Archive for the ‘Elitism’ Category

VIDEO – WHO ARE THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN AMERICA ? PRAGER U

Tuesday, December 11th, 2018

 

VIDEO    WHO ARE THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN AMERICA ?
 Prager U

The genius of America is that it was set up as a representative government, but increasingly, Americans are ruled over by leaders who are unelected, and very powerful. Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger unmasks the people who are really ruling our lives.

Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. A leading scholar of constitutional law, his books Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and Is Administrative Law Unlawful? are all considered “must reads” in the world of legal scholarship. He is also President of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which fights the administrative state. To join the new movement for civil liberties, visit the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

 

Share

THERESA MAY’S SURRENDER “THE WORST DEAL IN HISTORY”

Wednesday, December 5th, 2018

 

 

“The Worst Deal in History”: Theresa May’s Surrender

Share

VIDEO – U. N. WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF MIGRATION IN EUROPE

Wednesday, December 5th, 2018

Share

VIDEO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Friday, October 26th, 2018

 

 

This is a  rather humorous  video of the  differences between the Democrat and Republican parties   (actually, it is not so funny as it  highlights the stark differences between the two parties!)   Be sure you vote as the future of this country depends of us, the voters !   Please share with your friends  Nancy  

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjzeNBSZFUo&feature=player_embedded&fbclid=IwAR1C1ZeK-rkq1qvZak8ZX8qXGyXe_sJw_0ffDiA7NaU3E_lEeVmR5bUKZn4

 

 

 

 

 

Share

NO TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Saturday, October 13th, 2018

 

We don’t hear much about the International Criminal Court but it is extremely important that we do not allow it to overrule our Supreme Court and to prosecute our citizens.  Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
AMERICANS’ RIGHT TO SELF-RULE
By Clifford D. May  Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times. September 25, 2018

 

In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join the International Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.

What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.

On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”

These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.

The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.

Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?

There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.

There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.

(more…)

Share

KAVANAUGH THE COLD ANGER AND THE RECKONING

Friday, September 28th, 2018

 

Kavanaugh, Cold Anger and The Reckoning….

They’ve gone too far.  “Donald Trump’s supporters are angry“, or “uneducated”, or “unenlightened”, or (fill_In_The_Blank). This hate-filled sentiment is clear within the latest vile,… nay,… evil and horrific smears directed toward Judge Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh and their cherished children.  Now the media narrative controllers are fully engaged along with their political brethren.  Do not look away.

The vulgar lies and filth are now extreme as the ideological entities utilize their microphones in a brutal attempt to tear down the Kavanaugh family.

As we bear witness, anyone trying to convince us this entire assembly of our union is headed in the right direction, well, they might want to revisit their proximity to the 2018 election ballpark. Because they’re not just out of the city – they’re also out of the same state the election ballpark is located in….. Then again, the media know that.

David Mamet had a famous saying, essentially: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience.  Denial of truth allows easier trespass.

This hate-filled Democrat ideology relies on your willingness to reconcile their presentations and grant benefit within their seeds of doubt. Do not look away.

(more…)

Share

THE U.N. AND HUMAN RIGHTS – NATURAL LAW AND POSITIVE LAW

Monday, September 10th, 2018

 

What Went Wrong With Human Rights

The conflation of ‘natural law’ with ‘positive law’ handed communism a philosophical victory after the end of the Cold War.

by James Taranto  Mr. Taranto is the Journal’s editorial features editor.
  August 18, 2018

When the U.S. withdrew in June from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Ambassador Nikki Haley described the council as “a protector of human-rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.” Aaron Rhodes agrees but thinks Ms. Haley was too gentle.

“The Human Rights Council has become a cover for dictatorships,” he says. “They assume the high moral ground of standing for ‘dialogue’ and ‘cooperation,’ a tactic for smothering the truth about denying freedom. Raising human-rights concerns is dismissed as divisive and confrontational, and a threat to ‘stability.’ Most of the debate there is technocratic blah-blah about global social policy—not about human rights at all.”

To U.N. watchers it’s a familiar critique, but Mr. Rhodes, 69, applies it far more broadly. In his recent book, “The Debasement of Human Rights: How Politics Sabotage the Ideal of Freedom,” he argues that virtually the entire human-rights enterprise has been corrupted by a philosophical error enshrined in the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and that this explains the travesty of the Human Rights Council.

That error is the conflation of “natural law” with “positive law.” Mr. Rhodes explains the difference: “Natural law is a kind of constraint on positive law.” Think of America’s Bill of Rights, whose opening clause is “Congress shall make no law.” The idea is “that laws have to answer to a higher law,” he says. “This is a vision of law that is very deeply embedded in Western civilization,” finding premodern expression in the ideas of the Greek Stoics and the Roman statesman Cicero, as well as in biblical canon law. Natural law is universal—or at least claims to be.

