Patriot Alert!

These two videos listed below should be watched and considered. Based on what you may know, or understand, I recommend that you pay attention to what MAY happen in the next few weeks. There have been indications over the past several months that such an event might be triggered.

Let me just say this... Better to be prepared, than caught with your "pants down around your ankles." If nothing happens, then no foul; at least in regards to what we may be impacted by from such a situation. However, if anything - like what these two videos say may occur - then you will hopefully be safe and secure.

Take measures you deem necessary to deal with this:

The Plan to Save the World

Preparing Now for After Christmas?

Sign of the Times?

OK, it's time for a little levity...enjoy!

A PLANE IS ON ITS WAY TO WASHINGTON DC, WHEN THE NEWLY ELECTED DEMOCRAT OCASIO-CORTEZ IN ECONOMY CLASS GETS UP AND MOVES TO THE FIRST CLASS SECTION AND SITS DOWN.

THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT WATCHES HER DO THIS AND ASKS TO SEE HER TICKET.  

SHE THEN TELLS THE FUTURE CONGRESSWOMAN THAT SHE PAID FOR ECONOMY CLASS AND THAT SHE WILL HAVE TO SIT IN THE BACK.  

CORTEZ REPLIES, "I'M A DEMOCRAT, I'M BEAUTIFUL, I'M SOCIALIST, I'M GOING TO DC AND I'M STAYING RIGHT HERE."  

THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT GOES INTO THE COCKPIT AND TELLS THE PILOT AND THE CO-PILOT THAT THERE IS A NITWIT YOUNG WOMAN SITTING IN FIRST CLASS, THAT BELONGS IN ECONOMY AND WON'T MOVE BACK TO HER SEAT.  

THE CO-PILOT GOES BACK TO CORTEZ AND TRIES TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE SHE ONLY PAID FOR ECONOMY SHE WILL HAVE TO LEAVE AND RETURN TO ECONOMY.  

CORTEZ REPLIES, "I'M A DEMOCRAT, I'M BEAUTIFUL, I'M SOCIALIST, I'M GOING TO DC AND I'M STAYING RIGHT HERE."  

THE CO-PILOT TELLS THE PILOT THAT HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE THE POLICE WAITING WHEN THEY LAND TO ARREST THE FUTURE CONGRESSWOMAN WHO WON'T LISTEN TO REASON.  

THE PILOT SAYS, "YOU SAY SHE IS A DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST? I’LL HANDLE THIS, I'M MARRIED TO A LIBERAL. I SPEAK SOCIALIST."  

HE GOES BACK TO THE DEMOCRAT AND WHISPERS IN HER EAR, AND SHE SAYS, "OH, I'M SORRY." AND GETS UP AND GOES BACK TO HER SEAT IN ECONOMY.  

THE FLIGHT ATTENDANT AND CO-PILOT ARE AMAZED AND ASK HIM WHAT HE SAID TO MAKE HER MOVE WITHOUT ANY FUSS. 

"I TOLD HER, 'FIRST CLASS ISN'T GOING TO DC."

= = = = = = = = = = =
To understand why I've included this little "joke", please check this out. A beautiful woman, but it seems this type of "mind set" is why some men view women as "blonds"; even though they may not be one.
 

It Just Keeps Getting More Interesting

The national scene has become tense with rancor and focused frustration by the people who elected a leader they believed could stand up against all odds.

While that belief has yet to bear fruit, many situations are shifting by the minute as the government's inaction and infighting has created yet another looming shutdown.

What most Media (D) have not told their viewers about government shutdowns is that about 85% of government stays operating; only non-essential federal employees are sent home and the lights turn off until the funding is signed by the President.

After Rep. Pelosi vowed that there would not be enough votes to fund the wall on the southern border, the House yesterday passed a bill which does just that. Now, the "ball" is in Sen. McConnel's lap to get it passed there.

However, a Purple Heat veteran who lost three of his limbs in service to our country has raised over $10.5 million on GoFundMe to help pay for the wall.

In Congress, Rep. Gutierrez went religious on DHS Secretary Neilsen went he ranted about how Jesus would have perished if the wall kept his family from leaving for Egypt, then while she was responding to why it was needed, he promptly got up and walked out of the hearing. Sec. Neilsen threw it right back in his face with their own arguments about separating family members. Obviously he didn't like that, so he left.

Those who elected Pres. Trump are expressing their frustration with him more frequently in stronger terms as is expressed in this blog. (Warning: While the font size is small and may be difficult to read for those with vision issues, this post best expresses much of the sentiment of those who are frustrated with the success of the the anti-Americans in Congress on the left against funding the wall. They know if it gets built, it will be the death of their plan to bolster their voter base to stay politically viable.)

Enigmas

(1) Isn't it weird that in America our flag and our culture offend so many people, but our benefits don't?

(2) How can the federal government ask U.S. citizens to pay back student loans, when illegal aliens are receiving a free education?

3) Only in America are legal citizens labeled "racists" and "Nazis" but illegal aliens are called "Dreamers."

(4) Liberals say, "If confiscating all guns saves just one life, it's worth it!"  Well then, if deporting all illegals saves just one life, wouldn't that be worth it?

(5) I can't quite figure out how you can proudly wave the flag of another country but consider it punishment to be sent back there.

(6) The Constitution: It doesn't need to be rewritten; it needs to be reread.

(7) William F. Buckley said: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other points of view and are then shocked and offended when they discover there are other points of view."

(8) Joseph Sobran said: "'Need' now means wanting someone else's money.  'Greed' means wanting to keep your own.  'Compassion' is when a politician arranges the transfer.

(9) Florida has had 119 hurricanes since 1850, but some people still insist the last one was due to climate change.

Do You Really Own Your Property?

Since the founding of our nation Americans have prided themselves on their freedoms and liberties.

In the nation's first one hundred and fifty years, or so, any individual who paid for their property they'd settled on owned it outright.

Over the last one hundred years, or so, this is no longer true. Anyone who doesn't pay their county property taxes can have their land taken from them.

But now, more recently there's a new trend being implemented by counties. It has to do with the growing resistance by many property owners more recently who are paying their property taxes, but are disregarding the county's enforcement of codes.

I read an article and watched a video the other day about how a county in the Los Angeles area of Southern California has passed a new measure which will make any property owners who are served with a code violation have to pay all the fees related to the processing of their court case about their violation of county code.

This article/video asserts that Agenda 21 is behind this trend. I was dubious, but wondered if there was anything to this, and thought this was a result of the crazy things going on in that state with their liberal policies on immigration, homelessness and gun laws. 

However, I was surprised that the next morning, I came across a local article listed on one of my subscription services for daily news which addressed the same issue in my state.

It's important to note what's said in the second article under the heading, "County Changes". If you read the first article and watch the video, it becomes rather obvious that the same process is beginning to take place in the local county of my state.

Apparently, there is some validity to this move by counties around the country to impose such measures on property owners. While many will deny that Agenda 21 has anything to do with this, it causes one to stop and think about what's going on. Are we losing our freedoms and liberties to bureaucrats at the local level of government too?

I can relate to the need for addressing issues which the  latter article addresses when it comes to code enforcement, but when some of those codes are clearly absurd or ridiculous ones, and the shift of costs for property owners to fight them becomes outlandish, then it appears our local governments are becoming tyrannical.

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.