Thursday, June 1, 2017

The Party of Losers



They lost an election they RIGGED, by cheating, spying on Americans, and targeting them.  They abused their power and broke the law. They are trying to cover it up by being accusative and violent and repressive.

You are probably tired of this question, but please, tell me again, WHY are the democrats, who  admittedly  RIGGED the Democrat Primary Election AGAINST Bernie Sanders, accusing the Russians of working with Trump to rig the national elections against Hillary?

The Dems shamelessly admitted to rigging the primary election.  Leaked emails clearly showed this was the case, and Donna Brazile, DNC chairwoman admitted she cheated by giving Presidential debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debate  (see report about this HERE).

When they did that, because they DECIDED by cheating, who would be Trump's challenger, the Democrats RIGGED the national election.

Now they are upset that they lost an election they RIGGED.

Who loses an election they have RIGGED so they can win?

It is beyond embarrassing to them, because once the general population that makes up the Democrat base looks beyond the talking points, and says, "wait a minute, we did what?" ... the DEMOCRAT party is OVER .

So, we now see the a "major" political party of the United States of America, caught in the criminal act of fixing a U.S. election (and then losing it) convulsing, because they were caught and exposed, and manifesting those convulsions by throwing the prolonged and violent tantrums of trying to shut down conservative free speech, and lashing out with contrived accusations of collusion by the duly elected President.  It is a classic case of psychological perplexity, confusion.  Shrinks call this "cognitive dissonance."
  "... In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is consequence of a person's performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values...In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. That a person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance: either by changing parts of the cognition, to justify the stressful behavior; or by adding new parts to the cognition that causes the psychological dissonance; and by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information that are likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance..." (Wikipedia)
Furthermore, we have learned in recent days that the Obama administration SPIED, not only on Trump Campaign staff, but on other Americans as well, presumably in order to maintain the "Obama-Clinton dynasty," which is a severe violation of Constitutional mandates, and the laws that govern surveillance of Americans, which violations amount to criminal acts against our nation via governmental abuse of power by targeting perceived political enemies.  See that report HERE


The Democrats ( including "the media." ) are trying to close the gap between what they want their reality to be, and what reality actually is, by attacking Trump with false accusations, and throwing violent tantrums to shut down Conservative free speech.

No, they are not upset because they lost the election and are now in "denial," and want to reconcile two conflicting "realities."

They are upset and are having a psychotic breakdown because they got caught cheating, abusing their power and targeting fellow Americans, and are now attempting to cover that up by staging violent protests and attacking the President, and those that legally elected him to that office.


They have been caught committing criminal acts, and are lashing out to avoid accountability for it.  They exhibit the violent convulsions of a condemned criminal enroute to receive his punishment.

They have been caught and their transgressions exposed.

Why have the perpetrators not been arrested, indicted, tried, and punished?









Saturday, March 4, 2017

SCARY BARRY ...

These so called "leaks" that are giving Trump so much trouble, are much more than just "leaks."  They are attacks upon the Trump administration by specific people, but they are also a "cover-up."

It may be that the Obama administration, believing that they did not have to erase or cover their tracks for whatever misdeeds or mistakes they may have perpetrated that would be incriminating to them, after the election, because they believed they would be succeeded by Hillary Clinton, after she defeated Donald Trump, left too much available for scrutiny, when the election did not go their way.

Emerging and established events have pointed to the possibility that the Obama administration did not have the opportunity in time and action they deemed sufficient to delete or eradicate acts or items that constituted political and legal and/or moral transgressions.

It appears that their solution was to sabotage, obfuscate and obscure, detract and distract, and to attack the character, ability and integrity of the new administration's appointees and employees.

Their misdeeds, judging from the magnitude of the attacks upon the Trump administration, including paid demonstrators, protesters, rioters; media and pundit propaganda perpetrators, and complicit political actors threatening government action for alleged wrongdoings, must, due to the scope of the sabotage, obfuscation, obscuring, detraction and distraction, be a massive attempt to cover-up an equally or greater quantity of transgression(s) by the Obama administration.

The question(s) now should be, "What are we missing," and/or "What are they attempting to cover-up?"  The question now is "will the Trump administration follow through with a decisive challenge to the attack upon its personnel and endeavors, should the premise of a massive cover-up be true."

Another question is, "will Trump supporters, i.e., those voters that elected him, and allies that support him, provide sufficient support to aid his administration to best his opponents once and for all?"

Where do you stand, and what will you do, as this development in history unfolds before you?

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Millions for Iran In Exchange for Hostages? Baloney!