“Positive law,” Mr. Rhodes continues, “is the law of states and governments.” A statute like the Social Security Act of 1935 creates “positive rights”—government-conferred benefits to which citizens have a legal entitlement. Positive law is particular to a nation or other polity: “I live in Germany,” says Mr. Rhodes, a native of upstate New York whom I met during his U.S. book tour. “I enjoy a lot of economic and social rights there, but they reflect the political values of that community.” The Germans are “keen on being a moral society, where the state helps people. They’re statist. This is their mentality, but I don’t think it’s the same mentality here.”

(more…)

Share

MOVIE – REVELATION – DAWN OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT

Sunday, September 2nd, 2018

 

This is a movie that was produced during the Obama Administration and warns of  the many  dangers facing our country  – Socialism, Marxism, Globalists, Globalism, Agenda 21, Sustainability, The Secret Society, Bilderberg, the push for a National ID and Biometrics, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia Law, Open Borders, Gun Control, the Federal Reserve system  and most of all, Collectivism versus Individualism.
Today, President Trump is addressing many of these dangers and is it any wonder he is facing such hostility from the entrenched elitists in our country ?
Believe or disbelieve, you be the judge.    Nancy
NEW WORLD ORDER – ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
MOVIE – REVELATION  
Share

DEVIN NUNES, WASHINGTON’S PUBLIC ENEMY NO. 1

Sunday, July 29th, 2018

 

This interview with Devin Nunes by Kimberley Strassel (one of our top journalists) goes to the essence of the battle going on between the Congressional investigation and the FBI, the Justice Department the media and Democrats in Congress.  Amazing cover ups are going on in Washington and this article sheds light on much of it.  I’ve highlighted certain paragraphs in the article but the entire article is well worth reading.  Nancy .

Devin Nunes, Washington’s Public Enemy No. 1

What did the FBI do in the 2016 campaign? The head of the House inquiry on what he has found—and questions still unanswered.

July 28, 2018   by Kimberley A. Strassel

Tulare, Calif.

It’s 105 degrees as I stand with Rep. Devin Nunes on his family’s dairy farm. Mr. Nunes has been feeling even more heat in Washington, where as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence he has labored to unearth the truth about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s activities during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Thanks in large part to his work, we now know that the FBI used informants against Donald Trump’s campaign, that it obtained surveillance warrants based on opposition research conducted for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and that after the election Obama administration officials “unmasked” and monitored the incoming team.

Mr. Nunes’s efforts have provoked extraordinary partisan and institutional fury in Washington—across the aisle, in the FBI and other law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, in the media. “On any given day there are dozens of attacks, each one wilder in its claims,” he says. Why does he keep at it? “First of all, because it’s my job. This is a basic congressional investigation, and we follow the facts,” he says. The “bigger picture,” he adds, is that in “a lot of the bad and problematic countries” that Intelligence Committee members investigate, “this is what they do there. There is a political party that controls the intelligence agencies, controls the media, all to ensure that party stays in power. If we get to that here, we no longer have a functioning republic. We can’t let that happen.”

Mr. Nunes, 44, was elected to Congress in 2002 from Central California. He joined the Intelligence Committee in 2011 and delved into the statutes, standards and norms that underpin U.S. spying. That taught him to look for “red flags,” information or events that don’t feel right and indicate a deeper problem. He noticed some soon after the 2016 election.

(more…)

Share

JUST HOW FAR WILL THE LEFT GO ? VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Wednesday, July 25th, 2018

 

Just How Far Will the Left Go?

By Victor Davis Hanson| July 23rd, 2018

There was no honeymoon for the unlikely winner of the 2016 election. Progressives have in succession tried to sue to overturn Trump’s victory using several different approaches. First on the bogus claim of fraudulent voting machines. Then they sought to subvert the Electoral College by bullying electors into renouncing their respective states’ votes.

Massive protests and boycotts marked the inauguration. Then there were articles of impeachment introduced in the House. Some sued to remove Trump on a warped interpretation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Others brought in psychiatrists to testify that Trump was ill, disabled, or insane and should be removed in accordance with the 25th Amendment. The former FBI director, CIA director, and director of the Office of National Intelligence have variously smeared the president as a coward, a traitor, and a Russian mole.

The Mueller Investigation
We are about 430 days into Robert Mueller’s investigation; the special prosecutor whose team of lawyers and investigators has in a large part been made up either of Clinton donors, clear Clinton partisans, lawyers who have in the past represented Clinton interests or employees, or partisans already removed for expressing clear Trump hatred. The media grew ecstatic over its creation, dubbing it an “all-star” or “dream” team, as leaks assured the public that next week, next month, or “soon” there would be a sensational indictment proving that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the presidency.

We have gone through the psychodramas surrounding Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and a host of others. Any second, any minute they would be indicted for collusion in throwing an election, or they would soon flip and end the Trump presidency.

 

When we learned that Robert Mueller initially did not disclose to the media why he had fired Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and why he had spaced out their firings to prevent the impression that they were connected, we were only reassured of the professionalism of the Mueller investigation.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories