Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Wednesday, Mar. 21, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
The Mechanic and The Cardiologist
A Lexus mechanic was removing a cylinder head from the motor of a LS460 when he spotted a well known cardiologist in his shop.
The cardiologist was there waiting for the service manager to come and take a look at his car when the mechanic shouted across the garage, "Hey Doc, want to take a look at this?" The cardiologist, a bit surprised, walked over to where the mechanic was working.
The mechanic straightened up, wiped his hands on a rag and asked, "So Doc, look at this engine. I opened its heart, took the valves out, repaired or replaced anything damaged, and then put everything back in, and when I finished, it worked just like new. So how is it that I make $48,000 a year and you make $1.7M, when you and I are doing basically the same work?"
The cardiologist paused, leaned over,
and then whispered to the mechanic.......
"Try doing it with the engine running.”
WHEN STUDENTS TOOK THE ENTRANCE EXAM FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL, THEY WERE PERPLEXED BY THIS QUESTION: "REARRANGE THE LETTERS P-N-E-S-I TO SPELL OUT THE PART OF THE HUMAN BODY THAT IS MOST USEFUL WHEN ERECT.
THOSE WHO SPELLED SPINE BECAME DOCTORS.
THE REST ARE IN CONGRESS.
THOSE WHO SPELLED SPINE BECAME DOCTORS.
THE REST ARE IN CONGRESS.
Our Culture is a Factory Producing Mass Killers. Closing the Factory Can Solve the Gun Debate
“Our Culture is a Factory Producing Mass Killers.”
The gun debate has erupted once again. The two sides are entrenched in their respective positions, which have changed little over the decades. One side claims their right to keep and bear arms. The other sees all guns as violent and wants them outlawed.
But guns are not the real issue. This is a moral problem. What leads people to kill others is not the instrument — anything can serve as an instrument of death. What is being done to prevent more people from committing immoral acts with guns? That’s the question we must ask.
And when we ask it, three real problems present themselves: mental illness, frustrated young men, and the glorification of violence.
Dealing with Mental Illness
The first problem is dealing with those who are psychologically unbalanced. Many mass shooters belong to this group. America is full of unbalanced people. Some have explosive behaviors yet have been deinstitutionalized. Many of these more violent individuals are walking time bombs, waiting to go off.
There are already laws limiting access to guns in proven cases of violent mental illness. The main problem, however, are cases where violent mental illness is unproven. Where behavior ranges from acting strange to causing minor disturbances.
Often these individuals make credible threats to others. But monitoring them seems impossible; there are simply too many mentally ill people out there. And there are so many types of media available to make these threats; no current system or budget can deal with them all. So it’s almost inevitable that people will escape the system and kill.
Dealing with Young Men Without Orientation
The second problem is with young men from broken families. These make up a good portion of mass shooters. America is full of frustrated young men in a culture that does much to suppress true masculinity. These young men are often on medication, socially immature and without any moral compass.
There may be millions of frustrated young men out there that could exhibit signs of unbalance. Once again, there is no way to find and treat them all. Many of them are isolated and anti-social. Some are only waiting for an opportunity to act on their resentment.
” glorifying gun violence — in movies and video games.”
Finally, America has a culture that glorifies violence — especially gun violence — in movies and video games. This culture is teaching children to kill. Impressionable young people become desensitized and come to view killing as normal. Video games develop the actual motor skills to point and shoot accurately at anything that moves.
Curiously no one calls for controlling violent movies and video games. Those in the entertainment establishment, who demand gun control, will never allow the guns in their movies and games to be controlled. Safe in gated communities, actors and actresses deny that their screen lives contribute to the violence destroying the nation.
Addressing Causes, Not Symptoms
Proposed solutions to these three problems usually don’t deal with the causes. They only address the symptoms exhibited by those who use guns to kill people.
People suggest ways of treating mental illness. However, they don’t take measures to prevent people from becoming unbalanced in the first place.
People suggest ways of detecting and monitoring frustrated young men. However, little is done to address the reasons why young men are frustrated, and fill the void by giving meaning and purpose to their lives. Millions of boys, for example, lack role models (or fathers) to challenge them and give them the psychological security they need.
