America is growing weary and confused about what seems like a never ending and highly complex "Russian Collusion" story. Half the country is convinced that Trump is a Russian plant to destroy our democracy, while the other half knows that some nasty operatives have managed to impede the president's first half of his first term. As to the details, well, that's another story that for most folks who try to keep on top of the investigators being investigated - thank God we now have A.G. Barr - are too busy to follow with much clarity what's being discovered. There are just too many players!
Hopefully, enough who are keeping track of this don't lose sight of the two most important points; the predicate (motive or reason) for spying on Trump, and why those behind it didn't notify him during the campaign, or after being elected. These two points will be what the newly appointed U.S. Attorney Durham's prosecutions hing on. Then too, let's not forget that none of this story would NOT have been disclosed to the world had Hillary Clinton won the election. This video interview from Judicial Watch w/ Andy McCarthy is enlightening.
Then, there's the fact that the 2020 campaign is gearing up. Like a 23 headed hydra, the Democrats who are running all are convinced that they've got the answer; even more socialism! As though they're saying, "Look, I can do better than Madura in Venezuela."
From my perspective as of today, my gut tells me that because of the accomplishment thus far of the Trump Administration after two years - despite the interference by his opposition to discredit and eventually impeach him - President Trump will be the Republican nominee; hands down. Although he's not remade the party thus far, those across the nation who've benefited and seen how he's truly taking measures to actually make America great again, will overwhelmingly vote for him.
As for the Democrat nominee... currently the pundits are saying it's going to be Biden, but in my honest opinion, he's too old and more of an empty suit than anything. I would tend to predict the Democrat nominee will be one of the following; Biden or Sanders. So, if I'm correct about Biden, it's obvious who may well get the nomination; especially without Hillary fixing it against him this time.
I think any of the others already have said something, or just are showing well in their own states; with most of them running third or worse in early polling. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next year, since at this point in 2020, or sooner, we should see most of the field already dropped out.
No matter! Whoever goes against Trump is going to get sliced and diced during the general phase of the 2020 election debates by him. However, I believe there is a danger in this scenario. If too many voters assume that this will be the case, and they choose to tune out the primaries portion of the election, things could possibly change for the worse.
Then again, that will depend on just how much occurs as the investigation comes out with and who is not only indicted, but tried, convicted and sentenced. However, given the current attitude of the Media (D) I'm not holding my breath on expecting a change of heart on their part. They know just how critical a part they play in promoting their leftist propaganda.
Friday, May 17, 2019
The Mueller Myth
As I've followed the development of the "Russian Collusion" hoax over the past few years, I've noticed something interesting happen to Muller's reputation.
When it was first announced that Mueller was selected by Rod Rosentein to head up the investigation into the hoax concocted by the Hillary Campaign, Fusion GPS, the DNC and other sycophants, the general census in the media and inside D.C. was that he was the "perfect" man to take on this critical task.
He's a Republican, he's the former F.B.I. Director the first decade of the 2000s, he knows all the right people to get the job done right, was the general reaction when new broke that Rosentein announced his choice.
Okay! So, the country, surprised that our election might have been tampered with, are thinking, "Great, this guy's gonna get to the bottom of this because a clean nosed guy who everyone trusts is heading the investigation up." Not so fast!
Only a few days ago this week, news was released through a F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch initiated, requesting the Mueller team's office calendar. And something rather revealing has been found to clearly taint the reputation of Mueller. It had to do with who Mueller selected to be in charge of hiring team members to begin the process of carrying out its duties.
It turns out that the very same individual I've written about in the past posts accounting prosecutorial abuses and one with a reputation as a "Pit-bull" lawyer, is the same guy chosen by Mueller to pick underlings on the investigation team tasked with looking into Trump's campaign members.
Politico posted an article this past week revealing information from that F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch requested, and it reveals that it was Andrew Weissman who was in charge of selecting those team members! Reading the article's two paragraphs just below the picture in the middle of the article are the key ones to read.
The first of these two paragraphs addresses Weissman's interviews for the team with privacy concerns as the grounds for those who didn't join the team being redacted. While that may be partly true, my suspicion is that individuals were being protected for political reasons.
