Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
US intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.
The officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward US spy agencies.
On Wednesday, Mr Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.
In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.
A White House official said: “There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening.”
Intelligence officials have in the past not told a president or members of Congress about the ins and outs of how they ply their trade. At times, they have decided that secrecy is essential for protecting a source, and that all a president needs to know is what that source revealed and what the intelligence community thinks is important about it.
But in these previous cases in which information was withheld, the decision wasn’t motivated by a concern about a president’s trustworthiness or discretion, the current and former officials said.
It wasn’t clear Wednesday how many times officials have held back information from Mr Trump.
The officials emphasised that they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted. Still, the misgivings that have emerged among intelligence officials point to the fissures spreading between the White House and the US spy agencies.
Mr Trump, a Republican, asked on Monday night for the resignation of Mike Flynn, his national security adviser, after the White House said the president lost trust in him, in part, because he misstated the nature of his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Last night, Mr Trump castigated the intelligence agencies and the news media, blaming them for Mr Flynn’s downfall.
“The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by ‘intelligence’ like candy. Very un-American!” Mr Trump tweeted.
Mr Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.
The current and former officials said the decision to avoid revealing sources and methods with Mr Trump stems in large part from the president’s repeated expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his call, during the presidential campaign for Russia to continue hacking the emails of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia stole and leaked emails from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to undermine the election process and try to boost Mr Trump’s chances of winning, an allegation denied by Russian officials.
Several of Mr Trump’s current and former advisers are under investigation for the nature of their ties to Moscow, according to people familiar with the matter. After Mr Flynn’s dismissal, politicians have called on the government to release the transcripts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and to disclose whether Mr Trump was aware of or directed Mr Flynn’s conversations.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he has heard concerns from officials about sharing especially sensitive information with Mr Trump.
“I’ve talked with people in the intelligence community that do have concerns about the White House, about the president, and I think those concerns take a number of forms,” Mr Schiff said, without confirming any specific incidents. “What the intelligence community considers their most sacred obligation is to protect the very best intelligence and to protect the people that are producing it.”
“I’m sure there are people in the community who feel they don’t know where he’s coming from on Russia,” Mr Schiff said.
Tensions between the spy agencies and Mr Trump were pronounced even before he took office, after he publicly accused the Central Intelligence Agency and others of leaking information about alleged Russian hacking operations to undermine the legitimacy of his election win. In a meandering speech in front of a revered CIA memorial the day after his inauguration, Mr Trump boasted about the size of his inaugural crowd and accused the media of inventing a conflict between him and the agencies.
In a news conference today with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr Trump again lashed out at the media and intelligence officials, whom he accused of “criminal” leaks about Mr Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador last December.
Mr Trump didn’t explain Wednesday why he asked for Mr Flynn’s resignation. Instead, he suggested the leaks and the media were to blame for his ouster.
“General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly by the media,” Mr Trump said. “And I think it’s really a sad thing that he was treated so badly.”
“I think in addition to that from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked,” Mr Trump said. “It’s criminal action. It’s a criminal act and it’s been going on for a long time before me but now it’s really going on.”
Reviving his line of criticism against intelligence officials during the transition, Mr Trump said the “illegally leaked” information was from people with political motivations. “People are trying to cover up for a terrible loss that the Democrats had under Hillary Clinton,” Mr Trump said.
A person close to Mr Trump said he was reluctant to let go of Mr Flynn because Mr Flynn had vigorously supported him at a stage of his presidential campaign when few people did. Mr Trump also felt Mr Flynn did nothing wrong in his conversations with the US ambassador to Russia and had good intentions.
“They both continue to support each other,” this person said.
For intelligence veterans, who had hoped that Mr Trump’s feud with the agencies might have subsided, Wednesday’s comments renewed and deepened concerns.
“This is not about who won the election. This is about concerns about institutional integrity,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior intelligence official.
“It’s probably unprecedented to have this difficult a relationship between a president and the intelligence agencies,” Mr Lowenthal said. “I can’t recall ever seeing this level of friction. And it’s just not good for the country.”
Several congressional probes are examining Russia’s alleged meddling in the election. On Wednesday, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a Justice Department briefing and documents related to Mr Flynn’s resignation, including details of his communications with Russian officials.
Carol E Lee and Damian Paletta contributed to this article
And then, yes, as the story indicates, understand that these leftist unionized spooks who literally illegally leaked the phone intercepts of an American citizen are now literally saying that the fact that traitorous leftwing whackjobs leaking classified information is proof that traitorous leftwing whackjobs should be even more traitorous by withholding information from the President of the United States.
When the only reason these turds have jobs in the first damn place is to provide information to the President of the United States.
“We can’t give the President of the United States information because there are leaks. And we won’t mention the fact that we’re the same people who are doing all the leaking as an act of sabotage against our Constitution and our republic and our democratically elected president.
I’ve already written my views about the abject hypocrisy surrounding the attack on Gen. Flynn: he just called the Russian Ambassador to talk about grandkids and golf games the way Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lorretta Lynch did when they had their illegal secret meeting in the midst of a presidential campaign while Hillary Clinton was facing criminal indictment that Democrats thought was no big deal.
I’ve been talking about the evils of what they call “public sector unions” for years now.
Liberal progressives don’t give a damn about the whole people. They have split America apart one racial group at another’s throats, one income level at another’s throats, and privileged union employees at the throats of fed-up taxpayers. Unions have been feeding off taxpayers – who get a fraction of the wages and benefits the privileged union pigs get – for decades. Government employees earn TWICE the wages and benefits of their counterparts in the private sector. But Democrats don’t care: they view the private sector and everyone who works in it as evil cash cows who are to be exploited and impoverished.”
Government workers don’t contribute to the tax rolls; they FEED OFF the tax roles. We pay our taxes so an elite class of bureaucrats can have TWICE the wages and benefits that we get for doing the exact same jobs. And then our tax dollars go to fund the Democrat Party so they can pass an un-American agenda. Big labor money is TEN TIMES anything conservatives have in special interests. And again, the most disgusting thing of all is that it’s our own damn money that is being used to attack the private sector workers who paid it in taxes.
One of the problems with unions is that the quickly become just another vehicle to take advantage of workers. They have three priorities: 1) the top brass of the union; 2) political ideology; 3) the workers who have seniority in the system. They don’t care about creating more jobs. And a lot of the time, unions when threatened will vote in Nazi goose step to hold on to their pay and benefits for the seniority class even though it decimates the bottom half of the union. Even if it means giving up just a few bucks to save hundreds of jobs.
These union thugs are out of control; and they are out of control for the Democratic Party and for leftist causes.
And we can see the power of a bureaucracy when that bureaucracy decides it has and should have more power than the President of the United States elected by the American people.
Every single one of the “spies” playing these Stalinist games against our president are dedicated members of government unions.
FDR pointed out that government unions are fundamentally treasonous because you have workers organizing against what or who? The American people!!! THAT’S who pays them. FDR said:
The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.
