Political sex-slinging in Alabama


Since Alabama has garnered national attention over the Dec 12th special election, and since Roy Moore has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, I thought as a resident of the great state of Alabama I would give you a report from inside the state.

First, let’s back up a little and follow the timeline, the players, and the plan.

Summertime 2017, its primary season.

Mo Brooks, Luther Strange and Roy Moore are battling to be the Republican nominee for the special election on Dec 12th to fill the senate seat Jeff Sessions vacated when he became attorney general.

The 3 choices:

Mo Brooks – who cares he wasn’t going to win.

Luther Strange – a good guy and probably would be pretty good senator for the people of Alabama and current temporary fill in for Sessions. But a little too establishment. You know a good ole boy.

Roy Moore – Quite a character. Radical would be an understatement. Moore is well respected in this state for his stance against Gay marriage and his fight to keep the 10 commandments in the court room, which cost him his judgeship. A major anti-swamper.

As expected Mo Brooks was blown out in the 3 way run off, then there were 2.

A runoff that should have gone to Luther Strange. And probably would have, but then came the McConnell Trump endorsement. That turned out to be the kiss of death for Luther. Not because of President Trump but because of McConnell.

Mitch McConnell is the swamp, he is hated, and I mean hated, by every conservative in Alabama.

The fact that Moore beat Strange in the run-off is proof there is a real movement behind the drain the swamp slogan. If McConnell had kept his mouth shut Luther would have won the primary. But Ole Mitch can’t help it, he is clueless. The liberals have out smarted Mitch again.  Status quo for the last 10 or 12 years. He can’t even win with a majority in both houses of Congress and Trump in the White house.

He’s a loser and we don’t take kindly to losing in this state, which is another reason Mitch is so despised by Alabamians.

So now it’s down to Radical Roy Moore and Doug Jones on the democratic side. Who the hell is Doug Jones anyway? But before we get to that here’s what happened next.

Chelsea Clinton began endorsing Doug Jones on Twitter under the #AlSen hashtag. Why? She’s not an elected official, but she is a Clinton.

Well one can only assume the liberal powers-that-be decided it was time for Chelsea to do something to earn that over a million dollar a year salary other than just being a Clinton, so she sprang into action.

My personal thoughts were; ‘butt out Chelsea, you don’t live here.’

It soon became obvious Chelsea’s endorsement was worthless, and rightfully so.

So the Lib’s needed to change tactics. They would attack Roy Moore’s background. It’s an old but effective tactic. The point of attack to use is the one that’s currently popular in the news cycle.

Guess what that is.

Since the Weinstein allegations were big news, and ‘sexually abused women’ were coming out in droves the weapon of choice was naturally allegations of sexual abuse.

The plan; use the same weapon to defeat Roy Moore. The story broke in the Washington post, and Roy Moore was convicted in the court of public opinion. All too easy.

Follow along here. First it was the Chelsea endorsement, which failed, then the Washington Post article.

Which begs the question; who fed the story to the Washington Post?

Am I defending Roy Moore? No, I don’t know if he’s guilty or not, and neither do you. But I do believe a man is innocent until proven guilty. I also know accusations are not facts. And accusations from someone about something that happened over 30 years ago are extremely suspect.

The planned attack from the democrats was instantly effective since sexual allegations were in the news cycle, Roy Moore is a man, he’s white, and he’s a republican. Guilty as accused.

Enter Gloria Allred, the pathetic legal leech whose schict is male character assassination. Dig up a female victim, or several victims, construct a biased (or BS)  story and parade this whole act through the court of public opinion, hoping to walk away with a sack full of money (where she and the victim split the cash, her percentage being higher than the victim’s because she so earned it).

Which raises another important question: who is paying for Gloria’s services? She’s not going to collect any money from her collection of clients; they don’t have the kind of money her fees call for. Even if this goes to court and she wins, it could be years before she sees a dime.

Someone is paying Gloria Allred right now, and it needs to be revealed who that is. The Democratic Party is- that is my accusation.

Who are Moore’s accusers? In in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. Not to belittle them, but once this election is over, and if Doug Jones wins, Gloria Allred and the Democrats will drop them like a hot rock and their usefulness will have ended.

The attack is working, but Roy Moore will not lay down like most politicians. He will fight to the end. During his fight over the Ten Commandments statue, he had to be physically removed from office and I doubt he has changed. Moore’s stance eventually cost him his job.

How many politicians do you know who risked their careers for their beliefs?

Back to who the hell is Doug Jones anyway? I’m not going to bash Doug Jones, he seems like a normal person. But here is a fact you should be aware of. Doug Jones was a Bill Clinton appointee.

He will be a perfect sock-puppet for the Democrats if he wins in December. The first clue of he being a sock-puppet is in his campaign ad, were he says “healthcare is broken and we need to fix it.” Really? Your party broke it, and now you innocently want to fix it?

So the stage is set. Political sex slinging at its best, and it’s worst.

What’s at stake is a Senate seat which the GOP cannot afford to lose, but it looks like they might thanks to Mitch McConnell and idiots who comprise the jury in the court of public opinion.



Is Bill O’Reilly another victim?


Bill O’Reilly’s sudden departure from Fox News last week raised a few eyebrows.

Fans of the show where quick to lash out at Fox News for his dismissal, while those on the left cheered the show and Bill’s demise.

I’m not a fan of the O’Reilly Factor, nor do I dislike the show; his show just doesn’t interest me. But there is something else going on here, which happens all-to-often, an injustice.

How does one go from “the most respected news man on television” to unemployed in a matter of weeks?

It seems Bill O’Reilly is yet another victim of a judgmental society which has already made its mind up; Bill O’Reilly is not only accused of sexual harassment, but is guilty as charged. He is not the first, nor will he be the last victim of this pre-condemnation.

I do not know if he is guilty of what he has been accused of, but it is evident the public in general is already convinced he is. There is a certain stigma attached to some accusations, once leveled never seem to go away. They stick to the accused like a tattoo.

You call a person a liar, a thief, or a cheat, and the media audience takes it in stride, but:

Once a man is accused of rape, the deck automatically begins to be stacked against him. Once the public hears the accusation, they either convict him right away in their minds or become high suspicious of the individual. The same can be said for those accused of child abuse, child molestation, child pornography, or sexual harassment; they are guilty until the public’s demand for proof of innocence is met.

When the accusations are later proven to be false, most people say oh well and move on, or their suspicions never completely go away. But it’s too late for the accused, their life, is already damaged, and many times ruined for the remainder of their lives.