The entertainment industry may suggest ways of limiting exposure to extreme violence by rating movies to exclude some age groups. However, what about the industry’s lack of a real moral compass? Few insist upon entertainment standards that teach right and wrong to both young and old.
A Moral Problem
The first step toward solving the gun problem is acknowledging that this is a moral problem. There is no crazy gene that makes people kill. Yes, there are medical conditions that foster imbalance. But most killers have behavioral problems that involve moral decisions. They kill because they have acquired habits and behavior that disregard life and ignore good and evil.
The second step is to admit that modern society is like a factory that mass produces mass killers. How? By shattering all the institutions, morals and norms that naturally prevent the making of monsters. When individuals are not morally anchored, they become more susceptible to imbalance and immoral behavior.
The family is no longer the primary and most important social unit, teaching boys to be gentlemen and girls to be ladies. Gone is the Christian community with its role models, who foster virtue, not violence. Suppressed is the influence of the Church that guides and teaches all to follow the natural law and strive ever higher toward sanctity.
When God is no longer welcome in the public square, it should be no surprise that immoral acts proliferate. There can be no moral order without God and His Church; secular efforts are doomed to fail.
Closing the Factory
The only way to stop the killing is to close the factory that produces mass killers. Anything else is an exercise in futility. This can only be done by returning to order, a Christian order that seeks to produce not monsters but saints.
And that is the problem. Society has decayed to such a point that people are reluctant to make the effort to return to order. Such a change will involve tough decisions in the family, business and practice of the Faith. These decisions can and should be made in individual families. However, most will prefer to ignore the problem and address the symptoms.
One thing is certain. As long as the factory remains open, there can be no peaceful solution. The only way to control an immoral person is by force. That force can be wielded by the State, which will employ ever more intrusive means upon all society to monitor and detain the criminals. That force can also be exercised by responsible citizens who sense the obligation to arm themselves against evil.
That is why the two sides remain entrenched in their positions. The debate is over which force will keep evil at bay — the State or an armed citizenry. People rightly fear empowering the State to control more aspects of their lives. But if they want to avoid that outcome, they should remember the importance of the moral issue.
If the cultural factory that produces mass killers is closed, the gun control debate is emptied of its content. Guns would again be instruments of sport and security. Until that time, the gun war will rage on.
Al Gore is spinning bizarre tales in Dubai
Former Vice President Al Gore has profited immensely since leaving office by pedaling wild stories about global warming and later, climate change.
In fact, some recent stories say he may become “the world’s first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.”
But the latest round of fear-mongering by Gore left people dumbfounded.
While speaking in Dubai, Gore warned of “flying rivers” and “rain bombs” as an effect of climate change.
GulfNews.com reports:
Bizarre weather such as “flying rivers” and “rain bombs” are just some of the recent effects of climate change, warned former US vice-president Al Gore at the Global Education and Skills Forum (GESF) in Dubai on Sunday.
….
He described flying or atmospheric rivers as long streams of rain-bearing clouds that carry huge amounts of water vapour over long distances, ending as heavy rain bombs over a small, concentrated area. Gore said a city in California was recently hit by such weather, with the ‘river’ in the air having flown thousands of kilometres from an area in the Pacific Ocean.
Tailoring his fear-mongering to his specific audience, the report notes:
Gore also said climate change could make large parts of the Middle East uninhabitable, which would create “climate refugees”, who would clash with settled populations in cities.
These sorts of wild stories by Al Gore, including many predictions in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” have led many to disregard the former vice president as little more than a climate profiteer, in it for his own personal gain.
The Telegraph reported:
Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.
Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.
“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”
What do you think?
Is Al Gore just spinning tall tales for his own personal profit?
The Supreme Court May Soon Kill Sanctuary Cities for Good
In May 2017, tired of dealing with the increase in violent crime and the strain on social services associated with immigrant-friendly “sanctuary cities,” the Texas legislature enacted a law designed to ensure members of state and local law enforcement uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution.
This bill required police officers, prosecutors, jail staff, and other public officials to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, including issuing ICE detainers for incarcerated immigrants and requesting proof of citizenship status during routine traffic stops.