And FDR then went on to say:
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
And what do you call this crap if it isn’t “militant tactics”??? This is now TREASON against the United States and against the American people.
What would FDR have done if he had learned as he was facing World War II that Republicans in the intelligence community were withholding vital information from him out of political bias??? What would have been the appropriate thing to have done to those people.
Government bureaucracies are without any question a form a monopoly. Liberals want to break up every single potential monopoly in the private sector because of the clear risks a monopoly can pose once it gets that kind of power. But let me ask a question: how ELSE can you get your drivers license but through the DMV, as one example? Where ELSE can a president get his intelligence but from the unionized government intelligence services? It’s a monopoly. Either make the monopoly work for all the people by totally and permanently removing all politics from hem or kill the damn things and kill them by the harshest means possible.
If government workers organize and collectivize themselves, there is inherent abuse of power. That was what even FDR believed.
These illegitimate and un-American government unions must be destroyed. And they must be destroyed NOW.
At this point, if there is a terrorist attack on the United States, Donald Trump will be right to point a finger at the Democrats in the intelligence establishment, point at the fact that they are on the record withholding information from him, and initiate a witch hunt by which every single intelligence official who has expressed a leftwing political viewpoint find himself or herself on Gitmo.
I remember back when Mitt Romney said that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical threat and Obama mocked him and said the 1980s wants its foreign policy back. Do you remember that? Do you remember where all of the union “intelligence bureaucracy” was on that subject back then? Were they calling Obama out for the pathetic fool he was? These “intelligence professionals” who weren’t able to understand there is something called radical Islam and that this religious movement is responsible for like 99.99 percent of all terrorist attacks? They were quiet as mice. But now all of a sudden, Russia IS our greatest geopolitical threat, after all, responsible for everything bad and awful. Trump very clearly wants to harness the world against the radical, violent Islam that is undermining stability across the planet and do with Putin what FDR did with Stalin and work to end a greater evil. But lo and behold the same fool leftists that have always been wrong are still wrong.
And the unionized bureaucracy in the “intelligence establishment” started screaming as their monopoly was threatened. How DARE Donald Trump not believe whatever the hell these fools told him??? And they broke the law with criminal conduct that guarantees a minimum of a fifteen-year prison term to get rid of Gen. Flynn.
I think I’m on to something here. I hope Trump’s team is on it, too.
At this point, the Democrats are very clearly a Nazi Fifth Column doing their utmost to destabilize and destroy the Republic of the United States. The Democrat Party is a clear and present danger.
I say rehire Gen. Flynn and then FIRE every single other member of the intelligence community. Just for starters.
I’m also going to express my hope that if these fascist shenanigans don’t end, the next Democratic president ought to face the very same treatment from any one who doesn’t like what he or she is doing. This is going to guarantee the collapse of the United States and just remember that Democrats started this circular firing squad.
Democrats smell blood, and they sent out Rep. John Lewis – who boycotted the Trump Inauguration and said that Trump wasn’t a “legitimate” president on account that he’s not a Democrat – to call for the Republicans to rise above politics to get to the bottom of what Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador and who had authorized Flynn to have that talk.
The fool couldn’t have been more wrong. And the wicked fool CONTINUES to be more wrong than any human being has ever been. It is frankly astonishing to watch this demonic dumbass deliver Armageddon one piece of hell at a time.
I heard a little snippet about the arrogance and naivety of FDR and what a complete, abject fool that Joseph Stalin made of a president so adored by Democrats. I actually had a hard time believing it was true. I mean, how could any man be so arrogant, so stupid? Anyway, I looked up a couple of phrases I recalled and found this straight from the Central Intelligence Agency writing based on actual recorded statements from one Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I want you to read this CIA article with me and replace in your mind the names “Franklin Delano Roosevelt” with “Barack Hussein Obama” and replace the name “Joseph Stalin” with “Ayatollah”; when you see “Bolshevik dictatorship” read it as “Islamic dictatorship” and when you see “US-Soviet relations” read it as “US-Iranian relations”:
In recent years, the statesmanship of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in particular his handling of Soviet affairs, has come under attack in historical studies. The situation has reached such a pass that even a psychiatrist who examined FDR’s medical records has opined that toward the end of World War II the US President ceded the better part of Eastern Europe to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin because he was “gripped by clinical depression.1”
Certainly the President’s moves can be questioned, but questionable policy can be founded on factors other than low spirits—which, in point of fact, were not generally observed in FDR at the time. Rather, the operant factors were: the President’s supreme confidence in his own powers of persuasion, his profound ignorance of the Bolshevik dictatorship, his projection of humane motives onto his Soviet counterpart, his determined resistance to contradictory evidence and advice, and his wishful thinking based on geopolitical designs—mindsets supported and reinforced by his appointed advisors. Taken together, these factors produced a false view of US-Soviet relations and inspired policy that had only superficial contact with reality. As an instance in point, they induced the President of the United States to do the unthinkable: walk into a surveillance trap, not once, but twice, and willingly.
Normally, in order to avoid the possibility of intelligence leaks and personal embarrassment, as well as to ensure physical safety, traveling US presidents stay in their own country’s embassies or other diplomatic buildings, whose tables and walls have been swept by instruments able to discover listening devices. But when Roosevelt went abroad to meet Stalin, he wanted very badly to please him, holding him to be a key figure in the postwar division of powers, and so did not insist on such accommodations. Consequently, at the conference in Teheran (November 1943) and again at Yalta (February 1945), he stayed in Soviet quarters and was bugged like no other American president in history.
FDR’s Acquaintance With Bugs
Roosevelt was no stranger to technical surveillance. In 1939, piqued by an incident in which he believed that the press had deliberately misquoted him, he had a secret recording system installed in the White House as a means of self-protection. Since German tape-recording technology had not yet found its way to America, something had to be invented. FDR’s assistants took the problem to David Sarnoff of the Radio Corporation of America. In June 1940, Sarnoff personally presented the President with a “continuous-film recording machine” that made use of motion-picture sound film. Set in a wire cage in a room beneath the Oval Office, the device was activated either by the President using a switch inside his desk drawer or by his technician down below throwing a switch on the machine itself. A single microphone poked out through a lamp on FDR’s desk.
Between 23 August and 8 November, 1939, during his campaign for an unprecedented third term, the President recorded fourteen of twenty-one press conferences held in his office, plus a number of private conversations, the latter possibly by mistake. It seems that he never used the system to entrap anyone, and no one knows why he stopped it. Relatively innocent by today’s standards of invasion, it nevertheless demonstrates that the President was acquainted with listening devices before his conferences with Stalin.2
In the very year of the Teheran conference, he was reminded of hidden microphones when watching Mission to Moscow, a movie based on a book of that title by Joseph E. Davies, America’s second Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.3 Produced in 1943 with the President’s blessing, possibly even at his explicit request, this blatant piece of propaganda was designed to drum up public enthusiasm for a political shotgun wedding: It colored Stalin as a simple, practical man with whom one could do business; rhapsodized about Soviet construction, government, and politics; and justified the Soviet blood purges, the Moscow show trials, and Stalin’s two-year pact with Hitler, which had ended when Hitler turned the tables on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Attempting to forestall any criticism of the Soviet system, Davies even contrived to make a brief for bugging. In one scene, set in the American Embassy in Moscow, the Ambassador’s assistants warn him of listening devices, but he rebukes them severely:
I say nothing outside the Kremlin that I wouldn’t say to Stalin’s face. Do you? . . . We’re here in a sense as guests of the Soviet government, and I’m going to believe they trust the United States as a friend until they prove otherwise. Is that clear?