In the second of these two paragraphs, the key sentence to note is the one about "... many of those hired had donated to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, or other Democrats." While this point has been known for months as a point of speculation from hearsay, we now had hard evidence to back it up as fact.
So, if we combine this fact with the reports' results and the liberal's reaction of extreme disappointment that it didn't provide them with any information with which they could indict Trump with, Mueller's reputation has been proven to be less than stellar; especially when it has been revealed that it was Mueller himself who delivered material for the Uranium One transaction with Russia.
When it was first announced that Mueller was selected by Rod Rosentein to head up the investigation into the hoax concocted by the Hillary Campaign, Fusion GPS, the DNC and other sycophants, the general census in the media and inside D.C. was that he was the "perfect" man to take on this critical task.
He's a Republican, he's the former F.B.I. Director the first decade of the 2000s, he knows all the right people to get the job done right, was the general reaction when new broke that Rosentein announced his choice.
Okay! So, the country, surprised that our election might have been tampered with, are thinking, "Great, this guy's gonna get to the bottom of this because a clean nosed guy who everyone trusts is heading the investigation up." Not so fast!
Only a few days ago this week, news was released through a F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch initiated, requesting the Mueller team's office calendar. And something rather revealing has been found to clearly taint the reputation of Mueller. It had to do with who Mueller selected to be in charge of hiring team members to begin the process of carrying out its duties.
It turns out that the very same individual I've written about in the past posts accounting prosecutorial abuses and one with a reputation as a "Pit-bull" lawyer, is the same guy chosen by Mueller to pick underlings on the investigation team tasked with looking into Trump's campaign members.
Politico posted an article this past week revealing information from that F.O.I.A. Judicial Watch requested, and it reveals that it was Andrew Weissman who was in charge of selecting those team members! Reading the article's two paragraphs just below the picture in the middle of the article are the key ones to read.
The first of these two paragraphs addresses Weissman's interviews for the team with privacy concerns as the grounds for those who didn't join the team being redacted. While that may be partly true, my suspicion is that individuals were being protected for political reasons.
In the second of these two paragraphs, the key sentence to note is the one about "... many of those hired had donated to Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, or other Democrats." While this point has been known for months as a point of speculation from hearsay, we now had hard evidence to back it up as fact.
So, if we combine this fact with the reports' results and the liberal's reaction of extreme disappointment that it didn't provide them with any information with which they could indict Trump with, Mueller's reputation has been proven to be less than stellar; especially when it has been revealed that it was Mueller himself who delivered material for the Uranium One transaction with Russia.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Durham For Accountability
This Wall Street Journal article today about A.G. Barr appointing U.S. Attorney Durham is worth reading. However, in my honest opinion, it is mild and "safe" for the general public's consumption since the WSJ cadre are, in essence, moderate conservatives who identify the voters who support the president, who they dislike, as "Trumpians", but tolerate only because he's made them richer than they even imagined. In my opinion, if no convictions are forthcoming from this investigation of the investigators, then they'll see just how right they are about demanding heads on a pike.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Attorney
General William Barr has assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to
investigate possible abuses by law enforcement and intelligence
officials in the 2016 election campaign, and the reaction has been
predictably partisan. Trumpians are demanding heads on pikes while
liberals are calling it a hunt for conspiracies that didn’t exist. We
see it as a necessary step toward accountability and restoring public
confidence in America’s enforcement agencies.
Mr.
Durham comes with more experience than even special counsel Robert
Mueller in navigating U.S. law enforcement, including the FBI and
intelligence services. He uncovered rogue FBI behavior in the case of
Boston mob boss Whitey Bulger, and former Attorney General Michael
Mukasey tasked him to look at the CIA’s destruction of videos of its
terrorist interrogation program.
As a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Durham will have the power to convene a grand
jury and subpoena people outside the government. Justice Department
Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into
some
of the same questions, but he lacks similar power. Mr. Durham can also
pick up any criminal referrals from Mr. Horowitz’s looming report.
Mr.
Durham doesn’t strike us as the type who will answer to anyone’s
political agenda, and he may not bring criminal indictments. He didn’t
in the CIA case. But appointing someone of his standing and experience
is important to getting to the truth about the FBI counterintelligence
probe of Trump campaign officials, the FBI’s apparent misleading of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get a warrant against Trump
adviser Carter Page, and other seeming abuses.
