Liberal's Disconnect With Free Speech Rights

With all the attention in the media about public schools across the nation allowing, or even encouraging to have students participate in the protest march on Wed. March 14th - the one month anniversary of the Parkland High School massacre by the confessed killer of 17 of his classmates - free speech apparently doesn't apply to everyone, just liberals and those who agree with their views.

A teacher at a high school held a discussion with her class about this topic and, for the sake of discussion of the topic, she posed the alternative view question; couching it terms of students protesting abortion, since the logic follows that if schools condone one cause, they then should allow protest walkouts for all causes.

The school district put her on paid administrative leave. If I were her, I'd hire a lawyer and take it as far as necessary; even to the Supreme Court. The school districts need to understand that just because some parents are offended by an opposing view, a teacher's free speech rights still exist. After all, conservatives don't go whining to school boards, demanding they be fired, just because of the views their mostly liberal teachers espouse all the time.

 Visit this link and watch the news video of this for further details of how public schools are driven, not by what our Constitution tells us ALL citizens should enjoy the right of, but by only one political view... theirs!

It will certainly be interesting to learn what the outcome of this will be in the end. As a former teacher in public school, I understand all too well the disturbing situation this teacher is in.

Navigating the Emotional Roller Coaster of Climate Change?

Ms. Atkinson lectures this course at UW-Bothell campus.

Yup, you read that title right, it just keeps getting weirder and weirder! Caution: snowflake warning!

This climate change issue has now developed its own reality for liberals and in my opinion is another of the many indications that it's developing a sub-culture in the world.

Here's the teaser ShiftWA.org sent out in their email to subscribers today:

From the “you could make this up but why would you” file, UW-Bothell is offering a course to help students navigate the emotional roller coaster of climate change. Jennifer Wren Atkinson, the course lecturer, said, “We haven’t had to spend any time debating whether climate change is actually happening. It’s more, ‘What’s my personal responsibility for this, and how do I develop the personal resources to navigate it?’” She also said she thinks tears and emotional moments are “our starting point” for the course. (The Seattle Times)

That's right, they haven't even spent any time debating whether climate change is actually happening because they're so emotionally distraught over their personal responsibility! That's how bizarre this has become for those who are emotionally, rather than rationally, driven by their ideology. Forget even discussing whether it's actually happening, that would challenge their intellectual abilities to deal with facts. Just get all emotionally worked up by the idea and take the course at your local college! That should do the trick.

Only yesterday afternoon I was listening to the Lars Larson Show on my truck radio and was hearing a guest who was on the show explain why climate change is nothing more than scam by the left on the younger generations. It was such a great explanation that I want to share it for my readers to hear off the show's podcast here. Once on the page and to get directly to the part of the show where this guest speaks to this issue, click on the audio bar at the 44:29 point where it begins for about 20 minutes. It's worth the time to listen, then share with your friends the URL for them to hear it as well.

The Liberal Interview Tactic

It's become apparent to me that the liberal tactic whenever one is invited onto a conservative news show like Tucker Carlson, or Laura Ingraham for instance, is to do whatever is necessary to get their talking points across in whichever way accomplishes that objective. I've seen this type of tactic implemented time after time on a variety of shows; mostly on Fox News shows though.

Yes, they understand that they must use any opportunity they get to bolster their narrative of activism using this strategy when asked to come on and explain themselves for the apparent hypocrisy they're exhibiting. And why is this happening? They know they're losing the propaganda campaign they've engaged in to discredit our President now that Trump is getting things done!


Case in point... Mayor Catherine Pugh, of Baltimore, MD was recently on the Laura Ingraham Show to explain why she was having the city of Baltimore provide buses for transportation to the March 20th march/rally to be held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Pay close attention to how this interview goes on for 10 minutes. What does she say is her goal, in answer to Laura's initial question of providing transportation? This is KEY! (This point is directly related to the coordinated agenda of the left. While watching this video on YouTube, should you see another video off to the side about "Indoctrination Factories" from Laura's show, I urge you to also watch it to understand why I say this is a coordinated effort by the left.) Note the apparent behavior of the Mayor in how gracious, courteous, and respectful she is. Also, notice how she deflects answers to questions Laura poses to her regarding the blatant hypocrisy of paying for transportation to a protest in contrast to the abysmal record the city has had in educational matters there in Baltimore. It's just so heart warming!
 = = = = = = = = =
Note: On an unrelated, but ideologically similar topic, this article about liberal's elitist attitude makes a great point. Here's one sentence from it:

One of the left’s favorite tactics is calling their opponents “uneducated.”

As a former educator myself, I know of this tactic all too well.

Las Vegas Massacre Truth Exposed!

The following sentences are the opening remarks in a new article explaining why we've not heard the truth behind this tragic event.