When the assistant persists that still, after all, there may be microphones, Davies, played with aplomb by FDR’s favorite actor, Walter Huston, cuts him off: “Then let ’em hear! We’ll be friends that much faster!”4
This cinematic scene was based on an actual incident. In 1937, when a bug was discovered directly over the Ambassador’s desk at the US Embassy in Moscow, the real Davies laughed it off. If the Soviets wanted to listen in, he told his incredulous staff—which included George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and other skilled State Department diplomats—they would only obtain proof of America’s sincere desire to cooperate with them.5
FDR strongly approved of the film. In his assessment of Soviet politics, he was much closer to Davies, his second Ambassador, than to his first, William C. Bullitt.6 Contrary to Davies, Bullitt never missed an opportunity to warn FDR of Stalin’s treachery. In a typical exchange, Roosevelt responded:
Bill, I don’t dispute your facts; they are accurate. I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.7
FDR’s hunch, Hopkins’ glowing reports on Stalin, and Davies’ boundless trust in the Soviet regime were the President’s counters to the admitted facts about Hitler’s recent ally, history’s greatest mass-murderer, and the sole ruler of a party and state dedicated to worldwide communism.8
[…]
And it is amply footnoted and documented, with said footnotes for the above passage here:
1. John Harlow, “Depressed FDR Handed Stalin Victory at Yalta,” The Sunday Times (UK), 24 February 2002.
2. The FDR Tapes,” American Heritage, No. 2, 1982.
3. Joseph Edward Davies, Mission to Moscow (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1941).
4. David Culbert, ed., Mission to Moscow [Warner Brothers Screenplay] (Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1980), pp. 109-110. When the film was shown to the Soviet public, all the scenes about bugging were cut.
5. Elizabeth Kimball MacLean, Joseph E. Davies: Envoy to the Soviets (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992), p. 40.
6. Bullitt served as US Ambassador to the USSR from 1933-1936, Davies from 1936-1938.
7. William C. Bullitt, “How We Won the War and Lost the Peace,” Life, 30 August 1948, p. 94.
8. Hopkins described the 5’ 3” Stalin as “an austere, rugged, determined figure in boots . . . built close to the ground, like a football coach’s dream of a tackle”—see his article, “The Inside Story of My Meeting with Stalin,” in American Magazine (Springfield, Ohio), No. 132, December 1941, pp. 14-15; Davies once said that the Bolshevik word of honor was “as safe as the Bible,” according to William C. Bullitt, citing the Daily Worker of 25 and 28 February 1942, in The Great Globe Itself (New York, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1946), pp. 22, 255, 256.
I don’t think it’s coincidental that FDR revealed what an abject fool that he was in Tehran, the capital of Iran.
Because of the incredible, stunning arrogance, foolishness, willingness to compromise with pure evil, and the naivety that FDR believed he could actually negotiate with pure evil and win the upper hand in his dealings, TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS WERE SEIZED BY THE MOST DEPRAVED, THE MOST WICKED, THE MOST EVIL POLITICAL SYSTEM AND WORLDVIEW IN THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had died and was already burning in hell and as the Bible points out, “The dead know nothing,” but Joseph Stalin almost immediately after the end of World War II proved that FDR was the worst and most unmitigated fool in the history of the world by seizing ALL of Eastern Europe and the tens of millions of souls that he would crush. And the United States was thrust into the costliest war in the history of planet earth – the Cold War – because of the abject moral idiocy of one man, FDR. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and numerous other conflagrations stemmed from FDR’s complete moral idiocy and his refusal to understand the nature of evil and the fact that you can’t appease a Stalin any more than you can appease a cockroach.
And Barack Hussein Obama, a man even MORE arrogant, more foolish, more willing to compromise with pure evil, and more stunningly naïve in his belief that he could negotiate with pure evil and someone win the upper hand in his negotiations because of his malignant narcissistic belief in his own superiority, just guaranteed that America would face World War III and the Armageddon prophesied in the Holy Bible that he has so much naked contempt for.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told supporters Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s. The speech in a Tehran mosque was punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said.
Who would trust such a man? Only the greatest and worst fools who ever lived. Only Obama. Only John Kerry. Only Hillary Clinton. Only the Democrat Party. History has proven time and again that no one else and no other Party would be so vile, would be so arrogant, would be so evil, to appease and compromise with evil the way Democrats do.
History has a way of repeating itself. And whenever Democrats are able to affect history, you can COUNT on the fact that that history will be GODAWFUL. And that millions of people will miserably perish as a result of that history.
In January 1950, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave an important speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He vowed that the United States would always be the best ally for those in Asia who sought “their own national independence,” arguing that anyone who sought aid from the USSR would end up dominated by the totalitarian Soviets. During the same speech, however, Acheson made a fateful announcement. The United States had a vital “defensive perimeter,” he said, a line that the Soviets could never cross without threatening America’s core national security interests. In the Pacific, Acheson said, that line ran from the Aleutian Islands off Alaska to Japan, through the Ryukyu Islands between Japan and Taiwan, and south to the Philippines. Conspicuously left outside the American “defensive perimeter”: Korea.
It’s not clear that Acheson meant to send a signal to Moscow that the United States wouldn’t fight to preserve Rhee’s government in South Korea, but that’s exactly what Soviet dictator Josef Stalin interpreted Acheson’s remarks to mean.
– and American weakness after we had built the most powerful military in the history of the world because of the mistakes of the last fool Democrat president. The once all-powerful United States became WEAK under Democrat turd Truman. Then we had Vietnam – otherwise known as Democrat LBJ’s War. That was a war fought so stupidly and in such a self-defeating manner that no matter how many military victories the American serviceman won, he could not win a war that was lost by the Democrat Party politically.
Democrats ultimately would turn on their own damn war and pulled out like the cowards they are to murder millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians. Democrats just walked away. The same way they have walked away since from their own damn previous votes to oppose wars they voted for. Millions perished because of Democrats’ – and therefore America’s – betrayal and abandonment. What is ironically funny is that LBJ saw his own party becoming communist-possessed if not demon-possessed from within as this caught-on-tape quote reveals:
What was morally cancerous within the Democrat Party in 1965 is far, FAR more evil and more vile now. We’ve got a freaking communist turd occupying the White House itself, now. Even LBJ saw it coming.