Investigating
potential FBI or CIA abuses is arguably more important to American
democracy than the Russia collusion probe. Tens of millions of Americans
suspect that public officials interfered in the presidential election.
Especially because Mr. Mueller did not investigate the FBI he previously
led, someone needs to hold abuses to account or clear the air if
nothing illegal took place.
Monday, May 13, 2019
What Happened to Balanced Reporting?
It died during the Obama Administration's eight years from the relentless fawning over their 'can do nothing wrong' president, that's what happened!
Nancy Benac, a reporter who's article appeared today for AP News, reports on Mueller's silence during the aftermath of the release of his report and takes a tone that his silence leaves the nation in the lurch about whether Pres. Trump is guilty of collusion or obstruction. How typical of the Media (D)!
I couldn't help but notice that her presumption was that, because Mueller has failed to appear before the Congressional Intel Committee, those who don't agree with A.G. Barr's assessment of the report are being denied closure on this marathon hoax produced by Hillary and her cohorts to try and save her reputation; whatever's left of it.
And why, I've always pondered, do these reporters quote someone who agrees with the reporter's premise of their article? It seems that 99.9% of the time, the source is from some eastern state where the political orientation tends to run liberal.
The truly sad reality is that most of these people who feel this way are completely unaware of the mountain - which keeps getting larger and more clear as the weeks pass - aren't even aware of the evidence which proves that it is nothing but a hoax.
And then, there's Senator Grassley's remarks to the media about it. This is "classic"!!!
What is evident to me is that these heavily biased articles never change and are unending. Sort of like the wind and the rain wearing down the mountain of rock.
Nancy Benac, a reporter who's article appeared today for AP News, reports on Mueller's silence during the aftermath of the release of his report and takes a tone that his silence leaves the nation in the lurch about whether Pres. Trump is guilty of collusion or obstruction. How typical of the Media (D)!
I couldn't help but notice that her presumption was that, because Mueller has failed to appear before the Congressional Intel Committee, those who don't agree with A.G. Barr's assessment of the report are being denied closure on this marathon hoax produced by Hillary and her cohorts to try and save her reputation; whatever's left of it.
And why, I've always pondered, do these reporters quote someone who agrees with the reporter's premise of their article? It seems that 99.9% of the time, the source is from some eastern state where the political orientation tends to run liberal.
The truly sad reality is that most of these people who feel this way are completely unaware of the mountain - which keeps getting larger and more clear as the weeks pass - aren't even aware of the evidence which proves that it is nothing but a hoax.
And then, there's Senator Grassley's remarks to the media about it. This is "classic"!!!
What is evident to me is that these heavily biased articles never change and are unending. Sort of like the wind and the rain wearing down the mountain of rock.
Sunday, May 12, 2019
The Relationship Between Gun Control and Crime
The following article below was shared with me by a friend. I post it here so that anyone who reads it may be more informed about the reality of the facts on this topic.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In 1996 a man killed 15 kindergarteners and a teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. As a response, the British government totally banned handguns of any sort, rifles of any sort, and in theory limited shotguns to farmers who need to protect their livestock, and to protect themselves from livestock that turned violent toward humans.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In 1996 a man killed 15 kindergarteners and a teacher at a school in Dunblane, Scotland. As a response, the British government totally banned handguns of any sort, rifles of any sort, and in theory limited shotguns to farmers who need to protect their livestock, and to protect themselves from livestock that turned violent toward humans.
The chart below shows the results of that gun ban, both as
guns were turned in and as the risk of armed resistance fell.
In 21 years, the U.K. violent crime rate has from 5 per
thousand to 27 per thousand, or as the U.S. measures violent crime, from
500 per 100,000 population to 2,700 per 100,000 population.
Over the same time period, the United States violent crime
rate has fallen from 586.4 per 100,000 population to to 394.4 per
100,000.
Click here for the FBI Uniform Crime Report numbers to verify that statement.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Clearly, England is not the gun free, crime free paradise our
Adversaries paint it. In fact, London has reported more murders so far
this year than New York City, even though Gotham itself’s crime raters
are elevated by restrictive gun laws.