You know the story.  A hefty dose of millions has been given to Iran.  The story goes that the money was transported "secretly" in foreign denominations as "ransom" money in exchange for the release of hostages.  That's the big "controversy."  (You can read about THAT Here if you don't already know about it.)

Well if it's such a big secret, how do we know about it?

Ah.  Well, you know about it because someone on the "inside" leaked it to a reporter and now you have the info on this.

I am here to tell you, that is not how it went down.

My take is this:

The Obamistas, including Hillary, Kerry, and all the Bozo's on their bus saw a pile of money just sitting there, and an Iranian regime salivating over it, willing to do just about anything for it, so they can finance their "state-sponsored" terrorism.

So the Obamistas tell the Iranian ghouls:  "Hey, we can get that money released for you ... for a price.  How can we pull this off, you ask?  We deliver it to you in CASH.  And that's how you pay Obama and Company.  We make this "tiny" commission ($), and you get your money to finance Hamas and all your little terrorist friends around the globe.  While the media and pundits argue about whether it was an exchange for hostages, we bank the cash, and no one will be the wiser."

Please get with it.  These are the same people that have rigged elections and have been fleecing the American people, since just after the American Civil War.

"Millions for Iran" in exchange for hostages?

Baloney.


Monday, February 1, 2016

Alright, then, if it's not stupidity, then what is it?



We know from recent developments that the Hillary Server Scandal has exploded beyond just mere speculation about whether any classified information has been compromised.

As a recap, here is the gist of the latest gory details as reported by Catherine Herridge @ Fox News.
"...Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain 'operational intelligence' – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized 'sources, methods and lives,' ...  the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets ... The official emphasized that the 'TOP SECRET' documents were sent over an extended period of time -- from shortly after the server's 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state ..."
Herridge quotes in her report  House intelligence committee member,  Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas), asserting that Hillary Clinton, a "Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with."
"... 'There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,' he said. 'Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security ' ... Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party ... 'Anytime our national security team determines that there's a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,' Pompeo said ..."
It appears that Pompeo might be voicing what many must be thinking and assuming, and that is:  Nobody is that stupid or ignorant as to completely endanger national security and many of the lives that are dependent on that information remaining secure.

Alright, then, if it's not stupidity, then what is it?

It is at the very least, not just lying, but massively lying.  It is also, not just fraud, but massive fraud.  It is also not simply a disregard for the trust and the law and security she has sworn to uphold, but also the severe breach of security which may have already compromised information and lives of agents, sources, and the families of those who depended on Clinton maintaining the proper security.

What now?

Clinton now must face those who are charged with effecting Justice:  The FBI, the Justice Department, the American people, and those victims of her server breaches of security.  She must also answer to those who believed in her politically, and to those against whom she perpetrated fraud by taking their money, their effort, their time and their trust in her as a political candidate.  She must also answer to those with which she has exchanged political favors, who have backed her financially and otherwise.

Will she be brought to Justice?

The White House has already announced that it will withhold emails between the President and his Secretary of State, Clinton, from public view.

New York Times' Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt wrote at the end of last October that Obama was doing just that.
"...The White House will try to block the release of a handful of emails between President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, citing longstanding precedent invoked by presidents of both parties to keep presidential communications confidential, officials said Friday ... White House officials said Friday that their refusal to release the emails between the two officials is not based on their content, but rather is intended to defend the principle that presidents must be free to receive advice from their top aides without fear that the conversations will be made public during their time in office. They noted the emails between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton will eventually become public many years after the Obama presidency ends, under the terms of federal records laws..."
The White House is not invoking Executive Privilege, but is shielding the emails nevertheless.
"...by refusing to release the emails, Mr. Obama is following a well-worn precedent that he and his predecessors have established. Mr. Obama has repeatedly resisted efforts by Congress to turn over the president’s private communications, which by law are exempt from Freedom of Information laws that are often used to pry information out of other parts of an administration..."
However, how will we know which emails actually fall under the special privilege purview, if we cannot see them?  How can one know if an email or a thousand fall under this category if they are not available for inspection?

Another area of "interest" in this unfolding drama is the area of "the others."

What about "the others?"

We have some time since learned that Clinton has received financing and backing from many foreign entities via the Clinton Foundation, some of this financing running into the millions of dollars.

David Sirota wrote in Salon, back in late may:
"...While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term ... The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period ..."
This is significant, because the State Department uses foreign governments' human rights records when reviewing arms sales to them, and according to Sirota, "Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses."  Sirota cites the following as an example:
"... in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing 'restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,' tolerating 'arbitrary killing,' 'widespread corruption' and a 'lack of judicial independence.' ... That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as 'toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.' The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before ... During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn’t, 'foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.' ..."
In another report by David Sirota and Andrew Perez @ the International Business Times, we learn that yet another high priced arms sale was tainted with Clinton Foundation finger prints.
"... In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period..."
You can read more about that HERE...

