Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Friday, July 29, 2016

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City and staunch advocate of law enforcement, just lambasted the DNC for one bizarre stunt.

While the democrats proudly exploited the grief of the mother of Michael Brown, a man who died in an altercation with police in Ferguson, Missouri, that was far from their most egregious dig at law enforcement during their convention.  Giuliani had this to say:
“’This is the most anti-police, anti-law enforcement convention I’ve ever seen in my whole life. There was not a uniformed police officer allowed on the convention floor. I was told that by four high-ranking police officers, two of whom I’ve known for a very long time. And then I walked the floor for very long time and I couldn’t find a single officer. Go look at your footage.  You find me a uniform. Hillary Clinton didn’t want uniformed police officers on the convention floor.’”
Hillary Clinton’s absolute disdain for the police is appalling, and we have to commend Giuliani for exposing his source to report on the democrat’s flawed opinions.

Someone close to me submitted the above from the convention.  I think we are witnessing an attempted takeover of both parties as we know them. The establishment types will have to fend for themselves.

Vice President Joe Biden was talking to customers at Cruisers Diner when this photo was taken. It almost looks like this picture was staged. The female biker seems smitten with his closeness but the two guys in the background look less than thrilled. This photo went viral when it was released because it’s obviously hilarious and a tiny bit awkward — just like Joe Biden.

Liberal Media Bites on Trump’s Russia Bait – Hook, Line and Sinker

OK, so this is what the nation was collectively told minutes after Donald Trump finished delivering a speech in Doral, Florida on July 27, 2016 – right smack dab in the middle of the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia…

According to Ashley Parker of the liberal New York Times, Donald Trump “essentially encouraged an adversarial foreign power to cyberspy on a secretary of state’s correspondence.”

According to the liberal Los Angeles Times, “Donald Trump invited Russia to hack into Clinton's emails, an extraordinary step for a presidential nominee.”

According to Benjy Sarlin of liberal NBC News, “On Wednesday, (Donald) Trump publicly called on Russian intelligence agents to hack Hillary Clinton's emails and release the results, a direct appeal to a foreign power to commit espionage.”

According to liberal BuzzFeed News’ Tarini Parti, Donald Trump “encouraged cyber espionage against (Hillary) Clinton.”

According to Josh Voorhees of liberal, “Donald Trump encouraged Russia to conduct cyberespionage in the United States.”

According to Simon Maloy of liberal, Donald Trump “explicitly asked Russia to violate our national security.”

According to the liberal Daily Beast, Donald Trump “urged a foreign government to hack an American citizen and release personal emails.”

According to Katie Reilly of liberal, Donald Trump “called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.”  

According to the Clinton campaign itself, “This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent."

It’s almost as if they were all reading their talking points from the same sheet!

Now here’s what Trump actually said…

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.  I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Trump never asked Russia, or anyone else, to hack Hillary’s email account.  

He jokingly suggested that someone had ALREADY hacked into her account and maybe, just maybe (wink, wink), that someone might share the emails that Crooked Hillary conveniently deleted.

He was as serious as Ronald Reagan was when the Gipper famously joked, “My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

But Trump’s obvious tongue-in-cheek sarcasm didn’t stop the liberal media - which is scared down to  its skivvies that Hillary is about to go down in flames in November – from giving yet another major media in-kind donation to her campaign.

Then again, all the silly media attention to what Trump said about Russia and Hillary’s emails did suck all the air out of Hillary’s “historic” nomination the night before.  So maybe, just maybe, the liberal media is secretly a double-agent trying to HELP Trump.

Yeah, um, no.

BREAKING – Wikileaks Email Exposes THIS Obama Crime, IMPEACH HIM NOW!

The Wikileaks email dump from the piles of hacked Democrat National Committee computer system is bringing forth one shocking revelation after another. The credibility of the party has been completely destroyed – evidenced by the thousands of Liberal protesters shouting at the wall erected around their Philadelphia convention.
One of the DNC emails appears to indicate donors were promised access to President Barack Obama for cash.
The Center for Research on Globalization said Democrats in at least one incident, was asked by a White House lawyer to  “alter the language of an invitation to a high-dollar event so it would not appear to be soliciting donations in exchange for access to President Barack Obama.”
“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fundraising operations of the Democratic Party,” Ken Boehm, the chair of the National Legal and Policy center, said.
Boehm went on to say such activity is “unethical, if not illegal,” according to a WND report.

