Archive

Author Archive

Why Trump Really Really Had to Win

December 18, 2016 Leave a comment

I know that I have upset many people especially on Facebook (and maybe somewhat on Twitter)  because I am so politically vocal. Since when is it such a crime to love your adoptive county so much that you want to do everything possible to make sure that we don’t elect people that want to continually change it rather than try and make it great again. No doubt I also make people furious when I keep saying over and over that we really dodged a bullet, more like a nuclear bomb-sized bullet on that day. But I really feel this is very true. Consider where we were just before election day. Hillary was either going to be our new president or she would be in the position of needing a blanket presidential pardon, as Rev. Jessie Jackson and other people are suggesting today (see article http://www.freep.com/…/jesse-jackson-obama-pardon…/93979554/ ). I mean really think about it!! For Hillary, before election day there was a possibility of her either moving back to the Whitehouse or the possibility of her going to prison. This is why this is so incredibly historical! When were we ever, as a county on the cusp of something so profound, or more appropriately I should say, so profoundly strange?!?

I find it incredible how the lunatic lefties and Hillary’s supporters, half the county, that voted for her actually insisted that she was not guilty of any of the many charges she faced recently, not to mention all the many, many charges and scandals she has somehow eluded over the past 30 years. Yet now, some of these same people are suggesting that President Obama give her a blanket pardon, similar to what President Ford did for President Nixon. Why?!? Why would she need a pardon at all if she is innocent?? It is unfathomable that we find ourselves in this predicament. This is why I thank God daily that Trump won and Hillary lost. Mind you, in the future there may be some things that President Trump will do that I may not agree with but it is infinitely better that Trump won and Hillary lost. This is why I don’t listen to you anymore, Glenn Beck and why I have absolutely no respect for the so called Never-Trumpers on the right, especially the Never-Trumpers that are in the Conservative Media. If Hillary had won the horrible things she would have brought about such as an aggressively leftist supreme court, the ever rising taxes, the ever growing oligarchic government, the ever expanding, job-killing Obamacare, the continual job-creating companies moving to other countries, the growing deficit, our role on the world stage continually being diminished as she wheels and deals with bad international parties, selling out of the highest office in exchange for millions and billions being laundered and funneled to the Clinton Foundation, all of this would have been squarely on the heads of the Never-Trumpers on the right.17424865_10211793146325323_5605251359146153397_n

 

When you really think about it. It was a genuine miracle that Trump actually won. Not only did he have to battle with Hillary, the entire Democrat party was unified in defeating him. Also, all the mainstream media and all of Hollywood all of the press and even half of his own party, the Republicans were fighting him. Yet despite all of that he still won. And ironically I don’t think anyone but Trump would have been able to win. No one else could defeat Hillary. Because of his character and his celebrity and especially his not willing to let the left get away with the constant attacks. It seems that the traditional politicians that the Republican party have thrown at us, people like Mitt Romney John McCain and Bob Dole, they seem to be merely very, very nice and mild mannered people and be perfectly composed, not willing to battle with the constant accusations from the left. There lukewarm, mild mannered mannerisms seemed to have only received the same reactions from voters on the right, and led to many staying home or not voting or not voting correctly, and believing some of the things the mainstream media told them. Trump won because he was able to fire up the voters on the right with his ant-establishment drain-the-swamp message. Also his America-first message and his willing to protect jobs and the many American workers. Also his lets-reduce-our-debt and lets-make-better-international-deals messages hit home for many people. I am sure pundits will be analyzing this election for a long time. We might even see a new phrase coming up that of “Trump-Democrats” to replace the term “Reagan-Democrats.” When I was at a Trump rally here in Minnesota I saw a homemade sign that read “Democrats for Trump.”

So I vehemently disagree with Rev. Jesse Jackson. I pray and I hope that she does not get a pardon and that she will be charged. I say this not because I am mean or that I don’t want to see a healing in our country. I say this because I want the Clintons’ and Democrat party’s reprehensible actions to be exposed to the American people, to really see how close we got to mayhem and how close we got to a Banana Republic, that we really did dodge a nuclear-bomb-sized bullet. Unbelievable that Trump was so ridiculed when he suggested the system was rigged when we had just witnessed the truth that was revealed just weeks before that the Democrat Party rigged their own primary election. Everything was rigged so that Hillary would surely defeat Bernie Sanders. Yet in the Republican Primary Trump won fair and square defeating 16 opponents and getting the most presidential primary votes ever. I hope that the Democrat Party and their mindset will be marginalized. I feel strongly that the Republican Party needs a new opposition party. I would love it if the official opposition party was more right than the Republican Party like the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. But I digress. I know that is extreme wishful thinking on my part.

Anyway, to help continually marginalize the Clintons and the Democrat Party I hope that more and more people see “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democrat Party” or read the book. And for that matter Dinesh D’Souza’s other works need to be experienced by more and more people as well, Especially, “America, Imagine the World Without Her” and “2016: Obama’s America.” #HillarysAmerica #AmericaTheMovie #ObamasAmerica
Also more people need to see and/or read Peter Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash” as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM #ClintonCash

I still can’t believe that the Democrat Party’s top two (out of only three total!) contenders for their presidential nominee was between a proven criminal and a fervent socialist (Sorry Bernie but a “Democratic Socialists” is still just a Socialist), for this reason alone is reason enough that today’s Democrat Party must be marginalized.

So, I am sorry if you are tired of my posts. I am done with this post for now. I really wish people would understand how important it was that Trump won.15027985_10210570931530717_2897513813831856101_n

Advertisements

KEEP THE FAITH IN THE IDEA OF AMERICA! – Especially during this Election Season.

November 2, 2016 Leave a comment

   This is a short but poignant video excerpt of Bono’s speech at Georgetown University. This video excerpt also appears in Dinesh D’Souza’s excellent docu-movie “America – Imagine the World Without Her.”

I highly and extremely recommend everyone to experience D’Souza’s current excellent number-one docu-movie called “Hillary’s America – The Secret History of the Democrat Party.”  If you have not seen it yet, you need to see it especially before election day, see it with a friend or family. It is available for streaming on many platforms and available in Blu-Ray or DVD.  http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/

But I also recommend “America – Imagine the World Without Her” http://americathemovie.com/ which came out two years ago, but is truly timeless, and for that matter also “Obama’s America” which came out in 2012 http://www.dineshdsouza.com/movies/2016-obamas-america/ . “Obama’s America” caused Obama to basically have a  little temper tantrum and, with the backing of the US Government go after Dinesh and had him locked up, literally. You can learn more about this when you see “Hillary’s America.”

But I really want to talk about “America – Imagine the World Without Her.”  D’Souza correctly shows in this movie how before the founding fathers put the idea of America on paper, really, basically the only system that the world knew was that of the conquest ethic, meaning the strong conquer the weak and then take what they have, without remorse. This is so profound and people really need to have a history lesson and wrap their brains around this. Many left-leaning idealists will argue that America was also founded under this conquest ethic, though this may be somewhat true but these same lefties like to revise the narrative of history and ignore facts. They choose to ignore the very good things about the founding of America and ignore the fact that America was the only entity or country “…the first to claw its way out of darkness and put that on paper” (–Bono [see video above]), the first to challenge the class system and the caste system and the monarchy, or an oligarchy or dictatorship or the first to challenge fiefdom. The first to challenge all these archaic systems in favor of the new American idea of liberty and having a small government of the people, for the people and by the people allowing everyone to choose their own destiny through a capitalistic free society.

It seems like every election season, especially during a presidential election season that many Americans seem to lose sight of the bigger picture and get mired in silly trivial details. Many seem to be going through the motions as if we were picking a winner such as in American Idol, or Dancing with The Stars. Why do so many seem to have the mindset that we are choosing a kind of king or queen or dictator. They lose sight of the American idea the way our government is set up. If I have cancer I am not putting all my efforts into choosing an oncologist I am doing whatever I can to choose to destroy my cancer, choosing a competent oncologist may be a part of that, but by no means is it the endgame. The endgame is to alleviate or destroy the cancer. We should be choosing leaders who will do everything within their power to uphold what the Founding Fathers have set up, the Constitution of the United States, and to destroy the cancer or the thought of doing anything different. I have always thought of leftist ideas as sort of a cancer attacking the American idea that must be destroyed and defeated in the arena of ideas.

