Monday, August 6, 2018

What's Wrong With Masculine Men?


I've often wondered why the left is so hateful of President Trump, and white Christian males.

Is it because, as an "outsider" - not a politician who came out of the swamp - and beat their expected favorite in 2016? Partly, yes.

Is is because he was during his campaign, and is during his presidency, proposing and acting on things which, if successful, would prove the left's agenda of how to improve the country wrong? Yes, partly.

Or, is it because he is someone who is a self-made, independent, wealthy, take no crap, man? Most definitely, yes.

The left's solution to achieve their utopian dream these days is to feminize men to be more passive. And, what's wrong with that?

They claim the men's masculine toxicity is causing all of the wars, rapes, and division among us. Do you agree with that concept?

But, if we're thinking critically, we should be considering the ramifications of both sides of this approach to "fixing" society's problems.

Prager U, in their latest video, discusses this issue and makes some points that the left doesn't seem to care about, or don't agree with.

Perhaps they don't care about the negative outcomes of their approach to solving problems today is because liberalism is a mental disorder and they're not thinking too clearly.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Obama's and Hillary's Ideological Roots

If we are to understand these two politicians and the origin of their ideology, it's necessary to examine their early years.

To do so, I offer this video from last summer's Freedom Fest in Las Vegas where some of the well known conservative speakers and analysts spoke.

One of those key individuals who factored into both Obama and Clinton was Saul Alinsky. 

What makes this debate at this conference is that Saul's son, David, was present to counter the conservative's remarks about Saul's influence on today's Democrat Party.

What I find most interesting is how Ralph Benko, President of the Alynski Center, and David Alinsky uses counter points to fend off the agruements by Dinesh D'Souza.

But Dinesh's response is PRICELESS!!! Don't miss it!

Why Liberals Are Freaking Out!

We're now witnessing the leftist coming out of the closet in full rage mode and hijacking the Democrat Party.

After the unexpected win by Trump in 2016 they immediately began saying things about him that maligned and assassinated his character because they know how to use the media. (This is a sad statement about our media's impact on the nation.)

Now, they've gone to the level of inciting violence against those who support him. We've seen this in news reports and videos captured across the country.

Why?

Here's why... they underestimated the ability of his drive, commitment, patriotism and skills as one who has been outside the political circles of Washington, D.C.; a.k.a. "THE SWAMP."

He's kept his promises to the people who heard, understood his message, and elected him.

Watch this video and you'll better understand it.

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Why Clinton Should Be In Prison


Having acquired Gregg Jarrett's new book "The Russian Hoax - The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump" I went through the first chapter titled, "Hillary Clinton's Email Server" which sets up the rest of his account and became more and more infuriated as to the specific information he lays out.

Most of us have a foggy recollection of just all of what happened so many years ago, so I've compiled what I see as the more pertinent points in that chapter here for my readers to go through themselves. If this array of evidence doesn't make one upset and disappointed in our two tiered justice system we now seem to have for those who are considered too important to prosecute, then I don't know what will.


Chapter 1 - Hillary Clinton's Email Server

Page 6
New York Times broke the story wide open on March 2, 2016, creating a firestorm of controversy with immense political consequences for Clinton, just as she prepared to launch another bid for president of the United States in the next month. Her actions, decried by many as irresponsible and reckless, called into question both her judgment and competency to hold the highest public office in the land. More important, Clinton's unmitigated disregard for the law quickly metastasized into allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Attempts to Cover Up
First press response: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.”

Second press response: “I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent.” … the FBI confirmed that 110 of her emails contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.

Page 7
Third press response: “I never sent or received any email that was marked classified.” Many of Clinton's emails were, indeed, marked classified, as the FBI later revealed. While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Director Comey called Clinton's statement “not true.” Morever, the markings were irrelevant under the law, since the content – not the markings – made them classified.

Clinton seemed to be arguing her own incompetence. That is, she should not be held legally liable because she was too uninformed or inept to recognize classified materials without their markings. But ignorance and maladroitness are not defenses under the law. This rendered Clinton's explanations of her actions all the more unconvincing.

Page 9
First, the IG found that Clinton “did not comply with the Federal Records Act.”

Second, the IG determined that Clinton never sought the approval for her server and, had she done so, it would have been rejected as a risk to national security.

Third, the IG learned that employees who voiced concerns about the private server were instructed “to never speak of the Secretary's personal email system again.

Fourth, the IG concluded that any classified material “never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Page 10
On January 22, 2009, the day after she was sworn into office, she signed a document titled “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” which stated the following:

I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation or violations, of US criminal laws.

Page 11
Clinton could hardly claim amnesia as a defense, since she sent an order to every State Department employee two years later, on June 28, 2011, cautioning them not to do what she was doing covertly in violating the law. Clinton's order warned: Avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.

On March 4, 2015, Congress sent a letter to Clinton instructing her to preserve all her emails. Subpoenas were sent immediately thereafter. The request included both work-related emails and any of those she had previously withheld as “personal.”

Three weeks later, on March 25, more than thirty thousand of Clinton's emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those emails might have been relevant to the subpoenas since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called BleachBit.
 
Page 12
It is revealing that Clinton spent five months refusing to turn over her email server to either the Benghazi Committee or the FBI, despite repeated demands to do so. In the end, she relented when faced with the likelihood that Bureau agents would begin serving search warrants to seize it on their own. Fearing a knock on the door of her private residence, Clinton finally capitulated. [According to Sean Hannity her server has disappeared and no one knows where it went to.]