Anyone remember Crystal Mangum? She was the stripper who falsely accused 3 Lacrosse players of rape. The public opinion at the time: yes, 3 rich white boys raped this poor defenseless black stripper.

The campus on which this ‘rape’ took place was soon invaded by large groups of people who were convinced these three men were guilty as charged, based on nothing more than an accusation;

On March 29, more than 500 students, faculty members, administrators, and Durham residents marched across Duke—starting at the Marketplace on East Campus and ending more than a mile later at the Duke Chapel on West Campus—a “Take Back the Night” protest that was coincidentally part of a long-planned Sexual Assault Prevention Week on campus.”

The whole story was a lie, it destroyed the lives of 4 innocent college age men and their families, cost millions of dollars in legal fees proving their innocence, and the social injustice handed to them by a prejudgmental society, has not been corrected, even 10 years after the fact.

So what happened to Crystal Mangum? She’s in prison for a murder, convicted of stabbing her boyfriend to death.

What about the thousands of people who knew the Lacrosse players where guilty and said so? Did they collect money to offset the legal expenses? Did they offer apologies to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, Dave Evans, or Ryan McFadden? No they simply when on with their lives, leaving the lives of these 4 men in ruins.

Is Bill O’Reilly guilty of sexual harassment as charged? We do not know yet. Let me repeat that – we do not know yet. But the damage is already done. Bill is gone, and will likely never again be on television or radio, his brand permanently damaged.

O’Reilly’s fall from grace came quickly. And the story played out like it has many times in the past.

First, the accusations from Perquita Burgess and a rush to judgment media audience.

Then sponsors began pulling ad money from the show. PC (politically correct) businesses don’t want to offend anyone, in their minds they can’t afford to lose any customer, so they quickly distance themselves from any situation like the Bill O’Reilly case; which makes them as guilty of precondemnation as the general public.

Once that happened, it only reinforced the public’s condemnation of Bill O’Reilly – thinking “he must be guilty, otherwise the sponsors wouldn’t have bailed on him.”

Once the sponsor money was gone, Fox was left with no choice but to replace Bill O’Reilly. Bill O’Reilly’s fall from grace came at the hands of a former part time employee, with unproven accusations.  Perquita Burgess, armed with a high dollar civil rights attorney  who had inside access to television,  proved the fix was in for Bill.

Is Bill O’Reilly guilty of sexual harassment? All we have at this point is accusations, and lame one’s at that.

As a people who live in a country founded on law and order and the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ we owe it to Mr. O’Reilly to assume he is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, he has become just another in a long list of innocent people, whose lives were destroyed because someone accused them of the wrong thing.

But one thing is for certain; Bill O’Reilly is a victim of a pre-condemning, Politically Correct society, and you better pray you are not next.

Recent Protests and the Hypocrisy of the Left


Those of us old enough to recall the protests, and protests turned riots of the late 60’s recognize some similarities between then and now, and some concerning differences.

Truth is, most of these protesters don’t understand or don’t even know what they are protesting, blindly rallying behind causes they fail to realize most of today’s protests are based on lies, and started by liars, just like the “Free Speech” movement which began at Berkeley in the 60’s by one Mario Savio.

Mario Savio, the political activist, who became famous for his attack on the way Universities were operated. Savio thought universities had no right to curriculums, and students should be allowed to do, or study whatever they wanted to, simply because they were students.

Savio, obviously, an intelligent man, maybe winding up at Berkley probably about the time he realized his bouncing from campus to campus failed to give purpose to his life. Mario Savio gathered a number of shallow, disillusioned, like-minded followers and with a little help from television, the Free Speech movement was born.

Savio was a fake, and his cause was based on a lie. The famed sit-ins, known as the “Free Speech” movement had little, if anything to do with free speech. At its core, the free speech movement was little more than an excuse used by its participants for refusing to take responsibility for their own lives.

The movement went from sit-ins, to protests, and finally climaxed with the deaths of 4 protesters on the Kent State campus.

Just like Black Lives Matter, founded by a liar in one Shaun King, a white guy masquerading as a black man, and the entire movement is predicated on the lie of ‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot,’ fostered and publicized by the progressive news media.

The lie has been told so often, and so many times, people think it’s the truth. Todays protests that have nothing to do with truth, they are just anger based on lies, expressed in catch phrases uttered by unhappy and untaught people, who cannot accept the truth.

The Women’s march is another example of a protest based on a false premise.

A group of women dressed up in vagina costumes claiming they are being denied freedom of choice. Are they? What choice are they being denied?

They say they want the government out of their vaginas, but they continue to invite them in. What they really want, and won’t publicly admit, is for the government to pay for their abortions and their birth control claiming it’s healthcare.

Birth control is not healthcare, and if you want the government out of your vagina, then pay for your own birth control and your own abortion.  Free birth control products can be obtained at any county health clinic for those who can’t afford them, just as they were before the Affordable Care Act.

If you are too stupid or too lazy to use birth control, what right do you have to demand the government, i.e. the taxpayer, to pay for your abortion?

The lie of the women’s march is exposed; It’s not about women’s rights, it’s about subsidizing their sex life.

The free speech movement can be traced to a disgruntled student, fueled by the media, who’s growth was attributed to gutless compromising by the leadership at Berkley.

Today’s protests are being instigated by politicians, public calls from United States Congressmen and Senators to “go and protest,” and the growth of these protests is fueled directly by a biased media.

What ever happened to ‘call you Senator’ or ‘write your congressman?

What an utter disgrace to civil democracy.

But as all things evolve so these protests have evolved, and as they continue to evolve, they become more radical, more unruly, more lawless, and are putting some very costly future results in motion.

These protests have evolved into mobs having shed any semblance of decency, while taking perversion to a whole new level. So even calling for the murder of law enforcement personnel, which is nothing short of anarchy.

The most dangerous and disturbing difference in today’s protests verses the 60’s and 70’s is the active participation of elected officials.

The hypocrisy of the ‘tolerant’ left is on display in all its deviant glory, illustrating a stark contrast between the public statements of past political leaders “we are a nation of laws,” and today’s “go and protest.”

Elected officials have chosen an ignorant and dangerous thing to do – invoking mob rule. They have opened Pandora’s box unleashing a spirit of blind hatred which will culminate in people dying because of it.

Chuck Schumer has become the Mario Savio of 2017, along with his socialist side-kick Bernie Sanders. They instigated protests against the repeal of Obamacare, by feeding lies to a mob.

