Let’s say that during a previous administration, this nation had a Vice President who is such a nebbish that he personifies what former Vice President John Nance Garner meant when he called the office a “warm bucket of spit.”
And, let’s say that when he was a sitting Vice President he took his son, a drug addict who was kicked out of the Navy, on Air Force Two to China and a Chinese bank “invested” a BILLION and a HALF dollars in his son’s “private equity” firm.
And, let’s say that the same son was given a board seat in a foreign oil firm, for which he was paid $50,000 a month in spite of the fact that the only fracking he had any experience in involved needles and opioid injections.
And then, let’s say that the currently sitting President asked a favor of the leader of the nation which domiciled the company which hired the young drug addict.
Should this President be impeached?
Well, since all of the above happens to be true, apparently only if you’re a Democrat who is fixated on overthrowing a duly elected President who you hate.
It follows, then, that Nancy Pelosi and her buddies, apparently have read a little history of Nazi Germany (or, in the case of Adam Schiff have had it read to them) and think that Joseph Goebbels’ and Adolph Hitler’s Big Lie Theory will still work right here in the USofA.
Goebbels theorized that, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
That was based on a line from Hitler’s Mein Kampf , “The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”
But back in those days, the population of Germany was only around 69-million and the state controlled all the media, which consisted of a few newspapers and a few radio stations. And those were not people accustomed to having any freedom.
Can the Big Lie Theory work in 2019 in the United States?
Well, the left sure thinks it can.
Here’s what the left does not understand:
This could be ugly.
But the big question is how hard will anybody fight for Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff?
My neighbors mostly say it won’t even be a fight. That the Democrats will fold like the cheap suits they are.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill
Quite often, you will find with live feeds on social media memes or posts of Americans declaring their professed love for their freedoms by honoring the fallen soldiers (Or Christ) with their lips (Matthew 15:8).
You will also notice other posts on the same feeds magnifying the crimes of the corrupt that they tolerate both in the Church and in government (Jeremiah 17:19). These are crimes that the soldiers in the natural and Christ in the spiritual have fought against by magnifying the law that exposes sin and these tyrants (Isaiah 42:21; Psalm 40:8; John 3:16; Hebrews 8:10; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:2).
Additionally, when looking further into the person’s profile page, you will find more often than not, that to which their hearts are really attached (Matthew 6:21) and what it is that they really love the most. You will find their page filled up and down with their favorite sports teams, etc.
One guy's profile will help serve the point: On one half of his meme is a picture of wounded soldiers where it states that “These guys get paid less than $35,000 a year and risk their lives." On the other side, it states, “So these guys (kneeling football players) can get paid $11 million a year and protest our national anthem…because they feel oppressed.”
So what I did, in turn, was post a meme of a filled stadium of football fans, the headstones of our fallen at Arlington cemetery and the front of a state capital with no one to be found in protest.
Hold that thought.
So, one must ask the question, how much do you Americans truly love their blood bought freedoms (Revelation 1:5)? Are Americans out protesting corruption within the American Church for which Christ died (1 Timothy 4:1, 5:20)?
In the natural (1 Corinthians 2:14), are these those who love their blood-bought freedoms protesting corruption in their government? Hardly, which only shows a lack of love (1 John 3:18).
Last week, my family and I were out on the road again “seeking and saving that which is lost” (Luke 19:10) in the beautiful state of Pennsylvania.
While going through the state, we stopped by a local restaurant and sat down to get some lunch. As you know, restaurants today are filling up wall space with television sets to keep patrons in their booths as long as possible while entertaining guests in hopes that they will continue to spend more on eating and drinking at their establishments, all the while ignoring one's family (1 John 2:15).
One of my children said to me, “Dad, look at all those people in that stadium (average seating per stadium 69,444 seats x 32 teams) watching a football game (Jeremiah 11:13).”
This is every Sunday, all across the country.
I said back to him, “It merely shows you where their hearts are (Exodus 20:4).” To prove the point I must ask why do we have babies being illegally murdered in the womb (Proverbs 6:17)?
Why do we have sodomites illegally targeting America’s children through forced, sexually immoral indoctrination in public schools (Luke 17:2)?
Why do we have transgender felons targeting pre-kindergarten children in American libraries (Deuteronomy 22:15)?
Why do we have foreigners being allured by representatives and Churches into America who mean to conquer us (Deuteronomy 28:43)?
Why do we tolerate a government that runs counter to its purpose while they attempt to strip us of the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment)?
Why do we have a government that is attacking our freedom of speech (1st Amendment)?
Why do we have Churches filled with hirelings who refuse to preach out against and stand in protest concerning the issues above? After all, Churches are to be the barracks in which the soldiers are raised up (Ephesians 6:12).
Yet, we see today that they have become mere buildings where congregants are taught to stand down against the evils of the day which they are commanded to preach out against (Deuteronomy 4:6; Matthew 16:15-20).
These pastors are fearful cowards, who are not appointed nor ordained by the Living God (Revelation 21:8) and their congregants are taught to follow in close pursuit.