It always seems that during a presidential election we are choosing either a Republican, someone who wishes to conserve the founding father’s vision or we are choosing a Democrat someone who would rather transform America into something different but in reality the Democrats always are choosing to go back to one of the archaic systems mentioned above except give it a new name or a new twist. By any means the lefties or the Democrats are always trying to hide their true intentions that of changing the way America is governed with an always ever-expanding, oligarchical federal government.


Leftists are very creative in the way they hide their process but mostly they hide it by trying to change the narratives to create an anti-american sentiment. Dinesh D’Souza in his film “America – Imagine the World Without Her” shows us how the left changes the stories and actually creates five very serious indictments against America. These indictments come from revered left thinkers such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn or Ward Churchill. In fact as D’Souza points out Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States, even though it is not a true History book is required reading on many campuses of colleges and universities and even some high schools. D’Souza does a very good job at detailing these serious indictments right before he shows how these narratives of Chomsky, Zinn and Ward Churchill are actually false narratives, and therefore these indictments are invalid

Anyways as I stated earlier I highly recommend that you see “America – Imagine the World Without Her” and see for yourself these invalid indictments that many take as gospel truth and also see for yourself that the world is actually a much better place now that the idea of America has been introduced to the world some 250 years ago.

Don’t forget to vote on November 8 but before you vote see D’Souza’s latest, “Hillary’s America – The Secret History of the Democrat Party” especially if you are considering actually voting for Hillary. After seeing “Hillary’s America” don’t be surprised if you find yourself like me never willing to support a member of the Democrat Party ever again.

Fun Times

April 19, 2015 Leave a comment

image

Categories: Uncategorized

Happy Easter — 3 years ago

April 10, 2015 Leave a comment

image

Is science showing there really is a God?

January 17, 2015 Leave a comment

Is science showing there really is a God?

“Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term ‘big bang,’ said that his atheism was ‘greatly shaken’ at these developments…
…Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that ‘the appearance of design is overwhelming’ and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said ‘the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here…’ “

.

This is a great article below from Eric Metaxas (my big fat Greek hero!  …sorry…just kidding, Eric, I mean, Mr. Metaxas.).  I think it originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal last Christmas and then later appeared at other sites on the web (like here for instance). You know, my faith in Jesus, my Savior, the creator of the universe is not reliant and does not waiver on the reminiscences or conclusions of so called intellectuals and scientists in this world but when I first read this article I could not help myself from throwing my fist in the air and yelling a little “Woot, woot.” Anyways, please enjoy the article below and maybe you too might feel inclined to do a victory dance.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

By ERIC METAXAS  Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

[Click here to see the original article at the Wall Street Journal]

P.S. Speaking of doing a victory dance and going “Woot, woot,” did you know that there is a  TIDAL WAVE OF MORE GOOD NEWS!?  Click here!

What Obama, Eric Holder and the Rest of Us Could Learn from the Magna Carta

December 31, 2014 Leave a comment
This is a great article from The DailySignal.com.  The Magna Carta is a sort of precursor to the later American experiment. The current American leaders and all of us in general could learn a lot about the pursuit of liberty through the seperation of powers from the study of the Magna Carta

by Hans von Spakovsky  

With the president and Congress out of town, Washington, D.C. is very quiet during the holidays, without the long lines one normally sees at museums and capitol attractions. So it was a good time last week to take my family to see a wonderful exhibit at the Library of Congress, jointly sponsored by the Federalist Society, of one of the only four existing manuscript copies of the 1215 Magna Carta signed by King John at Runnymede.

On June 15, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, one of the most consequential documents in the history of the law and liberty.   It was the basis for establishing the principles that led to the many rights that we take almost for granted today. These include due process of law, the right to a jury trial, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, and the theory of representative government.

While Magna Carta only secured the rights of the barons and “freemen,” as the exhibit carefully explains, “this medieval charter, through centuries of interpretation and controversy, became an enduring symbol of liberty and the rule of law.”