For decades it has largely been assumed that political parties offer access to presidents and special treatment when it comes to influential appointments, but there has never before been such resounding proof of such corrupt activities.
A Daily Caller report shared a Wikileaks hacked email of a DNC spreadsheet which contained the names of 23 professional fundraisers and corporate executives who were major party donors and appear to have gotten rewarded by the president for handing over money.
Even though enough evidence now exists to launch an investigation into the alleged quid pro quo going on within the Democrat Party, it is highly unlikely the Justice Department will follow up on the information or press any charges against the Liberal political elites.
If by some bizarre twist of fate the DOJ does launch an investigation, the FBI would just likely say the Democrat Party made mistakes and there was no criminal intent in their activities – just like they did in the Hillary Clinton email case.
Becoming dependent upon massive donations from large corporations and mega wealthy individuals has truly corrupted our elections for far too long. Hillary Clinton is a bought and paid for candidate beholden to Wall Street and a plethora of others with personal agendas they expect to have fulfilled if she wins in November.
Please share this story on Facebook and tell us what you think because OUR voice is YOUR voice! You can also reach out to me on Twitter at @AP_SgtFreefall to discuss this story.

Sanders Voters Have A Lot More In Common With Conservatives Than They Think

Sanders Voters Have A Lot More In Common With Conservatives Than They Think

Yes, Bernie supporters, we’ve been there, where you are. We’ve been there for a long time.

By Henry Scanlon

Bernie Sanders supporters may share some common ground with constitutional conservatives beyond just our history of being callously, cavalierly, and constantly screwed by the entrenched political establishment, and being rendered incapable of doing anything about it due to their Praetorian Guard of ink-stained political operatives who pretend to be journalists. (Did anyone get a load of Scott Pelley’s smooch-fest with Hillary on “60 Minutes” the other night?)
Maybe we aren’t as far apart as those same ink-stained self-designated warriors for truth would have us think. If that’s the case, maybe we have something to talk about, and this might just be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
But first, Bernie supporters should note three things well about the uncool, unfair, and unconscionable sabotage they have been subjected to by Debbie Wasserman Schultz: If WikiLeaks had not tapped into and then publicized the Democratic National Committee emails, she would have gotten away with it. Wasserman Schultz is no criminal mastermind (to say the least): She is a functionary doing exactly what she knows she was expected to do, a small cog in a much larger machine. Third, her bad-faith malfeasance would have been exposed much earlier if a press that was interested in revealing the truth rather than turning a blind eye to it (because they approve of the goal) had done its job, or half its job, or maybe a tenth of its job
This is no isolated incident. It is exactly the kind of “thumb on the scale” cheating, aided and abetted by a complicit, complacent media, that folks on the Right have been victimized by over and over for decades.

Now You Get Why We Complain

Sanders and his supporters knew all along the DNC was in the tank for Hillary, that Wasserman Schultz and others were working diligently and effectively, like practiced second-story men, to make certain they got the outcome they wanted. Sanders and his supporters knew it, and the fact that hard proof of it was both elusive and necessary made it all the more exasperating.
They might find it enlightening, and maybe even helpful, to acknowledge for a moment that the feeling they are currently enduring is exactly the feeling that arises in their political opposites by such things as Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the Benghazi debacle, the utterly preposterous notion of calling the outrageous and probablycriminal personal enrichment scheme known as The Clinton Foundation a (wait for it) charity. You know, all those things and so many more that conservatives have been howling about for, like, ever.
It’s all about knowing things are happening but being up against a wall of denial that is practiced and powerful, highly skilled, and essentially impenetrable.
For example, it is not unclear that the Obama administration launched a cockamamie scheme to hoodwink U.S. gun sellers into cooperating with a supposed undercover gambit whose real purpose was to set the sellers up as patsies for a gun control maneuver; and that it was so ill-conceived, politically motivated, and stupidly implemented that it resulted in a litany of horrors including the unforgivable death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. Maybe someday a Wikileaks file will finally slam the door on their ability to deny it, just like it was slammed, finally, on Wasserman Schultz.
It’s completely obvious that union-minded IRS agents did everything they could to tip the scales in an upcoming election towards the candidate they saw as being in their corner. It was entirely political and, by everything the Constitution holds holy, filthy dirty. Maybe someday a WikiLeaks file will mean, finally, they cannot deny the obvious, just like Wasserman Schultz can no longer deny the obvious.
A few weeks before an election hinging on convincing the American public that al-Qaeda was “on the run,” a highly inconvenient attack on an American embassy occurred. For entirely political reasons, to see to it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton remained in power—some kind of “greater good,” no doubt—a few Americans had to die, including an ambassador. Maybe someday a WikiLeaks file will reveal the obvious about Hillary Clinton in the same way it revealed the obvious about Wasserman Schultz. Maybe someday in the Great Beyond, Hillary will be confronted by one of those guys and he will get to say to her face, “Are you kidding me? You sacrificed me and my buddies for your freakin’ career?”
So, yes, Bernie supporters, we’ve been there, where you are. We’ve been there for a long time.