If you were to consider actual history and consider the wars that Democrats have gotten us into, the costs and the causalities, and then compare their grim toll to the wars that Republicans have gotten us into, it is frankly beyond OBSCENE how bloody Democrat presidencies have been. Democrats leave us wildly unprepared for war because it is their nature to spend billions – and now trillions – on anything and everything but the ONLY THING (yes, the MILITARY) that the Constitution DEMANDS the federal government spend money on. They are pathological in their projection of weakness which encourages and emboldens our enemies to do things that will ultimately goad us into a war we wouldn’t have had to fight if we had been strong and powerful. Then, even if we manage to win these wars, we disarm, nod off to sleep again, and repeat the cycle when Democrats are in power. These are things called “facts.”
The US Senate now has sixty days to examine the Iran nuclear deal Obama “negotiated” – which will put it right smack dab in the middle of the next prophetic blood moon cycle that stands as a grim prophetic harbinger to Israel (please see here and here for the articles I’ve written about the Blood Moons). The next Blood Moon will reach its zenith on September 28, 2015. God is warning Israel, God is warning Christians, that Barack Obama is the very worst kind of wicked fool that there is; but because of the mystery of lawlessness – prophesied in the Bible for the last days – we live in a bizarre, apocalyptic world in which evil is transcendent and the righteous can only sit in stunned dismay as they can do nothing to stop it. As the Bible describes it, the mystery or secret power of lawlessness has been at work all along, but it was being held back, restrained by God through His Spirit or through His Church. But God told us that in the last days “perilous times would come” as God would begin to remove that restraint on evil so that evil would triumph. And that ascendancy of evil would be at its zenith as the world embraces and worships a politician who will impose the ultimate form of socialist, totalitarian government onto the world in place of God.
I just want to point out that we have seen the ultimate satanic trifecta in the history of the world in the last three weeks because of Barack Obama and because of the Democrat Party which has become the most evil the most monstrous genocidal regime, the most unholy government in the history of the planet.
Democrats – and I mean every single Democrat will one day stand before a just and holy God as flames of white-hot wrath billow out of His chariot throne as He demands of them, “WHY did you murder My babies?” – are personally and individually responsible for the genocidal murder of more than sixty million innocent human beings just in the United States (the Party of Wickedness has also transported and sanctified the murder of hundreds of millions of more babies around the world). Psalm 139 is a proof of the fact that it was GOD who formed that life in the womb that Democrats in their arrogant spirit of hate for humanity callously and brutally murder:
“You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous–how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in Your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.” — Psalm 139:13-16
We have the greatest indictment of the moral criminality of Democrats at all in the Person of Jesus. A teenage girl was pregnant and in a dire state because of her pregnancy. And because of the Democrat Party she aborted her baby. And one day Jesus will tell Democrats, “I never knew you, because you viciously tortured and murdered Me in the womb. Like millions of other babies, I never lived to fulfill the mission that God gave Me to save you from your sins. I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness!”
If these babies aren’t human, then how the hell can they possibly have human body parts??? That are being sold with the callousness of produce???
I have pointed this fact out before: Science is actually crystal clear on what abortion kills: we have a rigorous system called “taxonomy” that classifies every single living thing. If it is biological, it has a classification. And from the very moment of conception when a man and a woman first produce a child, that zygote in the womb is classified as follows: Kingdom-Animal, Phylum-Chordata, Class-Mammalia, Order-Primate, Family-Hominid, Genus-Homo and Species-Sapiens. It is classified as homo-sapiens, just as you and I are classified as homo-sapiens. Logic and philosophy are just as clear: that tiny little baby in the womb is human by virtue of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she exists: she is a human being. The Word of God, religion, science, philosophy and logic all intersect here to uphold the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb. But in these last days we are no longer a society capable of caring about such things. Abortion is a grave moral evil; it is the genocide of the very most innocent of human life in the very place where it ought to be the very safest: in mommy’s womb.
Democrats snarl in their contempt for God and for everything that is decent and holy that they’re not murdering a “human being,” but merely a POTENTIAL human being. Well, you butchers, then THOSE HUMAN ORGANS YOU WERE JUST CAUGHT TRAFFICKING IN ARE MERELY “POTENTIAL HUMAN ORGANS” AND THEREFORE GOOD FOR NOTHING IN THIS ACTUAL WORLD. You are ACTUALLY murdering an actual human being.
Abortion is the vile, evil, callous, rabid hatred of human life. And every single one of the people who support it with their votes or their actions are nothing short of future citizens of hell.
And Planned Parenthood – a vile, demonic, satanic entity created by Democrats and supported by Democrats – that just got busted trafficking in the for-profit murder of babies and then harvesting their organs for resale much the way a slaughterhouse would do with herd animals – is also THE most racist organization in the history of the world, bar NONE.
“Colored people are like weeds and are to be exterminated.”
And:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Is the EXACT same organization that Democrats today vow to continue funding no matter how obviously and blatantly and demonically evil it is proven to be.
It is a FACT that Planned Parenthood CONTINUES to target black populations in their location of baby-murdering factories. It is a FACT that 6 out of 10 black babies are murdered by the Democrat Party. It is a FACT that black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.
But the very mass murderers of blacks – Democrats – are demonically and hypocritically slandering everyone but themselves as they scream “black lives matter” when in actual fact they rabidly hate black lives more than any other people on the face of the earth, Ku Klux Klan – (an organization created as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party after Democrats lost a vicious war they started to keep black people in slavery) – included.
“Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.”
The fact is that NO LIFE matters to Democrats. The Democrat Party is the Party of the Extermination of Human Life. Only the most wicked political party in the history of the world would have booed a statement like that. But that’s what Democrats did when one of their own said it.
Radical terrorist Muslims want to create a totalitarian sharia state in which they rule over everyone and everything in the name of Allah; Democrats want to create a totalitarian system in which they rule over everyone and everything based on their religion of godless secular humanism. Atheism is every bit as much as a religion as Islam (which has been correctly defined as a political system masquerading as a religion). The ends are identical; only the means to that end slightly differ. Or maybe you’d argue that liberalism is a religion masquerading as a political system.
Anyway, that was JUST exposed, bringing to light the full horror of sixty million abortions in the United States that the Democrat Party is ENTIRELY responsible for and the hateful and unconstitutional decision to legalize infanticide imposed by Democrats in 1973.
Then we had the pure, satanic evil that is the approval and celebration of homosexuality that came out of the Party Of Rabid Hate For God otherwise known as the Democrat Party.
The Word of God could not be more clear: as evil as anything we did before (even abortion), we reached our true absolute rock bottom when we stuck our national middle finger up at God and screamed, “Bring on Your wrath, God! We all deserve to burn in hell and we want what’s coming to us!”
This is a truly morally depraved man representing a truly morally depraved disgusting sex Party that worships perverted sodomy while despising the men and women who serve the nation Obama is killing.
It is this wicked man who made that wicked treaty with wicked Iran.
And now we have the abandonment of Israel, the Death-to-America desire, underlying this Satan-inspired deal. The ONLY reason America hasn’t already collapsed yet is that we have been Israel’s greatest ally in the world. That historic and sacred relationship has been broken by your Traitor-in-Chief.
Given the fact that Democrats have naked contempt for the Word of God and worship homosexual sodomy on an altar of murdered babies in spite of the crystal clear ordinances of God, there is no reason that they would have any less contempt for what the Bible says prophetically. But what it decreed 2,600 years ago is that in the last days, there would be an end-times confederation between Gog and Magog – otherwise known as Russia – and Persia – a.k.a. Iran – along with a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic states. And this coalition will attack Israel and ignite what will ultimately be known as Armageddon. This is described in Ezekiel 38 and 39 right after Ezekiel 37, which famously prophesied that Israel would become a nation once again literally from dead, dried-out bones. Which was fulfilled in May, 1948 whether godless liberals want to believe it or not. It is a miracle of divine foreknowledge that the PRECISE coalition that Ezekiel prophesied exists as we speak.
And Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party and Democrats have guaranteed that all of this will take place. Whether they believe it or not. And they will burn in hell for their unbelief and for their insanely wicked deeds.
The United Stats of America WILL fall as no other nation in the history of the world has EVER fallen. It will be a more devastating fall because we were once a nation that called upon the God whom we now have betrayed and reviled. Our collapse will be worse and more agonizing than any nation that has come before us. And we will deserve it because of Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s and Democrat voters’ demonic trifecta.
I had my view of Franklin Delano Roosevelt radically changed by my reading of the Burton Folsom Jr. book, New Deal Or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. I challenge anyone who adores FDR to read that thoroughly documented work. Another book to read is Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man. You end up being incredibly angry and deeply saddened at the same time as a foolish American people wickedly kept returning to the policies of a wicked man who trapped America into the misery of a terrible depression that lasted fully seven years longer than it should have.
We also find that he may have – at least if you believe in a just and righteous God – kept America trapped in a bloody world war that resulted in the deaths of over 400,000 Americans.
If you believe in God – as I do – I think it is a valid assertion that God would have given America swift victory had we tried to help God’s people the Jews instead of what we did under a despicable and callous FDR.
The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain. I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).
I will only point out that after reading about the incredible harm a wicked and cynical president did to the American economy out of bitter partisan ideology, I believed that FDR is burning in hell today.
Now, having read this piece by an expert on the Holocaust, I am certain of it (this piece was originally filed under the LA Times title, “FDR’s troubling view of Jews”):
What FDR said about Jews in private His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America’s tepid response to the Holocaust.
By Rafael Medoff
April 7, 2013
In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called “the best way to settle the Jewish question.”
Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.” The diary entry adds: “The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that.”
Roosevelt’s “best way” remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR’s support for “spreading the Jews thin” may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government’s tepid response to the Holocaust.
Here’s the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn’t the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
Every president’s policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt’s case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”
There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins”; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.
This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR’s views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.
In one 1920 interview, he complained about immigrants “crowding” into the cities and said “the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country.” In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to “non-assimilable immigrants” and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that “mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had “blood of the right sort.”
FDR’s decision to imprison thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was consistent with his perception of Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. Likewise, he apparently viewed with disdain what he seemed to regard as the innate characteristics of Jews. Admitting significant numbers of Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit comfortably in FDR’s vision of America.
Other U.S. presidents have made their share of unfriendly remarks about Jews. A diary kept by Harry Truman included statements such as “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish.” Richard Nixon’s denunciations of Jews as “very aggressive and obnoxious” were belatedly revealed in tapes of Oval Office conversations.
But the revelation of Franklin Roosevelt’s sentiments will probably shock many people. After all, he led America in the war against Hitler. Moreover, Roosevelt’s public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, his claim to care about “the forgotten man,” the downtrodden, the mistreated. But none of that can change the record of his response to the Holocaust.
The observance of Holocaust Memorial Day begins Sunday night. It is the annual occasion to reflect on the Nazi genocide and the world’s response to it. In the case of the United States, it is sobering to consider that partly because of Roosevelt’s private prejudices, innocent people who could have been saved were instead abandoned.
Rafael Medoff is the founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington. His latest book is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith.”Medoff will speak Sunday at the Holocaust Memorial Day service at the Alpert Jewish Community Center in Long Beach.
I’m sorry. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was different from Adolf Hitler HOW, exactly? Certainly not in their vile racism or their contempt for Jews.
FDR has the documented blood of an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 190,000 Jews on his hands. And given that he should have done far, far more than the “absolute minimum” to help desperate people who were condemned to miserable deaths because he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them, that number of Jews whose blood FDR has on his hands soars much the way Obama’s debt has soared.
FDR wanted to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.” The rat bastard son of a bitch actually AGREED WITH HITLER!!!
That’s one of the reasons every single American should be nauseated by this image that celebrated both the wicked Obama and his wicked predecessor in massive socialism and rabid anti-Semitism:
At the heart of the Democrat Party is a profound hatred for God, for the Judeo-Christian worldview and for the people – both Jew and Christian alike – who follow the Word of God.
This is God damn America. And we’re going to reap the same godless disaster this time around that we faced the last time. Only this time – given the fact that this nation is more depraved than ever before – we are going to lose and lose big and lose everything.
And then Democrats will lead America into the worship of the Antichrist and the acceptance of the mark of the beast. Because that is the hellish abyss they have been pushing America toward for decades.
There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:
Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?
I ask that question of America. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama. And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.
How did it come to this?
First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America. As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance. And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.
It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you? A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):
Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:
10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics
Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.
Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.
It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:
Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.
In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)
The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.
For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter. I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements. I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life. Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing. I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.
Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too. It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals. While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:
Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.
Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.
Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.
“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”
Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?
Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative? Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:
Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.
Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?
Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.
But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.
Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine. Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out. They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice. The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.
Don’t worry, kids at home. Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too. And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.
You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules. And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.
Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.
I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about. I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world. I’ll say that from the outset.
I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going. They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening. And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort. Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God. The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month. And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies. We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed. When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted. America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics. The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.
America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy. All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned. America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years. We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction. There are famously nine stages of civilization. Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society. In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.
I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America. I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people. I need neither weep nor worry. My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.
I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise. And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.
But why does it happen? How did we sink this low?
Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two. Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated. They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated. You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.
What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with. They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation. And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe. And here we are.
The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here). And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since. Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda. The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed. The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.
Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck. Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields. It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.
Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries. Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.
Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.
Look what’s happened. Liberals have purged out conservatives. The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:
College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.
“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]
Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”
Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people. Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.
That was our strike two for us. Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.
By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law. They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means. By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination. And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies. It has become a vicious circle.
Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government. They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.
FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican. And of course he was right. But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America. FDR said:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries. But they dominate government employees. And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all). That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.
You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.
The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society. Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.
And they have largely attained that power. Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.
There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God. Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.
There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.
“Political correctness” is a huge factor.
Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.
With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.
Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them. The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.
I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.
Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result. Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success? This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument. Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that. On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.
The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team. And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.