Schumer, in his joint statement, calling for rallies and protests, we find:

“The Republican Party’s plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act is in chaos,” Schumer and Sanders said in the letter. “The American people increasingly understand that throwing 20 million people off health insurance, privatizing Medicare, raising prescription drug costs for seniors and doing away with life-and-death patient protection provisions is not acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Americans want to improve the ACA, not destroy it,”

Only thing is not one thing in this statement is true! Not one!

Two elected officials, instead of legislation and working with other members of Congress to reach a solution, have chosen to call for protests.

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or

(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or

(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or

(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

Based on their actions, Schumer and Sander’s could and  should be charged with riot incitement, and if convicted, removed from office. Before claiming they are protected under “free speech” as their predecessor Mario Savio claimed, you may be mistaken.

Consider a couple of quotes from the ACLU regarding free speech:

“Is all speech protected?

The First Amendment protects your right to express your opinion, even if it’s unpopular. You may criticize the President, the Congress, or the chief of police without fear of retaliation. But this right doesn’t extend to libel, slander, obscenity, “true threats,” or speech that incites imminent violence or law-breaking.

Can I talk about government overthrow or taking over the streets?

he government can’t stop you from talking generally about ideas or future events. But it may ban speech that’s “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Sanders’ and Schumer’s part in provoking protests, turning into riots should be under investigation. Instead of being leaders, and handling things in a civilized manor, on the floor of the Senate, they are encouraging mob rule. Invoking lawlessness, which will evolve into more lawlessness until deadly force is required.

Schumer in his eagerness to ‘open Pandora’s box;‘ got a taste of the consequences of his actions:

The protesters he provoked have turned on him;

When people start dying in these ‘protests,’ Sanders and Schumer will own a share in the responsibility – this is on them. There is culpability for any damage or death as a result of these protests.

It is clear, Progressives care nothing at all about everyday, hardworking middle-class Americans, who’s lives have been disrupted because other radicals wanted to join in the fun of anarchy.

The same Progressives, who for the past eight years spoke of crossing the isle –  working together – when they were in charge, have replaced those phrases with go and protest.

This is the hypocrisy of the left.




What’s Next for Hillary

What’s next for Hillary? 

The race for the presidency is over. Hillary Clinton lost. End of story, or is it?

The significance of Hillary’s loss is far greater than just the losing of an election. Behind the Hillary bid there were major machinations taking place, record amounts of money changing hands, deals being struck, and promises being made.

While there are whisperings of Hillary running again in 2020, that’s not going to happen. Hillary is done.

The groundwork is already being laid for a presidential bid by a new progressive radical in 2020. One can only speculate who that might be, the picture will become clearer once we see who is going to replace the Clintons as the next pay-for-play leader.

At the top of the list? The Obamas. Obama has world-wide personal appeal, he has already shown he is capable of major fund raising, and is extremely likeable, like most con men.

A good choice for fund-raiser-in-chief and he will be easier to manipulate than the Clintons were, a useful tool in the right hands. Ted Kennedy thought so, and he was right.

And right on Que, there is a brand new foundation just opened for business: The Obama Foundation

There will be no come back for Hillary.

What I see next for Hillary is darkly prophetic. She, or someone in her family will die under mysterious circumstances in 2017 or 2018.


Pay for play. Just like ‘living and dying by the sword’ is a truism, so is ‘living and dying by pay for play.’

Here’s an example of how pay to play works:

“The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government”

And those speaking fees amounted to $21 Million in 2 years after her leaving state dept.

In politics there have always been people like the Clintons – deal makers – initiators, which matched up individuals, corporations, or even other countries to political favors, but no one has ever been in the center of so much money for so many potential favors as the Clintons.

The loss to Trump in 2016 is the end for the Clintons as chief clearing house enablers, the money invested in the Clintons, serious money, is gone.

Every political backer (or investor) knows there is a risk of backing a losing political candidate, that’s just part of it. But with the Clintons it went far beyond the typical investing in a candidate and hoping for a positive outcome.

Major money was invested, major promises made, all bet on a supposed sure thing.

Let’s take a brief look at the kind of money we are talking about.

Remember the “we were flat broke when we left the White House” Hillary quote?

She went from broke to having a net worth of $30 million in 2015.


In 2015 is was discovered there was something fishy going on with the Clintons and their finances. Something different, money was unaccounted for. Between their income and after spending $13 mil on a 2008 run there is some $50 mil unaccounted for.

Maybe someone wanted their money back after the 2008 loss?

This is just some of the money we know about. Add in The Clinton Foundation’s $2 billion in revenue since it formed in 1998, and you begin to see the enormous amounts of money we are talking about.

But even after the 2008 loss, Bill was still very popular and Hillary could still be of some use. The Clintons could and would prove their worth during her stint as Secretary of State.

She wasn’t given that slot because of Obama, she was put there by her investors.

With that having gone well, it was time to move on to bigger and better returns on investment.

So the investment stakes were raised and the Clintons would be given one more chance to come through – the 2016 Presidential run. But it was not to be.

The money, paid to, donated to, or handed to, the Clinton’s was an “investment,” and these investors lost serious money on the Clinton bid for the presidency.

The money invested in the Clintons was not just American money, it was from foreign countries and foreign governments.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent a record $1.2 billion on a losing presidential campaign.

Now that Hillary has lost, she has nothing left to offer.

Millions upon millions invested, and lost. Don’t expect her backers, her investors, to just say oh well. It is reported George Soros lost $1 billion because of Hillary’s loss.

Don’t expect the Clintons to go quietly into that good night either, knowing their wealth is at risk, and that wealth could go just as quickly as it came. The Clintons will resist, and things could get ugly.

While many Americans would love to see the Clinton clan in prison, I’m afraid prison won’t be enough for these Hillary investors.

The behind the scenes puppet masters don’t like ugly, they like quiet, so attempts will be made to muzzle the Clinton push-back. If that fails, then drastic measures will be taken.

A tragic accident or an untimely demise of Hillary of a member of her family is coming.

Oddly every time the Clintons wound up in a potentially serious legal investigation, people wound up dead. No Whitehouse occupant has ever come close to the associate body count the Clintons racked up.

Here are a few of those mysterious deaths:

Who was behind these mysterious deaths? The Clintons? Or their backers?

It happens, and will happen.

My prediction: Someone in the Clinton family will meet an untimely end sometime in 2017 or 2018. The more noise they make the sooner the end will come.