A federal judge in liberal San Antonio blocked the measure before it could take effect, holding that it impermissibly discriminated against ethnic minorities and violated the Constitution. But on March 13, 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the San Antonio court’s holding and said the law can stand.
Although this case may make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, with three of the Court’s most far-left justices over the age of 80, there’s a plausible chance that the case will be heard by the most conservative Supreme Court in decades.
In other words — the Supreme Court may have a serious chance to kill sanctuary cities for good.
One provision of this anti-sanctuary-cities law is the ICE detainer mandate. This statewide law obligates law enforcement agencies to notify the Department of Homeland Security before an illegal alien is released from police custody, and allows these agencies to hold the alien for an additional 48 hours beyond their sentence so ICE can take custody.
Police departments need only probable cause to suspect that a criminal defendant is an illegal alien, which can mean those who refuse to speak (or refuse to speak English) can expect to have a chat with ICE officials before they see daylight again. Only showing a valid Texas driver’s license or government-issued ID will be enough to defeat an ICE detainer.
Not only does this bill require compliance with President Trump’s ICE agents, who have a commitment to cracking down on illegal immigration not seen since before the Obama administration, it provides criminal penalties and steep fines for state and local officials who violate the ICE detainer mandate. Any private citizen is able to file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General. If an investigation of this complaint reveals that the official is allowing suspected illegal aliens to walk free, this official can be charged with a misdemeanor, removed from office, and fined up to $1,500 for each day the law is being violated. For second or subsequent offenses, this fine shoots up to $25,000 per day.
And best of all, Texas officials won’t need to worry about being sued for complying with the state’s new immigration law. The State of Texas is now required to indemnify city, county, and local governments against any legal claims stemming from their compliance with an ICE detainer request. This means that non-immigrants who lose their job or are otherwise harmed as a result of being held on an ICE detainer aren’t allowed to recover any money by suing the city or county for unlawful detention, helping protect local taxpayers.
The popularity of Texas’s law and its recent constitutional victory in a federal district court could embolden other states to follow the state’s lead and enact their own laws — relegating sanctuary cities to the history books. By promoting cooperation between local and federal law enforcement while also punishing the blatant violation of federal immigration laws seen in cities like San Francisco, Dallas, New York City, and San Diego, the State of Texas has taken an important step in the nationwide fight against illegal immigration.
And with President Trump in the White House and a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, the federal government has finally begun sanctioning states that permit sanctuary cities to thrive. By reducing highway funding and other much-needed federal funds, the federal government is sending a strong message that its immigration laws aren’t optional.
Many are hopeful that this marks a promising development in the continuing battle against illegal immigration. Even liberal-minded states may not be able to handle having their highway funds cut. These states may, in turn, put pressure on the sanctuary cities within their borders or pass legislation, like that seen in Texas, to ensure that sanctuary cities remain a thing of the past.
~ Liberty Planet
Former assistant FBI director: High-ranking people throughout the government had a plot to protect Hillary Clinton from being indicted
by Mandy Mayfield
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom also said officials had a scheme to blame Trump for the Russian interference during the 2016 election.Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom suggested Sunday morning that the constant shifting of high-ranking government officials over the last year is related to an internal plot to help Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.
"I think we have ample facts revealed to us during this last year and a half that high-ranking people throughout government, not just the FBI, high-ranking people had a plot to not have Hillary Clinton, you know, indicted," Kallstrom said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo."
Kallstrom, who worked at the FBI for 27 years, was responding to Bartiromo's question about whether he thought that someone in the FBI was directing officials to protect Clinton.
"Do you think somebody was directing them or do you think they just came to the conclusion on their own, this leadership at the FBI and the Department of Justice, that they wanted to change the outcome of the election?" Bartiromo asked.
Kallstrom also said officials had a scheme to blame Trump for the Russian interference during the 2016 election.
"They had a backup plan to basically frame Donald Trump and that's what's been going," Kallstrom said.
Trump Inspects the Wall – Here are His Options
The wall: it was a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s campaign and has been a heavily debated topic for the past two years. Up until recently, the wall has been largely theoretical – the idea of a physical barrier, with political cartoons and images ranging from a picket fence to a prison style enclosure, complete with barbed wire.