So, let's say that as a result of some miracle Hillary Clinton is brought to Justice for these "alleged" crimes.  What about these "others."  How then will she answer for the "pay to play" or "pay for access" money she received from foreign entities?  If she cannot deliver on promises made to these "others," because she is not "The President," what then will those foreign entities do?

When she made those supposed and "alleged" promises, might we premise that she was not the only one involved in those deals?  Might we suppose that this involved White House staffers, their political allies, Cabinet Officials, Intelligence Officials, Senators and Congressmen, and even Media entities?  Because, I dare say, many of those people are also graduates of Holier Than Thou universities, and surely they know what they are doing.  Surely you do not believe THEY are stupid?

Well then, if it's not stupidity what is it?

It begins to make sense why even "establishment Republicans" are willing to sacrifice their public face and to betray their constituents so blatantly and so severely.  It would also explain why certain candidates are running for President, and why certain ones are attacking the others.  It would explain why certain candidates suddenly appear on the same side as "establishment Republicans."

What WERE they promised?

The pieces of those pies of corruption are sliced wide and long, and we might be holding the wrong end of the rope.  If this is the case, the ones left hanging from the tree of injustice, might be you and me.

A whole lot is at stake here, and there's too much running on Hillary as the next President.  She might have ensured, by involving a substantial segment of the sociopath population in Washington in her wheeling and dealing, and particularly those that "count," and therefore guaranteed that she gets off with a slap on the wrist, if that, in exchange for then assuming the Presidency.


If you have been contemplating sitting out this election, you might reconsider.  And you might take the plunge and get involved in more than just voting.

What do YOU think?



ICYMI:  Read Previous story for Background Info...

"Friend" Me HERE:  Adan Vance (Advance of Freedom / Vanguard of Freedom)

Have you had enough?  Are you fed-up?  Click HERE

HEADLINERS













Tuesday, January 5, 2016

The Myth of Obama's Executive Orders and the So Called "Bypass of Congress"



The Government Criminal Organizations (GCO), in this case, the Washington version, including the White House, the Congress, and the Courts, act in collusion and in conjunction, and coordinate their actions.

Any individual exceptions are few and very rare, and even then, if they are one of the "radicals" they take full advantage of waging an aggressive offense, knowing full well their measures, legislation, projects, programs will never see the light of day, much less have any chance of actually becoming a law that will then be enforced; similarly with the pretense of Constitutional protections.  So they can rant and rave and "filibuster," and have no effect, get lots of publicity, and yet do nothing, and yet because of the show, they are not held accountable.

Today the national ruse, the joke of the union, is that Obama is somehow BYPASSING Congress by issuing Executive Orders to, ostensibly, enact rules to limit gun sales and gun ownership.  The clown makes a sham of the Office of the Presidency by shedding tears for his cause, but the continuing farce, the lunacy, is the narrative that he is somehow BYPASSING Congress in issuing his executive orders.

Of course there are "guffaws" and "ahems" and choking noises from Rino's and Conservatives alike, apparently outraged at Obama's actions.

But please ask. Please look:  How can Congress be BYPASSED, when they are totally and completely in the tank for Obama?  Congress has just passed an Omnibus Bill funding anything and everything Obama wanted, "in order to not appear like they were shutting down the government."

Well, this just gets them totally off the hook, doesn't it?

Can you just hear the deals behind closed doors?  Obama says:  "Hey you fund everything I want, and I'll give you outrageous executive orders to get you off the hook."  Can you just hear one of them, possibly John Boehner, pleading with Obama, "Hey, I really get off on crocodile tears.  Could you cry for the cameras?  That would Soooooo humanize you."  And of course, can't you just hear Obama saying, "Hey, I'll put on a dress and dance on the podium if you want, but if all you want is tears, you got 'em!"

Obama cries, and "bypasses" with executive orders, and Congress expresses fake outrage, and upset, and guess what?  YOU, (WE) are cooked. Soaked.  Bilked. Shafted.

So GOOD MORNING fellow citizens.

At this point we have NO government: there is only a criminal racket occupying  Washington and that criminal enterprise controls a mega-ton of state, county, and municipal governments.

Would that we at least had Articles of Confederation, at least something that would address our basic needs as "the governed" as laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution.  We have not even that.

Instead  we have  a criminal racket that couldn't solve its way out of their own toilet if they had to. Look at the product; look at the result. It's supposed to be a "government BY THE PEOPLE ... for the people.

What are "they" actually producing? What results from their "efforts?"

The lined pockets of criminal thugs dressed in suits, sitting in plush offices paid for by the plunder of those they are supposed to serve; severe deterioration of the social fabric; bribes from foreign governments and special interests; legislation of favored status for themselves and their "benefactors" and co-conspirators.

How do we solve this?

We refuse the pretense.  WE BYPASS the facade.  We  Build a culture, a representative government from the ground up: On our block; in our neighborhood; in our town; in our district;  WE have to be willing to confront, handle and control the "government mafia" and create our own self interest right on our own sidewalk.

We start here and expand outward. We take our immediate  territory, not with tyranny, but with sanity and determination, and THEN we hold it, and then we expand from there:  One block at a time; One ranch at a time;  one neighborhood at a time; one street; one village; and once we have enough reclaimed areas that we control, THEN we create a NETWORK, and thus we build the civilization.

Do not be fooled.  There is no "civilization"  "out there."   There is something that appears to be a society,   but that is merely a chaotic entity covered with social veneer, and a very thin one at that.  Mostly there is a network of dysfunctional confusions pretending to be actual organizations, and yet, there are those who compete to control those confusions.

All that bogus, pretended society must be BYPASSED and a FOUNDATION, however basic, however small, however necessary, must be built one brick at a time to create a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure our individual and social tranquility, provide for our common defense, and secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

There will always be criminals and scoundrels, but they need not be a part of our culture nor do we need to be part of theirs.


Tuesday, December 8, 2015

WHAT IF?



The following is a "What If?" example to make a point about the President's pitch for gun control in the wake of the San Bernardino Terrorist attack:

Let's suppose there was a well-guarded  base in Afghanistan, which security, a handful of terrorists managed to breach, and before being caught and/or killed, managed to kill a dozen soldiers within the base.  The base Commander, knowing full well the intentions of the enemy terrorists, and communicating that to the troops within the base, then announces that he wants anyone in possession of any kind of weapon to turn in that/those weapons, and he wants base police to prevent the troops from obtaining any additional weapons.  The Commander does this as the enemy sends out a public announcement to the base, stating that they are going to launch further attacks upon the base.

The rationale the Commander advances as a justification for "gun control" is that the terrorists will not be able to shoot or kill anyone if there are no guns to be obtained from those that possess the guns on the base.

What do you think the troops within that base will perceive the state of mind of their Commander is?  On whose side do you think the troops will believe their Commander is on?

What that hypothetical Commander should do is to make sure that every one of his soldiers in that base is fully armed, and is fully trained in using the arms that they possess.  Further that Commander should ensure that any of his troops that do not have a weapon,  immediately obtain a weapon, and that they receive the best training in the use of those weapons as soon as they receive them.  The Commander should then order defensive and offensive drills, and then launch attacks on the terrorists BEFORE they are able to attack his base again, and he should annihilate the terrorists and any danger of attack by any other enemy entities, in order to ensure the security and safety of the base.

Now, apply this "hypothetical" to the San Bernardino terrorist attack and the actions of the President in its aftermath.

I should point out that we are into the second week, since our homeland was attacked.  It was an act of WAR against our country.  DAYS after the mass murder it was already too late.  Hell should have been unleashed immediately upon the headquarters of the cowards in Syria and Iraq that congratulated the terrorists for their actions in San Bernardino.  Their headquarters in Raqqah should have already been wiped out, and a systematic annihilation of anything left of that regime should have by now been systematically underway.

Instead  those that were thrust into cowardice and hand-wringing by the attack, including those in the media, are targeting our own people in this country, are advocating for the surrender of our arms, demonizing those who dare to speak against the enemy, rabidly criticizing anyone who wants to take aggressive measures to protect our borders and our national entry points, and in the case of our "Attorney General," she has threatened to violate our first amendment rights, outright stating that we now have no freedom of speech, unless she deems it so, and that we cannot write or say anything against anyone of a particular religion, and that if anyone does, they will be prosecuted for "hate speech."

Pardon me, but where exactly would the Attorney General incarcerate thousands upon thousands of Black Muslims, who rant and rave with "hate speech" against "White Devils?"  Would she immediately arrest Louis Farrakhan and his followers?  Or was she favoring one religion over another, "just because" she is the Attorney General.

To sum this up: The President should have launched an all out attack against our terrorist enemies.  He should have issued an executive order for the applicable agencies to issue weapons  immediately to any Americans who are able to use them, and made training available to them.  The applicable agencies should then be organizing community security events to teach people what to look for to detect terrorism and terrorist attacks.

In other words, he should be taking any and all actions necessary to make safe our nation and its borders.

Instead, what do we have?