Failed Congressional Assassination. What Is The Real American Political Game & Score and Who Wins or Loses? PTS 1&2

What Is The Real American Political Game & Score?

By: Michael D. Tobin

June 14, 2017

AUDIO: Failed Congressional Assassination. What Is The Real American Political Game & Score and Who Wins or Loses? PT 2of2

AUDIO: Pt 1 of 2 Audio News, my commentary and prayers 

(PT 1 blog form follows this) PT 2

I wrote this late last night and into early morning hours before going to bed about 3AM and getting up early about 9 am Pacific time. I checked messages and saw several articles about a Congressional baseball game practice and a shooting in Fredericksburg, VA area. Further down I will share with you the facts as reported by the FBI along with a comedian social media friend who I follow on twitter and facebook, Fred Rubino, who always has some great words to share regarding local and national events.

I was just out of it thinking what the heck is going on?! So I turned the tv on after reading a Reuters article online that was hot off the press. And I'm thinking also, that I have this blog here that I wanted to finish and produce for my podcast and now I need to cover the first news-coverage hours of reaction and developments on my show and somehow continue with this subject of the polar opposites of Russian and U.S. domestic political landscapes of sorts. So here we go. Thank the Lord everyone is going to survive, except the shooter. I have the complete un edited first 3hrs of coverage and my intermediate commentary now, with my prayers at the end, and a 2+ minute audio of a smartphone video of the shooting as it happened, broadcast first on FOX News, along with this blog and podcast links as well. I hope you enjoy my blogs and podcasts as I continue giving you coverage you won't get anywhere else.

Now, WOW. Here's a polar opposite. Putin has the msm over there, but Trump has the internet here. Communism fell in the former USS and it then took hold here. It's all part of the same group of blue-bloods. They do the dirty work while we play the good-guy. Then we switch and we do the dirty work and they play the good-guy. Together we share statistics, cause-and-effect, social and political research, medical research, science, military, law enforcement and national security tactics, social experimentation, commerce and economic research and the list goes on and on.

HOWEVER,

Here in the U.S., since our last two-term Republican Presidency between Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, and the following one-term Democrat Presidency with Jimmy Carter, and then a one-term Republican Presidency with George Bush the elder (which kind-of doesn't count beings elder Bush actually had 12 consecutive years in the White House, will we finally see another one-termer with Donald Trump, starting the one-term score occur, just for the record? There's an extremely spectacular political scoreboard that the so-called powers-that-be adhere to, one which we are not supposed to be privy of. But will the two-term Presidency patterns continue? You see, my theory is that the White House has some sort of game-plan between both major parties, and it's all about who wins, at all costs, with yours and my concerns farthest away from the players' concerns. It's ALL ABOUT THEM.

Ever since Nixon it's been Nixon/Ford "bad-guy bad-guy", Carter "good-guy", Reagan bad-guy, Bush the elder bad-guy (bad-guy/bad/guy again), Clinton good-guy, Bush the younger bad-guy, Obama good-guy, and now Trump bad-guy. The funny thing is the "good-guys" thought they finally had a two-time good-guy time with Hillary, and DRATS! They were foiled. Somehow they have to make up for all the bad-guys points. Let's see. Depending on how you look at it, Nixon and Ford were double bad but almost triple bad. Ford lost re-election which would've given him total 6 years at least. But that was still just 8 yrs between Ford and Nixon. Carter only four. Reagan 8, and THEN Bush elder 4. That's a double bad AND 12 years straight for elder Bush because Bush elder was in the White House for 12 yrs straight! So FINALLY Bill Clinton got a double for 8. WOOHOO! But then Bush younger got himself a double 8. But check THIS out! So that gives a bad-guy FAMILY 20 YEARS in the White House within a 28 year time period! So the "good-guys" are FUMING! So hip hip hooray, the good-guys get a double for 8, and now the whole msm, enlightened populace and all of D.C. blue-blood rat-hood are all together, blue bloods of both persuasions of political party are all set for the good-guys to finally get their 3 pointer to almost match the losses of the past 47 years and holy smokes, Batman! Donald Trump won? If you REALLY see how rats see, you have to think like a rat. The Clinton's will have had at least 12 years in the White House, had Hillary won. And don't forget the Bush's really tried for a real doozy in getting Jeb Bush in there. And the Clinton's very well could have secured 16 combined years. It was a battle between the Clinton's and the Bush's. For a minute. And one of the greatest sequence of Presidential historical events in the U.S. could have happened for the Democrats, I mean the "good-guys". They would have had the most spectacular bragging rights in all of our country's Presidential history. The "good-guys" would have had the most time in the White House in the past 31 years up until 2024 had Hillary been a two-term President, winning this past election and the next, along with the first black U.S. President ever, also being a "good-guy." That would have given the "good-guys" 28 yrs since 1976 and the "bad-guys" (Republicans), 28 years since Nixon beginning in 1969. But as it turns out, at the end of Obama's double term, it was finally even at 28 years for the Republicans since 1969, and even at 28 for the Democrats since 1976. FINALLY a tie! Who was going to break the tie? It would seem "fair" for the Democrats wouldn't it? Beings Nixon was such a bad man and things would've been honorable had their candidate been President and Nixon just wasted 8 years of a Presidency? So when you see it in the eyes of the blue-bloods, Trump did a bad thing because he's the first President ever who actually resorted to colluding with the people because the internet was first in full-force in all of it's splendor able to be used in ways global politics have feared since just before Obama's first term in 2008. And he was just a lowly commoner businessman with no political background! Or IS he a commoner? More on that in a little bit. But the GALL! Obama actually WAS helped by internet, but facebook was new and myspace was in turmoil. So those two were barely adequate, but were able to help a little. But back to the blue-blood score board. The BIGGEST kicker to this last election is that however sore Hillary Clinton lost, what hardly anybody seems to realize is that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are blood related. YES you read that right. They are related as far back as the colonial days of the French and the British. The royal families of the kings and queens. You can read it in my blog, "Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton Royal Presidential Bloodline Cousins?"

