The Real Consequences of Immigration

When the "caravan" was headed north the Media (D) told us that these people were just fleeing their country to seek asylum in the U.S. Then, we heard some of those who were marching north say, "We're just going to the U.S. to get a good job."

When claims were made about the "caravan" including many criminals and questionable individuals from place other than Latin America, the leftist-liberals began to use their well worn strategy of name calling; "racist, bigot, nazi" were the labels used to try and intimidate us, or make us feel guilty.

When they arrived at the border in Tijuana, Mexico the Media (D) told us that we had a moral obligation to let them into the country and that they would make our country stronger. Who appointed these people to tell us what our moral obligations are?

But after Pres. Trump gave the directive to the Border Patrol to not allow them to come across the border by shutting it down and they had to remain in Tijuana, that city began to experience the impact of their presence.

Crime went up, arrests increased, and their trash amidst the "camps" grew into small mountains of major health concerns; compounding the concern of the various health issues they were bringing with them already.

Now, the leftist-liberals are implementing their intimidation against those who are revealing the truth about these "caravans" by organized boycotts of those shows who present any opposing view than the one they want shared with the public viewer in the U.S.

Tucker Carlson Tonight on FOX News is one which is featured in this article at NeedtoKnow News.

And, for your convenience, here's the Arizona Border Trash site Tucker Carlson mentions in the must watch video in the article above. And now, a comment from our President.

The Impact of the Janus Decision

You may recall the U.S. Supreme Court decision last spring, known as the Janus decision, which allows union members who do not wish to be forced to pay union dues to tell the union to "take a hike" and not suffer any consequences.

As a retired teacher who's been a life-long conservative, it was frustrating to be forced to pay union dues which supported candidates in both mid-term and general elections who were always Democrats. Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Obama; everyone was endorsed by the N.E.A.

While there were always those who said, or told me, that the dues never went to political campaigns to support their liberal candidate choices, I know from having spent several years as an active member in my local, state, and national union activities that this was simply not true.

Here's one example which has been vivid in my memory. I was an alternate delegate to the N.E.A.'s national convention in July of '82. While on the floor of the huge convention hall, one morning session was spent debating whether the union should send a letter to President Reagan chastising him for funding the Contras in Nicaragua who were fighting the Sandanistas, a socialist/communist backed faction trying to take over the government there.

Being a new teacher I went to the convention thinking I would be spending time discussing, debating, and getting training in how to be a more effective teacher in my classroom. It was quite the shock when I learned that the national union was all about political power and had plans to keep liberal politicians in office as much as their clout of numbers allowed them through raising massive amounts of funds through their dues collection.

Near the last few years of my career I was very disappointed to learn that the local union, despite what they had repeatedly told their gatherings of members at various rally events to vote on striking, was not interested at all in "going to bat" for a dues paying member who expressed their frustration at its support of consistent liberal candidate choices.

As a result, and because a more local court case had an outcome in favor of a state teacher being able to decide which charity their union dues would go after resigning, but still having their dues deducted from their monthly salary, I too resigned because I refused to allow them to send it to Planned Parenthood, or some other nefarious entity they favored, and continued teaching my last year before retiring from my full-time position.

Now, just this week, the Washington Policy Center's Liv Finne, an associate who specializes in education, wrote an article on their site regarding the impact of the Janus decision on the Seattle School District's membership and funds collected.

I invite you to read it with special attention to the first line's opening statement. Why? Because it seems to espouse what I know to be incorrect; that one could have been fired if I, or anyone else, ceased being a member.

I've emailed Ms. Finne asking her to explain how this could be, when I know it is not true. Should I receive an explanation which clarifies any misunderstanding I may be under, then I will add a footnote to this post.

Why You Should Be A Nationalist

The Media (D) is doing their best to skew the understanding of the public by creating their own meaning or definition of certain words in order to paint the president as some horrible person, or wanting to appear as promoting some terrible idea.

But, if we watch this most recent video released by PragerU, we learn what a nationalist really stands for.

Check it out! It may surprise you.

If You've Live Long Enough

"One thing I've found out about old age is, if we've studied history long enough, we can usually rebuff any of the dramatic bovine scatology disseminated by the news agencies, which I tend to discount anyway because I just don't have time to be misled or lied to."

 These words of wisdom by my friend Richard express the sentiments of those of us in the "senior" category of life. In other words, we who've paid attention and know the facts about an issue can see an attempt to revise history in some way.

The recent passing of another "senior" who had far more experience and insight into the threat our nation has faced for the past 18 years since 9/11 is shared here at this link to an article about it.

I urge my readers to check it out.

The Study Shows...

I came across this article about California's snow pack in the Sierra Nevada range reportedly decreasing drastically over the next several decades.

But the more I read it, the more I wondered how this "study" could make such projections implying that snowfall would continue to shrink causing diminishing runoff into the San Juaquin Valley which runs north and south to the central portion of the state.

I like to think that our advancements in science are providing us with more accurate and reliable information, but the article simply fails to explain adequately to the reader how those who conducted the study can project rainfall in the mountain range so far into the future.

I say this because I get the sense that there are various factors which play into such studies. For starters, the article cites data for weather back to the 1880s. Is that really sufficient length of time to determine so far out into the future; 2100?