This week, though, a few potential wall versions made their debut — giving us a very real idea of what a border structure between the United States and Mexico would look like. However, we’re still a long way off from construction, so let’s take a look at the president’s options.
Altogether, eight wall versions were revealed this week, and President Trump will be able to choose his favorite from this mix. The walls vary in shape, structure and even material, but all are designed to prevent border crossing at anywhere other than the official checkpoints. The winning wall, once erected, is expected to deter illegal crossing and solve some of the issues the country faces from illegal immigration from the south.
Four of the wall designs feature concrete and are solid, impervious structures. The other four are made from a variety of other materials, and feature bars, open slats and other configurations designed to allow for visibility and air flow but not allow unauthorized persons through.
Four of the walls can be seen through, with barriers preventing actual passage. Being able to see through the walls provides a more open and enhanced view and would increase visibility. The solid walls can’t be seen through and would be more difficult to breach. These could reduce risk for agents and reduce the number of breach attempts as people would be less likely to attempt to cut through solid concrete, particularly if they could not tell what was on the other side.
While the prototypes vary, each is deliberately difficult to scale and presents a flat, not easily climbed surface. The walls range from 18 feet to 30 feet high and a variety of heights could be incorporated into the many miles of finished wall. Testing is still needed to determine the ideal height for the definitive version of the wall. The increased height is expected to decrease illegal immigration and make attempts to climb the wall less likely. Current barriers are significantly shorter and far less imposing and are regularly climbed by illegal aliens.
These walls are prototypes — ideas that still need to be tested. Part of the next phase of determining which wall is best will be permeability testing. Can the walls be breached using normal methods? You have three basic options when it comes to bypassing a wall illegally. You can go over it, under it or through it.
Each wall version will need to be tested to see if it can be climbed, if it can be breached with a ladder or if it can be altered or cut to allow passage through. The way the wall is installed matters a well; the structure needs to be deep enough or offer some form of coverage underground to prevent digging or tunneling.
According to Business Insider, the walls (or a version that combines highlights from all) will be erected along the 2,000 miles that make up the border between the United States and Mexico. These will be on the USA side of the existing walls and feature a 50-100 foot electronically monitored space on the Mexico side to further increase security.
Now that the prototypes are done, further testing for safety, usability and functionality, along with a review of the budget, is needed to identify the best option for the wall. President Trump would then be presented with the best options and be able to choose the right one for his structure.
This eventual wall would represent enhanced safety and security, particularly for residents in the states impacted and for border patrol agents. It would also represent a promise kept to the American people and the citizens who voted for President Trump and his wall in the first place.
~ Conservative Zone
Cherokee Genealogist Comes Forward with Damning Truth on Warren’s Ancestry
Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been criticized over her claim of Native American ancestry, and now one Cherokee genealogist in particular is publicly dismissing her assertion.
On Wednesday, genealogist Twila Barnes called Warren’s claims “ludicrous” and argued that the Massachusetts Democrat had no “respect for true Native Americans,” according to The Washington Times.
Barnes has devoted herself to extensive research into Warren’s family tree as she searched for the claim the Democrat senator insisted was there; however, no evidence pointed to its actual existence.
Barnes also stated that Warren, in her effort to further a high-profile career, has done a thorough job of angering many Native Americans throughout the U.S. by claiming the dubious heritage.
“Some just laugh, because it’s so ludicrous. I mean, you know, she has no proof of anything,” Barnes told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.
“She’s a lawyer, and she’s supposed to understand you need proof, yet she keeps claiming,” said Barnes, whose own research is published on the website “Thoughts from Polly’s Granddaughter.”
“Many are angry because they feel like she’s appropriating an identity to gain something from that,” she added. “And she has no respect for true Native Americans.”
The claims from Warren had essentially come back to haunt as she seeks re-election in 2018, as the controversy was again spurred by President Donald Trump’s “Pocahontas” remark during an event honoring Navajo veterans.
Warren and others throughout the nation decried the remark as a “racial slur” and demanded an apology from the president in the name of further respect for Native Americans.
Just last week, failed attempts to get the Massachusetts Democrat to take a DNA test in order to prove her heritage had been made, though all have been rejected as Warren doubled down on her claim.