The 2016 Presidential Election and the Electoral College

electoral-college I would like to thank an acquaintance of mine in California who was the inspiration for this article.

Historically after the winner of a presidential election was declared, the disappointment of the losing party quickly subsided. The election was over, time to accept the results, make the best of it, and move on.

This year was different. After Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton the intolerance of the left was exposed for all the world to see.

The same Liberals who preach tolerance, all lives matter, demanding the acceptance of all lifestyles and faiths, were lying in the streets crying, rioting, and refusing to accept the results.

But that discussion is for another topic.

After the election was over a long-time acquaintance of mine who lives on the left coast, questioned the legitimacy of the Electoral College on Facebook. His concerns about Donald Trump were undoubtedly shaped by what he had heard constantly by the 24 hr. a day news media which relentlessly attacked Donald Trump.

The media labeled Trump as a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, a woman hater, and a dozen other derogatory things. None of which are true, but that also is for another topic.

Returning to the Electoral College comment; my first thought ‘was welcome to the club.’ Not because I think the Electoral College should be done away with, but because so much of my life has been affected by the Electoral College in the exact opposite manor.

First things first: my friend in California’s position is Hillary won the popular vote so the Electoral College results should be voided. That we are a democracy, therefore the person with the most votes wins.

But America is a Republic which operates on democratic principles. Big difference. One of the reasons the founders decided each state would have 2 Senators was to preserve equality of representation amongst the states in the enacting of laws which would affect the entire country.

Many would have you believe the Electoral College was created to keep an incompetent from becoming president, but that’s not exactly true. The Electoral College was created to prevent nationwide mob rule by one or a handful of states.

Now let’s look at election results (as of November 12th):

Nationwide popular vote:

Trump 60,072,551

Clinton 60,467,601

A difference of 395,050. A very slim margin of victory.

Now let’s look at 2 statewide results:


Trump 3,021,095

Clinton 5,589,936

A difference of 2,568,841

New York:

Trump 2,640,570

Clinton 4,143,874

A difference of 1,503,304

Now take out the results of either state, New York or California, and Trump wins the popular vote by more than a million. Take them both out and Trump wins the popular vote in a landslide.

My California friend, in anger only I’m sure, echoed the notion of succession from the union, and he wasn’t alone. Wow! Talk about the shoe being on the other foot. Sounds just like the south prior to the Civil war.

Why would they say that? Because they feel Trump is a threat to their way of life. Just like the southern states did prior to the civil war.

It has been taught (by Liberal teachers) for decades the civil war was all about slavery, but that’s not true. It is also taught everyone in the south either had slaves, or was in favor of slavery, but that’s not true either.

Were the evils of slavery a part of it, without question, but the main issue which provoked succession, was when the Northeastern part of the country, far more densely populated, and with a huge technological advantage, began dictating to the lesser populated southern states, how things would be.

Mob rule. A situation diametrically opposed by the Electoral College.

People in the south felt their states’ rights were being violated and their way of life under assault. It was unacceptable for a couple of Northern states to dictate to them how they should live and what rights they should have.

They felt their way of life threatened, so they succeed from the union.

Now fast forward to the last 50 years, and my previous comment ‘welcome to the club’ and how the Electoral College has failed the rest of us at times.

California and New York City are the centers of television, movie production, and news media headquarters. For the last 50 years or so, Liberals have determined what movies would be made, what television shows would be aired, and what and how news stories would be told, while the rest of the country just had to deal with it.

The Liberals took full advantage of this and attacked, belittled, undermined, and at times outright attacked the way of life of Americans in the other 45 states who disagreed with their views.

The news media was used as a weapon to distort the truth and coheres the population to further the Liberal agenda.  We didn’t have a media and entertainment Electoral College, as it were, for us in the other 45 states. Our opinion didn’t matter


News flash: most of the movies coming out of Hollywood are nothing short of trash. The View is a social cesspool, Seinfeld wasn’t that funny, not every show has to have a homosexual in it, and nobody in the south liked Honey Booboo; your polling data was wrong (just like in this year’s presidential race).

Thank heavens for NetFlix and others like it.

Oh, and New York City, you are neither the cultural beacon for the country or a shining example of the American dream. Get over yourself.

And speaking of polling data; it’s easy to get the poll results you want when you get to pick the participants. No one I know, myself included, has ever been asked to participate in any political poll. Polling data was and is fixed, whose truthful representation has become a tool the news-media uses to manipulate public opinion.

For too long, the two most heavily populated states have determined the political landscape of the entire country. Candidates knew if they could capture California, New York, and/or most of the Northeast their chance of winning was a given, the rest of the country got the big ole middle finger. 248836_340

The states who got the Liberal middle finger, populated by hard working, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens (the backbone of this country), whose voices have been ignored since Reagan left office, finally had had enough and turned out to vote.

Two of the states the left always catered to, New York and California have an illegal immigrant population of 3,125,000. How many of those cast votes, illegally, the 2016 presidential election? Everyone that could I’m sure.

Illegal immigrants, who are being supported by taxpayers from 45 other states which had have no say in the matter! Where was our Electoral College in this?

We have a joke of a health-care system, passed by a political minority, which illegal immigrants are benefiting from at no cost to them, while middle-class insurance premiums have doubled or tripled since the ACA became law. No Electoral College intervention here.

Obama has run the country for the last 7 1/2 years on a $9 Trillion credit-card shoring up government pension plans and increasing welfare handouts, all while destroying middle-class America.

We are $20 Trillion in debt, the middle class is hanging on by a finger nail to what’s left of the American dream, Obama is importing refugees and settling them in states who have no say in the matter, expecting the middle-class taxpayer to not only accept it, but pay for it.

Here is a list of the states where Obama has illegally settled refugees and what is interesting is, Michigan and Pennsylvania, traditional Liberal strongholds, who have had refugees forced on them by Obama, came out and voted for Donald Trump.

We can’t afford to pay our own debts, much less everyone else’s. But again no Electoral College intervention here either.

Working class America, found in Donald Trump a man that recognized the legitimacy of their anger, and had the courage to tell the elitists in Washington we have had enough.

Trump told the media, the Liberal propaganda machine I don’t need you, I will go to the people and win without you,’ the media hated him for it, and attacked him 24/7.

Those who voted for Trump were tired of 2 or 3 states deciding everything for the entire country. For too long California, New York, and the elitists in Washington D.C have violated states’ rights, Constitutional rights, and sought to replace our lifestyle with a lifestyle of their choosing.