How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread? Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks? Not a chance.
You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs. Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with. Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda. You do NOThave the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like. They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.
Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree. You do not have the right to say anything that offends them. They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.
Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives. As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:
“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”
And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to. They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years. They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes. And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates. But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.
Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint. Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow. I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions. There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography. There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees. There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.
We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.
And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.
And that’s why we’ve lost. And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.
And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard. King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen. Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.
What is the clear result of this doctrine? It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.
Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
Not that that mattered. I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.
But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???
But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers. Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point. In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while. Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.
It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”
And:
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
And:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
And:
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
And:
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
And:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???
“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington
“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams
“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796
“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778
“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789
“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.
Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place. And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.
The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.
And it seemed to everyone that the decision had been to strike ObamaCare down. The majority opinion clearly states that ObamaCare is unconstitutional if the mandate derives from the Commerce Clause, as ObamaCare in fact did derive it’s authority.
When suddenly the worm turned.
Yes, the mandate, the very heart of ObamaCare, was ruled unconstitutional. But John Roberts decided if he just rewrote the law to make the mandate a tax and the power deriving not from the Commerce Clause but from the power of Congress to tax, it would fix everything.
In the minority opinion that should have been a MAJORITY opinion given that all the conservative justices but that Bush-picked guy supported it along with Anthony Kennedy, the statement was:
[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.
But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase.
And none other than Bush Justice John Roberts rewrote the law to “fundamentally transform” it to turn what was in every Democrat’s words NOT a tax increase (and therefore unconstitutional according to the decision yesterday) into a tax increase (and therefore “constitutional enough” for John Roberts).
John Roberts played the role of Brutus in being that sudden, surprise stab in the back.
Why in the hell would he do this? Why would he abandon his conservative philosophy and betray not only conservatives but America itself?
Today Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) took to the Senate floor to warn his colleagues and President Obama about public comments about the Supreme Court as it deliberates the health care case.
“Attempts to manipulate or to bully the Supreme Court, especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are irresponsible and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our constitutional republic, ” Lee said during a floor speech.
Lee was responding in part to a speech in May by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Leahy took to the Senate floor to warn the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, not to strike down the Affordable Care Act.
Leahy said that when he attended oral arguments in March he “was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress.” He said some of the justices seemed “dismissive” of the months of work—including dozens of hearings—on the part of both the House and the Senate to enact the law.
Leahy singled out Roberts, explaining why he had voted for him during the Chief Justice’s confirmation hearings: “I trusted he would act to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the testimony he gave to the United States Senate. I said then that if I thought he would easily reject precedent or use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism, I would not have supported his confirmation.”
During a Rose Garden ceremony in April President Obama said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, to his great personal disgrace, put the “reputation” of the Supreme Court ahead of the law, the Constitution, and the nation.
And he did so in the face of frankly terrorist threats to delegitimize the SCOTUS that Roberts – who was appointed directly to the role of Chief Justice by George W. Bush – loves more than anything.
Call it the Stockholm Syndrome, which amounts to the desire for a captive to please the terrorists in order to stay alive.
There was the threat to implode the Medicare system, yes. There was the demonization of the Supreme Court as an illegitimate body that was all over the place, yes (conservatives kept asking liberals, but what are you going to say if ObamaCare is upheld?). That demonization was ALL over the place as every liberal crawled out to join in on the Supreme Court bashing in the days before the decision.
And John Roberts blinked. He switched his vote to appease the demonic, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Democrat hate-machine that had been switched on by Barack Obama.
Everyterrorist will confidently tell you something: terrorism works. That’s why we do it.
The narrative was as follows: John Roberts was troubled by the 2000 lawsuit in which the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that George Bush won the election and the left decried the Supreme Court as a politically biased institution. And John Roberts listened to Barack Obama’s threat and his ugly words about the Court he loved, he listened to Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Charles Schumer, he listened to all the liberal punditry and he realized that the only way to save the reputation of the Supreme Court from charges of bias was to side with the liberals.
Now, interestingly, there was never any pressure on the four liberals to not rule in lockstep liberal fashion. This idea of “bias” that was crafted by the left to demonize the SCOTUS doesn’t work that way; it only works against conservatives for ruling according to their conservative philosophy. Liberals are free to be as biased and as political and as ideological and as partisan as they want. So there was never any pressure whatsoever for the four liberal justices to ever rule in any other manner but according to their lockstep-liberalism.
We were told that a 5-4 decision against Obama would be dreadful. But if there were to be a 5-4 decision FOR ObamaCare, well, “The highest Court in the land has spoken.”
So John Roberts “fixed” everything. Just listen to the Democrats and the liberal media praising Roberts and the Court now??? And all he had to do was utterly abandon his conservative principles. It’s that easy. It’s just as easy for Republicans in the House and the Senate. “Bi-partisan compromise” isn’t when 17 Democrats join Republicans in holding Obama Attorney General Holder in contempt; no. It is when 3 Republicans join Democrats in passing the stimulus.
The Democrats demonized the Court as a political body, and that cut Roberts to the core so much that he was willing to do whatever it took to keep Democrats from politicizing the Court. Even if it meant politicizing the Court by rewriting a law that his own decision argued was unconstitutional without rewriting the law (with said rewriting the statute being a very political thing to do).
Chris Matthews actually libeled John Roberts by comparing him to the judge who passed the fugitive slave act:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, one other concern here, Ezra, a friend of mine, who is a fellow Roman Catholic said, he doesn’t want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that.
Terrorist Democrats had planted a bomb under the foundation of the Supreme Court of the United States. Only by bowing down to the left could the SCOTUS be allowed to be viewed as “credible” or “legitimate.” It only works one way.
I agree with the Democrats who say the Supreme Court is a purely political body. Given that presidents pick the judges, how on earth could it be anything else? And why should Republicans feel guilt over the fact that Republicans have held the highest elected office in the land than Democrats, such that they have an advantage in “picks”???
Why is it a travesty of justice if five Republican justices decide the law from their philosophy but it wouldn’t be a travesty of justice if five Democrat justices decided the law from their philosophy, apart from the very partisan bias that the left had been dumping on the Supreme Court in the months before Roberts caved?
Let me take this a little bit further, to the practical level: Republican presidents – including the hated George W. Bush – have appointed two of the justices who sided with liberals in monumental decisions like ObamaCare (President Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to go with John Roberts). Oh, and perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan. Consider that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will NEVERrule with the conservatives on a major issue. They were in lock-fascist goose-step on ObamaCare.
Early the 7 a.m. et hour of Today, Gregory melodramatically fretted over the possibility of ObamaCare being ruled unconstitutional: “What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5 to 4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is, the major institutions of our government are? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country.”
Now a 5-4 decision is wonderful and healthy for the nation. Now “the highest court in the land has spoken.”
What a million metric tons of manure.
Let’s just all agree with the Democrats the days before the ObamaCare decision. The Supreme Court is nothing more than nine political hacks wearing weird black robes like evil priests of some strange god that has nothing to do with us.
