The Truth is worse then you might think!

[Dmitri Veans]

 

Those who pay any attention at all to positions put forth by the ruling class from the left and the Rino's from the right are often dumbfounded and seen scratching their heads in disbelief. You will hear them mutter why would they do such a thing?

 

Take the recent vote about stopping refuges from coming to America from countries that support terrorism. Rubio and Gram don't want to stop it based on their votes but Cruz and Paul do. The Democrats clearly don't want to stop them from coming in even in the wake of the California shooting.

 

On its face this is one of those dumfounded scratch your head moments, however it also demonstrates why the truth is worse then you might think. If you stop thinking about how these decisions will effect your families life and think like a politician you see a clear and in cases like this a deadly answer.

 

Washington is all about power and control, We The People are willing to give them more when we fear. A case in point after 911 no one objected to new laws removing our privacy rights to help fight terror, we are equally inclined to accept bad law when riots fill the streets.

 

So from Washington's point of view Americans will accept bad law when they are scared, so why not allow more and more violent extremists in to create that fear. When you listen to the radical left in their speeches you will hear the words "bottom up" as they make every attempt insight violence. 

 

Bottom up is an innocuous term ignored by the media except they do know what is meant by it. You see communists understand that by in sighting violence among the people, the people will then call for new laws to fix it. This is how control is taken from the people at their request hence bottom up demands top down.

 

Bottom up = violence

Top down = government intervention.

 

To fool the people the government is often creating laws that start a problem with the voters so the people will scream for them to fix it only the fix just creates more bad government. Today we see efforts to do the unthinkable and bring in more and more people who want to do us harm. The why is what hurts but we do have an option as Americans, vote for people who do not support this madness in the primaries.

 

It is clear Trump and Cruz offer us a way from the madness of the current white house but look to all office holders if they support insanity vote them out. We the people are tired of bottom up and top down governance, lets elect Conservatives who want to do the right thing not Republicans or democrats.

 

Lets all do our duty and save America.

[Dmitri Veans]

White House Still Refuses to Call California Attack Terrorism

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/white-house-still-refuses-call-california-attack-terrorism/

 

FBI Treating San Bernardino as Terrorism

http://www.am980.ca/2015/12/03/fbi-treating-san-bernardino-shooting-as-terrorism/

[Dmitri Veans]

From all that seems wrong with the world sometimes you read the words of a mighty warrior and you get inspired by what they have to say. From Peggy Noonan with the wall street journal comes one such story,

I hope you will read it. 

http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/forum/topics/the-first-amendment-nee...

[Dmitri Veans]

 

President Obama’s decision to suddenly address the country from the Oval Office tonight for only the third time is in part a belated realization that he and his party have lost touch with the country on terrorism.

The initial response by Obama and other Democrats to recent terror attacks was listless and inexplicable. Obama termed the Paris massacre a mere “setback” and continued to claim that climate change was a greater threat, and he also has steadfastly refused to identify “radical Islamic terrorism” as the enemy in the war on terror. Instead, his first instinct was to call for more gun control: “The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern of mass shootings that have no parallel anywhere in the world.” That is an obvious lie in the wake of recent terror incidents around the world from Paris to Mali. For her part, Hillary Clinton also called for more gun control, before she finally acknowledged that perhaps the U.S. visa-screening program needed “a hard look.”

In the wake of San Bernardino, Attorney General Loretta Lynch promptly announced that “her greatest fear” was that anti-Islam “rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence.” She pledged to prosecute anyone who engaged in “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges towards violence” against Muslims. It is an odd priority given that Jews are consistently targeted for their faith far more often than members of any other religious group, and that the latest statistics show that over 60 percent of religious hate crimes in this country are committed against Jews, with less than 14 percent against Muslims. As for prosecuting the war on terror, more and more experts have begun questioning the White House’s failed strategy. Former CIA director Michael Morrell admitted that concerns about environmental damage have prevented the White House from bombing oil wells that finance the ISIS.

 

“We didn’t go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn’t want to do environmental damage, and we didn’t want to destroy that infrastructure,” Morell said last week on PBS’s Charlie Rose.

In the last few days, Democrats in Congress have begun hearing from constituents who are angry at Democrats’ out-to-lunch reaction to the recent terrorist attacks. Even liberal commentators have started raising the alarm. Mark Shields, a former Democratic campaign strategist turned PBS commentator, warned that since Paris, “the Democrats have been tone-deaf” on the rising tide of terrorism. “There is a sense of fear,” he said. “Since Paris, you have Great Britain going in against ISIS. You have got Germany going in against ISIS. This was really a seminal event, Paris was, and I think San Bernardino is, just another chapter in that.”