We All Care about Honesty and Fair Play

That’s what got me to thinking: For a while now I’ve realized that some of my oldest and dearest friends are Bernie supporters. None is particularly politically minded. They live their lives, go about their business, and are nice. Just that: they’re nice people; friendly, compassionate, charitable. They pretty much just treat people the way they like to be treated themselves, and that includes with dignity and respect.
They have come to know in their hearts and souls that something is very wrong in this country. They sense it in the way Thomas Jefferson said they would, that they could be relied upon to do. They have developed a strong attachment to Sanders because he seems to have a clear view of where the problems lie and, yes, guess what? He’s honest.He isn’t lying to them.
That’s it. That’s all it takes: someone who “gets it,” meaning someone who understands their very real concerns—not things they’ve picked up from watching TV, but things they’ve learned from living their lives, and in Bernie they find someone who is willing to be truthful and, dare I say it, honorable. What a concept.
Guess what else? If you think the Right detests Hillary Clinton, it can’t hold a candle to the way these people feel about her. It may be the result of nothing more than the flip-side of the intuitive way they know Bernie is trustworthy. They know Hillary is not, and they don’t need any WikiLeaks revelations to confirm it. They know, and they resent utterly the profoundly underhanded—dishonest—way she has turned a fair fight into a scam. They resent not only the con itself, but even more so the willingness to engage in it. Who does she take them for?
Talk to them a little more and, if you are a constitutional conservative, you will find that you and they are concerned about the same things. Sure, you consider them hopelessly na├»ve. You want to ask them, “What part of Venezuela is unclear?” They consider you wicked because they are conflating your beliefs with those of mainline Republicans, and, worse, Wall Street.
But what they care about and what you care about track with each other. In very large measure, it’s all about fairness. They feel people should have an equal shot at things, an equal chance. Everybody. You won’t find any constitutional conservatives who disagree with that. Sure, there can be discussions about what constitutes “fairness,” but that’s a legitimate discussion and probably a healthy one if conducted in good faith.

We All Agree about What We Want

People of any race, color, sexual orientation, or religious faith ought to be free to pursue their own happiness within the context of genuine freedom and equality. You won’t find a constitutional conservative who disagrees with that principle. Is same-sex marriage the only avenue to genuine happiness and legitimate mainstreaming? Maybe. But maybe not. There’s a fair discussion to be had, if it’s done in good faith.
They simply want things to be better for people who have it rough, and would be willing to be open-minded about how to make that happen (socialism) or allow it to happen (conservatism).
If somebody has the ability to succeed and could benefit greatly from a college education, he or she ought to be able to get it. You won’t find any constitutional conservatives who disagree with that. People who work hard ought to be able to earn a living wage. You won’t find any constitutional conservatives who disagree with that, either. Is the best way to accomplish that a minimum wage law? A legitimate discussion can be had, in fairness, with a shared goal in mind—and the goal is shared: it is identical.
The question is not what’s desired: It’s how to get there. The perfect world of a Sanders socialist and a constitutional conservative would be largely indistinguishable because the freedoms conservatives implement would unleash capabilities and accomplishments that would obviate the need for social programs the Sanders socialists are now reaching for. If they could get what they want through a different avenue, would they take it?
Hillary supporters? No; they have a narrower, more self-directed agenda concerning control and letting the smart people run things for all of us.
Bernie supporters? My sense is that, with exceptions (for sure), their motives are honest and genuine. They simply want things to be better for people who have it rough, and would be willing to be open-minded about how to make that happen (socialism) or allow it to happen (conservatism). Their concept of “conservatives” has been shaped by a steady diet of vilification and mischaracterization from people who have an interest in making sure they don’t jump the political corral. A little dialogue, especially now that they are in the midst of a full dose of left-wing progressive duplicity, might go a long way. (If only we had a conservative running for president, alas…)
Listen, I get it: With Hillary supporters, at this late date, there’s really nothing to talk about. Anyone who can find a way to not see—or not to care about—her historic dishonesty and corruption is so manacled by intractable belief persistence as to be unreachable.
But Wasserman Schultz might have done the rest of us a favor. If we can let Bernie supporters know that we feel their pain, because we share a similar pain, in our own way and our own arena, maybe it could be the start of a broader conversation. I love my Bernie-supporting friends. They have big hearts, and they are smart. Bernie’s policies won’t get them where they want to go. Constitutional conservative approaches will. Maybe it’s time to have a chat.
Henry Scanlon is a writer and photographer from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. More at Follow him on Twitter @hscanlon33.

