TRUMP vs ANTI-TRUMP CONSERVITIVES

THIS PUTS A WHOLE NEW LIGHT ON THE COMING ELECTION.   A COMMENT AT THE END WOULD BE INTERESTING. Please leave one.

Mr. Biglow is one of the best politically astute people I know.   This one is very, very  interesting.

I made the statement on May 7, 2016, that the U.S. has reached the status of a Banana Republic. I have attached an article published today, the contents of which confirms my opinion. Please note in the article, I have imbedded several comments, (WGB) which debate the nonsense pouring forth from one self-proclaimed Republican Conservative, who was interviewed and is the informational center of the article. It is obvious such Republican Conservatives wrap their arms around the American voters only when it is necessary to do so to achieve their devious objectives, pay for their mistakes or to con them into extending political careers ad nauseum. 

I told you this was going to be the most interesting election of our lifetimes and this initial skirmish in the war between Republicans attests to that fact.

Bill Bigelow (WGB)

BREITBART

Exclusive: NeverTrump’s New Goal – Keep the GOP Conservative, or No President Trump

WASHINGTON—Some major conservative leaders have secured over $200 million to present Donald Trump with the choice of running on a conservative agenda or losing November’s election.

Many thought the NeverTrump movement would dissolve following Trump’s win in Indiana, after which his only remaining rivals, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, dropped out of the presidential race. Instead, while many anti-Trump leaders have resigned themselves to the billionaire’s nomination, others are pursuing an aggressive campaign which some of them think could deny both Trump and Hillary Clinton the White House.

Ken Blackwell—a senior adviser to the Our Principles PAC who served thirty years in various elected and presidentially appointed offices at both the federal and state level, as well as chaired a national presidential campaign—has had discussions with the persons organizing and funding this effort. While Blackwell has said he has not bought into this effort, he has not endorsed Trump, either.

“I agree with these folks that Trump is no conservative, and he’s more interested in redefining the Republican Party than in unifying it,” Blackwell explained. “I believe he is self-centered enough, and wants a win this election enough, that these folks can get his attention and perhaps find common ground. If not, he’ll have a problem this November.”

“The goal is to get the Republican Party unified as a party offering constitutionally limited government and free markets to America.” The problem, according to Blackwell, is, “Trump is not running as a conservative. And he cannot win without the conservative base.” (WGB Comment: The real problem is the current Republicans in Congress never follow the principles outlined in the Republican Platform. They do what the Crony Capitalist Donors want them to do.)

While some NeverTrump people are 100-percent opposed to Trump and vow not to change their position, others think Trump may be willing to make a deal with the conservative GOP base regarding the Supreme Court, party platform, and other top priorities. (WGB Comment: Trump is smart enough that if he compromises the key tenets he is running on---illegal immigration/border security/the Wall, end bad free trade policy and never execute the Pacific Trade Agreement, and fight countries that manipulate their currencies for economic gain at the expense of the U.S.---then he will lose the majority of millions of voters who voted for him in the primary process.

The “Twelfth Amendment” Option: (WGB Comment: Folks, following is the so called, self proclaimed Conservatives' coup de gras, which is nothing but a Banana Republic tactic.)

The U.S. president is elected by the 538 members of the Electoral College, not a popular vote of the American people. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, if no candidate for president earns a majority of the Electoral College (270 votes), then the U.S. House of Representatives elects the president. When doing so, each state gets only one vote, so the House members of each state internally vote to decide which way that state will vote, and whoever gets most of the 50 votes becomes the president.

That was how Thomas Jefferson became president in 1800. No candidate gained a majority, and the U.S. House eventually elected Jefferson on the thirty-sixth ballot, after weeks of debate. (WGB Comment: But this election was not contrived like the so called Anti-Trump Conservatives are willing to do to get their way. See three paragraphs below for details of their scheme.)

The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution added one more condition: If the election goes to the House, the House may only consider the top three candidates from the Electoral College that resulted from the normal election process. The House cannot bring in any “white knight” who was not already running on Election Day.

Because a majority of state congressional delegations are Republican, a presidential election going to the current Congress essentially guarantees a Republican president.

With these constitutional provisions in mind and the reality that Republicans will control the House at least until January 3, 2017, NeverTrump activists are considering selecting five key states, then running a candidate in each of those states—and those states only—who could win that state with a plurality of the statewide vote, beating both Trump and Hillary. So long as neither Trump nor Hillary wins a landslide of the remaining states, these single-state candidates could result in no candidate receiving 270 Electoral College votes, sending the entire matter to the House. Then the House could elect the non-Trump Republican as the forty-fifth president of the United States.