The thing that most bothers me is that “justice” is very much working against conservatives. And that is because the way the game is being played. You’ve got the liberal “justices” who can do ANYTHING. They can literally make up rights (such as “privacy”) to use those made up rights to then make up other rights (abortion). And how did they justify abortion? Did they find it in the Constitution? Nope. But they found – and this in their very own words – “penumbras and emanations” of abortion in there when they stared into the Constitution like a crystal ball.
What on earth do conservatives have to fight against penumbras and emanations? We read the Constitution like it actually MEANS SOMETHINGand seek the intent of the founding fathers who didn’t intend us to make up whatever we needed to make up to justify whatever the hell we want to do.
Maybe at some point we’ll have the rightwing equivalent of liberal justices who will use the ObamaCare verdict against liberals by forcing all Americans to buy Bibles or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to go to church or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to buy a gun or pay a “tax.” Maybe we’ll have a rightwing president who will decide to arbitrarily abrogate the tax laws the way Obama abrogated immigration law and simply declare that he will not enforce the laws against any American who refuses to pay capital gains taxes.
The reason we’re going to ultimately lose this war for American culture is because in order to do things like this, we’d have to sacrifice our core principles. Whereas the left have no such principles to sacrifice.
Again, principle is something that only works one way.
In the short run this could actually work out well for Republicans. Remember, it was the rage of ObamaCare that prompted Americans to come out in droves and give the Republican Party the largest landslide win in history. And now that issue is right back on the table. The Supreme Court won’t save us; we must save ourselves from Obama and his tyranny in November. And that was when ObamaCare was a mandate and not the largest tax in the history of the United States directly smacking the middle class.
The long run is another beast entirely. America will lose in the long run. Because too many critical things only work one way. I’ve listed several above, but there are many other cancers, such as spending and debt. They can only work one way – and that one way is taking us up like a rocketship until we come down in utter economic collapse. This is because it is simply too easy for the left to demonize the right over ANY cut in spending. If Republicans cut spending its because they’re greedy and want to protect the rich at the poor’s expense, etc. etc. And Republicans will do the very same thing that John Roberts did and blink and then cave in the face of demonic attack. And as a result America will never be able to cut spending enough to save itself.
The beast is coming. The Bible tells us that this Antichrist will be a big government world leader who will literally be worshiped as he leads the world straight into hell. Prior to these last few years, my major stumbling block in believing this was America; how could America do such a thing as worship the beast and take his mark?
Those illusions have been utterly dispelled. The beast will come. When he does America will vote for him. And then worship him. And then take his mark. And then burn in hell forever and ever.
One of the facts of history is that even Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed that government unions was un-American and inherently dangerous (see here and also here). FDR pointed out the fact that for a government employee, “the employer was the whole people” and described strikes by public union workers – which have happened many, many times, for what it’s worth – as something that:
“manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”
But let’s get back to the other side of the equation, the public unions, that Obama wants you to help pave right over your own grave.
Public unions have been a mistake that have been “progressively” poisoning America for the last 50 years. It is long past time to correct that mistake – with an axe:
In retrospect, there were two conspicuous giveaways that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was headed for victory in last week’s recall election.
One was that the Democrats’ campaign against him wound up focusing on just about everything but Walker’s law limiting collective bargaining rights for government workers. Sixteen months ago, the Capitol building in Madison was besieged by rioting protesters hell-bent on blocking the changes by any means necessary. Union members and their supporters, incandescent with rage, likened Walker to Adolf Hitler and cheered as Democratic lawmakers fled the state in a bid to force the legislature to a standstill. Once the bill passed, unions and Democrats vowed revenge, and amassed a million signatures on recall petitions.
But the more voters saw of the law’s effects, the more they liked it. Dozens of school districts reported millions in savings, most without resorting to layoffs. Property taxes fell. A $3.6 billion state budget deficit turned into a $154 million projected surplus. Walker’s measures proved a tonic for the economy, and support for restoring the status quo ante faded — even among Wisconsin Democrats. Long before Election Day, Democratic challenger Tom Barrett had all but dropped the issue of public-sector collective bargaining from his campaign to replace Walker.
The second harbinger was the plunge in public-employee union membership. The most important of Walker’s reforms, the change Big Labor had fought most bitterly, was ending the automatic withholding of union dues. That made union membership a matter of choice, not compulsion — and tens of thousands of government workers chose to toss their union cards. More than one-third of the American Federation of Teachers Wisconsin membership quit, reported The Wall Street Journal. At the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the state’s largest unions, the hemorrhaging was worse: AFSCME’s Wisconsin rolls shrank by more than 34,000 over the past year, a 55 percent nose-dive.
Did government workers tear up their union cards solely because the union had lost its right to bargain collectively on their behalf? That’s doubtful: Even under the new law, unions still negotiate over salaries. More likely, public-sector employees ditched their unions for the same reasons so many employees in the private sector — which is now less than 7 percent unionized — have done so. Many never wanted to join a union in the first place. Others were repelled by the authoritarian, belligerent, and left-wing political culture that entrenched unionism so often embodies.
Even before the votes in Wisconsin were cast, observed Michael Barone last week, Democrats and public-employee unions “had already lost the battle of ideas over the issue that sparked the recall.” Their tantrums and slanders didn’t just fail to intimidate Walker and Wisconsin lawmakers from reining in public-sector collective bargaining. They also gave the public a good hard look at what government unionism is apt to descend to. The past 16 months amounted to an extended seminar on the danger of combining collective bargaining with government jobs. Voters watched — and learned.
There was a time when pro-labor political leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Fiorello LaGuardia regarded it as obvious that collective bargaining was incompatible with public employment. Even the legendary AFL-CIO leader George Meany once took it for granted that there could be no “right” to bargain collectively with the government.
When unions bargain with management in the private sector, both sides are contending for a share of the private profits that labor helps produce — and both sides are constrained by the pressures of market discipline. Managers can’t ignore the company’s bottom line. Unions know that if they demand too much they may cost the company its competitive edge.
But when labor and management bargain in the public sector, they are divvying up public funds, not private profits. Government bureaucrats don’t have to worry about losing business to their competitors; state agencies can’t relocate to another part of the country. There is little incentive to hold down wages and benefits, since the taxpayers who will be picking up the tab have no seat at the table. On the other hand, government managers have a powerful motivation to yield to government unions: Union members vote, and their votes can be deployed to reward politicians who give them what they want — or punish those who don’t.
In 1959, when Wisconsin became the first state to enact a public-sector collective-bargaining law, it wasn’t widely understood what the distorted incentives of government unionism would lead to. Five decades later, the wreckage is all around us. The privileges that come with government work — hefty automatic pay raises, Cadillac pension plans, iron-clad job security, ultra-deluxe health insurance — have in many cases grown outlandish and staggeringly unaffordable. What Keith Geiger, the former head of the National Education Association, once referred to as “our sledgehammer, the collective bargaining process,” has wreaked havoc on state and municipal budgets nationwide.