The “official” narrative you’ve been fed by the FBI and Las Vegas officials about the massacre at Mandalay Bay that claimed 58 lives is purely fiction, a polished story contrived to cover up the disturbing facts surrounding the worst mass shooting ever in the United States, according the FBI insiders and high-ranking intelligence officials.

And now, after months of corporate-infused spin by MGM Resorts and outright lies from officials in the FBI and the Las Vegas Metro Police Department, federal agents and intelligence officials are spilling the beans about what really happened on and before the Oct. 1 massacre.

“It’s a movie script that was written after the shooting to rewrite what really happened,” one FBI agent said. “The investigation is an entirely different story that we are not allowed to talk about. If we do and get caught, we get fired and probably charged (criminally).”

But why the cover up?

The answer to that is perhaps even more complicated than the revelations surrounding the shooting, which can only be explained as shocking and troubling to everyday Americans not connected to the law enforcement community and political machine that has become today’s FBI. While few if any bright Americans believed the official back story of the supposed Stephen Paddock rampage, the truth — it turns out — is even more bizarre than fiction here.

In fact, it’s downright frightening.

Now, you may be thinking, "Oh sure, this is just another piece by someone with a conspiracy theory in their parent's basement sitting in his pajamas making up some story." Okay, granted this has occurred in the past in some instances, but just think about this... what's been the past administration's standard position whenever anyone connected to the Islamic faith, or Muslims? How have they handled it?

As you read through the rest of the article's points beyond what I've inserted from it above, ask yourself why, what are the reasons behind such a cover up? What other revelations have we already, and most likely will in the future, learn the past administration has engaged in in the way of a cover up?

More importantly, these revelations uncover a culture within the F.B.I. of intimidation and threats to agents within the bureau attempting to do the job they were hired to do, find the truth. Why are superiors in the F.B.I. doing this? To quote Pres. Obama, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." - Barack Hussein Obama, - August 21, 2010. Also, a month ago Tucker Carlson's show had the attorney for victims and a congressman from Pennsylvania on about this very issue... watch that exchange here; very interesting!

Here's why I believe this is happening. If you read through the list of 45 goals of the Communists in the U.S., you'll find goal #35 is being worked on through this incident. The F.B.I. is being deliberately discredited and made to look bad in the eyes of the public via these revelations. I wonder, is this the "Deep State" pulling strings? No, I'm not a former F.B.I. agent, just a retired teacher who loves his country which have given him and its citizens the freedoms and liberties everyone else in the world risks their lives to be part of by whatever means possible to them. I believe there is truth to the saying, "History repeats itself.", just think about the new facts which have come out of the released documents on the JFK assassination of 1963 when I was in 5th grade.

It will be most interesting to learn what new information comes out of this site's ongoing investigation on this matter.

Single Payer Health Care

The problems of a single payer health care system have been with us for longer than most Americans  know, or will admit. 

With the recent experience of Obamacare and its ramifica-tions, this issue came to the forefront of the nation's aware-ness. However, when Congress passed into existence the Veterans Administration in 1930, the nation's first single payer model was established. True, it was only for a specific sector of the populace, but it has become the prime example - even in a capitalist society - of just how horrible it can be when it comes to service of patients.

Back when it was established, and through the '30s, '40s and even into the '60s, the V.A. was generally considered decent and reasonable because it was taking care of the medical needs of our men who had served in our military. Despite advances in the medical field, the government funded agency has, over time, experienced difficulty with sufficient funds to implement those changes and new technology. Advance-ments in technology have always been expensive.

Then too, time and the rotation of staff retiring and being replaced by newly trained staff coming into the system, combined with the introduction of new programs and layers of management to run them, this bureaucracy grew to mammoth proportions. With that growth, especially post Vietnam, Gulf War, and Afghanistan, the influx of patients needing care across a growing array of conditions of care needed, the combination has proven disastrous for the level of service they've received... in more than one way.

The latest, and most disturbing situation we've become aware of was in certain cities around the nation during the Obama administration. Those V.A. facilities management being so bad that too many veterans died as a result of waiting for treatment for their condition. In some situations, it has been found that leadership was setting policy to "doctor" their data reported to V.A. headquarters.

Now, three to four years later, the same top Director who's been carried over into the new federal administration, is feeling the heat and changing much of the older, less competent management from the ranks. Fortunately for veterans, few, if any, have died in the interim. Let's hope continued improvements are made, but it's still the model of U.S. single payer health care where bureaucracy is its worst.

Constitution/Federal Law V. State of California

The same issue which the Civil War was fought over - state's rights versus federal law - is now coming to a head in the state of California. More recently, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out during his radio show today, it is similar in many ways, to the deep south of the early 1960s with Gov. George Wallace and Bull Conner of Alabama refusing to abide by new federal laws passed in Congress to allow African-Americans to attend all white schools. So, what was happening in the deep south of the '60s, is now reversed for the west coast of 2018. As Dick Morris puts it, John C. Calhoun would be proud.