March 06, 2016 https://michaeldtobin.blogspot.com/2016/03/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-royal.html .

So hopefully, the malice in the palace will subside by the end of Trumps first term, and IF or when Trump wins a second term, hopefully they will just let it ride, and let's all just be a little wiser and not be so controlled and infuriated at every whim of our mainstream media and even independent media sources, because it's not us who loses or wins. It is them! BUT we can actually be the winners no matter who secures the Presidency, as long as we hold them to the task of keeping to what we're told is supposed to be American, the home of the brave and land of the free. So maybe young people really should stay out of politics and focus on their grades like the song mentioned in this article says. All this politically public animosity really began in the 1960's and it's been chaos ever since. And if by some miracle that we are able to know who actual candidates REALLY are, who often times aren't even of any political party who actually DO have our best interests at heart, are, we could be the winners we are SUPPOSED to be in so-called free elections. But the most tragic reason for such idealistic turmoil in our elected positions is that young people barely hatch and they think they're the enlightened galaxy and know who the center of the universe ought to be. Come on youngsters. Have a wonderful time before you get old and cranky. Nothing worse than being cranky from the get-go. You made your parents miserable. DON'T turn and inflict the same garbage on a whole nation, for crying out loud. The best thing in growing up is Folgers in your cup. I mean it's LEARNING that it is our turn to make things better and not worse from the time we leave the nest. Have some fun, but WORK and make your family. Make your network. Make businesses. Plant a harvest. Start from where you're at and spread your circle and make it bigger. Do what makes this country the number one destination for the world's Marco Polo's. But learn more about the system than what you're told in school before you tackle the system. That is all. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-opposition-protests-idUSKBN1941XJ?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social

Before going into my commentary and coverage of this mornings's sick shooting events which led to his demise, here is my friend Fred Rubino, comedian, entertainer, electrician:

PT1 of 2: Failed Congressional Assassination By Sanders Campaign Volunteer, Gunman Is Dead!

Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer shoots Representative House Majority Whip Scalise and others.

Initially, President Trump disclosed shortly after the shooting which occurred at 7:10 AM Eastern time, during his statement, that the gunman is DEAD. Here's from a Reuters article: "Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama said the shooter said nothing during the rampage. "But for the Capitol police and the heroism they showed, it could very well have been a large-scale massacre. All we would have had would have been baseball bats versus a rifle. Those aren't good odds," Brooks said."

At 1:37 PM Eastern time after all the news breaks following the single mention of who the shooter turned out to be, there was STILL no opening news segment discussing anything about the gunman being a 2016 Bernie Sanders Presidential campaign volunteer. It wasn't until the 2PM segment a few minutes after the top-of-the-hour opening when they finally asked a question on is it possibly more than just a random thing. The MSN keep saying, "The question is..." this and that but nothing about how remarkable it is that the dead shooter was a candidate 2016 Presidential campaign volunteer. It also seems the major speeches and even the House chaplain prayer was pretty well polished. Too polished for the timing, in my humble opinion. Is it just me??? Or is there something else that stinks about this story? IT WAS A FAILED ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION. CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

About the 170 minute mark about 3:12 PM Eastern time, Freshman Michigan Rep Jack Berg again cautions media to use caution on their words while reporting news, so as not to incite violence. 

