Telling It Like It Is

This gentleman from Greensboro, North Carolina in this video speaks eloquently to the city counsel on what the gun control advocates are doing as a result of the recent mass killings at schools around the country.

I urge readers to watch and share this with their email friends so they can share it too.

Enough said!
= = = = = = = 

Enigmas

(A person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand)

(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 illegal’s saves just one life, wouldn't that be worth it too?

(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 hurricane was due to climate change.

Conundrums

(Something that is puzzling or confusing.)
 
"A gun is like a parachute.  If you need one, and don't have one. You'll probably never need one again."

Here are six Conundrums of Socialism in the United States of America :

1.  America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other Countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about, yet they want America to be morelike those other countries.

And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.  

By the way...................

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, But we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.  

And here's another one worth considering....

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.  But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't.

Think about it.....

Am I the only one missing something?

A Perfect Example of Fake News!

I'm checking through the posts on the Drudge Report this morning and come across this article about Rosanne Barr's response to a tweet about Valerie Jarrett.

I note the third paragraph describes Jarrett's ethnicity as "African-American". Having followed past news reports about former Pres. Obama's close advisor through his entire eight years in the White House, and knowing that from those reports having repeatedly referred to her as having an origin of Iran, I do a few seconds of searching to find verification of this.

One of the first, and most credible results comes up with this report about Jarrett's background from Judicial Watch. 

Okay, while the earlier reports may have been incorrect about her actual ethnicity, more disturbing information than that is confirmed. Learning that her father had moved to Iran reveals that, while not Iranian, is from a family which has close ties to the Communist Party, U.S.A. as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the claims otherwise in the Barr article.

The paragraph in this Judicial Watch article which confirms this information from F.B.I. investigation files obtained through their F.O.I.A. requests, reveals the following:

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.

So, the close circle of association with Frank Marshal Davis is confirmed in that it has been known from other sources in researching Obama's background that Davis was highly influential in his early years in Hawaii.

Thus, it is safe to assert that, for the first time we know of, our nation had a Communist sympathizer at the head of our government.

Reading through the Barr article commenters at the bottom of the piece reveals that some  know all too well that she ripped off Chicago as board member of its transit authority while a lawyer there before going to Washington, D.C. to advise Obama for eight years.

With the latest revelations coming out about the Obama administration's secret use of federal agencies to spy on our current president's 2016 campaign and transition team into the White House, it will be interesting to see just how far the investigation goes in determining who ends up getting indicted by Congressional committees looking into these matters. 

I'm not holding my breath that either of them will see justice, since most high level crooks are smart enough to cover their back ends sufficiently to get off the hook.

P.S. Speaking of fake news... check out this video with Brittany Hughes explaining a couple of whopper lies about immigration told by the mainstream media.

The Mostly Unkown 2nd War of Independence

Why do most Americans living in the country today not know of this historical event?

It is because those who want to transform our nation by exploiting the ignorance about our past are today taking the principles of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s efforts to end Jim Crow laws of the south by twisting them to make unfounded and false claims which have gained acceptance because youth today haven't been learning the true history of that period. Instead, they've been learning how to be "social justice warriors" for sowing divisiveness and anarchy.

If they've heard anything about it, information has been presented by those who want to confuse youth against their own nation in a negative manner, for the purpose of distracting them from the advancements it's made in providing freedoms and liberties to every individual. 

After all, why else would everyone around the globe desire so strongly to immigrate here?

Prager U has produced its latest video with Brian Kilmeade, co-author of Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans: The Battle That Shaped America's Destiny.

This video gives a summary of the book and clearly reveals that divine providence was, once again, the major factor in the outcome of what clearly should have resulted in the end of our fledgling nation.

Yes, there are those who hate this country for several reasons, who use aspects of our history - such as slavery and genocide - which they exploit in bad mouthing it. But this type of argument ignores the reality of the existing social norms of the period which is always based on the past norms. And, it also ignores the reality that there are parts of the world where slavery is still practiced today.

The other glaring point they ignore is that our own brothers and sisters fought against each other over slavery, and state's rights, in the Civil War of the 1860s in which many died to end it.

Two Views on Socialsim/Communism

You're probably wondering why I include both socialism and communism in the title. That's easy. I've always preferred to describe the difference between them this way: Socialism is simply the soft version of communism, or communism  without the gun at your head.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has produced this video explaining socialism this way.

However, another video which immediately followed by someone who has a different view of what socialism is here.

Watching both of them reveals to me that the second video, obviously done by someone who believes socialism is misunderstood based on the phraseology used in it and the way capitalism is portrayed, is essentially inferring that even though it's been tried over and over again, it's just not yet been done right and we need to keep trying until we get it right, while at the same time ignoring all the hundreds of millions of people who've been exterminated or slaughtered in the name of socialism.

I Can See Clearly Now, the Fog is Gone!

You may recognize the words - even if I've changed them slightly - but you get the point that it's read with the tune in mind. But, just what is the "fog" I refer to?

Today's news is so filled with trivial and deliberately distracting "fluff" that the critically significant issues are obscured.

Like what? you ask. 

First, notice how Chris Cuomo begins the video clip in the article cited here with his question. Chris's premise is that conservatives are actively attempting to obstruct the DOJ's efforts to conduct its investigation into "Russia/Trump Collusion". How clever of him!

