DHS – Symphony

With the last of Symphony’s saboteur suspects being expelled from the Trump administration, establishment Republicans have their undies in a bunch. Their objections indicate two main motives. Toward the surface, they still think Trump’s decisions are based on calculation of “election strategery” rather than made by an administrator who wants certain things done a certain way. But, on a deeper level, they don’t want their stable, “established” world being unraveled by anyone, outsider or not. But then, there is a third, less apparent layer, more sinister—a question of whether they knew about the saboteurs and wanted them to stay there. Publicized opposition to the president of their own party certainly proves the kind of character that would undermine their own party’s president by any means.

Now that Russianewsgategate nonsense is being seen for the yesterday’s yesterday’s tabloid newspaper it always was, the media machine is gearing up to save face: Goldman Sachs thinks Trump might be re-electable. The Left doesn’t get it. The most important two things to understand about Donald Trump is that from the time he announced his candidacy, 1. he was always going to be elected and 2. he was always going to be re-elected. Those two things aren’t obvious to people who don’t understand Donald Trump.

Democratically-controlled “sanctuary cities” have been working, as they purport, to be a safe haven for immigrants. The kinds of immigrants they seek to protect, as they purport, will be helpful to their communities and to the nation. Now, they have a splendid and long-hoped-for hope of seeing their hard efforts pay off. They will be the beneficiaries of thousands of exactly the kinds of, as they purport, good people they have been standing up to defend. Yet, they found a way to be angry.

If the Trump administration were to send immigrants to the very cities hoping to be sanctuaries for them, wouldn’t that be a good thing? One would think so, unless sanctuary city laws were known to be designed to create problems. By objecting to getting what they wanted, Democrats imply that they know something that they purport everyone else doesn’t. Is there something wrong about sanctuary city laws that their Democratic leaders aren’t telling us?

The rest of America—the “fly-over” counties, the rural areas that the Democratic cosmopolitans turn their noses up at, the Conservatives who grow everyone’s food and cling to their “guns and religion”—they were suspicious about sanctuary city laws. They thought it might be a bad idea. If the Conservatives were right, then sending the invited immigrants to the party that invited them could create a breakdown of law, paving the way for the Federal Government to declare martial law and deal with sanctuary city policy makers that way.

Just imagine: Trump-controlled Democratic cities—and it all would have been made possible by Democrats. But, that’s assuming that the Conservatives were right. We’ll see.

In Encore

Encore of Revival: America, November 19, 2018

SymphonyNovember 19, 2018November 19, 2018

John Kelly’s failure to book seats for the first lady on Airforce One, thereby creating security snafus and other logistic problems, was no mere oversight. A military man made White House chief of staff doesn’t make security-logistic mistakes. Getting along with the first lady personally, then giving her a smaller staff than previous first ladies, refusing to promote her staff while promoting his own—all these were indications of something deeper.

Pacific Daily Times’ Symphony suggested on September 10 that the “mole” who wrote the infamous, and since forgotten, “New York Times essay” fit the profile of someone like John Kelly. The clashes leading up to his rumored replacement fit the profile even more. Similarly, is a DHS chief performing poorly—another non-accident—, then Kelly clashing with security adviser John Bolton when Bolton criticized the poor performance. Try this hypothetical scenario: The essay author was in cahoots with other saboteurs; when a fellow saboteur was called-out, the saboteur naturally got defensive. Such a saboteur probably didn’t storm out of the White House on October 18 from mere rage, but to perform apparently-needed damage control since his plans for sabotage were at risk. That scenario may not be true, but it would explain a lot. Does it seem all that strange that Kelly and the DHS chief he was so defensive of would both be on the radar for replacement?

Theories to fit the pieces together, however, are no more than theories. All we know from here is that a theory made Kelly’s departure all too predictable and that, to know the rest, we’ll just have to wait and see. Replacing a cabinet member should be easier with Governor Rick Scott having secured the fifty-second Republican seat in the Senate.

With rules of conduct in place for the White House press, it will be easier for reporters to have fair access to questions and easier for the White House to kick out reporters who want to take mic time from others. For suing the woman who worked at the White House who tried to take away the White House microphone from Jim Acosta—on camera—with no injury—when he wouldn’t yield the floor to his peers—CNN and Acosta should be ashamed.

In Encore

Encore of Revival: America, September 5, 2016

SymphonySeptember 5, 2016October 17, 2016

Homeland Security wants to “secure” the elections. Why now, all of a sudden? One would think the topic should have come up back in 2001. Does DHS want more public trust? More than motive, DHS is redefining it’s value. DHS is gambling.

By claiming that elections need DHS, DHS is claiming that the elections are in need of help. By helping these “needy” elections, DHS is claiming that it’s value and effectiveness now depends on the continuation of those elections.

So, with this DHS move, if the elections don’t happen, Washington should scrap DHS.

DHS either doesn’t see any threat and just wants to claim “elections” as another reason to justify its growing existence, or else DHS does see a real, true, dangerous threat that it’s not telling us about and DHS may be the actual reason this next election succeeds at all. We may never know.

In military humor, with DHS “securing” elections, at least it won’t be the Marines trying to “secure” them.

The topic of “takeover” wasn’t limited to DHS and elections this week. With Amazon’s SpaceX rocket destroying Facebook’s 150 pound (currency, not weight) satellite, corporate takeovers will slow down some.

Police in Ferguson, MO are having a hard time hiring—proving that Obama’s police policies have certainly failed to result in “good police”, the result, instead, being “no police”. At least, Symphony would like to think that Obama considers “no police” to be a failure. Clinton should say it’s a failure. Limbaugh might say otherwise. Either way, so much for Obama’s takeover of police. There just aren’t any to take over these days, you see.

Now, we find that Soros may have actually been behind the Obama-police takeover. That also failed as much as it was exposed.

Hillary’s takeover of nearly everything is also being exposed. Pacific Daily Times ignores Hillary news for the most part, otherwise stories of her corruption might dominate every headline.

Then, we go back to the timing of DHS’s announcement and related stories. WND replied with expected skepticism, about a week later also as expected. But, more interestingly, an article from US News headlined about the possible “death” of a candidate before the election. However, the entire article was a mere “if-then” statement of information the public has known for a long time. It said nothing about any reason to believe that a candidate might actually die before the election. And, also interestingly, it was released the same day Examiner discussed DHS.

One would think that whatever or whoever wanted DHS to take over elections also has fingers in the media, but not for any conspiracy evidence. It’s just an indication of news savvy. “If-then” scenarios just aren’t news. But, non-news influences don’t know that.