Clearly, then, the gun control industry is out to pull the
wool over our eyes. Which means it is time for us to become the best
informed people on Earth about gun controls.
Stranger
Saturday, May 11, 2019
How Long Will It Be Before We Lose Our Freedom?
How long will it be before the fascist/statists get a confiscation bill passed into law? Not while President Trump's in office which won't be until 2024. Then, it's anyone's guess. However, we all would do well to consider the advice of Bob Livingston's newsletter on the topic just posted this past week.
= = = = = = = =
The 2nd Amendment was not put in place for hunters or only for self-defense. It was put in place to protect Americans from totalitarians in government like New York's Rep. Jerrold Nadler. He once told CNS News: "One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that's insane."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, must have been insane, then, when he wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Our Constitution has been shredded and it seems there are few willing to acknowledge it, and fewer still trying to do something about.
For those willing to study our country's history, the oppressive nature of government is no surprise. We were warned by the founders, who broke away from an oppressive government and formed one that guaranteed certain rights. We were warned again regarding the military-industrial complex by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech.
Unfortunately, those elected to represent us seem to either have no knowledge of these warnings, our history or our Constitution — or are blatantly disregarding it to consolidate their power. Concerned citizens need to hold accountable those they elected, for tyranny rests at your doorstep.
What to look for
I wrote to you last year that you would be well served by keeping an eagle eye open for any attempt to establish national gun registration. Cory Booker has now proposed it, as a presidential candidate. This is a prelude to confiscation of guns of every kind.
Also, keep an eye out for the end-around gun control with ammunition control. All they have to do is make ammo in short supply by buying it up. The thought police can bankrupt every ammunition maker by making guns perfectly legal but ammunition illegal, or impossible to get without — you guessed it — registering your purchase.
I remember in years gone by that many people reloaded spent ammunition. This would be a great opportunity for you men out there who would like to learn a secondary trade for a post-collapse society.
Also, buy a gun, get trained in its use and practice, practice, practice. Don't be a helpless victim, and I am not talking about crime. Gun laws are not about crime. They are for disarming the populace in order to give more power to the State. The Founders understood this concept. Cory Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg and their gun-grabbing ilk know it, too. They just aren't saying it.
We can't afford to let the elected elites and the corporate media use tragedies to erase the 1st and 2nd Amendments that were carefully crafted for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood the necessity of an armed populace if a society was to remain free.
There is a growing sense of fear from many in our society over the usurpation and the arbitrary power of rulers. But more importantly, if a person is to remain secure in his home, he has to have the ability to defend himself.
I believe that is called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™
P.S. — The school shooting in Denver will mean even more calls for "gun control," even though one of the suspects is mentally ill and almost certainly taking pharmaceuticals. Where is the outrage over that? And where are the calls for more preparedness and for better self-defense? That's exactly how an off-duty border patrol agent saved lives during the recent synagogue shooting in California... by being armed. This is why, for your protection, I have quickly arranged for you to get a free concealed ankle holster by going here right now. The only way to prevent these types of incidents from harming you is to be even better prepared, not disarmed.
= = = = = = = =
"Hey dad... hey dad. Do we have a gun?"
"What's that?"
"Do we have a gun?"
We see the innocent face of a small child and then the advertisement fades to black. Whereupon the Ad Council and the Brady Campaign to Take All the Guns display in stark white letters a new code word they invented: "Family fire."
After all, taking away guns has always been about the children. That's what they want you to believe. And looking at the faces of the children taken from us, it's emotionally easy to agree with them. After all, who can understand such a heinous act as taking a rifle into a school and gunning down a bunch of six-year-olds? Who wants children accidentally shooting each other in their homes?
But who are the folks at the Brady Center, Michal Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Corey Booker? They are statist totalitarians. They're playing on emotions — the emotions of a grieving populace — to advance their agenda. They don't care about children. They're disingenuous.
How do I know? If they cared about children, they'd be weeping over the thousands of children that America has killed with drone strikes and air raids in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Africa. If they cared about children, they'd be outraged that 2,000 babies are aborted every day in America, many on the verge of being born. If they cared about children, there would not have been 232 synthetic chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples from babies. If they cared about children, they wouldn't be doing everything they can to wrench children away from their fathers and the authority of their parents "for their health" and put them under the aegis of the state at every opportunity.