160 minute mark, which is the 3 o clock eastern time top of hour beginning segment, a onsite video of the shooting lasting over 10 minutes, was aired on FOX Shepherd Smith hour.

Also, on FOX after the 135 minute segment break, screen captions on FOX began listing the dead shooter's social media rants, numbers of letters sent to politicians and his political opinions as well as being an Iowa Sanders 2016 campaign volunteer.

About the 135 minute mark the narrative became clear from politicians and the media. A reference to "political terrorism" from news sources and politicians. There you have it. That is the new narrative being discussed. Are we "political terrorists" if we disagree and express our disagreement with a politician or a policy?

After the 134 minute mark, FOX's news lady referred to the shooter as "the killer". Freudian slip? IDK

About the 133 minute mark FOX's Mike Tobin finally disclosed a political profile on the dead shooter.

FBI Washington

Public Information Office

(202) 278-3519

Share on Twitter Twitter Share on Facebook Facebook Email Email

June 14, 2017

Joint Statement on Shooting in Alexandria, Virginia

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/washingtondc/news/press-releases/joint-statement-on-shooting-in-alexandria-virginia

At approximately 7:09 a.m. on June 14, the Alexandria Police Department responded to the scene at 400 East Monroe Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia. They arrived at 7:12 a.m. to shots fired in the vicinity of Eugene Simpson Stadium Park, where members of a congressional baseball team were practicing. Multiple members of Congress were present on scene; therefore, United States Capitol Police officers were also on scene.

The subject was engaged by law enforcement and shot at approximately 7:14 a.m.

Five individuals were transported by Alexandria EMS, Arlington County EMS, and U.S. Park Police helicopter to local hospitals with gunshot wounds. Those transported include a United States Capitol Police officer who is hospitalized and is reported to be in stable condition, a congressman, one congressional staffer, one lobbyist, and the subject.

A second congressman sustained minor injuries and was also transported by a medic unit.

One additional United States Capitol Police officer was transported to the hospital in a police cruiser for minor injuries and has been released.

The shooter has been identified by law enforcement as James Hodgkinson, age 66, from Belleville, Illinois. Hodgkinson was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.

The FBI is actively investigating Hodgkinson, to include his associates, whereabouts, social media impressions, and potential motivations. This is an active investigation that continues to unfold.

The ATF is running a trace on two weapons, to include a rifle and a handgun.

The scene remains an active investigation, where law enforcement, to include the FBI Evidence Response Team, ATF, and Alexandria Police Department, are collecting evidence. In addition, the FBI Springfield and St. Louis Evidence Response Teams are searching the subject’s home in Belleville, Illinois.

Individuals who have information regarding Hodgkinson should call the FBI 24-hour access line at 1-800-CALL-FBI and select option 1.

I desire to respond to disaster sites sharing the love of Jesus at hurricane, tornado, fires and other disasters as a Billy Graham Rapid Response Team chaplain, as I've been one since 2003. I pray to be able to renew my passport and have one for my 31-yr old son who wants to be in missions and ministry with me. Visit my podcast, Michael Tobin Show at, http://www.spreaker.com/show/the-michael-tobin-show .

So would you please help me respond to natural disasters as a BGRRT Chaplain by purchase of my book, Making America Righteous-Again: From Bitterness To A Delight at, https://www.amazon.com/Making-America-Righteous-Again-Bitterness-Delight-ebook/dp/B01A1JPHUC You may also support through paypal at, https://www.paypal.me/michaeldt 

ALSO, you may see more detail at my GiveSendGo account, https://www.givesendgo.com/michaeltobin , and my GoFundMe account, https://www.gofundme.com/almost-homeless-missionary

WHO, WHERE AND WHEN U.S. DEMS/SOCIALISTS GOT ILLEGAL VOTING IDEAS?

  WHO, WHERE AND WHEN U.S. DEMS/SOCIALISTS GOT ILLEGAL VOTING IDEAS?