“It’s a part of me and nobody’s going to take that part of me away,” she told host Chuck Todd for NBC‘s “Meet the Press.”
However, some suggest that Warren’s hesitation to prove herself of Indian heritage might actually benefit her in the long run — whether or not she truly is what she claims to be.
“If the Native American ancestry is more than a few generations back, it might not be detectable,” genetic genealogist Ann Turner told The Washington Post.
Turner added that, although the evidence of Native American ancestry could be informative, a negative result wouldn’t rule it out.
“Also, many people who self-identified as Native American a few generations back were already admixed, making it even less likely to be detected.”
On Wednesday, genealogist Twila Barnes called Warren’s claims “ludicrous” and argued that the Massachusetts Democrat had no “respect for true Native Americans,” according to The Washington Times.
Barnes has devoted herself to extensive research into Warren’s family tree as she searched for the claim the Democrat senator insisted was there; however, no evidence pointed to its actual existence.
Barnes also stated that Warren, in her effort to further a high-profile career, has done a thorough job of angering many Native Americans throughout the U.S. by claiming the dubious heritage.
“Some just laugh, because it’s so ludicrous. I mean, you know, she has no proof of anything,” Barnes told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.
“She’s a lawyer, and she’s supposed to understand you need proof, yet she keeps claiming,” said Barnes, whose own research is published on the website “Thoughts from Polly’s Granddaughter.”
“Many are angry because they feel like she’s appropriating an identity to gain something from that,” she added. “And she has no respect for true Native Americans.”
The claims from Warren had essentially come back to haunt as she seeks re-election in 2018, as the controversy was again spurred by President Donald Trump’s “Pocahontas” remark during an event honoring Navajo veterans.
Warren and others throughout the nation decried the remark as a “racial slur” and demanded an apology from the president in the name of further respect for Native Americans.
Just last week, failed attempts to get the Massachusetts Democrat to take a DNA test in order to prove her heritage had been made, though all have been rejected as Warren doubled down on her claim.
“It’s a part of me and nobody’s going to take that part of me away,” she told host Chuck Todd for NBC‘s “Meet the Press.”
However, some suggest that Warren’s hesitation to prove herself of Indian heritage might actually benefit her in the long run — whether or not she truly is what she claims to be.
“If the Native American ancestry is more than a few generations back, it might not be detectable,” genetic genealogist Ann Turner told The Washington Post.
Turner added that, although the evidence of Native American ancestry could be informative, a negative result wouldn’t rule it out.
“Also, many people who self-identified as Native American a few generations back were already admixed, making it even less likely to be detected.”
Watch: Border Agent Drops Jaws as He Tells Trump What Border Wall’s Made of
BY JOE SAUNDERS
These are the kind of jaw-dropping numbers liberals don’t want Americans to know.
But they’re the only kind that matter when it comes to President Donald Trump’s plan to build a long-promised wall on the border of the United States and Mexico.
And they prove one thing: Trump critics who think a border wall won’t cut down on illegal immigration have never talked to a Border Patrol agent.
On a visit to San Diego on Tuesday to review eight huge prototypes of the wall he’s proposing, Trump got a welcome earful from one Border Patrol agent who described the merits of a border wall much less sophisticated than the one Trump envisions.
The agent, who was not identified, told Trump that border guards in the area had built the barrier from scrap metal.
“There was effectively no border in San Diego. It was a chaotic situation,” the agent told Trump in a video posted on YouTube.
“We set it in place really just to delineate where the border was. And it changed our environment.”
How much did it change?
Illegal border crossings dropped by as much as 95 percent, the agent said.
If a crudely constructed wall made of scrap metal can cut illegal immigration by 95 percent, just by being a physical barrier, imagine what could happen with a modern wall, equipped with advanced surveillance features.
Trump was obviously impressed.
“That’s 95 percent with a scrap metal wall that they just put together with excess materials,” he said. “And it worked 95 percent.”
Check out the video of Trump’s visit here:
And the San Diego experience is far from unique.
In the New York Post on Sunday, columnist Paul Sperry recounted how a two-story barrier of corrugated iron built during the George W. Bush administration cut illegal immigration in the area by 89 percent.