John Kerry’s Tenure As Secretary Of State Has Been A Complete Disaster

The Atlantic described John Kerry’s vision for America as ‘globalist, engaged and deeply interventionist.’ We should also add ‘ruinous and immune to experience.’

John Kerry has been wrong about so many things for so long that when he says something like “We are not frozen in a nightmare,” it’s nearly impossible ignore the warning “Winter is coming!” that reverberates through our pop culture-saturated frontal lobes.
This is a man who famously voted for Iraq before he voted against it; who called the option to intervene in Libya an “extraordinary opportunity that is staring us in the face” (intervention there has left both al-Qaeda and ISIS staring us in the face); who threatened armed confrontation with Russia over its annexation of Crimea before backing away sheepishly; who responded to a terror attack by lecturing Israel that the nation can’t “just keep condemning the other side.”
But I digress. Kerry said those icicley words and many more at the Aspen Ideas Festival recently. The secretary of State assured the ritzy crowd that “Where we are engaged with a clear strategy, using our power thoughtfully, we are making progress, most places.” To the multitude of “Cassandras around” he said, “I don’t believe the world ahead is only defined by turmoil and strife.”
There’s a lot to unpack there, aside from the fact that in Greek tragedy, Cassandra was undeniably right although doomed to be ignored. Progress as defined by whom? Why didn’t our great and clear strategy see ISIS coming? And are these real men saying the world ahead is “only defined by turmoil and strife” or are they made of straw?

We’re All Over the Place!

The write-up for The Atlantic, which co-sponsored the gabfest along with the Aspen Ideas Institute, described Kerry’s vision for America as “globalist, engaged and deeply interventionist.” We should also add “ruinous and practically immune to evidence and experience.”
“The United States of America is more engaged in more places with greater impact today than at any time in American history and that is simply documentable and undeniable,” bragged Kerry, who has burnt a record quantity of jet fuel as secretary of State.
“In Aspen, that was an applause line,” explained the magazine’s staff writer Conor Friedersdorf. He wasn’t so sure it would draw attaboys elsewhere, however. While he found Kerry’s words “in harmony with the foreign policy vision articulated by Hillary Clinton,” the scribe found it “hard to imagine a Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump crowd applauding a proponent of waging wars and other aggressive geopolitical interventions across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.”
That’s probably right, but too political a way of framing the issue. There’s a large and growing, not just bipartisan but truly nonpartisan, consensus that America has engaged in too many wars and interventions since the September 11 attacks, and has had little to show for it other than debt, death, and grief.
Most Americans from all political walks have realized that what we have been doing hasn’t been working. The people who help steer our foreign policy, unfortunately, haven’t come around to that view just yet.

Under John Kerry, We’re Literally Fighting Ourselves

At Aspen, Kerry did his best to dash any hopes the Obama administration had learned from this overreach. He did admit that when foreign policy issues “lend themselves to black and white, simple lines [and] you draw it, you’re often wrong,” but then he engaged in exactly such line drawing practically in the next breath. Speaking of America’s clear strategy in Syria, he warned, “You can never have peace when Assad is still there.”
The American government’s efforts to undermine Syrian strongman Bashar Assad have been counterproductive to the peace of nations, not to mention deeply embarrassing. Our search for elusive moderate Muslim allies led to plenty of munitions falling into the hands of ISIS. Our persistence helped fuel the refugee crisis currently threatening to tear Europe apart. Different agencies of our government have backed different horses in the region, Department of Defense-backed Kurds and State Department-supported Arabs who mostly warred directly with one another rather than fight Assad and ISIS.
That’s right, our own proxy armies went to war with each other, on Kerry’s watch, and yet his State Department continues to press for more intervention in Syria and in so many other places. That is simply documentable and undeniable. It’s a chilly, nightmarish legacy to pass on to the next administration.