It really is amazing as one walks through the exhibit and reads the translations of certain parts of Magna Carta, to see the principles being outlined that have become such an accepted part of our rule of law 800 years later. For example, Chapter 39 provides no freeman will be seized, dispossessed of his property, or harmed except “by the law of the land,” a phrase that eventually became “due process of law.” This very concept is incorporated in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee that no “freeman” in America can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Chapter 39 of Magna Carta guaranteed that no freeman can be punished without “the lawful judgment of his peers.” This principle is the basis for our concept of the right to a trial by jury, which is guaranteed in Article III of the Constitution, as well as the Seventh Amendment.

Magna Carta also guaranteed immunity from illegal imprisonment. This principle led directly to the development of the concept of habeas corpus, the right to sue the government to force it “to produce the body,” an individual who has been illegally imprisoned without due process of law. This was so important that it was incorporated into Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Most importantly, Magna Carta established the principle of the rule of law and checks on the power of the king (the executive in modern parlance). In other words, the concept integral to our own republic that no man is above the law, not even the president. Chapter 61 of Magna Carta stipulated that 25 barons would be selected to ensure that King John complied with the terms of the charter and if he violated the terms, they had the authority to “distrain” the king (seize his properties) until he complied. That principle became a “symbol of the supremacy of the law over the will of the king.”

King Edward I’s 1297 reaffirmation of Magna Carta (a copy of which is on display at the National Archives) said that any act of the king violating the charter “should be undone and holden for naught.” This fundamental principle was incorporated into the entire structure of our system of government as outlined in the checks and balances inherent in the Articles of the Constitution. And what King Edward I said must be done is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States does when the president exceeds his authority, as evidenced by its recent decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning,in which the Court held that President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. Thus, the president’s action was “undone and holden for naught.”

Two of the people in Washington who might learn the most from visiting this exhibit and its explanation of the importance of the rule of law and the limits on the power of the executive are President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Unfortunately, as two of my Heritage Foundation colleagues explain in a recent paper, “abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral action has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration.”

The exhibit at the Library of Congress displays the Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta, which has been in the possession of the Lincoln Cathedral literally since its issuance in 1215, a concept a little hard for Americans in our relatively new country to quite comprehend.

[see the original and complete article at The DailySignal.com]

RENEWABLE ENERGY: So Useless that Even Greenie Google Gave Up on It!

November 26, 2014 Leave a comment
Excellent article below from Breibart.com.
At least businesses like Google know when to call it quits and stop throwing money down a rat hole. Too bad liberal-socialists-progressives in government don’t know when to quit, as they continue to throw hard-earned taxpayer money down any rat hole they can find. Actually liberal-socialists-progressives love to find some secret rat holes in which to throw tax payer cash and claim they are doing it for the common good. They would never, never admit to wasteful government spending and let citizens keep more of their money.  For example just look at liberal-socialist-progressive President Obama and his continually propping up many failed projects. I am now thinking about projects like Solyndra, that promised a bright future with renewable energy but failed in a big way. Anyways, read further the article below as it shows how Google experts have wisely given up on so-called renewable energy, at least for now.

22 Nov 2014 at Breitbart.com

Some people call it “renewable energy” but I prefer to call it “alternative energy” because that’s what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from wonderful, energy-rich fossil fuel.)

Now a pair of top boffins from uber-green Google’s research department have reached the same conclusion.

Ross Konigstein and David Fork, both Stanford PhDs (aerospace engineering; applied physics) were employed on a Google research project which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal. But after four years, the project was closed down. In this post at IEEE Spectrum they tell us why.

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it’s so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.

In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.

Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor’s green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers’ money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund.

In theory this UN-driven initiative is supposed to help Third World countries cope with the effects of climate change. In reality, all it will do is force on their struggling economies more of the costly, intermittent renewable technologies (wind turbines; solar; etc) which have proved such a disaster for the advanced Western economies.

If we really want to throw money at the developing world so it can combat climate change, then what we should really be doing is insist that it is spent on adaptation projects – not, heaven forfend, ones to do with “decarbonisation.”

[SEE full article at Breitbart.com]

%d bloggers like this: