It's Coming to America!

The longer I live, the more convinced I'm becoming that not only is liberalism a mental disorder - thank you, Michael Savage, for coining that phrase - it is what's becoming the newest form of fascism that's becoming extremely dangerous.

An article in the Daily Caller today covers how a female employee in Great Britain was fired from her job and lost her plea to the country's employment tribunal. When J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, came to the woman's defense on social media, she's come under attack for doing so by hoards of responders.

What is most incredible and disturbing is the fascistic reasoning used in the tribunal's response to denying her right to have an opposing view.

The tribunal rejected her claim. In a lengthy judgment issued on Dec. 18, Judge James Tayler ruled that her view is “not worthy of respect in a democratic society,” calling it “absolutist” and “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others.”

What’s more, Tayler said Forstater’s views are not protected as a “philosophical belief” under the Equality Act 2010, even though “religion or belief” is one of the nine categories protected in the law. The Equality Act is the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain.

As one who reads the full article will learn, Nicole Russel the author of the article states:

This case makes clear what had previously been more ambiguous: British law no longer protects speech that goes against progressive sexual orthodoxy, because said speech now violates a person’s “dignity.”

Russel, aptly points out at the end of the article the following:

Thankfully in the U.S., the First Amendment remains strong enough to protect the kind of speech Forstater has been penalized for in the U.K. But if “gender identity” is added as a protected class to federal civil rights law—as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the left have pushed for, and passed in the House—our system would move in the same grim direction as the U.K.

Protecting marginalized groups from blatant discrimination is not at issue here. We all agree that is wrong. But penalizing people who believe in only two sexes—as we all did until a few short years ago—is an affront to the most rights of human beings: to have free thoughts, and to be able to speak them.

What? I don't agree, Nicole, as the posting of a comment under the piece makes the interesting point:

‘We all agree that is wrong.’
Since I don't agree, that invalidates your truism.
I think the right of discrimination is bound up with freedom of association, free speech, and in the end, with natural law.
If I’m a white business man, I have the natural freedom to only hire White men, only cater to white men, and in short, to associate with only those people I desire to associate with, and no government tyranny can remove that right to discriminate from me.
Same is true if you’re black, lesbian, or a black lesbian. The only entity not allowed by law to discriminate is THE GOVERNMENT. This is about We The People > Government.
The instant you change that inequality sign in the other direction you have tyranny, plain and simple.
I’m ready to defend discrimination. To do otherwise is simply to cede more power to government and to those who wish to use government to its own ends.
Stop retreating.

 I'm in complete agreement with this individual's point. Well said!

Face Saving, or Head Fake?

The Media (D), and to some extent, Fox News, after the missile strike by Iran on a base in Iraq yesterday which has U.S. military forces at it, is telling the country that Iran's counter attack was a face saving move on their part. In other words, they're saying subliminally, "Look folks, Iran's Mullahs sent missiles where they wouldn't really hurt anything, or anyone in order to save face. So, now they've backed away and it's all over."

Dan Bongino on his show's broadcast today, started off with the premise that the missile strike wasn't a face saving move, but a head fake. Why? Bongino uses Lee Smith's article to explain why he agrees with Smith's remarks about the situation in the following paragraph.

Donald Trump put an end to that arrangement by commingling the dust of Soleimani together with that of one of his chief Arab lieutenants, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, head of one of Iran’s Iraqi terror proxies. Now that Trump is holding Iran accountable for the actions its proxies take in its name, the leverage gained by helping America play make-believe is gone. Iran and its allies now feel liberated to bathe publicly in the blood of Americans and warn that more violence is coming their way.

Note the phrase in the first sentence of the paragraph which says, "...put an end to that arrangement..." Bongino explained that the word "arrangement" refers to the explanation in the previous four paragraphs which opens the piece. (See link above.) So, by the fact that Pres. Trump took out both Solemani and Mahundis - the latter being the leader of the Iraqi terror group - Lee's pointing out in the rest of the paragraph that Trump's given Iran the "green light" to brag about all the proxy group actions which Iran sponsored and expose the regime for what it really is; a blood lust group of Mullahs in control of a terrorist oriented nation.