Taking away our ability to protect ourselves began under the altruistic sounding words "gun control." Now it's "family fire." As always in such chicanery, these words are totally misleading. But they have worked their charm on lukewarm church-going Americans.
Not one in 10,000, when they hear the words "assisted suicide" and "planned parenthood" think of them as murder. Nor do many more think of "gun control" as unreasonable or unconstitutional any longer. Now the attempt is being made through the propaganda of advertisement to put gun ownership into violent military terms so as to make it as distasteful and politically incorrect as possible for anyone to have a gun in their home, lest a child should be injured.
But do not confuse the matter at hand. Politicians don't care about children. They do what politicians do best: Use a tragedy to push their freedom-stealing agenda. If a few children die along the way, well... never let a crisis go to waste. Remember, U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright told 60 Minutes that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it."
Death is the purview of the military-industrial complex. So first they want to take away your "assault weapons" and now they want to take the rest of your weapons so there will be nofriendly family fire in the home. Charming.
But if the prevalence of weapons in private possession is the problem, how is it that people aren't constantly shot to death at gun shows and competitions? Why are there millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of so-called "right wing nuts" — that's you and me, to the lamestream media — that are stored safely without incident? Why have the competitors on the History Channel's "Top Shot" not shot one another on national television? And how is it that gun crime rates are lower in areas with fewer restrictions on gun ownership?
No, dear reader, guns are not the problem. You and I are the problem, for the statists in government. In An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:
"What's that?"
"Do we have a gun?"
We see the innocent face of a small child and then the advertisement fades to black. Whereupon the Ad Council and the Brady Campaign to Take All the Guns display in stark white letters a new code word they invented: "Family fire."
After all, taking away guns has always been about the children. That's what they want you to believe. And looking at the faces of the children taken from us, it's emotionally easy to agree with them. After all, who can understand such a heinous act as taking a rifle into a school and gunning down a bunch of six-year-olds? Who wants children accidentally shooting each other in their homes?
But who are the folks at the Brady Center, Michal Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Corey Booker? They are statist totalitarians. They're playing on emotions — the emotions of a grieving populace — to advance their agenda. They don't care about children. They're disingenuous.
How do I know? If they cared about children, they'd be weeping over the thousands of children that America has killed with drone strikes and air raids in Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Africa. If they cared about children, they'd be outraged that 2,000 babies are aborted every day in America, many on the verge of being born. If they cared about children, there would not have been 232 synthetic chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples from babies. If they cared about children, they wouldn't be doing everything they can to wrench children away from their fathers and the authority of their parents "for their health" and put them under the aegis of the state at every opportunity.
Taking away our ability to protect ourselves began under the altruistic sounding words "gun control." Now it's "family fire." As always in such chicanery, these words are totally misleading. But they have worked their charm on lukewarm church-going Americans.
Not one in 10,000, when they hear the words "assisted suicide" and "planned parenthood" think of them as murder. Nor do many more think of "gun control" as unreasonable or unconstitutional any longer. Now the attempt is being made through the propaganda of advertisement to put gun ownership into violent military terms so as to make it as distasteful and politically incorrect as possible for anyone to have a gun in their home, lest a child should be injured.
But do not confuse the matter at hand. Politicians don't care about children. They do what politicians do best: Use a tragedy to push their freedom-stealing agenda. If a few children die along the way, well... never let a crisis go to waste. Remember, U.N. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright told 60 Minutes that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it."
Death is the purview of the military-industrial complex. So first they want to take away your "assault weapons" and now they want to take the rest of your weapons so there will be no
But if the prevalence of weapons in private possession is the problem, how is it that people aren't constantly shot to death at gun shows and competitions? Why are there millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of so-called "right wing nuts" — that's you and me, to the lamestream media — that are stored safely without incident? Why have the competitors on the History Channel's "Top Shot" not shot one another on national television? And how is it that gun crime rates are lower in areas with fewer restrictions on gun ownership?