Jeremy Lott is a senior fellow at Defense Priorities.

Trump's Speech Wasn't 'Dark' Enough
One of the many remarkable traits of the progressives is their lack of self-awareness.
This trait was on display last week in the media and Democratic Party’s characterization of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech — and the entire Republican National Convention — as “dark.”
For the left to dismiss other Americans as having a dark view of America is preposterous.
Because no one — not Trump, not the Republican Party, not any conservative — has nearly as dark a view of America as does the left.
Across the board — from the universities to the media to the Democratic Party — the left, around the world and in America, has an unremittingly dark view of the United States.
Here’s a brief glimpse.
—Racism “is part of our (American) DNA,” President Barack Obama said in 2015. Is there anything Trump said in his acceptance speech that is as dark about America as that?
—On July Fourth weekend, Vox published a long column arguing “3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.”
—The most widely read historian in American high schools and colleges, the late left-wing professor Howard Zinn, was asked (by me) whether he thought the United States had done more good or more bad in the world. “Probably more bad than good,” he answered.
—The left regularly characterizes the United States as a sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted country.
—Our wars are wars for imperialist expansion, driven by material greed.
—The top 1 percent relentlessly exploits the other 99 percent.
—America is rigged against blacks, Hispanics and the 99 percent.
—Cops kill unarmed blacks proportionately more than they kill unarmed whites because so many cops are racist.
—About 1 in 5 female college students are sexually assaulted on campus.
Is there anything in Trump’s speech that can match any of those left-wing views of the United States for “darkness”?
Moreover, every one of those leftist critiques of America is false.
Nevertheless, we are in a dark time in America. In fact, Trump didn’t make the case for America’s darkness nearly effectively enough.
—Our universities — outside of the natural sciences — are being destroyed as learning institutions. They close minds, censor speech and indoctrinate rather than educate.
—Blacks have more anger toward whites and America than at any time since the civil rights era.
—American students are learning less while being indoctrinated more. They graduate high school barely able to write a coherent essay with proper sentence structure, grammar and spelling. But they know all about the existential threat allegedly posed by fossil fuels.
—According to a recent Gallup Poll, fewer young Americans than at any time since polling began are proud to be Americans.
—A greater percentage of Americans are dependent upon government for their income and even for food than at any time in American history.
—The American national debt is the highest it has ever been. And it is increasing at a rate that can only lead to an economic implosion.
—A smaller percentage of Americans are married than at any time in American history.
—Americans are having fewer children than ever.
—Fewer businesses in proportion to the general population are being started than ever before.
—Sectors of major American cities are essentially killing zones.
—Fewer Americans than ever before believe in God, go to church or affirm Judeo-Christian values, the basic moral code of America’s founding and of Western civilization.
—Only 2 in 10 black children are born to a married mother.
Is that dark enough?
And the list is only a partial one.
Moreover, every one of those dark facts is the result of left-wing policies, left-wing politicians, left-wing writers, left-wing professors and the left-wing party, the Democratic Party.
If all Donald Trump did between now and November were to delineate the darkness created by the left and the Democrats, he could potentially win in a landslide. But, for reasons that elude me, he won’t, just as no Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan has. In the same way that Democrats won’t identify America’s international enemy — Islamic terror — Republicans won’t identify America’s domestic enemy, the left.
And until Republicans do, the darkness won’t recede.

Trump's Message for Russia, CHYN-uh, and Whoever Else

Donald Trump invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails on Wednesday, asking them to find “the 30,000 emails that are missing” from the personal server she used during her time as secretary of state.

“It would be interesting to see, I will tell you this, Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

The discussion of Putin comes amid Democratic accusations that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's emails. Trump said that's a "sideshow" to distract from the contents of the emails. Trump later suggested Russia or China could have been responsible for the hacks, but maintained that the culprit is unknown. The hack, he added, was a “total sign of disrespect.”

Trump added to his suggestions to Russia following the press conference via his Twitter account. "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!," he tweeted.

G’ day Ciao…….
Moe & Helen  Lauzier

About Me

My photo
As of 1-1-2016 our blog is by Helen and me. We will attempt to provide adult oriented issues and topics.

Blog Archive