Also, what are the driving factors influencing the study's findings? Are they biased by the funding source? We've already learned that climate change data was manipulated to improve the accuracy of the predictions. I just read recently that 10 years ago Al Gore predicted that the north polar ice cap would be completely gone in only five years, yet the ice is still there. Oops!

Do the scientists take into account the possibility of weather cycles which we have no data on to give us any insight into whether cooler, or wetter, periods occurred? Wasn't the front page of Time magazine in the '70s warning us about scientific studies which predicted a coming ice age which could threaten our future prosperity?

But what really confused me was the paragraph near the bottom of the article which stated one suggestion to deal with future water shortage was to encourage farmers to flood their fields in wetter years to allow the groundwater table to replenish. Does this make sense to you?

If water runoff from the mountain range is going to be declining over the next several decades, why would they want to not conserve water more carefully when natural processes already cause the underground water table to replenish from percolating into the ground during runoff from higher elevations?

And then there's the documented fact that the state's utility company, PG&E, falsified records which contributed to the recent wildfires which killed nearly 100 people, as well as the government's actions, or failure to act in the proper way to deal with their already existing water shortage, has added immensely to the problem.

America's Amnesia

If aliens from outer space were to burst onto the scene today and threaten the world's survival of the human race, I sometimes wonder if we would forget our differences and unite to at least attempt fending them off.

The partisan rancor  being displayed today from both wings of the Democrat Party of our nation - Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Watters/et al, and the Media - reveals that our culture has lost any modicum of social courtesy or decency.

Seventy odd years ago this nation went through a similar situation, only from another nation across the "pond". Everyone did their part to support the massive effort it took for our nation to completely shift its massive industrial and human resources to win the battle against not only Japan, but only a week later, Germany in Europe.

Today, it would be questionable at best whether we would be able to take on two nations threatening our sovereignty and freedom; never mind the idea of a possible alien invasion.

The thought of such a circumstance begs the question, is it possible for our nation to turn itself around and recover the social and cultural situation we enjoyed and thought would continue 70 or 80 years ago?

As I've stated a few times in past posts here, I tend to believe that our development of mass media has become the tool by which our nation's social and cultural climate has been manipulated and gradually taken over by insidious and destructive elements which have morphed our younger generations into being ignorant about what their country was, to one obsessively focusing on constant dissatisfaction; demanding change while throwing out the "baby with the bathwater", or the freedoms and liberty we now enjoy.

Disagree? Consider the fact that we are now seeing a movement among the youth which is focusing on race as qualifying factor for most everything. Are they even aware of what M.L.K. Jr. stood for in his fight for racial equality? And then there's the trend towards completely erasing the 2nd amendment of our Constitution!

Today we have the establishment of media - powerful conglomerate corporations - who are doing their best to distract and mesmerize its viewers by entertaining them with predominantly adolescent level shows which persistently belittle the elders of its society and give only the information about events both nationally and globally that they see fit to share.

On the other hand, we have one or two media outlets who are doing their best to inform those who are cognizant of what the massive media conglomerates are putting out, of what is not being told to the masses.

How does the nation's amnesia factor into this? Here's one glaring example regarding the current immigration crisis from the Heritage Foundation:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Happy Saturday! President Trump, Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Schumer sparred over border wall funding for 17 minutes of captivating TV. President Trump is absolutely right that the time to fund the wall and strengthen border security is now! While liberal Democrats have preached abolishing ICE, expanding asylum, and granting amnesty in 2018, Heritage Action took to Twitter this week to remind liberal Democrats about a time not long ago when securing our borders was bipartisan and asked: “What changed your mind?” In 2008, as Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “we certainly don’t want anymore [illegal immigrants] coming in." Share Rep. Pelosi’s #LiberalHypocrisy on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In 2009, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple.” Share Sen. Schumer's #LiberalHypocrisy on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said we must “stop the inflood of illegal immigrants into this country,” in 2005:

Share Sen.Kaine’s #LiberalHypocrisy on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

= = = = = = = = =
To anyone who is actually thinking clearly, it's obvious that the politicians -- both liberal and conservative - are counting on American Amnesia to stay in power with the help of the Media (D).

Is Google Honest About Their Policies?

During a recent Congressional hearing with the CEO of Google Congressman Jim Jordan (R) Ohio, questioned Sundar Pichai about his company's head of Multi-Cultural Marketing and what she stated in an email to the CEO one day after the recent mid-term elections last month.

What was revealed by the Congressman about this department head's remarks was quite interesting to say the least, and amusing as to the CEO's response when pressured by Rep. Jordan regarding three words in her sentences in two different places.

The C-SPAN3 video on MRCTV's site is worth watching to understand just how much effort this tech behemoth is putting into elections for the left's benefit. And this example is only one of many. The real question you must ask yourself while watching this video is, "Do I believe the CEO with his response to the Congressman's questioning, or not?" 

In a related article from MRCNewsBusters, the Daily Caller has documented evidence that reveals how conservative news sources were downranked on their search engine.

P.S. If, for some inexplicable reason - most likely one of those technical glitches like the one Google used to explain why four conservative Congressman had their campaign accounts blocked by Google during the campaign season - this blog goes down (is shut down) since this blog is on their blogspot site, you'll understand why.