“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” -2 Timothy 1:7
I say that it is a good thing our forefathers in the faith (Hebrews 11) didn’t think and act in such a deceived and impotent fashion (James 2:14-26).
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -Accredited to President Abraham Lincoln
Apparently, according to the new translation of the heresies of change (Proverbs 24:21) and that among the American hirelings (John 10:12), who are the greatest advocates of the crimes above, the crosses that adorn their buildings have no relevance in today’s society (Philippians 3:18).
According to George Barna, the reasons that the Church in America refuses to address the issues above to their congregants is because they are afraid it would affect attendance and offerings (Proverbs 29:25).
Why do Americans, of which 86% profess to be Christians (1 John 2:4), say that they love their country, but go no further than to tolerate, by their inaction and idolatry, corrupt politicians, lawlessness, the indoctrination of their own children and more.
Americans are dishonoring and trampling under foot that which our veterans and the Christ died (Hebrews 10:28-30) fighting against (1 John 3:8) and are allowing tyranny to flourish in their own country through their complacency. Is this how you honor the fallen-sacrifice? Absolutely not! Is this love? Absolutely not! But one thing that we know for sure, this is where the people's hearts are which explains the state of America today.
“When government takes away it’s citizens right to bear arms it becomes the citizens duty to take away the government's right to govern." -Accredited to President George Washington
It is interesting how this is playing out in front of the people in this country when it comes to more illegal encroachments or infringements on law-abiding gun owners. Remember, they accuse the law-abiders of the crimes of the law-breakers (1 John 3:12).
Here is how it is played out: On one side of the divide and conquer aisle (Mark 3:25) we have Donald Trump, sold to you as the Republican, who calls for illegal “red flag laws,” which are not law. In the end, they will be aimed at their political opposition.
On the other hand, we have those who are sold to you as the Democrats, who are calling for the removal of AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons.
Which do you prefer? Do you prefer small infringements through Donald Trump, or complete disarmament by Democrats? Either way, you are being disarmed and tyranny wins out.
I would advise everyone to take heed to President George Washington, who is responsible for arming the citizenry that we are to “guard ourselves against the impostures of pretended patriotism” (Matthew 24:5-8; 2 Corinthians 11:14).
If you are paying attention, this is not only leading through “created” opposition, but it's also happening through what is called the Hegelian dialectic (John 8:44).
The Hegelian dialectic is defined as "a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to synthetic solutions (of a proposition- having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience) which can only be introduced once those being manipulated take a side that will produce the predetermined agenda (Outcome)."
Recently, the mainstream media’s push of un-constitutional debates and their Communist candidates included Beto O’Rourke and his gun confiscation plan.
'No, it’s not voluntary 'It is mandatory,'" O'Rourke said of his proposal. "It will be the law. You will be required to comply with the law." He then went on to say:
"We expect people to comply with the law."
The problem that Mr. O’Rourke is having here is that it is not law nor will it ever be law regardless of what he or any other Communist candidate wants you to believe.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Americans, where have these anti-gunners received delegated authority to advance their agenda? They did not receive it from “We the People.”
Have Americans really become this dumbed down as to believe that representatives change laws that counter our rights? Our rights didn’t come from the state's generosity. They came from the hand of God, period!
“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” -President John F. Kennedy
Representatives of government in this country have, in fact, sworn to uphold the laws found in the US Constitution, not to tear it down and recreate it into the ungodly image of the United Nations.
Friends, look to history. George Mason warned us that those who mean to disarm, mean to enslave. They mean to be your masters while you become their slaves, and the best way to enslave people is to disarm them (Hosea 4:6).
Look to the example, which our forefathers exhibited not just in writing, mind you, but also in action. Our forefathers armed the people for the very purpose of what is happening in America today.
Americans must come to terms that corrupt politicians are not the type that you can help or rehabilitate. They are the type that you must lawfully remove, or you will lose your God-given right! (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – President Thomas Jefferson
You must fight for your God-given rights! (Deuteronomy 1:8; James 2:14-26)
It is the difference between a free people and an enslaved people. There is no in-between (Luke 11:2).
Firearms are second to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.
Therefore, Americans, it is time to grin (Romans 12:21) in the face of tyranny.
To dislike a person because of the color of his skin is racism. To scorn someone because of her same-sex preference is homophobia. To disdain for reasons of gender is sexism. To frown upon people because of their foreign origins is xenophobia. Such manifestations of bigotry, to a person of peace, tolerance, and logic, are shameful and indefensible.
Color, sex, sexual orientation, and national origin have nothing to do with the content of one’s character. That’s one reason.
Another is that humans are not a blob; each human is a unique individual. If one is to be judged, he should be judged by his choices and behavior—that is, by his own sins and virtues and not by the sins and virtues of others who simply share some accidental resemblance to him.
A third reason is that finger-pointing takes the spotlight off self-improvement. Scapegoating is not a pathway to achievement for either persons or nations. It’s what losers do.