Page 18
Although Clinton is a trained lawyer who graduated from Yale Law School, she seemed oblivious to the law. Or, more likely, she felt that the law did not apply to her. Yet there is no station in life or standing in government that absolves someone from criminal conduct. In this way, we are all creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. An orderly society cannot function if it permits individuals to disregard the law with impunity.

While it is true that some government officials had in the past used private email accounts for some official business, that practice was rare. None of Clinton's predecessors created a private server for all their communications as secretary of state. The law imposes strict rules limiting such use. 

First, the emails must be carefully preserved by the employee's agency. 

Second, the comminications cannot be destroyed by the employee. 

Third, and most significantly, no classified material can be maintained on any private account.
= = = = = = = = = = = =

Chapter 2 covers how FBI Director James Comey contorted the law and did what was clearly not within his job to do; exonerate Hillary of any criminal acts.

The following list is the various laws which Clinton should have been prosecuted on:
  • 18 U.S.C. 641
  • 18 U.S.C. 207(b)
  • 18 U.S.C. 1001
  • 18 U.S.C. 1505
  • 18 U.S.C. 1515(b)
  • 18 U.S.C. 793(d,e. & f)
  • 18 U.S.C. 1924(a)
  • 18 U.S.C. 371
  • 18 U.S.C. 286

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Unintended Consequences

By now the nation has heard so much about the Clinton server and how it might have been hacked by another country that most everyone is sick and tired of hearing about it.

What they're not aware of, yet, is the unintended conse-quences of the high possibility a foreign entity may have gained secret information from having had access to her server while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State because nothing seems to have come from it. 

Secrets obtained by them could well be used in the future to undermine our nation's efforts under the current President to deal with a critical issue which may result in our inability to avert a looming disaster.

While most might scoff at such a possibility, it turns out this may be more true and sever than we think. Take, for instance, this report which reveals that such a problem may be looming in the future than we care to believe.

And yet, she has been exonerated by the Obama DOS/FBI during the run up to the election of 2016. And why, you ask, would Comey, Strzok, Paige, and McCabe want to do that? Simple, look at the mountain of evidence that's already been exposed from those players in this fiasco.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Public Education Today

Forty years ago when I graduated from college with my teaching degree and was hired to teach in an elementary school things were considerably different compared to what I went through as a student in the late '50s and all of the '60s.

An online friend sent me a link to a great video about what the state of public education has evolved to today. Don't miss watching it. I'd like to share with you my perspective on what it conveys, along with my first-hand experiences related to it.

My first shock was that, in my state, I was required - in order to teach - to become a dues paying member of the national, state, and local teacher's union. I wasn't happy, but as a newly married person, I found myself forced to consent despite my objection.

I find it interesting that this video includes nothing about the teachers union's role in the scenario which takes place in it. Personally, I would think that it would've added an even greater dynamic to the story, but it seems to have excluded it because everyone else involved is filling its role as the defender of the politically correct attitude of the matter.

While the portrayals of the parents in this video are pretty close to accurate, my personal experience with one parent was when I was having a conference with both the mother and the student. The student remarked that something was not fair and I responded that sometimes things in life aren't fair. The mother suddenly became irate and insisted that such a statement was inappropriate and the I should be working to make life fair. My response to her was that it wasn't fair that my brother had been killed by a gang member when only 39 years old, which shut her up.

My wife, who just retired this year, experienced much of the same frustrations. However, for our district - we both taught in the same one - after I retired while she continued, her biggest frustration was that the administration kept changing the district curriculum which turned out to be completely inadequate in so many ways.

As a consequence, and because she was so much more concerned than I about doing the best job possible in her school, she spent uncounted extra hours correcting the material in the curriculum which needed adjustments to work best with her students because it was so poorly written and designed.

Furthermore, the curriculum kept being narrowed down over the years to now only Math, Reading and Writing were being taught. History (Social Studies was the new name given to it by the liberals.), Science, and Art have been abandon, while Music and P.E. have been maintained, but only with a fight by parents.

Our national mind set is to throw more money at whatever problem we face and it will improve. My experience in the field of education over the decades I taught is that whenever an increase in funds came to the district, middle-management grew by leaps and bounds with the creation of new departments with added managers who sucked up the big bucks with six figure salaries.

It's my assertion that today's public schools don't teach children how to think for themselves, but that they demand that they think the way they believe they should. Critical thinking is no longer taught and the result is a sinister form of fascism which is only inclusive of the left's way of thinking about social issues.

Monday, July 23, 2018

Taking Advantage of Ignorance


As a retired educator and a student of history, this issue is near and dear to me.

While there are other examples to cite, this one is often used by leftists to argue that our Founding Fathers were racist white slave owners.

The 3/5 clause, which was part of an agreement during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, is favorite issue used to support the leftists' argument of how our nation has always been oppressive to minorities. Nothing could be further from the truth of the matter. The truth is it was used as means against the continuance of slavery by the abolitionists.

To understand the true reason the 3/5 clause was used in the negotiations, it is necessary to watch this video from Prager University on the topic. If it doesn't make sense after watching it the first time through, I urge you to watch it a second, or third time. Perhaps the repetition will help clarify the intricacies of what had to be used in order to achieve a compromise between the two groups of opposing factions during their negotiations on the amendment.

Hopefully, this will provide an understanding sufficient to those who make the assertion of racism, while ignoring the facts behind the reasoning for such language.

Footnote: If you've not yet watched, or it's been a few years since you have watched it, I highly recommend the most recent movie titled "Lincoln" by Steven Spielberg. It provides an excellent window into the circumstances surrounding that period during and at the end of the Civil War in which both black and white northerners fought to end slavery; sacrificing their lives by the millions to do so.