By, Michael Tobin

 By now, you just may be aware of this two-term administration and government entities such as IRS, public services agencies, schools, libraries, mainstream media etc..., activities during both Obama elections, such as official voting mail-outs instructing people on their mail-outs who and what to vote for. It's already acceptable for personal campaign offices to do that, but since when has tax dollars been able be used by agencies to do the same thing? Never thought of that? well that is what democrat-leaning public tax recipient organizations I've listed above actually do.
   But what about the voters/ Are you yet aware of the thousands of non-citizens bussed in this past election, all told to vote for Obama? How about the electronic voters votes being switched from their G.O.P. or conservative or libertarian votes, to Obama? Wow must've been a glitch?
   Well, are you aware during the early 1990's Bill Clinton's 1st and 2nd terms focused heavily in the Baltic areas? WHAT did they learn over there? here's what they learned, and guess who got the glee, joy and privilege to put this knowledge to use. You guessed it. Read this and weep.  

 http://latviansonline.com/commentary/article/8548/ 

May 26, 2013

Non-citizen voting in Latvian local elections

Klavs Zichmanis

One of Russia’s foreign policy objectives in the former Soviet space is non-citizen voting in local elections. The upcoming Latvian municipal elections again put this issue on the front burner.
In the early 90’s, several international organizations (IO) designated the OSCE (Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe) to recommend that Latvia grant non-citizens the right to vote in municipal elections.
Pressure also came from Russia, which uses the OSCE recommendation to harass Latvia to advance its geopolitical interests. The IO were motivated by several considerations: strengthening democracy in the new post-Soviet states, extending Western influence, and ensuring long-term stability in Eastern Europe. What concerns the IO most is ethnic conflict, as in Yugoslavia, and which see the solution in political participation.
The West emphasizes civil, social and political rights. The OSCE recommendation adds political rights for non-citizens. However, the principle of national sovereignty does not allow foreign countries to dictate citizenship standards to other states, resulting in a conflict between the OSCE recommendation, international convention and Latvia’s standard of political rights only with citizenship. The EU has no policy regarding non-citizen participation in local elections and only allows citizens of member states to do so.

Estonia’s Choice

Estonia adopted the OSCE recommendation for one reason. When restoring citizenship in 1991 on the principle of state continuity, Estonians were about 62% of the population, and with inclusion of pre-war minorities, citizenship rights were granted to around 68% of the population. The strict Estonian position on citizenship caused Soviet era migrants in the Narva region to threaten separation from Estonia when around 8% non-citizens adopted Russian citizenship. To prevent secession, Estonia expanded citizenship eligibility and adopted the OSCE recommendation, thus allowing non-citizens to vote every four years in local elections. However, they could not join or start a political party. This pleased the OSCE, but did not change Russian foreign policy towards Estonia.

Latvia’s Choice

Latvia did not accept the recommendation because there was no secessionist threat. Latvia sees political participation as a citizen’s prerogative. Neither the Latvian Constitution nor its laws permit voting for non-citizens. In 1991 the low proportion of Latvians raised concerns about a possible Soviet migrant takeover of power. The first Citizenship Act of 1993 highlights this concern. Heated debate with the IO forced a change in the law, and by 1998 it was modified, removing the citizenship window system and allowing all Latvian born children to obtain citizenship on an ius soli basis, thus increasing the number of citizens.

Definition of Non-citizens

Residents of a state consist of citizens, foreign nationals, the stateless and near-citizens. Foreign nationals are individuals who legally reside in or visit a country. Stateless persons have no citizenship whatsoever and legally reside in a country but without its diplomatic protection. Near-citizens, or in Latvia nepilsoņi, have civil, social, and partial political rights, including diplomatic protection from Latvia, that is, they are almost citizens. Countries that use this status can adapt it to meet its needs.
In Latvia, political rights of near-citizens include being up to half of all members in a political party. As party members, they can defend their interests by influencing all party activities. Allowing voting in municipal elections would give an additional political right.
Latvian near-citizens status was a compromise with the OSCE’s desire to involve the stateless in political decisions. Non-citizens make up around 13% of the population. Of all citizens, 72% are Latvians and 28% are minorities. Of the total population, from 2001 – 2011 minorities declined by 23%, Latvians by 6%, and near-citizens also decreased significantly. About one-third are of pensionable age. Non-citizen Latvian born minor children are entitled to citizenship as a parental decision.
Russia’s strategic goal is to create a Russian led Eurasian Economic Union. This strategy is seen in its diaspora policy, investment policy and initiation of the language referendum to make Russian Latvia’s second official language. Russia is not interested in minority integration into Latvian society, but manipulates human rights issues to exacerbate ethnic relations. Russia’s demand that Latvia grant citizenship automatically to non-citizens is absurd as this disputes the very legitimacy of the Latvian state.