“When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251,” Sperry wrote.
“They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows.”
The effect on crime in El Paso was just as eye-opening as the numbers. Before the fence went up, according to Sperry, the sixth largest city in Texas was “mired in violent crime and drug smuggling.”
After the fence went up, Sperry wrote, property crimes dropped by 37 percent, and violent crimes by 6 percent.
Liberals have been opposed to the wall idea since Trump was just a long-shot candidate for the Republican nomination in 2015. They’re still opposed to it now that he’s the 45th president.
They say it won’t work, but in areas where the wall has been tried on even a limited basis, because the numbers tell the story — even with corrugated iron and scrap metal.
And they’re the kind of number liberals don’t want Americans to know.
But they’re the only kind that matter when it comes to President Donald Trump’s plan to build a long-promised wall on the border of the United States and Mexico.
And they prove one thing: Trump critics who think a border wall won’t cut down on illegal immigration have never talked to a Border Patrol agent.
On a visit to San Diego on Tuesday to review eight huge prototypes of the wall he’s proposing, Trump got a welcome earful from one Border Patrol agent who described the merits of a border wall much less sophisticated than the one Trump envisions.
The agent, who was not identified, told Trump that border guards in the area had built the barrier from scrap metal.
“There was effectively no border in San Diego. It was a chaotic situation,” the agent told Trump in a video posted on YouTube.
“We set it in place really just to delineate where the border was. And it changed our environment.”
How much did it change?
Illegal border crossings dropped by as much as 95 percent, the agent said.
If a crudely constructed wall made of scrap metal can cut illegal immigration by 95 percent, just by being a physical barrier, imagine what could happen with a modern wall, equipped with advanced surveillance features.
Trump was obviously impressed.
“That’s 95 percent with a scrap metal wall that they just put together with excess materials,” he said. “And it worked 95 percent.”
Check out the video of Trump’s visit here:
And the San Diego experience is far from unique.
In the New York Post on Sunday, columnist Paul Sperry recounted how a two-story barrier of corrugated iron built during the George W. Bush administration cut illegal immigration in the area by 89 percent.
“When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251,” Sperry wrote.
“They hit a low of 9,678 in 2012, before slowly ticking back up to a total of 25,193 last year. But they’re still well below pre-fence levels, and the Border Patrol credits the fortified barrier dividing El Paso from Mexico for the reduction in illegal flows.”
The effect on crime in El Paso was just as eye-opening as the numbers. Before the fence went up, according to Sperry, the sixth largest city in Texas was “mired in violent crime and drug smuggling.”
After the fence went up, Sperry wrote, property crimes dropped by 37 percent, and violent crimes by 6 percent.
Liberals have been opposed to the wall idea since Trump was just a long-shot candidate for the Republican nomination in 2015. They’re still opposed to it now that he’s the 45th president.
They say it won’t work, but in areas where the wall has been tried on even a limited basis, because the numbers tell the story — even with corrugated iron and scrap metal.
And they’re the kind of number liberals don’t want Americans to know.
Yes, Virginia, There IS a Deep State
by Angela Box
This week, The Hill newspaper – hardly a bastion of right-wing thought – published a poll conducted by Monmouth University that had quite a startling question, with an even more startling result.
The question–Do you believe there is a Deep State running America?– was answered affirmatively by 74% of respondents, which includes high numbers among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. The fact that we even have to have such a question asked in a national poll shows you just how far down the rabbit hole we have crawled.
Trump vs. The SwampAnd what exactly IS the Deep State?
For many years, you probably thought that term was reserved to the conspiracy theorists among us–The Illuminati, the Rothchilds, Bilderbergs, alien abductions, the Kennedy assassination, etc.
But today, it’s becoming clear that not only is there a Deep State, but they the men and women in the unelected bureaucracy are using the equally corrupted media in order to push their left-wing establishment narrative–and to squelch any truth about crimes and outrages actually occurring.
I can’t even begin to give a summary of all the terrible miscarriages of justice, lying, obstruction, and criminal behavior undertaken by liberal Democrats and Swamp-dwelling Republicans over the last year-and-a-half since Donald Trump became President. ( I eagerly await investigative journalists’ Peter Schweizer’s and Sara Carter’s books on this whole unfortunate episode.)