While the list is still being finalized, sources tell Breitbart News that the states being looked at include Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Texas. The organizers are looking primarily to “favorite sons” in those states who they expect could carry the state against both the Republican and Democratic nominees.

While this may at first glance sound farfetched, $200 million (possibly as high as $250 million), is a staggering sum that could fully fund such an effort.

Prevent Trump from Reinventing the Republican Party

According to these sources, such a strategy would prevent Trump from redefining the Republican Party in a way that destroys the conservative movement (WGB Comment: There is no viable Conservative Movement left given the definition of Conservatism has been so skewed it it no longer viable. See my further comments shown below), which is what many NeverTrump advocates fear.

The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party. When Abraham Lincoln became president in 1860, he ran primarily on preserving the Union. Then halfway through his term, with his Emancipation Proclamation he freed slaves in the South as a wartime measure (presidents lacked the power to end slavery generally), then after his 1864 reelection spearheaded the abolition of slavery through passing the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment.

But the Republican Party has reinvented itself three times since 1865. (The Democratic Party has also reinvented itself several times.)

In 1896, the Socialist Labor Party was gaining significant political strength, mainly sapping votes from the Democrats. So the Democratic Party nominated populist William Jennings Bryan, who moved the party to the left. Gov. William McKinley of Ohio sensed an opening, and the Republican nominee positioned the GOP as a mainstream pro-business party. The result was an electoral massacre of the Democrats, as Republicans solidified control of the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and many state governments.

But in 1932, President Franklin Roosevelt made the Democratic Party the party of the New Deal. Republicans fought the New Deal for five presidential elections, until in 1952 the GOP nominated Dwight Eisenhower, an unapologetic moderate. He remade the Republican Party into one that embraced the New Deal, and this bipartisan support guaranteed that FDR’s signature programs would become a permanent feature of American life.

Eisenhower was also comfortable with judges who were not conservative, appointing the most liberal chief justice in American history, Earl Warren, as well as one of the three most liberal associate justices in the nation’s history, William Brennan. He later reportedly said that his worst two mistakes as president were both sitting on the Supreme Court, but the fact remains that while perhaps Ike did not want to go as far to the left as he did with his judicial appointments, he clearly was not intending to nominate justices on the right.

Finally, in 1980, Ronald Reagan made the GOP what it is today (at least officially)—a conservative party. He assembled a three-part coalition of economic conservatives, national-security conservatives, and social conservatives. This alliance of supporters of free markets, strong national defense, and religious liberty and traditional family values formed an electoral coalition that gave Reagan two presidential wins—the second (1984) being one of the most overwhelming landslides in history—and began an era where Republicans controlled the White House more often than not, and starting in 1994 controlled Congress most of the time as well.

The concern of most of the leaders of today’s struggle with Trump—many of whom are veterans of the Reagan era—is that Trump would reinvent the party a fourth time. Their concern is that he would jettison conservatism in favor of a populism that also embraces an imperial presidency, (WGB Comment: Just like we have had with the Bushes and possibly now with the Clintons?) permanently changing America’s form of government. (WGB Comment: If you are honest, you will quickly comprehend that the U.S. has now become the biggest socialistic nation on the earth and that is the reason why the county is technically bankrupt.) and effectively exiling conservatism as a governing philosophy (WGB Comment: D.C. styled Conservatism exists only behind closed doors at dinner parties held by the Conservative Elite Group. It no longer exists in Congress whatsoever.)

Getting Trump to Make a Deal

Blackwell began by saying that those pursuing this strategy are doing so because they want to restore conservative government. He began:

An economic conservative does not think the government can seize private property for the purpose of building a business that will generate more tax revenue, or that it’s the role of government to pay for a healthcare program guaranteeing that everyone has coverage. A social conservative does not think that the pro-life plank of the Republican Party Platform should be rewritten, or that a state cannot pass a law saying that a man can call himself a woman then go into the same public bathroom where a little girl is using the toilet. And a national-security conservative does not believe that other nations should be able to get nuclear weapons, or that our military should target the wives and children of terrorists.