A Politically Acceptable Scapegoat
But suppose you despise and seek to punish an entire class of people because they’re rich or successful. Is that bigotry, or is that the foundation of a political campaign? Sadly, it’s both. Frequently.
Second only to Donald Trump—a specific individual whose sins and virtues we can largely identify and hold him responsible for—the number one punching bag every political season is “the rich.” They are monotonously demonized by candidates who vie for your vote and affection and count on your ignorance and myopia.
It would be both unpopular and stupid to express a dislike for “the poor” as an income group. We all know that among the poor there are both good and bad people. Some are poor through little fault of their own and possess strong personal character. Others are poor because of bad choices and lousy behavior rooted in rotten character. We surely want to determine the difference and render our judgments and reactions accordingly.
Listen to presidential “debates” carefully, and you’ll easily see a very different perspective with regard to the rich. Income bigotry is on full and proud display. Candidates don’t define “the rich” precisely, but they do hope that you’ll think you’re not among them. You’re supposed to be the victim of the rich so the politician can be your savior. The demagogue doesn’t say he wants to sift the good rich from the bad rich and treat them accordingly. He wants to go after them all, just for their richness.
You can be rich because you stole something or used your political connections to get special favors, or you could be rich like most of the rich, that is, because you created and built something; worked long, hard, and smart for what you have; added enormous value to society; invested resources wisely; or just entertained 50,000 happy, paying customers many times at concerts. Doesn’t matter which.
When New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declares with fire in his eyes that he will “tax the hell out of the rich,” he means all of them. His competitors, as well as large swaths of their audiences, cheer because of the perverse satisfaction they derive from just thinking about the punishment. Suggest that “taxing the hell” out of anybody might be counter-productive to philanthropy, job creation, or economic growth, and you’ll quickly be the skunk at the garden party because it’s the punishment that matters, not outcomes.
Envy Is the Root
Welcome to the ugly world of envy, defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant as
“…a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [It] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying other’s good fortune.”
Envy is almost as old as the world itself. It was Cain’s motive for killing Abel. Professor Paul Fairfield of Queen’s University in Ontario describes it as an animosity “that eats away at you from the inside out and that hides itself behind a dubious morality.” It comes in several shades.
The less harmful version, for example, is when you count the other guy’s blessings instead of your own but try to attain them for yourself peacefully—by trade or by emulating the decisions of the successful. A more malicious type takes this form: You despise someone for who he is or what he has and take personal delight in punishing him for it in the hope that you’ll benefit in one way or another. Maybe you’ll get some of his stuff or attain power by vilifying him.
The worst kind of envy shows up when you take action to make sure no one can ever possess what the successful person has because you believe equality in misery is more virtuous than inequality, period.
Perhaps the 20th century’s best book on the subject was the Austrian-German sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, which appeared in the late ‘60s. Schoeck noted that “to claim ‘humanitarian motives’ when the motive is envy and its supposed appeasement, is a favorite rhetorical device of politicians.”
It’s a tactic that politicians have been using for ages—profoundly evidenced at least as far back as the sad, final decades of the old Roman Republic. I know of no moment in history in which the encouragement or practice of widespread envy produced anything but a bad outcome.
For good reasons, it’s counted as one of the seven deadly sins. It builds nothing up but concentrated state power; it tears everything down from the object of the envy (e.g., the rich) to the very souls of the envious themselves.
Envy Rots the Bones
You don’t have to take my word for it. Several thousand years ago, the tenth of the Ten Commandments warned of envy’s close relative, “coveting.” Many Biblical passages from both Old and New Testaments caution against it, including Proverbs 14:30 (“A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones”) and Ecclesiastes 30:24 (“Envy and wrath shorten the life”).
What follows is a representative sampling of historical wisdom on the matter from across the centuries since.
The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Democritus noted that a free and peaceful society would actively seek to discourage envy.
The laws would not prevent each man from living according to his inclination, unless individuals harmed each other; for envy creates the beginning of strife.
Seneca the Younger was a prominent Roman Stoic thinker and statesman of the 1st century AD. He was well aware that envy played a key role in the demise of the Republic in the previous century:
It is the practice of the multitude to bark at eminent men, as little dogs do at strangers.
Envy generates an internal struggle in three stages, according to the 13th century’s St. Thomas Aquinas. In the first stage, the envious person attempts to defame another’s reputation; in the second stage, the envious person receives either “joy at another’s misfortune” (if his defamation succeeds) or “grief at another’s prosperity” (if it fails); the final stage sees envy turned into hatred because “sorrow causes hatred.”
Italian poet and author of The Divine Comedy Dante Alighieri saw envy as “a desire to deprive other men of theirs.” In his Purgatory, the envious are punished by having their eyes sewn shut with wire “because they gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought low.”
Leonardo da Vinci, the quintessential Renaissance Man, wrote:
“Envy wounds with false accusations, that is with detraction, a thing which scares virtue.”