With the new "arrangement" under Pres. Trump, Lee goes on in the next paragraph to explain the problem Iran now faces.

The problem for Iran is that it isn’t actually all that powerful. For all the concern over retaliation, Trump’s trashing of the old rulebook has stripped Iran of the most important instrument in its arsenal—“plausible deniability.”

The quoted phrase in that paragraph points out that Trump, by taking out the two together,says the U.S. is no longer going to make-believe that Iran isn't the head on the snake of all past proxy attacks, from Beirut to the attack on our U.S Embassy only a week or so ago in Baghdad.

Bongino goes on to say that this head fake move is on purpose, to get the U.S. to let its guard down by backing away on hostilities, then Iran will continue to engage in "asymmetric" warfare, explained in the article by Lee, by hitting our troops in the middle-east in order to back up the Mullah's statements for demanding that all U.S. troops  completely evacuate the region.

Only time and further developments in diplomacy and actions by the other superpowers Pres. Trump called on in his remarks today to participate in dealing with Iran will reveal what comes next.

Lulled Into Complacency

Amidst the current frenzy of news which dominates the headlines from week to week, there are other issues, just as important, just as potentially threatening to us which the majority of the public is unaware of because it is either pushed back to lower news priority in the 24 hour news cycle, or, it is a topic which is not understood. Consequently, it goes on and on, ignored which is the way the bankers at the Federal Reserve want it to be.

One of the more critical issues that most people have little to no understanding about, or are just too busy with grinding away at bringing in that paycheck every two weeks, or month to month, is the stability of our nation's economy. This is not to say that I am in disagreement with how the president has currently revitalized the economy; employment, deregulation, less people on food stamps, etc. 

I get that he's working at turning lots of things around. With a robust economy, the people are once again lulled into a sense of complacency and believing that things will continue to stay that way.

What I am saying is the fact that our nation's national debt - now around $22 TRILLION and growing fast - and the mechanism by which our economic structure is currently arranged, much like a deck of cards, is the cause for an inevitable repeat of 2007/08 again, only on a scale multiplied at least 10 times worse! When such information is covered or discussed in whatever setting it may be, most people tune it out because their inclination is that those in the government will take care of it because that's their job; it's why we elect them. NOT!

To give the reader a quick glimpse into what I'm getting at here by saying this, I ask that you view this short video by a team of men who've spent most of their life carefully researching, following, and analyzing that economic structure and why it is potentially on the precipice of a major "bubble" about to burst.

If any of my readers are curious at learning the history behind how our country came about having the Federal Reserve Bank - which actually is neither part of the federal government, nor is it a "reserve bank" - I recommend reading, if you haven't already, G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island". Did you know that our Congress was convinced it would be better for them to give up their responsibility and power to control our nation's currency policy, and allow a group of bankers who'd colluded to take over that control in order to gain ultimate control of the nation's future by doing so? Reading this book will convince you.

The Rise of A.I. and Consumer Relations

Have you noticed how recently over the past few years the prevalence of artificial intelligence is being used by various companies when you call in to get information? I have, and it's getting pretty frustrating!

Why? Well, for one, as a senior citizen who grew up in a era of calling and getting a human being with a brain it was the only way of getting assistance with a business that you needed to contact by phone. Usually within the first few rings, someone polite would answer and direct you through their switchboard to the company department which applied to your particular need for your call because you could tell them why you wanted to talk to someone. It took maybe a few minutes to get another person who could actually deal with your need.

Not today! I've begun encountering more and more companies who are utilizing automated programs which are specifically designed to force you into choosing from a menu of items which generally fit the majority of reasons a customer is calling. However, if you are calling for a reason which is not provided as a choice and you ask for an "agent" - the usual term which will get the automated system to send you to a person with the ability to comprehend the uniqueness of your call - the A.I. program requests a further explanation for why you need an agent and gives a set of canned options to choose from; giving the false impression that your being provided the opportunity to choose.