(WGB Comment: This description of Conservatism is totally unacceptable. Note that not one mention of the Constitution is included, not one mention of illegal immigration/secure borders are addressed, not one mention of the FRS destroying the economy through destructive money expansion policies or the value of the dollar which has fallen by 96% since the Fed was formed, not one mention of stopping the departments of federal government via executive order in their regulatory enactment destruction of Americans' property rights or inherent citizen constitutional freedoms, not one mention of stopping the government from mandating taxpayers bail out badly managed, failing companies owned by the powerful elites or quasi governmental sponsored institutions (FNMA, etc.) which before the Great Recession parleyed bad lending policy into gigantic financial losses, and absolutely no mention of the two political parties who constantly ignore the demands of their voter bases. A real, comprehensive definition of Conservatism, to be valid, would have to include these omissions.) 

Trump’s reversal this week on the federal minimum wage—dropping his primary-season opposition to a hike, and now instead supporting a hike—seemed to provide ammunition to both sides. One conservative leader who spoke to Breitbart News on the condition of anonymity because he’s part of a group that have not finalized their own anti-Trump plan and have not gone public with any details, said that this flip-flop shows that the “real” Trump is emerging, (WGB Comment: No, as I stated previously, this was a Trump feint on media to obtain non-Republican votes.) one who completely rejects conservative government and would employ heavy-handed tactics to advance his own agenda.

Blackwell reacted to this anonymous leader’s argument by saying that this flip-flop would instead be taken by the “Twelfth Amendment” crowd as evidence that Trump is willing to make deals on anything, so they would push for a conservative deal. “These guys think that because Trump is not articulating a governing philosophy based on any set of deeply held principles (WGB Comment: Principles held by the Crony Capitalist Elited Group, not the American people!), that he will be willing to cut a deal by adhering to certain conservative priorities in order to keep a third-party candidacy from gaining traction.”

Ultimate Goal: Keeping the Republican Party Conservative (WGB Comment: and under total control of the large business campaign donors)

Blackwell said that Trump and the GOP face the dilemma of the Bread-and-Butterfly, from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass. This was a creature made up of buttered bread and whose head is a lump of sugar, but whose only food is hot tea. So it dissolves its own body whenever it eats. (WGB Comment: I think Blackwell is describing his own, unique physical condition.)

In this context, Republicans are faced with the dilemma of winning the White House with a nominee whose agenda is different from that of the party base, (WGB Comment: This is one arrogant, blatant lie for Trump and the grassroots Republicans have now taken over control of the Republican Party and the party establishment elites have been routed.) or losing the White House to Hillary Clinton with her far-left agenda. (WGB Comment: The very arrogant, routed establishment Republicans if they don't get their way could care less if Hillary becomes President and takes the country into oblivion for each of them has protected themselves financially to ride out such oblivion. These are nothing but “my way or the highway people who are sobbing they have been beaten by the American people, who are sick of being the elites' financial patsies and being totally ignored by the elected political class.”)

The “Twelfth Amendment” gang think they have a solution: If Trump faces the prospect of someone running to his right who could peel off several states, he could position himself in the marketplace of ideas as a candidate running on an agenda that is conservative enough to keep a critical mass of those voters on board.

“Trump needs to be mindful of the fact that the House majority—like the Senate’s and our numbers in statehouses—were not created by an ‘establishment.’ These are historic majorities  chosen by the American people—not just one party, but the entire American people—over three election cycles,” Blackwell said. (WGB Comment: But these majorities are very temporary if those elected choose to ignore the demands of the people who voted them into office.)“By contrast, Trump has received only 42 percent of Republican votes (WGB Comment: Just remember, Trump constantly had major opposition in numbers up to 16, which would account for such low percentage.), so only a minority of a minority. He needs to be humble enough to realize that the American people have bestowed a constitutional mandate on the House to act if Trump doesn’t reach a majority in the Electoral College, and that to date he has not received such a mandate. He needs to grow his support if he wants the presidency.” (WGB Comment: And growing his support is what Trump has been doing for the past months, in record proportions. Blackwell is a man who deigns to preach to the winner of over 50 primary state and territorial votes and who is incapable of providing a resume' to the readers of this article showing anywhere near Mr. Trump's accomplishments.)

Radio talk show host Mark Levin made a related point this. According to Levin, GOP primary turnout was immensely higher this year from previous cycles, but some of those voters turned out to vote against Trump, not for him. Some? How many Mark?

Nor are Trump’s only problems with conservatives, Blackwell noted. He has not received the endorsement of national establishment leaders like former President George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, nor Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. (WGB Comment: The One World Government loving Bushes? Ryan, the guy who is bought and sold by big donors at every turn?) Others, like 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, former Gov. Jeb Bush, and Sen. Lindsay Graham, have said they won’t even vote for Trump. (WGB Comment: and Donald Trump will not shed one tear if any of these LOSERS end up not endorsing him.)