With A.G. Jeff Sessions speaking in Sacramento, CA yesterday to announce the federal government's lawsuit against the state for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff alerting the community of illegal aliens about coming ICE raids, Governor Brown has exposed the true sentiments and points of defense liberals are taking about this battle. For liberals, it's not about the issue of rule of law, but about using standard socialist "red flag" labels of "white supremacy" while conveying this image of illegals as tax paying, hard working, law abiding people.

Here's text from an article, which includes a video, making some points about this issue reported on NBC News:

The NBC reporter failed to mention that the reason it was a safety concern for ICE was because they weren’t able to arrest illegal immigrants at local jails and courthouses and had to go to their homes. Almaguer also failed to mention that the 800 illegal immigrants that got away when Schaaf tipped off her community were criminal aliens.

But Almaguer did tout the state’s so-called “sanctuary” status: “A sanctuary state, California limits cooperation between local and federal immigration enforcement.” He followed that up with a clip [of] Brown’s defense of the policy: “They've been part of the economy. Millions of people. Now they treat them like animals and round them up and dump them in cells or on the border.”

Notice how liberals use after the fact circumstances - "millions of people" - and disregard the basic truth that these people came into the country against existing laws, and are therefore illegal, and still are, but speak of them as though they have more rights than legal citizens.

Here's what NumbersUSA's most recent email stated about this:

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions laid down the law -- literally -- in person, to law-enforcement officials in California's state capital of Sacramento.

Sessions declared America has had enough of criminals being shielded from federal law enforcement by unconstitutional "sanctuary" laws. No more letting criminals out of the jails directly back into the population, sometimes to kill innocent victims like Kate Steinle.

To make it stick, the Justice Department is taking California to court. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday.

Sessions told law-enforcement officials that the Justice Department is suing California "to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies." He added, "we are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America."

So yes, the Trump administration is acting to protect Americans. But it needs Congress to act. Last week, the White House officials said President Trump remains committed to passing the Goodlatte bill, which would shut down this whole sanctuary city rebellion, as well as greatly reducing unhelpful immigration.

H.R. 4760 would authorize the administration to withhold funds from sanctuary cities and allow individuals to sue local governments when they are harmed by aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions.

Are we going to defend ourselves against rogue states and cities that let foreign criminals go free on the streets??

Are we going to stop Congress from dithering while all Americans are in peril??

Are we going to build an immigration policy that works in the interest of the American people??

The "sanctuary" laws in California are absurd. One actually penalizes private employers with stiff fines if they cooperate with ICE officials, double-check their employees' immigration status, or decline to inform employees of pending ICE enforcement efforts. Another bars law-enforcement from voluntarily transferring detainees to federal custody, or informing the government of release dates. How radical do you have to be to keep convicted criminals from being deported, as federal law states they should be?

Just last week, the mayor of Oakland tipped off hundreds of criminals that federal agents were coming to apprehend them. Who would ever have thought they'd see the day when government officials actively abetted criminals avoiding arrest?

"Here's my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you?" the Attorney General said. "How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement to promote a radical open borders agenda?"

But don't just blame California. These officials commit such brazen acts of lawlessness because they're confident that they will be protected by Washington lawmakers who lust after cheap, exploitable labor. The Washington politicians think you'll accept whatever they do. You need to prove to them that they're wrong.

Curtailing sanctuary city/state policies is only one of several HUGE benefits of Chairman Bob Goodlatte's H.R. 4760. Other key provisions:

●Makes E-Verify mandatory for all employers.

●Cuts legal immigration by ending chain migration.

●Criminalizes visa overstays.

●Tightens the "credible fear" standard to reduce asylum fraud.

●Fixes loopholes in the law regarding unaccompanied alien children.

●Gives a non-citizen amnesty for 690,000 DACA recipients, in exchange for all of the above.

This showdown between state and federal government policies may very well be the springboard for civil war. It could get pretty nasty soon.

The Attention Span of A Gold Fish!

That's about how long, three seconds, the American voting pubic has for recalling what their politicians say on issues of national importance. If a liberal has a president in the White House, then it's alright to say one thing on that issue. But, if their opposition is occupying the White House, then they simply revert to the opposite position on it, knowing that the public will not remember that the other position was taken only a few years ago.

Don't believe me? Watch this video. While your picking your jaw up off the floor in reaction to the hypocrisy you're hearing, look below the video frame and read the title of the video in order to confirm that you're not mistaking the person speaking and saying what he's saying. 

This politician, since someone who does this habitually is only a politician and doesn't have any integrity, clearly has no qualms about being two faced; a liar, which obviously is necessary to be a Democrat, or Liberal/Progressive.

We, the American people, get what we tolerate!