If it doesn't list options which apply to your need, and you insist on requesting an agent, or even pressing "0" on your keypad, it starts over at giving you options you don't want or need. Finally, if you manage to figure out which option will get you on hold to speak to an agent, inevitably you'll get the message from the A.I. system that the wait is at least 15 minutes, which then gives you the choice of staying on hold, or being called back when an agent is available.

I can't help but wonder why this situation exists as it does. After all, employment is at a level never seen before in our country's history. On top of that, there are millions of jobs unfilled! What could be the reason for such huge wait times after fighting to speak to a real person at the company one is trying to get help from? I understand that companies are trying cut expenses of having to pay employees wages and benefits, but at what expense to the impression such an impersonal experience as dealing with an A.I./automated system that clearly communicates it doesn't really care if you have an issue that doesn't fit its prepared choices for customers?

Is this the kind of "brave new world" our children are headed into? They may not know, or have ever experienced anything else to understand the difference, I get that. But, what does that say about where businesses in general are going with technology and their customer relations? When the automated system repeatedly tells you while on hold that they apologize about the wait you're experiencing getting help from them after 20 or 30 minutes time having passed, one's perception of their sincerity degrades considerably when it happens month after month, year after year it gets worse.

I grew up with the adage which said, "Actions speak louder than words." There's a lot of truth in that simple statement, and it's sad to see how it's being lost as we "progress" lockstep into our technological world of digital choices while being depersonalized more and more and true customer service fades with the past.

Siding With the Enemies

In 2003 during the Bush administration, the Media (D) was unified against plans to go to war against Saddam Huessein's forces. The number of body bags were given to point out the consequences of going forward. In the spring of 2011 Pres. Obama had Osama bin Laden killed, the Media (D) spoke of nothing but accolades for Obama's action. 

Now, with Gen. Petraeus on Face the Nation yesterday saying that Soleimani's death is more significant than bin Laden, what do we hear from the Media (D)? The cacophony of  warnings about the negative consequences and aftermath of Pres. Trump's taking out of this murderous butcher as the second in command of forces in Iran is deafening! Yet, at the same time, the Media's (D) announcements about Soleimani's death are couched in terms of admiration and respect as though her was our dear leader.

So, with such a pattern of praise from the Media (D) for leftist leaders doing the same thing which a conservatively oriented leader has done, but telling the public viewing consumer the exact opposite,  reveals a very interesting, but somehow unnoticed, truth; that the leftists in our country are clearly propagandizing in favor of our nation's clear and undisputed enemies while counting on its viewers to either not notice the bias, or not care, thereby perpetuating the ideological notion that even our enemies who threaten our very existence as a nation are somehow our friends.

To me, this illustrates just how psychologically conditioned the general viewing public is regarding such matters today. The Media's successfully managed, over decades of progressive presentation the conditioning of the the globalist mindset that we must be respectful of all nations, even if they're chanting "Death to America" in massive televised rallies time and time again. I can only conclude it's counting on the public's short term memory of such facts.

As a result, our nation's psychological view of an impending Armageddon lurches from one event to the next. If it's not a heightened potential for nuclear war, it's AOC or Greta Thunberg being the mouthpiece of the moment for the leftists perpetuation of paranoia in its effort maintain control of their narrative in today's media saturated culture.

If one views the entire interview of Gen. Petraeus on Face the Nation, they will note his point of waiting for developments from Iran to determine just how accurate the Media (D) is with their claims that the president has set us on a path to war. The Media (D) doesn't know how Iran will react, but they sure are projecting what they want to public to think about it.

A Veteran Named Harold, A President Named Barack

This summarizes how most liberals view the US military:

Harold was a bright child.  He grew up in America.  He went to school and had a bright future ahead of him.  Harold was full of life but was cut short in a violent moment.