In the 17th century, the English essayist Francis Bacon condemned envy as an enervating attitude that leads directly to deplorable actions:
“A man that hath no virtue in himself, ever envieth virtue in others. For men’s minds, will either feed upon their own good, or upon others’ evil; and who wanteth the one, will prey upon the other; and whoso is out of hope, to attain to another’s virtue, will seek to come at even hand, by depressing another’s fortune.”
A hundred years later, the English theologian Robert South echoed Bacon.
“Of covetousness, we may truly say that it makes both the Alpha and Omega in the devil’s alphabet, and that it is the first vice in corrupt nature which moves, and the last which dies.”
At about the same time, the famous playwright Joseph Addison observed that envious people are usually unhappy people.
“The condition of the envious man is the most emphatically miserable; he is not only incapable of rejoicing in another’s merit or success, but lives in a world wherein all mankind are in a plot against [him].”
When the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the early 1830s, he found that one of the country’s strengths was that we were focused on building things and people up instead of tearing either down. Prophetically, he predicted that if envy took root, the result would be suicide.
“I have a passionate love for liberty, law, and respect for rights. Liberty is my foremost passion. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.”
Equality is a slogan based on envy. It signifies in the heart of every republican: “Nobody is going to occupy a place higher than I.”
Theodore Roosevelt regarded himself as a “progressive” of his day (late 19th and early 20th century), but he understood then what most “progressives” today do not: namely, that envy is the root of much evil.
“Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures.”
Philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand was an avowed atheist who would never argue that envy is evil because God says so. But she certainly regarded envy as evil and destructive. She equated it with “hatred of the good,” by which she meant “hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.”
“If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.”
Robert Barron is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and founder of the popular Catholic ministerial organization Word on Fire. In his view:
“Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin: St. Augustine saw envy as “diabolical sin.” [In Augustine’s words,] “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.”
Rooting out Envy
It would be easy to supply the reader with a thousand more quotes on the subject of envy. The difficult thing would be to find one that defends it. The irony is this: Universally condemned, envy is nonetheless widely practiced. Ayn Rand christened our times as an “Age of Envy.”
Search your conscience. If you find envy within it, expunge it before it does its awful work.
Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. His opinions are his own. The article originally appeared on fee.org reprinted with permission.
Let me put it plainly:
Joe Biden is a liar, his son is a bumbling crook and any member of our so-called national security team who somehow has access to a Presidential phone call with the leader of another nation and files a whistleblower complaint should be in prison for the rest of his or her life.
That clear enough for you?
Joe Biden told a reporter that he has not discussed his son’s off shore investments. When was that? On Air Force Two when Sonny Boy hitched a ride? Bullcrap.
I don’t care what Andrew Napolitano said on Fox. The Judge is losing his fastball just like Biden. What’s happening here is that the Mueller investigation turned out to be a nothingburger as opposed to the smoking gun Democrat like Adam Schiffhead were assuming it would be.
And later, the news is that in this case the so-called whistleblower may not even have sat in on the call but heard about it second hand.
Did any of that end it?
This President had the discourtesy to beat Saint Hillary in 2016 and the swampmonsters are not going to stop trying to eject him from Washington like a heart transplant which won’t take.
The problem they are having is that the American public has wised up to these clowns and no longer accepts the CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC version of things.
Democrats want to impeach the President? Please. Stop hinting. Do it. American voters will make the final decision on the first Tuesday after the first Sunday in November of 2020 because—pure and simple—anything the House does do is merely mental masturbation. They, quite simply, don’t have enough votes or support to do anything else.
Never Trumper Bill Weld (Mitt Romney lite) wants Trump executed for treason? Honest. Saw his rant on TV.
When pink pigs fly from his butt.
Meanwhile, we’ve seen the tape of Joe Biden bragging in 2018 about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Sonny Boy’s company fired or he was going to withhold a BILLION DOLLARS in United States foreign aid,
Talk about your quid pro quo.
And, by the way, this is what some woman at the Wall Street Journal named Rebecca Ballhaus called “widely discredited” in her story about this set of facts. The Wall Street Journal! For comparison purposes, I happen to be the CEO of the USA Radio Networks in real life and if any of my news anchors used that phrase, they would be fired before their next newscast. This bundle of genius is a 28 year old millennial who has already won a Pulitzer prize. Not exactly Brit Hume.
The fact is that these people are unhinged. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids.
Forget the opioid crisis. This is a crisis of stupidity involving people who are so busy throwing a tantrum they have no idea how entirely moronic they look.
Worse, it’s as big an indication that there IS a deep state which needs to be excised.
And the only way to solve the issue may well be arrests—a lot of them—and jail terms.
They could load up a whole wing of a Federal Prison with these people—starting with the first batch, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the FBI lovers, Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.
“Baby shots” used to be a boring subject, and taken for granted. As the number of vaccines grew from seven in the 1980s to 16 requiring 70 doses now, most parents obediently brought their children to the doctor when shots were “due.” The compliance rate was more than 90 percent. Parents who objected for one reason or another just got an exemption from school-attendance mandates and kept quiet. Every state had a medical exemption, most had a religious exemption, and many had easily obtained philosophical or personal-belief exemptions.
