be a creature of no rights. He only enjoys those privileges either the state or the more violent-prone individuals he encounters should choose to bestow in the moment. And, the state or individual who bestows these privileges can reclaim them at the whim of their choosing.

To say that the world would be better off if all citizens were disarmed is a sophisticated abstraction. The problem with any abstract concept is that all of us can’t grasp them. There are certain mathematical concepts I may never understand, but while I’m on the concept of mathematics, for those who proudly state they’ve lived their whole lives and never needed a gun, I’m in complete agreement. I agree you can never really need a gun but once when you don’t have it. A person has a right to decide he doesn’t want a gun, but when he takes it upon himself to make that same decision for me is there anything left I can decide for myself that is truly beyond his touch?

If the world is a better place without guns, the first thing I’d have to acknowledge would be that this better world would be a place without me. Without my guns, I would have starved, been killed by wild animals, or human predators. Is it so wrong that I’m glad to be alive? Can you not see the difficulty of such an abstraction for a person who lived when he might not have because he had a gun and knew how to use it?

found at:  https://goodmenproject.com/