“Most strategists would say it’s impossible to win the White House without getting either the moderate establishment or the entire base to rally around you, if not both,” he said. (WGB Comment: That may be true for the average politician Blackwell rubs shoulder with, but it will not be true for Donald Trump who always works 100% out of the box.) “There are some people who seem irreversibly committed to not voting for Trump, so he needs to garner every available vote he can if he would have any chance of winning.” (WGB Comment: I am getting to see where Blackwell believes he is a New Age Prophet of God. The all seeing, all knowing Blackwell speaks as if he is the only fountain of fact.)

Will Trump Make a Deal with Conservatives?

Blackwell pointed to one indication that Trump might consider such an approach. The single most potent issue where Trump has signaled some willingness to accommodate conservatives is the Supreme Court. (WGB Comment: If all that is what it takes for reconciliation with these so called Conservative Class people, then I am all for such conciliation on Trump's part. However, there is no way such reconciliation can happen with only this one point agreed on.) In recent days the presumptive Republican nominee has said he would post the names of up to 15 individuals he would consider for the current Supreme Court vacancy, pledging only to pick a name from that list.

For some Republican voters, the Supreme Court is enough of an issue by itself to vote for or against a particular presidential candidate.

Other personnel picks would be choosing a conservative running mate, cabinet, and White House staff. (WGB Comment: I personally think Newt Gingrich, given his major personal baggage, would be a bad VP choice, but he should be Number 1 on the list for Chief of Staff.) Conservative picks in those positions would likewise do much to allay the concerns of some conservatives.

It is unclear whether Trump would agree to adopt specific policies and appoint specific individuals to win over conservative support. (WGB Comment: any cave on Trump's major policy initiatives, will cost Trump the election for it would be a major repudiation of the primary reasons why the greatly expanded Republican Voter Base voted for him over the 16 other Republican Presidential candidates.) What is clear is that at least some conservative leaders have quickly organized a great deal of resources to present him with a choice of doing so, or possibly facing yet another challenger for the White House in the fall. (WGB Comment: this is nothing but bribery and all of the conspiring Conservative Leaders should be arrested for this felonious act. Oh, sorry, I forget this is politics, not the public sector.)

Ken Klukowski is legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

 

HOW ENGLAND LOST ALL THEIR GUNS

I REMEMBER HEARING MOST OF MY LIFE ENGLISH PEOPLE COULD NOT OWN GUNS, EVEN THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE GUNS.
 

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS TO "WE THE PEOPLE" AND HILLARY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY OUR 2nd AMENDMENTS RIGHTS.

ANOTHER GOOD REASON WHY WE/YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!!!!

 

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a FirearmWhen you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."  The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and That you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except                                 Shotguns.  Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.  Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerfordmass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)  Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few side arms still owned by private citizens.  During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.   Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns?  The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?   WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. "...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."--Samuel Adams If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.   You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can't get it done, Hillary has stated she would take away our 2nd Amendment rights. And there are people in Congress that will go right along with them. --

HILLARY THINKS OBAMA HAS DONE A GOOD JOB!

IF YOR ARE THINKING OF VOTING FOR HILLARY, THEN CONSIDER WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE.  HILLARY THINKS HE HAS DONE A GOOD JOB AS PRESIDENT AND I HAVE HEARD HER SAY IT ON TV.   WHAT WOULD SHE DO AS PRESIDENT?   CONTINUE OBAMA'S DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES?      CONSIDER EACH POINT BELOW AND SERIOUSLY ASK YOURSELF IS THIS WHAT I WANT FOR MY COUNTRY?   IF THE ANSWER IS NO,  DON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY! 

 

 

By  Sylvia Thompson

Awesome !!

 

 Couldn't have said it better myself.   

The beauty of truth. 

Those whose heart is opened to truth will find it in her statement.

 

 

 

 

Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture.

 <ATT00011.jpg>

 

THIS IS WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY:

 

To the many gullible souls out there who truly think that Barack Obama is "legacy building" in his all-out assault on America, I implore you to bow out of the conversation because you are not seeing clearly.

 

The term legacy carries positive connotations of something bequeath that is to the receiver's benefit. Everything that Barack Obama does is calculated to destroy America , which he despises. This man no more cares about legacy than he fears being properly prosecuted by the white political leaders whose responsibility it is to remove him from office.