But Democrats have for now been paralyzed by their political correctness, which has stifled a vigorous Democratic response to recent terror attacks. Hillary Clinton said today on ABC’s This Week that she still won’t use the term “radical Islam” because “it doesn’t do justice to the vast number of Muslims in our country and around the world who are peaceful people.”

New Jersey governor Chris Christie scoffed at that reasoning. “They won’t say radical Islamic jihadist,” he told CBS’s Face the Nation today in criticizing Obama and Clinton. They fail to see, he said, why it’s vital to describe the enemy properly so that we can properly combat them: “Now when you say ‘radical Islamic jihadist,’ they understand, the rest of the Muslim community understands. The folks who are peaceful and who attend mosques in a peaceful way, work in our country, raise their families, pay their taxes. They know they’re not radical Islamic jihadists.” President Obama’s speech tonight will be an attempt to lower the level of fear the country is feeling, and he will also aim to convince people that he has the issue in hand. But more and more Democrats are anxious that a tone-deaf White House is pushing the party back to the days of the late 1970s and 1980s, when Democratic candidates from Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis were viewed as insufficiently responsive to foreign-policy threats. The party paid a price for that, and Democrats worry that they now look out-of-touch and uncertain in foreign policy. To the extent that continues, the Democratic party could pay a steep price at the polls next year.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428087/san-bernadino-shooting...

 

[Virginia Foulk]

I get the National Review magazine, so not sure how to place the articles on this site.  Thanks for putting this one out there. I always liked William F. Buckley, Jr. Wish he was still around. The !960s debate between Presidents was far out-shone by the in fighting between Buckley and Gore Vidal. My husband even gave up his regular TV programs just to watch. And the NR appears to be very close to what Buckley would keep.  I suspect that Obama's speech would get a thorough trashing from Buckley.

[Dmitri Veans]

Obama is even getting heat from many dem's in the media, he and his party just don't get it. They will come election day though. 

Paris and CA showed the left for what they are, and even loyal dem's around here are fed up. Its so nice to hear. 

[Rhodes]

No the truth is not worse than I think...

Its even worse than you think.

Thus my last creed:

[Dmitri Veans]

Sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction, I have of late begun to read articles out of California suggesting that Democrats in the state are starting to become Dino's (Democrats in name only). This new trend is being blamed on the open voter system. It seems since so many of the races are between to democrats the republicans are choosing the more conservative democrat.

 

Hence the dino is winning against the more liberal candidates, and this trend is disturbing the socialists and liberals in the state. One commentator said she was so happy when the open system was passed not realizing how it would effect the type of candidate that would end off being elected. What no one foresaw was when there is no republican on the ticket those voters would still show up to elect the Dino and not the liberal.

 

Sometimes the truth is stranger then fiction. 

[kevin kiernan]

I think Trump will get a lot of votes from the Democratic Party who have gone to sleep in disgust over the way their beloved party has gone over the last few decades. It is just a thought ,but it would be an interesting poll to take if it was possible.

[Dmitri Veans]

The media is tripping over themselves to tell blacks they don't like Trump. I can tell you in my area there are a lot of blacks supporting Trump and I live in a purple county due to their numbers, I see near half for Trump and that would push this county red. A republican does not win the state without this county and from what I see Trump owns it. 

With all I talk to its immigration. 

[jack ludwig]

I don't think Trump will have any problem getting a fair amount of democrat votes, but his problem is winning the nomination first. Democrats are not going to flock to the polls during the primary elections to vote for Trump. Cruz recognizes that and is using that to his advantage especially for the early primary contests. I see Cruz with the greatest potential to move ahead of Trump in the early primary states. I kind of like that when it comes to moving Trump our of the way, but it concerns me because I know Cruz can't win the general. So what is the gain? I am more concern that Trump wins the nomination and also beats Hillary. To me that would be the worst condition America could face.

[Dmitri Veans]

Trump winning would be the best thing that could happen. For once the globalization power elite would be gone in favor of whats good for America. 

[kevin kiernan]

Being a force against Globalization could be a deadly position. The NWO elites will not allow interference of their agenda without a fight. I am thinking they do not fight fair and do not take prisoners.