I freely admit all states have problems to deal with, but the difference is we in the other 45 states do not dictate to California or the Northeastern states how to live their lives or run their states.

Alabama, where I live, is not an ass-backward, hick state as portrayed by the media. It is a conservative state with hard working people who feel, as a black woman in front of my wife and I, at our voting place expressed so eloquently; “I just want to work, pay my taxes, and be left alone.” Absolutely right.

Our way of life (and I speak for most of the states in this country) is based on faith, family, and country. Our way of life has been under assault by Washington DC, and we are sick of it.

The 2nd amendment exists to secure the right to our way of life. According to Liberals like Obama, we are just “clingers to our bibles and our guns.” Damn right, just like the founders of this country.

We are tired of Liberals trying to replace faith with theoretical nonsense, replace family with government, and replace freedom with socialism. If that’s what you want in your state, in your city, in your lifestyle, fine. But you don’t get to decide that for the rest of us.

Hence the Electoral College. electoral-college

Here’s another news flash for you; the vast majority of gun violence is committed by Liberal welfare recipients, not bible-toting, gun-clinging rednecks in the south. The vast majority of the rioters in major cities are also Liberal welfare recipients or illegal immigrants.

Those same miscreants have declared war against law and order, murdering police officers, destroying private property, all while the Obama administration supports their actions.

This is what Trump supporters saw. This is why Trump won. This time the Electoral College, which has failed me and others so many times in the past, finally came through.

Do I want California to succeed from the Union, or course not? Sarcastically speaking – it would cost too much to build a wall around California, besides I get my wine from there.

While you may be upset with the Electoral College, I think it’s time those of you in California, New York City, and Washington DC realize we in the other 45 states have a say as well.

And our voice came through loud and clear this year.

We will no longer be dictated to by a minority of those who threaten our way of life.


The Farce of the DNC Hack

Information Security
Information Security

Recently I wrote an article on Hillary’s email blunder, highlighting the folly of her defense of her miss-management of her email accounts, personal and business, exposing those accounts to potential hacks. I would like to talk about email folly again; this time involving the “hack” of the DNC (Democratic National Convention).

Yes, and once again the hack of the DNC was gained through a poorly secured email account. The comical part of the DNC hack was not the hack itself, for I’m not a fan of any illegal hack, but the quick-to-blame-the-Russians for the hack.

Why would the “Russians” hack the DNC? What would be the point? If you listened to Liberal media outlets like CNN & MSNBC they would like you to think it’s because the Russians want Trump to win the election.

That’s funny, because I’m sure the Russians would prefer for Hillary to win rather than Trump. With Trump winning the presidency Putin would be forced to deal with a person who says what he means and does what he says, whereas with Hillary they know exactly what they are getting; 4 more years of another weak president they can push around.

The Hillary supporters would have you believe Putin is scarred of Hillary, what with the toy ‘reset button’ she reset buttonpresented to Putin while Secretary of State. Sadly her and ‘reset button’ turned out to be a green light to Russia extending their influence in the Middle East and Central Ukraine.

Back to the point: the claim the Russians hacked the DNC was a farce, and they knew it. Here’s why.

Without venturing to far back in history, let’s just do a 60 second recap of hacking, sticking to computer hacking, not its predecessor phreaking. Going back to the 80’s, anyone remember the movie Wargames?

The story is about a teen while trying to access a video game company to play the games they are about to release, but winds up hacking into a U.S. nuclear missile defense system almost causing WWIII.

Wargames the movie, a hacker cult classic, had a thread of truth running through it, as it gives an insight into types of hackers.

Hackers can be divided into a few basic groups:

  1. Hackers wanting to access information that is private, playing online games for free and such, accessing personal info for no other reason than personal entertainment by embarrassing the hackee. This type of hack could be mischief, like hacking into company data bases just to prove they could.
  2. Then there are those having a more malicious intent, creating viruses, worms, and other forms of malware, that infects personal pc’s turning them into bots, spewing the virus to other machines via email contact lists, or infected links, turning unsuspecting pc’s into remote slaves, capturing key strokes and accessing built in cameras.
  3. Hackers who are in it for the money. Identity theft, ransomware (where your files are encrypted and you can get the unlock key if you pay the hacker for it), or hacks of banks involving large sums of money.
  4. Then there is espionage. Hacks involving governments spying on each other. This is the most serious type of hacking. This type of hacking has National security implications, even matters of life and death.

If we consider the groups we’ve just mentioned, which on do you think is the most likely? We can safely rule out group 4, for there are no National Security interests in the DNC database (of there shouldn’t be). So the Russian government wouldn’t risk exposure on this type of hack.

With every hack there are footprints, clues as to the perpetrator, all governments are aware of this, so, the reward must be worth the risk.

That leaves 3 possible groups. With the absence of any reports of monetary theft, group 3 could be eliminated. That leaves 2 groups; groups 1 and 2. Could the supposed DNC cause publicity problems? Yes. Could these problems become serious? Yes, especially with the presidential election looming.

As it turned out a hacker going by the name Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC email account and turned the documents over to Wikileaks

It also turns out the hacked documents from the DNC were extremely embarrassing. Embarrassing enough to causewikileaks-and-dnc Debbie Wasserman Schultz to change jobs from DNC chair to Hillary Campaign manager.

Accusing the Russian Government of the hack was a farce. While Liberals may have believed it, Putin is no doubt still laughing, as well as everyone in the I.T. community.

Thoughts on Hillary’s e-mail Blunder

Working in IT for a living I am all-too-aware of how problematic security can be when it comes to email.

Corporations spend Millions on security to guard against intrusions, but this security has an Achilles heel, email.

Most corporate hacks are the result of compromised email addresses of employees who have high or admin access to sensitive material.

Even if the email hacks are successful on an employee who doesn’t have access to sensitive information, the hacker still has access to the email account itself.

With this access, the hacker can read, write, create, and delete emails in the account. The emails themselves may contain material that is secret or sensitive in content.

Those secretes may be personal, professional, or legal in nature, of they may contain trade secrets, information about upcoming events or even customer contact information.

So even though companies spend Millions annually to protect sensitive information, IT people know security is at the mercy of the individual user.iStock_000017775671XSmall

So when I heard that the secretary of state was running her own private email server outside of government supervision, outside of government run security protocols, I couldn’t believe it. What a careless thing to do.

Yes, many of us have private and corporate email addresses, I have a couple of each, but I use my business email address for business and private email for personal communication. I don’t mix the 2. Using my business email for personal matters is a no-no and most large companies forbid it.

The danger of mixing the two is there are invariably cross links. For example; say I use my business email to contact a friend on a personal matter, it could be anything, maybe an upcoming sporting event I’d like to watch, sharing a joke, or just plain B.S. If my friends email account gets hacked or already has been hacked, then the hacker has my business email address, exposing it to possible attacks.

Suppose my friends email account is hacked; I get an email from the same friend (except the hacker sends it unbeknownst to me), it contains a note or picture, and because I recognize the sender I open it. Unfortunately the email contains malware and now I’m compromised.

If on a small scale, knowing what a risk this represents, imagine the enormous risk posed by a Secretary of State whose is careless with her email account. It may never be known how much information is in the hands of the wrong people.

I further find it incredible that no one in the government put a stop to the practice after day one. It’s not like they didn’t know – or are completely brain dead. When you receive an email from someone the email address is evident. I.E. steve@clueless.com. So you recognize Steve and the email account he is associated with.

You would think the alarm bells would go off when someone in the State Department or any government department received an email from hillary@clintonemail.com!

Even if they didn’t pay attention to the senders address, any replies they sent would be obvious it was not a government server they were sending it to.

workamajig-security-failBut the use of the private email account was allowed to continue. Everyone who sent to or received from clintonemail.com knew this was against the rules. It was a careless risk, with national security implications, and no one cared.

How could such a blunder be allowed at the highest levels of our government?

The defense presented by Hillary was so lame it was laughable.

“The emails weren’t flagged top secret when I received them.” What?

So your defense is because they didn’t have a red flag in the subject line that said top secret, it relieves you of any responsibility?

You mean you couldn’t determine from the content, who it was from, or both, the information was top secret? So you defend incompetence with ignorance? Really? That’s your defense? And you are Secretary of State?

If I send a letter to my attorney, it is de facto subject to attorney client privilege, so wouldn’t it be safe to assume if you as Secretary of State received an email from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or an Ambassador from another country that it would be at least secret, if not top secret? Of course you would.

You and I send and receive private emails all the time that contain content that is not for public consumption, and we have enough sense to use discretion on what we can share and with whom, the contents of the email. Evidently Hillary Clinton doesn’t possess even that basic of discretion.

Defending incompetence with ignorance is an unbelievable excuse. Especially when National Security issues, or the lives of men and women serving to protect us are potentially put at risk.

We are not talking about a teenager on their first job being careless with an email account we are talking about the Secretary of State, who was previously a Senator, and before that First Lady of the U.S.

The emails exposed were even more damning to their defense. One email set revealed Hillary Clinton told her daughter Chelsea the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a terrorist attack while she told the American people the attacks were due to a YouTube Video.

Incompetence defended by ignorance, defended by deception becomes laughable when you expect others to believe it.

“Ignorance of the law excuses no man.” Unless you’re Hillary Clinton.


What is H.R.2431 and why you should care



H.R. 2431 otherwise known as International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and was passed into law in Oct 9th 1998

The basis of the bill:

(1) The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.

(2) Freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal human right and fundamental freedom

(3) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. “

(7) Congress has recognized and denounced acts of religious persecution through the adoption of the following resolutions:

The bill declares it to be U.S. policy to:

(1) condemn violations of religious freedom, and to promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of, the fundamental right to freedom of religion; and

(2) seek to channel U.S. security and development assistance to governments that are found not to be engaged in gross violations of the right to freedom of religion.

Freedom of Religion is one of the cornerstones of our founding principles and a right we recognize as inalienable.

As Americans, we believe, because it is inalienable, freedom of religion is not limited to our way of life, but is the inherent right of all peoples of all nations and of all faiths.

Because of our leadership role in the world, it is our obligation to make sure, whenever and wherever possible that peoples of all nations are given the opportunity to engage in this most basic of rights.

We cannot hope to dictate to other countries what religions or faiths they are to adhere to or even consider as the one-true-faith, but what we can realistically expect is for the leadership of those countries to allow their citizenry the right to choose which faith to follow and/or religion to practice, without fear of persecution.

Now the question arises; why is this law not being enforced, its conditions exercised, or even being discussed?

In light of the growing persecution of peoples of any faith but Islam in the Middle East, this bill should be included in all conversations involving U.S. Middle Eastern policy.

We have all witnessed the brutal slaughter of Christians at the hands of ISIS, but are christian-isis-persecutionyou also aware those countries our government considers allies do not allow the practice of any faith but Islam.

In most Middle Eastern countries any faith but Islam is against the law. Even our ‘closest ally’ Saudi Arabian law prohibits not only any faith but Islam, they don’t even allow foreign missionaries from any other faith in side their country.

H.R. 2431 provides for an Ambassador at Large and staff to keep Congress and the President apprised as to which countries are in violation of the conditions laid down in this bill.

Should countries be found in violation of Freedom of Religion and/or engage in religious persecution, the bill authorizes the President to take actions against such countries.

Here are 7 direct actions available to the President listed in the bill, with 8 others being indirect.

(1) public condemnation;

(2) delay or cancellation of scientific and cultural exchanges;

(3) withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. development assistance and U.S. security assistance; (4) instruction of U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions to vote against loans primarily benefiting the foreign government responsible for such violations;

(5) restrictions on the issuance of licenses to export any goods or technology to such foreign government; (6) prohibition against the making, guaranteeing, or insuring of loans, or extension of credit by certain U.S. financial institutions to the violating government; and

(7) prohibition of U.S. Government procurement of goods or services from such government

When was the last time President Obama took any of the actions listed in this legislation to confront this violation of Religious Freedom?

When was the last time President Obama even took the very first action at his disposal (Public condemnation)?

Yes I’m aware President Obama has spoken out against the brutal acts of ISIS, but at the same time ignored violations on a country wide basis.

According to the latest annual report posted on the government website (as required by this legislation):

The following countries are Tier 1 or “countries of particular concern,” or CPCs. IRFA requires the U.S. government to designate as a CPC any country whose government engages in or tolerates particularly severe violations of religious freedom that are systematic, ongoing and egregious.”

Notice the Islamic countries listed in Tier 1 (countries of particular concern):



Saudi Arabia


Turkmenistan Is 89% Muslim


We are allowing religious oppression, bordering on genocide to some faiths, to continue while providing refuge for peoples of the same faith which is guilty of the persecution.