As Sen. Ron Johnson explains, it's becoming obvious and apparent that the Obama administration, expecting Hillary to win the election, were downplaying the fact that it knew of the Russian's attempts to influence the election, but then changed its tune in order to cover its butt in light of Trump winning unexpectedly. 

In other words, Obama and company of collaborators scrambled to make up a scenario in order to explain away their illegal actions they knew would be covered up had Hillary been elected president.

This verifies and confirms, in my opinion and in the minds of many others, that the media has been the colluders with the previous administration to carry the water for it in order to distract and divert public attitude towards the duly elected president for the purpose of setting him up for impeachment.

But, it has failed miserably! No evidence, just harassment - destroying people's lives - and intimidation - the threat of a process crime of lying - by Mueller's special counsel. Tucker Carlson's show recently had an individual - John Kirkakou - on testifying to the fact that both Comey and Mueller have along track record of doing just this. (The only available video is of the whole show, so one must advance to the 33:45 mark to watch this interview with John Kirkakou.)

Another source which does a wonderful job of sorting through the confusion of all of this is historian Newt Gringrich in this message he recently posted.

This latest revelation, along with all the other disclosures which have come along over the past months, are beginning to establish the truth about what really was being attempted by the leftist/socialists... take total control of our country's democracy so they could subvert our liberties and freedoms.

A Matter of Perspecitve and Perception

Having long paid close attention to the world of politics,  it has become abundantly clear that our nation's social courtesy and willingness to get along, despite our differences, has deteriorated. 

Any student of history knows that our political system, despite the strong differences between opposiing parties, has, until recently, usually been civil in its conduct with the understanding that the ultimate goal was to come to a compromise in the interest of mutual benefit.

Sadly, that is no longer the case.

The beating (with a cane) of a Senator on the floor of the Senate in the heat of debate during the Civil War period is one past example of how passions have flared out of control.

Today, the behavior and language is much more subtle and deceptive. There have been recent times when some politicians have said things which were clearly absurd and uncalled for, but most of the rhetoric has been far more cryptic.

Nearly all liberal/socialists verbiage when speaking about their “progressive” agenda is couched in terms which sound good to the individual who has yet to develop enough life experience to understand the consequences behind them.

Political correctness is probably the most well-known term. While it sounds good, its deeper implications portend a stifling of free thought and speech - something our founding fathers were extremely and deliberately very concerned about to the point of making it one of the first three rights established in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, Benjamin Franklin is quoted on this topic: "Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

Another current and pressing issue is how we, as a people, should react and deal with the epidemic of mass shootings in our public schools. Politicians on the left speak of passing more laws that will, they claim, bring a complete halt to these tragedies. Yet we currently have a massive array of gun restriction laws on the books which are repeatedly ignored!

Group titles, such as the Alliance for Gun Responsibility seem to be for re-establishing responsible gun ownership, but are actually pro gun control. Such a position naively assumes that if you impose a law restricting their use that all outlaws will honor it. If all law abiding citizens who owned guns of any kind turned them in under the new law, who then would have the upper hand over them? What about the ability of the gun owner to adequately respond to a home intruder? Are they supposed to tell them, "Wait, I need to put in my combination to get my gun so I can shoot you."?

Going a bit more specific on this issue, the mayor of a large metropolitan area is proposing a "safe storage" ordinance which would penalize gun owners if they failed to report lost or stolen guns to the authorities.

Do you detect a pattern here?

Liberals are true-blue bureaucrats. They believe that the state has the answer to all of society's problems through legislation, while maintaining a philosophy that criminals don't need to be accountable for their anti-social actions under the premise that they've experienced someone else's unfair or racist treatment in their past. 

Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that if society is to keep crime in check to deter future ones, then our judicial system must be fair, but firm in our dealing with those who deviate from acceptable behavior. After all, soft judges only make hardened criminals.

At the same time, they paint their ideological opposition, conservatives, as selfish, bigoted, racist, corporate loving capitalist monsters. It would appear that their agenda is to destroy the economy by imposing taxes on the very businesses that provide them revenue for their programs – programs that do not produce real results.

Civility has joined common sense on the street. They have been evicted from their homes and excluded from ongoing public discourse.

What Does a "Cold" Civil War Look Like?

This was originally written by Jack Minzey and adapted with a few revisions by me.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Have you ever wondered... how do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge.  

That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. 

There's a pattern here.

What do you think the odds are of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president? What does it really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting in a "cold" civil war. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice by some nutcase. Admit it. You know the Democrats have rejected our system of government and that's why they're acting as they are today. Here's a prime example on the issue of immigration.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election by convincing enough voters that the party in power isn't doing it right. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only "legitimate" exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without the judge's say so, that's the "cold" civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system running this country today. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played, that's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. Remember how A.G. Holder dealt with Arizona? But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. In fact, Obama made it difficult to understand which one was safe to use. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left shifts power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. Remember Lois Lerner and the IRS? This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in it if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals, if you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him too.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail, like Mueller's already done to Mannifort and Flynn. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary text about taking out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials like Samantha Power engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between a conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

The important question remains... what will it take to cause the shift from a "cold" civil war, to a real one?