Ideological Victory

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold and ideological wars were won by the West, affording a sense of superiority for its understanding of politics. The idea that pre-existing political models could be used in Eastern Europe without deeper analysis even though no historical precedent for such major change in a large area involving hundreds of millions of people existed is a consequence of this feeling of superiority. Western democratic interpretations became universally applicable. But if a political ideology is almost perfect, historical comparisons to it are unnecessary and potentially devastating. The consequence of the Soviet legacy is one such damaging criticism and thus is ignored. Years after the Soviet collapse, Western researchers realized the limitations of the pre-existing model approach. The OSCE recommendation was created in this ideological victory period.

Citizenship

Citizenship is never granted unconditionally. No country grants it to all who incidentally live in its territory. Citizenship implies a degree of exclusion: an open concept of citizenship is a contradiction. Citizenship is based on consanguinity (jus sanguinis) or territory (jus soli). Many countries use both, but none use jus soli exclusively. The Hague Convention on Nationality (1930), permits states to define its own citizens. The Convention, however, limits absolute freedom in deciding national citizenship: all inhabitants have a right to citizenship; states must avoid creating statelessness; no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of citizenship; a change in marital status should not affect the other partner’s nationality. Citizenship should serve as a basis for civil rights, political participation, social support, identity and that which serves the common good of society. The European Convention on Nationality (1997) tried to standardize EU member states nationality laws.
Assumptions about citizenship differ in Western and Eastern Europe. For Western countries, citizenship is associated with an individual’s legal obligations to the state and international law, grounded in civil, social and political rights, civil society, ‘shallow’ national culture and identity and, at least in theory, ethnic neutrality of the state, and monitoring the state applying abstract human rights standards.
Eastern Europe adds political will, a desire for ‘deep’ national cultural identity to the concept of citizenship. This desire for deep identity contrasts with the West’s shallow vision: it is hard to reconcile both views. Citizenship as a norm is not a neutral term as all countries saturate it with values, ideals and ideological significance.
Latvian citizenship tries to deal with the consequences of the Soviet legacy. Civic and national identities being weak, ethnic identity remained. Latvians assume their usual position as a minority which must be defended. Today, Soviet migrants must adjust themselves to minority status in a small country, not the war-winning plurality they had become accustomed to. In order to maintain their former status, migrants use Western minority and human rights rhetoric. Latvians must acclimatize themselves to majority status.
In 1941 Soviet authorities imposed unilaterally Soviet citizenship on Latvia, which is not recognized in international law. The Soviets granted citizenship to individuals on a request basis without naturalization requirements. However, this is how non-citizens often understand the citizenship acquisition process.
Latvia wants the security of loyalty. Offering political rights before showing loyalty does not offer security. Political rights without citizenship separate the responsibility for their actions expected of citizens. Responsibility required by law against anti-state activity cannot be demanded of foreigners or non-citizens. If citizenship is not included in one’s identity, there is no relationship between non-citizen’s political rights and his loyalty to the state.
Europe has shown that states are built on a core group, usually an ethnicity. In national consciousness the civic and ethnic, consciously or not, are closely related. Balts want to experience this form of national identity, to create a national consciousness from differing social and ethnic groups. Majority and minority cultures cannot play the same role in society. Promoting minority cultures has limitations. International and national agreements prohibit discrimination against individuals on ethnic, racial or other grounds. Minority group rights as groups are not internationally recognized, and are not in the UN human rights declaration. If group rights were to become an international standard, this would take away the legitimacy and sovereignty of states, dismantling the existing international framework, which is based on sovereign states. In 1995 the EU adopted the General Convention Protecting National Minorities recognizing several approaches to ethnic diversity, allowing states to choose their own path.

Necessary changes

The hoped for rapid democratisation of the post-Soviet space in the early 90’s did not materialize, for national development requires several generations. Western resistance to East European use of the same nation-building tools they themselves had used for centuries is illogical. New EU member states must be allowed to evolve and address nation-building challenges using the Western pattern.
It’s surprising how little violence there has been in the democratization process. Western assumptions that East European nationalism is based on ancient hatreds which the Soviet period froze creating a Pax Sovieticus, thus disallowing ethnic hatred to flourish is absurd.
Allowing non-citizens to vote or not vote in local elections puts Western and Latvian tenets at cross purposes. If political participation is an important principle for the OSCE, the Latvian political option offered to non-citizens meets these requirements. The OSCE recommendation should include them as acceptable standards of participation. The OSCE must also recognize the Soviet legacy as a legitimate historical experience and respect Baltic security concerns. The Eurocentric understanding of history, the ideological victory euphoria and bureaucratic inertia should be discarded. Unfortunately, the West is faced with a dilemma: to accept the Soviet legacy as legitimate would require taking some responsibility for the consequences of WWII up to 1991. This step the West is not yet ready to take.