H.R. 2431 was signed into law by Bill Clinton, ironically a few months after the founding of The Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation’s first year received a shade over $3 million in donations (from whom we aren’t privileged to know), meanwhile Saudi Arabia conveniently got a pass from Bill Clinton even after terrorist attacks, killing hundreds of Americans, were planned and carried out by Usama Bin Laden a citizen of Saudi Arabia.

This miscalculation led to 9/11 where thousands of Americans were killed. All planned and carried out by Usama Bin Laden and 15 Saudi citizens.

While our government has more of less exonerated the Saudi Government of knowing and /or assisting in the attacks recently, it does not erase the guilt of Saudi Arabia as being guilty of violating the conditions of this legislation.

During the Bush years, before and after the Iraq war, the relationship with Saudi Arabia cooled, but was deemed necessary for success in Iraq by our government. Bush took advantage of a waiver clause in the bill (which I refer to as the Bush clause):


(3) the important national interest of the United States requires the exercise of such waiver authority

In 2009 enter Barak Obama and his questionable affection for all things Islamic. Obama has taken no action against Islamic countries in general or allies in particular that are guilty of grossly violating the conditions set forth in this bill.

A number of Tier 1 countries have donated money to the Clinton Foundation and those donations escalated during Hillary’s term as Secretary of State (2009-2013). Buying silence perhaps?

But those details are for another article.

This bill needs to return to the forefront of American conscience because of the current immigration, or-lack-thereof policy of Obama. Based on this legislation, we could and should, change our immigration/refugee focus to those people who are persecuted in Islamic countries, and base the priority of application on the severity of the persecution.

Which is not what is happening now. War torn Syria is the current administrations priority one; even while Christians are being be-headed and crucified on crosses.


The current administration is all-to-eager to provide ‘refugee statuses’ to people of the very same faith which is intolerant of every other faith except their own, and are guilty of violations listed in this bill. Christians are being murdered, jailed, beaten, and ostracized in Muslim countries, by Muslims.

There is political rhetoric today that we shouldn’t discriminate against any immigrants based on religion. I agree, to a point. The purpose of refugee status is to protect those who are victims of


FREEDOM.—The term ‘‘particularly severe violations of religious freedom’’ means systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom, including violations such as—

(A) torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

(B) prolonged detention without charges;

Less than 2% of those granted ‘refugee asylum’ this year are Christian, or of any other faith but. It seems to me there is selective discrimination being carried out by this administration.

It is widely reported Christians are systematically abused by Muslims occupying refugee camps, reducing their chances of ever escaping their fate, and overlooked by this administration.

And if they are lucky enough to make it to another country, they are still abused by Muslims in the refugee camps.

This could be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice ever committed by the United States. We have ignored the cries for help from peoples of other faiths, while embracing with open arms, those who are guilty of persecuting those who seek freedom of religion.

It is without excuse we have failed to act.

Obama loves to proclaim we are not a Christian Nation, but we are a nation of Christians, and this country was founded by those of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The very reason for coming to the new world was to exercise freedom of religion. Get over it Mr. President.

The rise of radical Islam has been on the rise since the Iranian revolution, and has accelerated in human rights abuses in the last 10 years. iran1Instead of taking a stand against this demonic barbarism our government considers Saudi Arabia an ally and we have all but handed nuclear weapons to the Iranians, all in direct violation of the terms of H.R. 2431.

May God forgive us if we fail to rescue those who are oppressed by Islamic countries because of their desire to freely worship, while importing the instruments of our own destruction.





Who Is Harriet Tubman and Why You Should Be Mad

Harriet-Tubman-248x300The Treasury Dept. announced yesterday there would be a new face on the $20 bill beginning in 2020. It was decided that honor would go to Harriet Tubman.

Tubman was an abolitionist who was credited for running the Underground Railroad during the civil war. But Tubman wasn’t chosen for historical work, she was chosen because she’s a woman and she is black.

Her underground railroad provided a vehicle of freedom for thousands of slaves during the Civil War era. A brave and noble woman to be sure, but worthy to be considered as a replacement for President Andrew Jackson on the new $20?

However worthy, this action by the Treasury Dept., at the behest of the Obama Administration, is just another example of a government out of control, doing whatever they damn well please, through sleight of hand, without consideration for the will of the citizenry.

Obama was determined to put the face of a black woman on U.S. currency, no matter what.

Originally it was proposed Alexander Hamilton’s image on the $10 bill be replaced with a woman’s. There was a pool of some 15 potential candidates, and a ballot was made available online so citizens could vote on the selection.

Then the field was quickly narrowed to 4.

The allocated time for people to vote online ran from March 1, 2015 to May 10th. Did you know about the vote? Very few did. It was made public, but made public to would more than likely vote for the pre-determined outcome.

It was announced some 600k people voted, yet I doubt there is any proof as to the actual outcome of the votes cast. No, likely it was already decided who the winner would be, and it was determined by 2 people. Treasury secretary Jack Lew, an Obama appointee, and Obama himself.

When the treasury was asked by the New York Times how the determination was made, the Treasury said that Lew was looking for a woman “who was a champion for our inclusive democracy.”

Whose inclusive democracy was he referring to?

Lew and Obama made the choice. Period.

Not only was the choice made, but the Administration decided to pull the ole’ switcheroo. And get a two-fer.

Lew & Obama decided to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 and not the $10. That was the switcheroo. The two-fer is they never planned to leave the $10 bill as is, they are going to replace the image on the back of the bill with another woman. The candidates are Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott.

And there is more, they are going to change the back of the $5 as well. The candidates for this change are Marian Anderson, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr.

BY the way, Marian Anderson’s claim to fame- she’s a black opera singer. An opera singer? Are you kidding me?

This whole process was nothing short of the Liberal, Racist, backdoor Progressive pandering we have come to expect from the Obama Administration. And I’m mad about it, and you should be too.

The Progressives Continual Attack On The 2nd Amendment

Almost immediately following the San Bernardino tragedy, before the incident was fully investigated, President Obama, along with Hillary Clinton in her familiar robotic tone, began beating the drum for the need to enact more gun control legislation to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Pet phrases like “we can do better,” “something has to be done,” and “common sense approaches,” are synonyms for we want you to give up a little more of your freedom.

2nd Amendment restrictions have always been a top priority of Progressives, believing the government is more capable of running our lives than we are.