Now that states are repealing exemptions, parents are descending on state capitals en masse, many with severely injured children in tow. Thousands rallied outside an Albany courthouse as a lawsuit challenging an end to religious exemptions was heard.
Despite vociferous objections and attempts to disrupt hearings, the California legislature passed a law (SB 276) severely limiting medical exemptions, the only kind available. “Rogue doctors” were allegedly selling exemptions.
The bill’s author, Sen. Richard Pan, M.D., said that everybody who really needed an exemption would get one. However, 882 out of 882 pediatric practices told a mother that they would not write an exemption for a child who had had anaphylactic shock. This life-threatening allergic reaction, which kills rapidly by closing off the airway, is one of the few allowable indications for an exemption. But now, a parent not willing to risk recurrence cannot send her child to school.
Doctors are no doubt afraid of being targeted by the medical licensure board. SB 276 mandates scrutiny of doctors who have issued more than five exemptions, including exemptions made before the bill takes effect.
Parents are besieging legislators with reports of children who died or experienced devastating illnesses or disability after getting their shots. Interchanges on Twitter are passionate. One juxtaposed a sign saying “Vaccinate your f****** children” with a photograph of a gravestone and the message “We did.”
Whatever happened to hundreds of once-healthy children—it’s impossible to prove that the shot did it—the public-health dogma is: “Vaccines are safe and effective.” So safe and so effective that vaccines should be the exception to the rule that medical interventions are illegal and unethical without informed consent?
Two articles in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons challenge the orthodoxy that vaccines should be mandated, overriding patients’ liberties in an effort to eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.
How much risk can a person be compelled to take, even to save the life of another? In other contexts, such as exposure to radiation or lead, a risk of 1 in 10,000 or even less is considered unacceptable. Yet a much higher risk from vaccines cannot be ruled out. According to the most current information available, only 1 percent of serious side effects (such as death or permanent disability) are likely reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The 1905 Supreme Court precedent for upholding mandates, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, concerned a raging, deadly smallpox epidemic. Later courts have ignored warnings about the potential abuse of state police power, and permitted mandates to prevent possible future epidemics of much milder diseases. Now, a measles outbreak of some 1,200 cases—thankfully no deaths so far—has triggered the demand for stricter laws, suppression of “anti-vaxxer” information, and harsh measures including $1,000 fines for refusing vaccination in Brooklyn.
Even if at least a few of the tragedies are caused by a vaccine, isn’t it worth it to wipe out dread diseases?
In the 20th century, mankind seemed to be winning the war on microbes. Smallpox was eradicated, and antibiotics were vanquishing infectious diseases. The growing threat of microbial resistance has caused senior public health officials in the UK and the U.S. to be concerned about the “post-antibiotic apocalypse” and the “end of modern medicine."
Parental outrage might cause reexamination of vaccine orthodoxy. It also raises the question of where to draw the line against encroachment of our freedom.
The gospel according to Robert Francis O’Rourke:
“Hell yes. We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”
What a schmuck. In fairness to our favorite fake Mexican, however, at least he’s honest about it. Slicker politicos would never admit it.
They would not admit it because my neighbors and I would turn our AR-15s on them. That’s why the Second Amendment to the Constitution exists in the first place—so an oppressive government cannot ruin our country.
The left HATES guns. It has a firm belief that anybody who owns a gun must be a terrorist. Or the police. Or their private security guards.
They think that guns kill people. Cars, Ryder trucks, diesel fuel, fertilizer? Not so much.
Back when Chuck Schumer was just a Congressman (and the space between he and a TV camera was STILL the most dangerous place to be in Washington) he made a critical mistake with a witness in a hearing on gun control. Suzanna Hupp was testifying because she was with her parents at the Killeen, Texas, Lubys’ Cafeteria in 1991, when a shooter killed both of her parents. She had consciously left her weapon in her car.
When she testified in front of Chuckie’s committee, she was asked what sporting purpose a particular weapon had. Her answer:
“I know I’m not making myself popular here. But the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It’s about our right—all of our rights—to protect ourselves from all of you sitting up there.”
Twenty-Eight years after the shooting, her popularity should be at an all time high—at least among sane people.
The simple fact is that no law, no rule, no regulation passed by some overstuffed, egotistic politician masquerading as a Congressman or a Senator—or worse, some nameless, faceless bureaucrat—will stop some nutcase from waking up one morning, taking anything which can be used as a weapon and using it to kill people.
No background check will save a life.
No weapon ban will stop a shooting.
No confiscation will stop the use of anything to kill someone.
We probably could work around the edges, but the left has some shibboleths which prevent anything like that from happening.
One of those shibboleths is that guns kill people. It was never true and will never be true.
If you put a gun in plain sight and surround it with people, it simply will never stand up by itself and kill someone. That takes a person who, for whatever the reason, picks the gun up, aims it and bulls the trigger.
But the left wants to blame a marvel of engineering as opposed to the moron who picks the gun up and kills someone.