Now, at long last, the pendulum has reversed. The 50-year mistake of public-sector unions is being corrected. Walker’s victory is a heartening reminder that in a democracy, even the most entrenched bad ideas can sometimes be unentrenched. On, Wisconsin!
It wasn’t just Wisconsin, which voted for Obama by a fifteen point margin, that is rejecting Obama’s demand to increase government and government unions. It turns out that San Diego and San Jose similarly utterly and overwhelmingly rejected the morally evil demands of public sector union “workers.” It’s facts like this that made even these historically liberal cities reject the government union label:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939
In April 1939, after six yearsof failed FDR policies, unemployment was 20.7%
Obama is campaigning all over boasting that he’s cut the unemployment rate. They say there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. And Obama’s 8.3% unemployment rate is of the most demonic category of lie.
Gallup tracks daily the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer, without seasonal adjustment. “Underemployed” respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. “Unemployed” respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Respondents “Employed Full Time for an Employer” are those who are employed by an employer for at least 30 hours per week. Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.
Notice that Obama has done NOTHING to bring down the “% underemployed” figure – which counted in the official unemployment statistic when FDR was miserably failing – while he was claiming to bring down unemployment. Which is another way of saying that there are today more Americans suffering under the Barack Obama experiment in failure than EVER.
Here’s another quote for you:
“I told you so, you God-damn-America dumbasses.” — Michael Eden, almost every day of the last four years.
Obama was hailed as the second coming of FDR by the left:
And we’ve got what we voted for: another massive FDR New Deal failure of disastrous Keynesian economics, most likely followed by a world war.
Only this world war that our new FDR will bring us won’t be nearly as fun due to all the global thermonuclear weapons that will be flying around.
Here are a few more facts that your mainstream media propaganda hasn’t been telling you about:
Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that — a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.
Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.
Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.”
“Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future,” he said.
Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama’s stimulus plan. “The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast,” he said.
Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn’t offering a lot of encouragement.
“The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago,” Elmendorf said. “And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.”
The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and an anemic 1.1 percent next year.
The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time.
That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director. “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked.
“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”
And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.
So why would CBO Director Elmendorf have a prediction that flies in the face of the Obama-media propaganda???
Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge is another guy who sees through the lens-distorting effect of all the bovine feces. In commenting about the real plunge in retail sales, Durden said:
The topic of BLS propaganda seasonal adjustments has been discussed extensively here especially in light of January’s NFP beat. We’ll leave it at that. However, we were rather surprised to note that the Census Bureau may have also ramped up its seasonal adjustment “fudge factoring” because when looking at the January headline retail sales data, which naturally was a smoothly continuous line on a Seasonally Adjusted basis, rising from $399.9 billion in December to $401.4 billion in January, something rather odd happened in the Unadjusted data set: the plunge from $459.8 billion in December to $361.4 billion in January, or -$98.5 billion in one month, was the biggest one month drop in retail sales in history. Now we won’t say much on this topic, suffice to say that it would be far more useful if the BLS and Census Bureaus were to open up their models and explain in nuanced detail just what “old normal” adjustments they still incorporate into data sets. Because as many have already noted, seasonal adjustments used for data from 1980 to 2008 when “up” was the only allowed direction for everything, are completely irrelevant and misleading in the New Deleveraging Normal. Which reminds us: Zero Hedge will offer $10,000 to the first BLS employee to share with us the full and complete excel model set, including assumptions, data tables, and comprehensive output parameters that the agency uses to go from input A to output X. We hope that by spending that money we will finally do society a service and open up to everyone just how it is that the BLS adjusts its Non-Farm Payrolls data.
If he actually gets the chance to buy that data, I will give my contribution to Tyler Durden instead of the Republican candidate. Because the truth will do more to get Obama out of office that any GOP ad ever could.
The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929. Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.
In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. [Read about what to before, during and after a deflationary crash] Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.
A Wikipedia article provides a few other details that ought to make someone looking at our present day rather uncomfortable:
Even after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted for some time; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”[11] The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April. This was still almost 30% below the peak of September 1929.[12]
Together, government and business spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. On the other hand, consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent. Likewise, beginning in mid-1930, a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA.
By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation and the continuing reluctance of people to borrow meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed.[13] By May 1930, automobile sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, although wages held steady in 1930; but then a deflationary spiral started in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs.
I’ve pointed out a few things before: first of all, “things are starting to look a little better” is by no rational means whatsoever any kind of indicator that we’re not going to plunge; BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
We’re being kept in the dark and fed on manure just like all the other government-cultivated mushrooms.
And we’re going to pay for it right here in good ol’ God damn America.
I have said it many times – and the reason I keep saying it is because it keeps proving true – that hypocrisy is the quintessential ingredient of a Democrat. If you took all of the hypocrisy out of a Democrat, he or she would simply cease to exist.
It didn’t matter that McCain didn’t actually own ANY houses (his wife owned them, with some of them being in a trust); it was just an opportunity for the media to dishonestly pile on top of a Republican and do what they do best – propaganda to demonize their ideological enemies.
Fast forward back four years prior to that, when John Kerry, the wealthiest man who ever ran for president, was campaigning. How many damn houses did HE own? Ooops. Somehow the media never dredged that up.
Notice that John McCain is nowhere on the list of the ten wealthiest candidates for president. John Edwards is. Bill Clinton is. Hillary Clinton is. Al Gore is. And John Kerry – the 2004 Democrat candidate for president – most assuredly is. But the issue of their wealth and how they got it doesn’t matter; only Mitt Romney’s does.
The Democrat Party and their mainstream media allies are crawling all over Mitt Romney’s tax returns to demagogue his tax rate. The figure 13.9% is raging; that’s the percentage the media claims Romney paid. They intentionally omit the fact that if you remove Romney’s charitable donations, he’s actually paying a rate of 42%.
What rate did John Kerry pay at? Oh, that doesn’t matter and never did because he’s a Democrat and therefore was immune to such inconvenient questions from the media propaganda? I’m oh-so very sorry for asking.
Two of the names that most Democrats would readily say were the greatest American presidents were filthy rich: John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But none of that matters.
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”
“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.
“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
“I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment.”
– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit
“In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment.”
– John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation
“Our present tax system … exerts too heavy a drag on growth … It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking … The present tax load … distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference
“The present tax codes … inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference
“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform
“Expansion and modernization of the nation’s productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry … An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment.”
– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery
“We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants … I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment.”
– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board
“A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”
– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy
“This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes … Next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital … I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference
But none of that matters to the media or to the modern Democrat Party – which embraced the communism that JFJK spent his presidency fighting – either.
Our mainstream media that gets to decide what stories get reported and fixated upon are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party. And they WILL NOT report fairly or add proper context to their stories to communicate the truth.
The beast is coming, and the mainstream media will ignore his personal wealth, too, as he rules over the human race as the man who will fulfill all of liberals and Democrats big government dreams.
More: Leaks a soft coup against Trump?
Start Thinking Right 