While insisting more gun-control legislation is what is needed to prevent such tragedies, preventing future tragedies is not their real intent, their real intent is restriction of our 2nd amendment right, and they shamelessly use any gun-related tragedy to further their objective.

Would restricting my 2nd amendment right have prevented the San Bernardino tragedy? How about yours? Or any other law-abiding gun owners? Emphatically no!

Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton’s hasty implication that stricter gun control laws would have somehow prevented the massacre, over the course of the days that followed San Bernardino, turned out to be entirely false.

Their proposed gun-control legislation would not have prevented San Bernardino, and they knew it when they said it, and they still know it. But this isn’t about San Bernardino, it’s about control. Government control.

We now know San Bernardino was terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic radicals Syed Rizwan Farook and his “wife” Tashfeen Malik.

The Progressives want you to look past the fact the attack was carried out in a gun-free zone, and Syed Rizwan Farook didn’t purchase the rifles used in the attack from a gun store, fearing he wouldn’t pass a background check. Nor would they want to admit because of Farook’s avoided retail gun stores, or gun shows, the current gun laws did their job.

San Bernardino revealed a weakness in legislative policy, but it wasn’t a weakness in gun control, it was a weakness in immigration policy.

The White House’s rhetoric how refugees from the Middle East are “thoroughly and “rigorously vetted rang woefully empty in light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

Farook went to Saudi Arabia and returned with his new wife Tashfeen Malik, passing all of the touted thorough and rigorous government vetting processes.

Had those vetting processes simply included looking at Tashfeen Malik’s Facebook page maybe someone at the DHS would have known she was a terrorist, and 14 people would still be alive.

Sadly, the Obama administration has forbade DHS from looking at anyone’s Facebook page as part of the immigrant visa screening process. So much for Progressive ‘common sense.’

The Legislation proposed is the same bill proposed in 2013 (which didn’t pass then either) but with a couple of additions.

The new gun-control legislation proposed by the Obama administration, candidate Hillary Clinton, and sponsored in the Senate by Chuck Schumer, is a Trojan horse.

While the bill’s supporters say tying gun background checks to the government no-fly list is a ‘common sense’ forward step, it’s really a slight of hand.

Tying our 2nd amendment right to a no-fly list would jeopardize that right.

How so?

The 2nd amendment, like the 1st, is a fundamental right, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, meaning it cannot be taken away by the Federal government except as the result of conviction of a felony in a court of law by a jury of your peers.

Restrictions can be placed on your right to purchase a gun, but those restrictions are enforced at the state level, not at the federal level. They also can be directly appealed in court.

The proposed legislation by Obama, Hillary, and Schumer, would diminish your 2nd amendment right by changing it from a fundamental right to an entitlement right (a right determined by the government, or a government bureaucrat).

On a side note, ole Chuck Schumer hasn’t mentioned the 100 Million dollar budget that goes along with this legislation, has he?

For example;

You go to a sporting goods store to purchase a firearm. You fill out the paperwork, and suddenly you’re denied because your name is on the government no-fly list. You want to know why your name is on the no-fly list, so where do you start?

You’re a law-abiding citizen, haven’t been convicted of anything, you may not even ever had a traffic ticket, so there must be some sort of mistake.

You begin your inquiry by contacting local law enforcement, upon which you’re informed your denial comes from the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

What then?

Lucky for you the government has established a department and a website where you can challenge your placement on the no-fly list; the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP for short).

Your appeal starts by filling out a form, once you realize there is no 1 800 number to call and quickly get this resolved. In the mean-time your 2nd amendment right has been suspended.

There is an excellent article on the ACLU’s website detailing the bureaucratic nightmare involved in challenging your placement on the no-fly list, warning;


“Because there is no other alternative available at this time, we generally advise people to follow the process in the hope that the government will change it’s mind.”

So how could your name wind up on the no-fly list to start with?

This article mentions 7 ways, siting just 3:

  1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.
  2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
  3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

Potentially innocent actions, if considered as threatening by someone at the Department of Homeland Security, could decide your name should be added to the list.

At his point a government agent has suspended your 2nd amendment right; without a trial, and making a subjective decision based on reasonable suspicion. Who determines what qualifies as reasonable suspicion?

If you ever wind up on a no-fly list, even in error, in all likelihood you would never be able to find out who decided to add you to the list.

Even if you challenge the reason or reasons you are on the no-fly list, and are fortunate enough to talk to an official, it’s likely that official will only have a summary of reasons why you are on the list:

“You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list.”

They also don’t have to tell you why your name is on the list.

“the U.S. government’s privilege against disclosing classified information that could harm national security. This makes it difficult for those prosecuting these claims to investigate the reason behind their inclusion on the List or to challenge the List on constitutional grounds because they cannot easily show a pattern of improper behavior.”

An unnamed government agent, operating under privilege, has determined you guilty, based on suspicion or error, without a trial by jury of your peers, has revoked your 2nd amendment right.

In other words; whomever at DHS, or at one of its agencies, decides your name should be on the list, can add it without any accountability to you or the public at large.

What is to prevent a government official from deciding who is added to the no-fly list based on their personal prejudices?

Without accountability they could add your name to the no-fly list for any number of reasons: maybe because you are a Conservative, a Liberal, a Christian, white, or maybe they just don’t like your friends or Facebook page. Any of these reasons, or dozens of others, could be used to suspend your 2nd amendment right indefinitely.

The inherit dangers of this kind of government rule-making, without accountability, has already happened, and more than once.

Remember Lois Lerner, the IRS official who was removed from office because she was caught intentionally obstructing tax free applications for Republican organizations during the 2012 presidential campaign?

She was removed from office with full pay and benefits. I guess that’s the government’s definition of being held accountable. Wouldn’t it be great if we in the private sector could be fired yet keep our pay and benefits?

The founders were very shrewd in the verbiage used in the 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is no constitutionally justifiable reason the 2nd amendment should be altered, or infringed upon, based on a list compiled by any government agent or body who is not accountable to the public. Doing so could be considered a violation of another constitutional right, the 6th amendment.

The ACLU is currently challenging the government’s no-fly list in court.

“Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms.”

Tying our 2nd amendment right to the no-fly list is truly a Trojan horse. This is purely an assault on our 2nd amendment right by the government. President Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton, democratic candidate for President, are leading the assault.

We must not allow ourselves to be conned into giving up our 2nd amendment right by slick-talking Progressives whose only interest is exerting more government control over our lives.

Be assured if they can control the 2nd, we will soon after lose the 1st for our freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the 2nd.