Another shibboleth of the left is that law abiding people cannot be trusted to possess guns. That somehow, owning a gun will turn a perfectly normal person into a bloodthirsty criminal.
Do they have empirical evidence?
In fact, most evidence points the other way. Whatever else you can say about criminals and even crazy people, they tend not to shoot up places where they might get shot first.
How many mass shootings (as the left is wont to call them) happen in cop bars, as an example?
Now, we’re never going to convince most of the lefty nutcases with words. Which is why James Madison made sure we have the law on our side. And now we have a Supreme Court which has said that gun ownership as a matter of self-defense is a right granted by God and not government.
The crazier the left gets, the more it plays into our hands.
You want to confiscate guns from law abiding people? Come and take them. Speaking for little guys everywhere, see what happens.
“Every country has the government it deserves.” –Joseph De Maistre
As I have long observed, the collusion between corrupt media and corrupt government in this country has continued to set the narrative for far too long. It is a history lesson that needs to be learned in the present.
Adolph Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said:
“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”
He goes on, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Is this what we see today in America? Absolutely, it is!
History teaches us that these dictatorships have continually advocated for unlawful change, out with the old and in with the new (Proverbs 24:21), by creating domestic warfare, and all this with the help of the media’s propagandists (John 8:44).
Remember the brown shirts under Adolph Hitler who were responsible for creating the domestic issues only to then have Hitler play the problem solver, and soon after to be praised by his followers for solving the very issues that he was, in fact, responsible for creating.
Remember what SS officer Josef “The Angel of Death” Mengele said: "The more we do to you, the less that you believe that we are doing it to you.”
To help make clear and simple these next points (Psalm 119:130), remember that the disciples of the devil and son of Belial Saul Alinsky conjured this up in his reprobate mind to deceive the enemies of righteousness by telling them:
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
So, with this now in scope, let me explain.
Just this week, while at the Minnesota State Fair, which is the fourteenth year we have had the opportunity of having our ministry booth there (Luke 19:10), we had the opportunity of seeing much of this being played out right in front of our eyes.
We noticed that the propagandists from Minneapolis Star and Tribune reported that there was a big Black Lives Matter protest going on. Little did they know that I was there the day that they reported this big protest. It's funny because I did not see or hear a peep of disturbance from this group that day. (Editor’s note: To be fair, multiple sources report that the protesters were at the front gate and were not allowed into the fair. That’s probably why Bradlee did not see them.)
Do you remember what William Randolph Hearst had said?
“You furnish the pictures and ill furnish the war.”
This is exactly what the media’s “useful idiots” were doing that day.
Speaking of Black Lives Matter, they had a pretty good size booth at the state fair, which was downsized again this year. Yet, the problem with this was that there were thousands upon thousands of people (270,000 a day) walking by, and I did not see one person stop in support of them whatsoever, not one!
Who helps promote the life and the victim status for Black Lives Matter more than the mainstream lying media? Nobody does!
I also noticed a booth in a hall, which literally thousands of people walk down, that was promoting the "religion of peace," Islam. Outside of the 2 people that were manning their small booth and standing by to share with the people the "compassion, tolerance and love of Islam," not one person stopped by this booth.
Who promotes Islam as the religion of peace more than the mainstream media? Nobody.
I was wondering with all of the support that the media was giving to the sodomite (Leviticus 18:22) lobby, which is a felony in every state of our union, surely there must be a booth in support of them? There was no booth because the only ones giving life to the lies that they promote are those who are trying to rule over you. In other words, the people are not supporting this. The mainstream media is attempting to deceive the masses with the lie that the people are in support of the homosexual lobby when they are not.
Yet, what adds strength to all of these subversive organizations is the people’s tolerance of their crimes.
With all of the support for Planned Parenthood, or so the media would have you believe, I ask, where was their booth at the Minnesota State Fair? There isn’t one because the people in this country are not in support of it and yet over 3-4000 innocent babies are killed in the womb every single day (Proverb 6:17).
I couldn’t find an anti-Second Amendment booth, a pro-illegal immigrant booth, a pro-Communist booth, etc. and yet, the people fall for the media’s propaganda in allowing their subversive actions towards our Republic.
The irony of this whole thing is that right next to our booth this year was a media propaganda outlet called The Pioneer Press, which was attempting to hand out FREE papers, yes I said FREE papers, that the people were refusing to take. Friends, they could not even give the papers away for FREE.
Taking it a final step forward Malcolm X stated:
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
I will tell you by first-hand experience how true this is, how many times I have been polarized and scrutinized and lied about by the mainstream media for simply telling the truth that exposes them for that which they are responsible (Matthew 5:10; Ephesians 5:13).
Knowing all of this, I have to ask, of what are the American people afraid (Proverbs 28:1)? It is all based on lies, promulgated by liars that need justice rendered to them (Isaiah 5:20).
How many organizations in this country exist because of these lies and yet, survive because the people do not take the time to pull the mask off these subversives?