No, dear reader, guns are not the problem. You and I are the problem, for the statists in government. In An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Noah Webster wrote:
Before
a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people
are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops
that can be,…
The 2nd Amendment was not put in place for hunters or only for self-defense. It was put in place to protect Americans from totalitarians in government like New York's Rep. Jerrold Nadler. He once told CNS News: "One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that's insane."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, must have been insane, then, when he wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Our Constitution has been shredded and it seems there are few willing to acknowledge it, and fewer still trying to do something about.
For those willing to study our country's history, the oppressive nature of government is no surprise. We were warned by the founders, who broke away from an oppressive government and formed one that guaranteed certain rights. We were warned again regarding the military-industrial complex by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech.
Unfortunately, those elected to represent us seem to either have no knowledge of these warnings, our history or our Constitution — or are blatantly disregarding it to consolidate their power. Concerned citizens need to hold accountable those they elected, for tyranny rests at your doorstep.
What to look for
I wrote to you last year that you would be well served by keeping an eagle eye open for any attempt to establish national gun registration. Cory Booker has now proposed it, as a presidential candidate. This is a prelude to confiscation of guns of every kind.
Also, keep an eye out for the end-around gun control with ammunition control. All they have to do is make ammo in short supply by buying it up. The thought police can bankrupt every ammunition maker by making guns perfectly legal but ammunition illegal, or impossible to get without — you guessed it — registering your purchase.
I remember in years gone by that many people reloaded spent ammunition. This would be a great opportunity for you men out there who would like to learn a secondary trade for a post-collapse society.
Also, buy a gun, get trained in its use and practice, practice, practice. Don't be a helpless victim, and I am not talking about crime. Gun laws are not about crime. They are for disarming the populace in order to give more power to the State. The Founders understood this concept. Cory Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg and their gun-grabbing ilk know it, too. They just aren't saying it.
We can't afford to let the elected elites and the corporate media use tragedies to erase the 1st and 2nd Amendments that were carefully crafted for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood the necessity of an armed populace if a society was to remain free.
There is a growing sense of fear from many in our society over the usurpation and the arbitrary power of rulers. But more importantly, if a person is to remain secure in his home, he has to have the ability to defend himself.
I believe that is called life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Yours for the truth,
|
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™
P.S. — The school shooting in Denver will mean even more calls for "gun control," even though one of the suspects is mentally ill and almost certainly taking pharmaceuticals. Where is the outrage over that? And where are the calls for more preparedness and for better self-defense? That's exactly how an off-duty border patrol agent saved lives during the recent synagogue shooting in California... by being armed. This is why, for your protection, I have quickly arranged for you to get a free concealed ankle holster by going here right now. The only way to prevent these types of incidents from harming you is to be even better prepared, not disarmed.
Friday, May 10, 2019
Why Contempt of Congress Against A.G. Barr Is Completely Absurd
As U.S. Federal Prosecutor from New York Andrew McCarthy points out, you've got to be stupid to be a liberal Democrat in Congress.
Why?
Well, you see, there's information which most of the public is not provided because of the practice by the Media (D) called selective omission which is coupled with cognitive dissonance to perpetuate their fantasy that they are determined to use in ousting a sitting president. (I suspect there are millions of Americans who've already tuned much of this out because of their day-to-day busy lives at work and home.)
Have I peaked your interest on what that information might be? I hope so, as it makes all the difference in understanding why I've titled this post as I have.
In McCarthy's latest FOX News.com piece, he provides the facts regarding why the contempt of Congress meted out by Chairman Nadler is utterly ridiculous. So, go here and read it to understand how this is so.
Should you have liberal friends who think they'll be able to win the discussion on what's going on, you'll be glad you are up to speed on this information.
Why?
Well, you see, there's information which most of the public is not provided because of the practice by the Media (D) called selective omission which is coupled with cognitive dissonance to perpetuate their fantasy that they are determined to use in ousting a sitting president. (I suspect there are millions of Americans who've already tuned much of this out because of their day-to-day busy lives at work and home.)
Have I peaked your interest on what that information might be? I hope so, as it makes all the difference in understanding why I've titled this post as I have.
In McCarthy's latest FOX News.com piece, he provides the facts regarding why the contempt of Congress meted out by Chairman Nadler is utterly ridiculous. So, go here and read it to understand how this is so.
Should you have liberal friends who think they'll be able to win the discussion on what's going on, you'll be glad you are up to speed on this information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)