 
While few people had ever heard of Harold before his death, many did afterward  And in death, something very shocking happened.  What was so shocking, especially when it is compared to the death of someone else recently in the news?

Harold was Harold Greene, Major General, United States Army.  On Aug. 5, 2014, Major General Greene was killed by a Taliban terrorist.

He was returned to America with full military honors.

It has been a tradition that the president attends the funeral of General and Flag officers killed in the line of duty.

Richard Nixon attended the funeral of a Major General Casey killed in Vietnam and George W. Bush attended the funeral of Lieutenant General Timothy Maude, who was killed in the 9/11 attacks. (Byron York did a "mea culpa" after further research about Nixon ever going to M.J. Casey's funeral.)

While Major General Greene was buried, Barack Obama was golfing.  The Vice President wasn't there either.  Only the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel attended.

Flags were not even lowered half-mast.

Four days after Harold Greene gave his life for America, Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri.

Brown was at best a young thug.  In the minutes before his death, he committed a robbery at a local convenience store.  According to other reports, Brown struck Officer Darren
Wilson and shattered his orbital bone.  Obama sent a three-person delegation to Brown's funeral!

Neither Obama nor Biden would attend the funeral of the highest ranking military officer killed in the line of duty since 9/11, yet he sent a delegation to the funeral of
a thug.

When Margaret Thatcher, one of America's staunchest allies and Ronald Reagan's partner in bringing down Soviet communism died, Obama sent only a small low-level delegation to her funeral.  The snub was not missed by the British.

When Chris Kyle, the most lethal American sniper in history was murdered, there was no expression of sympathy from the White House.

But when Whitney Houston died from drug overdose, the Obama/Biden administration ordered all flags be flown at half-mast. (Sadly, and understandably, this is a mixed bag of truths & falsehoods. Go here for details on this and read just below the side-by-side of Kyle & Houston.)

There was no White House delegation at the funeral of an American hero.  American heroes die and Obama goes to the golf course.

A thug dies and he gets a White House delegation.

No wonder most "REAL" Americans hold Obama in such contempt, especially members of our Military.

To be fair, Snopes.com provides detail information about this issue here and how the misinformation about Gen. Greene originated. While there are inaccuracies in this story, this supports the general view by many of the divisiveness Pres. Obama pushed on the nation during his two terms.

And Biden is now expounding on how great the Obama/Biden administration was.

Stand up for the "Harolds" in America.

Obama in the Crosshairs?

... at least for now.

To those of us who've been following this unfolding saga of top level government intrigue and media collusion to protect their own, many have been wondering just how high the involvement goes. Well, wonder no more, folks! Yes, under our current president's A.G. Barr, the investigative progress seems to be uncovering what some of us have suspected all along; Obama was aware, informed, and sanctioning it all under the assumption that Hillary had it in "the bag", and, as a result, thus concealing his involvement.

ZeroHedge.com has published a report by Eric Zuesse, of the Strategic Culture Foundation, titled, "Russiagate Investigation Now Endangers Obama." While it is a long and detailed piece, there are bold text sentences which are key reading for those without the time or interest in reading it all.

Anyone who has studied Obama, whether as an Illinois Senator, or as the 44th president, knows that this revelation is really no surprise. Given the series of incidences in which he spoke to various events which occurred during his two terms, this revelation makes perfect sense. In my honest opinion, Obama's background reveals his propensity for subtle insurrection and a treasonous tone against all that America stands for. His declaration only five days before being elected, and his apology tour around the rest of the world early on in his first term, are good for starters.

I won't get all hyperbolic over this news, for I've learned one should never get too excited in their expectations that those at the elite level of government are usually served with justice. Still, it does provide one with a glimmer of hope that something may come of it. Of course, given the reality that the media are lap-dogs for the left, they'll put out their best effort to mislead and convince the public with a mountain of lies about his innocence.  His guilt, however, is revealed by the fruit he has produced over time.