A war within is drawing nigh unto our front doors (Amos 6:3) if we refuse to deal with them.
“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” -Psalm 9:17
Who is pushing for war which brings about change more than the corrupt media and the corrupt politicians? No one.
"Republicans never blow an opportunity to blow an opportunity." — Chuck Muth
Last weekend was the big GOP Nevada Central Committee Hoedown in Winnemucca.
I can report that my fellow columnist and friend Chuck Muth (who wasn’t there) is absolutely correct—at least insofar as Nevada is concerned—that Republicans “never blow an opportunity to blow an opportunity.”
The first negative out of the meeting was the re-election of State Chair Michael McDonald.
Forget anything else negative we’ve ever written about Mikey. Only one thing is relevant and it is this:
If Bill Parcels or Bill Belichick had McDonald’s won-loss record, they’d be coaching in Canada if at all.
In the last election, his leadership managed to ring up losses in every statewide election except one. And all of those losses came because of Clark County which is where Mikey is from.
That, however, isn’t nearly as irritating as a rules change which, summed up, instructed what passes for leadership in the party NOT to release contact information for central committee members both at the county and state level.
And you should have heard these phony guardians of democracy explain their position.
One lady—we’ll not use her name to protect the guilty—had the nerve to say that she did NOT represent Republicans and she didn’t want to talk to JUST anybody.
What does this woman think a county central committee is supposed to do?
And the really strange part is that this woman comes from a county where you could almost count the residents on your abacus. If she couldn’t handle being open to contact from her county, how in the hell could she presume to make informed decisions about the future of the state?
The problem with these so-called Republicans is that they are like mall cops. They want authority but they don’t want to give you a meaningless badge number. Anybody on any quasi-public committee who doesn’t want to give out their contact information should immediately be fired. Especially when you consider the party’s official position on openness and transparency. From the 2016 platform: Based on these principles, this platform is an invitation and a roadmap. It invites every American to join us and shows the path to a stronger, safer, and more prosperous America.
And the platform goes further: The President and the Democratic party have abandoned their promise of being accountable to the American people.
What part of accountable don’t these folks understand?
I see a bunch of go along to get along sycophants totally unworthy of any party position—especially the Republican Party.
Frankly, to all those who do not want their contact information made public…quit the party and join a book club—assuming you can read.
And these are the people who strongly back a President—as they should—who gave millions of documents to Robert Mueller so Mueller could conduct a witch hunt which turned up NOTHING.
Did these people do anything correctly?
Yes. They dispensed with a very expensive caucus designed so that clowns like Bill Weld, Mark Sanford and Joe Walsh could get their 15 seconds of fame. And this guy is the fake Joe Walsh. The real Joe Walsh is older, wiser, sings and plays the guitar much better.
And probably actually does have an accountant who pays for it all.
Ask yourself if you were President, what would you do if you discovered that a foreign country has been waging an underground war against the nation you are sworn to protect surreptitiously killing tens of thousands of your people every year by pouring a drug so deadly that merely accidentally touching a small amount could kill you?
What would you do if you discovered that the same country had been engaging in economic warfare against your country designed to emasculate critical industries, gain control of the mining of critical rare earth minerals used in military manufacturing and manipulating your currency on the world market to ensure that key domestic manufactured goods could not compete on the international market?
And what would you do if you were to discover that this same country was stealing the intellectual property created in your country through forced technology transfers, industrial and government spying and outright theft of individual and company’s patent protections, with this stolen creativity fueling their dynamic economic growth?
If your answer is nothing, then you are at some level describing how the United States government had been responding to China since at least the late 1980s. Some, like the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations attempted to deal with currency manipulation, when the Treasury pegged it as a manipulator between 1992 and 1994, and later the U.S. administrations would also try to stop technology transfers to China, but ultimately their attempts failed because they weren’t willing to create a meaningful cost to the Chinese government.
The resulting opiate and economic hollowing out crisis is what led to Middle America to embrace a Donald Trump presidency. America lost faith that traditional leaders would fight for their interests and Trump promised them that he would put America (them) first when dealing with Washington, D.C. and the rest of the world.
So when President Donald Trump took the oath of office to the Presidency of the United States and pledged with his hand on the Bible he pledged, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” much of America took heart because for the first time in a long time, they believed that he meant it.
Not being a politician who was steeped in the mythology that somehow China was going to forego thousands of years of history and suddenly transform into a western, capitalist republic similar to Japan’s forced Post World War II conversion, President Trump looked at China through a different lens.
President Trump went to Beijing and was quoted as bluntly stating to Chinese President Xi, “I don’t blame China. After all, who can blame a country for being able to take advantage of another country to the benefit of its citizens? But in actuality, I do blame past [U.S.] administrations for allowing this out-of-control trade deficit to take place and to grow. We have to fix this because it just doesn’t work for our great American companies and it doesn’t work for our great American workers. It is just not sustainable.”
While many in the media and elsewhere focused upon President Trump’s seemingly giving China a pass for being a bad economic actor, in reality, he was announcing to China and the world, that there was a new sheriff in town and the on-going hollowing out of our nation’s manufacturing sector would no longer be accepted.
Now, almost three years into Trump’s first term, the President has prioritized four items when dealing with China: stopping fentanyl from China; protecting intellectual property rights; stopping Chinese currency manipulation and normalizing tariffs between the two countries.
Incredibly, publications like Bloomberg, which are supposed to be financial in nature, are publishing articles like: U.S. and China got in a trade war and Mexico won demonstrating that they have little understanding of what is at stake either economically or strategically.
First and foremost, those Chinese apologists who believe that someday the communist Chinese government will suddenly reform into good little capitalists and democrats because we are making them incredibly wealthy are dangerously wrong. China has been engaged in an on-going war against the United States for more than twenty years, enabled by open economic borders types who argue that we should ignore that Chinese slaves are making our apparel, plastic junk and yes many of our electronics and their internal components, because the low labor costs drive our prices down.
Importing slave made finished goods is no different than importing cotton for the mills before the Civil War more than 150 years ago, it is astonishing that anyone in modern America would make this argument, yet unwittingly that is exactly what the open economic borders globalists do.
It also cannot be missed that President Trump has engaged his Chinese counterpart more on the fentanyl import issue than any other. Opioid addiction is hollowing out our nation. It knows no economic class or race. Opioids are so addictive that virtually anyone can become controlled by the desire to attain them. And yes, many people die, almost 70,000 a year, from opioids — 30,000 of these directly from fentanyl — which arrived in American bloodstreams straight from China.
Chinese President Xi promised to crack down on the fentanyl trade and his government did recently make it a regulated controlled substance. Xi has promised time and again to stop the fentanyl flow, and yet, just last week, the Mexican Navy interdicted a shipment of 25 tons of fentanyl directly from Shanghai on order from the Sinaloa Cartel which was planning on hotlining it into our nation using their various border crossing routes that some in our nation don’t believe should be shut down.
Unlike an American president, the president of China and his government controls all economic activity including the shipping from China’s ports. The Lazaro Cardenas port where the drugs were seized is Mexico’s largest port and has, off and on, been controlled by the Sinaloa drug cartel. Given the Chinese government’s relatively iron-fisted control, it is more likely than unlikely that they were directly involved in pushing this poison onto the streets with their Sinaloa partners.
A simple understanding of how China lost the first and second Opium Wars to the British in the mid-1800s, is enough to explain why the Xi regime views the destruction of America by attacking the soul of our nation through the same addiction that many believe took China 100 years to recover. And in their wake, they leave millions of broken people and tens of thousands dead each year.
If 30,000 dead Americans each year due to Chinese fentanyl and the burden of supporting human slavery don’t fully make the moral case for changing our fundamental relationship with China, then the theft of intellectual property might. America uses the best research university and government laboratory systems in the world to create the science which will drive the 21st century world. And then China either steals or purchases the ideas flipping them into products that they sell back to the U.S. at ten cents on the dollar. Meanwhile the critical applied sciences manufacturing sector that will determine which country will lead the 21st century ends up in China, as it doesn’t make economic sense to make it in the United States.
It is this last point that head in the sand conservative globalists fundamentally don’t understand. So, here is the point — when a company decides that it makes more sense to make a product in Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, India or Australia to export to the U.S. rather than China, it is a win. China’s manufacturing sector is diminished and more importantly, the U.S. has supply lines for crucial products outside of the Middle Kingdom.
When Bloomberg declares that Mexico is the winner in the trade war, that means that the United States wins on multiple fronts. As stated in the paragraph above, Mexican supply lines are secure, which benefits the U.S. consumer. Also, as China has to compete with other countries to supply goods to the world, suddenly there is real leverage against the Xi government to crack down on fentanyl production and trade, in exchange for more favorable tariff rates.
And it should not be forgotten that it is in the United States’ interest for the Mexican economy to be healthy as a strong Mexican economy is the most natural barrier against illegal entry into the U.S. of all.
Winning the trade war is not only about transferring manufacturing from China to the U.S., it is about ending China’s opium war on the U.S, its role as a virtual sole source provider, and diversifying the markets which serve the United States. On that front, the Chinese are clearly losing and the U.S. is winning (along with other economies like Mexico).
Diversifying trading partners also allows U.S. consumers a choice. If you are upset that Chinese Christians are jailed for simply having a Bible, say no to products made in China. Upset about the forced organ donations those in concentration camps, the Trump trade war is giving you a “not made in China choice.”
While the market is not moral per se, it is made up of hundreds of millions of transactions by people who are. And by providing a “not made in China” option, President Trump is allowing those choices to have a moral component.
Because ultimately, the so-called trade war by President Trump is a moral and economic fight for the future of the world. It is just sad that so many very smart people are so divorced from any sense of morality, that they cannot see it for themselves without having it explained in explicit terms.
Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government and a guest contributor to pennypress.com: the conservative voice of Nevada. His views and opinions are his own. This article was originally published at pennypress.com and has been reprinted with permission.