 

I focus on white leaders, because whites are still in the majority and they fill the majority of political offices. If the majority of political operatives were of some other ethnicity, I would lodge my complaint against that group. Ethnicity is an issue only because Obama is half-black and he uses that fact to intimidate guilt-conflicted white people. Otherwise, he would have been impeached and likely be in prison for treason by now.

 

Barack Obama's sole aim has been, since he first entered politics and continues as he winds down this presidency, the complete destruction of America as it was founded.

 

It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans who must listen to elitist pundits on Fox news and elsewhere, and political drones in either party endeavor to make Obama's behavior fit a pattern of normalcy. Attributing his destructive policies to "legacy building" is either self-delusion on the part of the people who make that claim or cowardliness.

 

This is my take.

 

Obama's nuclear deal with Iran has nothing to do with legacy but rather to enable a Muslim nation to wage nuclear war with America and Israel the two nations that he most despises. Does anyone wonder why Russians praise Vladimir Putin despite what the rest of the world might think of him? Putin cares about his country, that's why.

 

Obama despises the American military because traditionally it has been a mainstay of America 's strength, and our strength infuriates him.

 

Imposition of a polluting homosexual, anti-Christian agenda upon the military ranks destroys unit cohesion and literally terrorizes male members with the prospect of sodomy rape. Such rapes have increased since the forcing of open homosexuality in the ranks, against the will of a majority of members I might add. Couple that with an infiltration of women, for whom all standards of strength must be reduced, and Obama attains his goal of emasculating and demoralizing the forces.

 

He could not care less about a legacy of making the forces more diverse. Besides, President Truman diversified the military as much as it should be when he integrated it. Obama's objective is its destruction.

 

Obama reopened relations with Cuba because Cuba is Communist. Legacy is not his concern here either, but rather to scuttle America 's attempts to keep Communist influence out of the Americas . That Cuba has major issues with human rights does not matter. Like his Marxist African father before him, he despises the West and all that it represents.

 

Obama lawlessly declares open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, because he wants to overrun America with third-world people who bring little more than dependency with them. This tactic not only does not ensure a legacy, but rather it guarantees the eventual conversion of America itself into third-world status, if it is allowed to continue.

 

Bill Clinton started the travesty of increasing the numbers of third-world immigrants at the expense of culturally more suited immigrants from European and European-influenced nations, but Obama has taken the trend to lawless, destructive extremes. He is fully aware that many of these invaders have no intention of assimilating.

 

It is only the outcry of a majority of Americans that holds back this hateful invasion scheme, and Donald Trump's entry onto the political scene to oppose that scheme is a saving grace for our nation.

 

These are but a few instances of behavior that display the loathsome character of Barack Hussein Obama. And he is allowed to roam freely through the American landscape poisoning and polluting as he goes, sure in the realization that no one will stop him because he is "black."

 

The day that we no longer have to hear the prattle about his "legacy building" will not be soon enough for me.

 

Many, many Americans are thoroughly fed up with Barack Obama and the spineless crop of political leaders who ignore his criminality. It is yet unknown whether Republicans will ever garner the backbone to become a true opposition party and hold him accountable. Promising signs are the House conservatives' getting rid of establishment types John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker and Speaker hopeful, respectively, and Donald Trump's entry into the 2016 presidential race with enough money and testicular fortitude to tell the Establishment and the Left where to shove it.

 

Should these positive trends not continue and the 2016 election cycle yield no movement to counter all the harm that Barack Obama has done to this nation, I think there will be massive disruption. Those folks in the National Rifle Association ads currently running on television seem very serious to me, and that is a good thing.

I REMBER THIS:

 About the 19^th of June 2015,  I turned on the TV and the program on was Fox News “THE 5 “ and Bob Bechtel was speaking.  He said:H “I can tell you what’s wrong with our country, we have a Muslim in the White House, educated as a Muslim in Indonesia, and studied the Quran”. And I watched him say it:

I REST MY CASE.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Albert Einstein

 

 

THE FENCE TEST, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

                             I'LL BET MOST OF US COULD THINK OF A FEW MORE FENCE TESTS

The Fence Test ...

 

You can't get any more accurate than this!  

This is straightforward country thinking..

by Jeff Foxworthy

 

 

Which side of the fence?  

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! 

  

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. 

  

If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. 

  

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. 

  

If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. 

  

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. 

  

If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. 

  

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. 

 

If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care

of him. 

  

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. 

  

A Democrat demands that those they don't like be shut down. 

  

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. 

  

A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. 

  

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. 

  

If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his. 

  

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. 

 

A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended."
  

Well, I forwarded it ...

=