The Three Amigos Obama, Comes, and MuellerThe Democrat lawyer-stacked Mueller investigation is breathlessly reported upon 24-hours-a-day by the Deep State media – regardless of the inconvenient fact there has been– and will not be–proof of collusion or obstruction of justice between Donald Trump, his administration, and the state of Russia.
It’s becoming clearer every day that the guilty pleas of Gen. Michael Flynn and others were obtained under duress and threats of ruination.
The FISA warrant used to spy on Gen. Flynn and Trump Tower obtained by the Barack Obama administration made no mention of the fact their entire case was made (with four renewals!) with an unverified dossier by former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele.
Fun fact–it’s the very same dossier Mr. Steele is now having to defend in his home country of England—which he has essentially admitted is a complete fiction.
But so eager is the Deep State to take down this this major disruptor and change agent known as Donald Trump they are willing to lie, obstruct justice, and ruin people’s lives—simply to stop the positive changes he is making.
Soon, there should be the go-ahead for a second special prosecutor. That is, if Jeff Sessions still has an ounce of courage left after he was bamboozled by his deputy Rod Rosenstein and Obama Administration holdovers.
Who will Andrew McCabe take down with him?Once we receive the Inspector General‘s report, hopefully things will come into even more focus. If there’s any justice, it will examine:
-
Hillary Clinton‘s 33,000 subpoenaed and deleted emails
-
her using of Bleach Bit to destroy files
-
her private server
-
her ties to Uranium One and pay-to-play
-
the phony Steele dossier
-
the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages that not only implicate themselves but fired former FBI director Andrew McCabe
-
obstruction of justice by McCabe and former FBI Director James Comey
-
and the Obama Administration‘s fingerprints on this total charade
The behavior of the entire Swamp over this ridiculous, #FakeNews Russia collusion matter is outrageous, and many heads should roll.
We have a major problem in this country. We have a media so entrenched with the Deep State—so beholden to The Swamp–that many of them simply refuse to report what’sactually transpiring.
It’s like the woman who whose marriage is on life support but refuses to deal in reality because if she doesn’t say the truth out loud then the disaster is not really happening.
This is what the media is doing. They are playing out the whole “If a tree falls in the forest…” metaphor.
Several studies have been taken over the overwhelmingly negative media coverage about Donald Trump. They all show that over 90% of all coverage is negative. Ninety percent! Actually, I think that number is a little low. The only place you can even get another side at all is on Fox News, independent blogs, or talk radio.
The media lament that so many of us don’t trust them and assume they are part of the Deep State. They have no one to blame but themselves.
We are in the midst of the biggest political scandal in American history, but it’s not Trump colluding with Russia. It is Barack Obama and his administration, working with Russia, the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign colluding to ruin a duly-elected President of the United States. And the media steadfastly refuse to report upon it.
They will never admit they were wrong.
Remember, these are the Smartest People in the Room, who believe the hoax of man-made climate change is real.
They believe securing our borders is somehow racist, and who believe the opioid epidemic skyrocketing in this country has nothing to do with our porous border.
They believe abortion up until the time of birth is perfectly acceptable.
They believe tax cuts never work, and instead it’s more government spending that causes economic progress.
These people live in Bizarro World.
No matter what, they’ll never admit they were wrong–about anything. Therefore, our job is not to change their minds, as their minds are already filled with fantastical lies.
No – our job is to defeat them. Defeat them again and again and again. Watch them tantrum and flail around–and laugh in their faces.
I don’t expect the media to change their stripes. The media are simply secretaries taking dictation from their Deep State bosses and then spitting out their boss’ talking points.
But what I do expect is for awake and aware Americans to continue to push the truth. I don’t expect idiots like Chris Cuomo or Rachel Maddow to ever admit they were duped by their Deep State sources. I expect everyday Americans to continue to be Paul Revere in their own lives and to expose the Deep State–bit by bit, piece by piece, day by day.
The truth always comes out in the end. And ladies and gentlemen: the truth is not on the side of the Deep State.
Keep the faith.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/03/www_20.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment