Tuesday, November 13, 2018


“The years following the American Revolution were a critical period in American history, when the newly independent states teetered toward disunion under the Articles of Confederation.  Looking at a selection of Washington’s most pivotal acts—including conferring with like-minded nationalists…” ~ from the book “George Washington Nationalist” by Edward J. Larson
When asked what nationalism is, Professor Nicholas Giordano stated, “Nationalism is important because it’s what links us together as a country. We are a nation state. And so, when you’re looking at the concept of nationalism, it’s the acceptance of the American creed; the tenets of the American creed. As well as it helps us to motivate us to help our country. Nationalism is one of the most important concepts out there. Macron is just wrong; it’s as simple as that.”
Is it inherently a racial creed?  Does it have anything to do with race?”
“No, it doesn’t. What nationalism does, it fosters Democratic consciousness. That’s an important point that people get wrong. We have a stake in the system. We have legitimate authority over the system as people of the United States. Prior to nationalism, loyalty was to one leader. Now it’s to the country as a whole and nationalism forces patriotism.”
Why would there be such a loud caucus against nationalism? Against national unity?”
“I think there are two things going on. When you look at someone like President Macron of France, I think he likes the idea of transnationalism. Trying to replace nationalism with this regional nationalism,” Giordano pointed out. “If we look at the United States, the people that say that nationalism is a bad thing or nationalism is racist, I think they just aren’t necessarily proud of the country that the United States is. They’re focused on all the bad that the United States has done.”

Saturday, November 10, 2018


Some people can't stand the truth... I posted this video earlier on FaceBook where someone was attempting to display Walter Cronkite as some folk hero of the news media. The video was taken down and that's too bad, we should never hide the truth else the lie would be all we have left. First I should point out that Walter Cronkite was promoted as "The Most Trusted Man In America"... Well who told you that? CBS news told you that as they covered up his true identity. Remember, CBS (or any of the so-called main stream media) do not by any stretch of the imagination report objective news but rather the news 'they' want you to know. (Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.") Now listen to the anti-American Cronkite talk about doing away with American sovereignty, supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty (one of the worst treaties ever devised by man), the World Federalist Organization ( a communist inspired group dedicated to destroying American sovereignty), George Soros (we all know that SOB financier of most anti-American movements around the world)...well I can go on an on but listen to Cronkite tell you who's side he's really on...the side of the devil.  That should wake up a few people! Oh, and his friend at the end of the video is a big supporter of his goals...she says so herself!

Norman E. Hooben

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Donald J. Trump

By Norman E. Hooben

Every once in a while a thought re-enters my consciousness that tends to haunt me in a way that… well let’s see, in a way that I ask myself, “Why doesn’t everyone remember these things?”  The thing that I’m talking about is a line from Obama’s first inaugural address where he mentioned lessening the nuclear threat by working tirelessly with old friends and former foes.
Now in hindsight, Obama’s record does not in any way reflect those Alinskyite words and I should have known this from the start.  Obama is most likely the epitome of the Saul Alinsky school of thought although he never had the benefit of the personal relationship with the infamous community organizer as did Hillary Clinton; she was friends with him from her school days up until the time of his death.  Some of you may remember Hillary’s college thesis; it was Alinsky, all ninety-two pages!  Obama, none the less was highly influenced by Alinsky. (Most, if not all, historians know this; the bourgeoisie however, do not!  And the lower classes, of course, have no idea what we’re talking about.)
Bringing these thoughts up at this late date will not by any stretch of the imagination, change the outcome of an election; but it should (What’s that old line, “Knowledge is power.”)  But I want to go back to Obama’s line mentioned above.  Did Obama lessen the nuclear threat?  Not at all!   In fact, by using old friends and former foes, and I should add, present foes, Obama encouraged the nuclear threat against the very people he thought most deserving to be eliminated; the Americans. He did this in various ways.

Using the White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Former Argentine President Claims
Obama Asked Her To Provide
Enriched Uranium To Iran
Gary Samone, Obama attempted to get the President of Argentina (this would be an old friend) to provide reactor fuel to Iran…an enemy of the United States.  Oh, let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and was well aware of the verbal negotiations.  Why did I say, “Verbal”? 
When the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs asked for the request in writing, they never heard from Samone again.  That’s Obama for you…sneaky deal maker as he is.

Kim Jong-un has a new
friend in the White House
Now there was another guy over there in North Korea that was building up his nuclear capability during the eight years of the Obama Administration, Kim Jong-un, who had threatened the United States with a “super-mighty preemptive strike” and warned America: “Don't mess with us.”  Obama knew this and did nothing.  How is that “lessening the nuclear threat”?  Don’t ask me.

American cash was in the bag
Then there was the plane load of cash Obama sent to Iran while John F. Kerry was Secretary of State under the guise that it was owed to them.   The amount of cash is still being debated but according to the Obama administration they admitted that nearly $2 billion dollars was flown to Iran.  Many pundits assumed that the money was used to bolster Iran’s nuclear capability and that may very well be true but John Kerry even admitted that some portion of the money Iran received  would end up advancing terrorism.  And where is Iran’s terrorism directed?  America…thought you might want to know the answer before you had to look it up.
Now last but not least we have Hillary Clinton through a manipulative series of deals sold 51% of American uranium to the Russians (our enemy) while her husband, Bill Clinton received $500,000 dollars for a single speech (doesn’t matter what the speech was about, it’s all part of the scheme).  For the un-informed, uranium is used in making nuclear weapons.
This entire narrative stinks of Cicero’s ‘The Enemy Within’ speech.  So I’ll end with one final question.
Who put an end to this anti-American, conniving rhetoric, and treasonous activity? 
Donald J. Trump!

No wonder the Democrats are so bent out of shape!

Saturday, November 3, 2018

To my friends in Texas: Thinking of voting for Beto O'Rourke? Don't !!!

Beto O'Rourke is advocating for Leninist socialism




Tuesday, October 30, 2018

The Lies of Elizabeth Warren...documented by Elizabeth Warren

Received the following letter from a friend...I do not know if this is the standard answer Elizabeth Warren gave to all inquiries, however it does reveal the Senator's poor judgment of character. More importantly, coming from a so-called law maker, her contradiction in the last paragraph regarding "credible allegations" puts her in the "he's guilty no matter what he says" category and then she has the audacity to say, "...and will fight for judges committed to equal justice under law."  And what law would cover credible allegations which prove to be wrong? ~ Norman E. Hooben
Oh, and by the way, Judge Kavanaugh is most likely the most knowledgeable Constitutionalist to come down the pike since the Founding Fathers enshrined those precious words that gave us the longest run of freedom in hundreds of years...maybe thousands!
I wrote to Elizabeth Warren about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and asking that she vote to confirm him.
This is the buffalo bull crap she sent back to me!!! What kind of world is this delusional madwoman living in!
Dear Patricia,
Thank you for contacting me about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I believe that there were many reasons to oppose Justice Kavanaugh's nomination, including the serious allegations of sexual assault by multiple women, his radical views and his record as a judge, and the secretive and rushed process Republicans used to advance his nomination. That's why I voted no on his nomination and urged all of my colleagues to do the same.
Millions of Americans watched Dr. Christine Blasey Ford tell her harrowing story of being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. The courage she showed was remarkable, and her testimony was credible and compelling. I believe her. And Dr. Ford wasn't alone. Other women also described being sexually assaulted by Justice Kavanaugh or seeing him engage in inappropriate sexual behavior. Despite these alarming allegations, and Justice Kavanaugh's partisan, insulting, and disqualifying testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans voted to put Justice Kavanaugh on the nation's highest court.
Justice Kavanaugh's nomination was the latest step in a decades-long campaign by right-wing groups and their billionaire backers to capture our courts. Over the last forty years, as the rich have gotten richer and working families have struggled to make ends meet, the scales of justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy and the powerful.
Justice Kavanaugh has furthered that tilt. Over the course of his career, he has voted to limit the ability of women to make their own health care decisions, opposed a ruling protecting women's access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act, opposed rules designed to address climate change and protect the environment, and ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - the agency that has returned $12 billion directly to people cheated by corporate lawbreakers - is unconstitutional. Justice Kavanaugh also believes that sitting presidents should not face personal civil suits or criminal investigations or prosecutions while in office.
In addition to concerns about the credible sexual assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh and his pro-corporate record, I was concerned about the process Republicans used to rush his nomination through the Senate. Republicans refused to request hundreds of thousands of documents from Justice Kavanaugh's time in government and designated many others "committee confidential" to hide them from the public. Then, days before Justice Kavanaugh was scheduled to come before the Judiciary Committee, a Bush White House attorney announced that over 100,000 documents from Justice Kavanaugh's time in the White House Counsel's Office would be withheld on the basis of "constitutional privilege." The process was designed to keep Senators - and the American public, from having a meaningful opportunity to examine Justice Kavanaugh's full record.
I believe that the credible allegations of sexual assault, his record as a judge, and the broken process Republicans used to advance his nomination should have disqualified Justice Kavanaugh from a lifetime position on the nation's highest court, where he will be making decisions that affect every person in this country for a generation. I will continue to oppose judges who will not stand up for every American and will fight for judges committed to equal justice under law.
I appreciate your reaching out to me about this issue, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about issues of importance to you.
Elizabeth Warren
United States Senator
Washington, DC
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-4543 Boston, MA
2400 JFK Federal Building
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203
Phone: 617-565-3170 Springfield, MA
1550 Main Street
Suite 406
Springfield, MA 01103
Phone: 413-788-2690


Monday, October 29, 2018


By Norman E. Hooben

18 U.S. Code § 594 - Intimidation of voters
U.S. CodeTitle 18Part IChapter 29 › § 594

Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 720; Pub. L. 91–405, title II, §204(d)(5), Sept. 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 853; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Regarding the clause, “or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate…”  What if a person votes for any candidate based on the lies told by others?  Is that considered 'causing'?
Now it is well known that many politicians lie when they speak in their respective Houses of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and they are protected from any liability in accordance with Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.  (members of both Houses of Congress shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.)
The “What if…” question comes into play when such lies are repeated when said politicians are not in attendance at the so-called ‘Session’.  Does the Constitution offer protection for lies told on the street or anywhere outside their respective Houses?  I don’t think so.  And I don’t think we should restrict this narrative to politicians.  There are a number of hate groups and individuals that make statements that are purely hateful and obvious lies that I’m sure affect the way their ignorant followers vote.  In my humble opinion these politicians, hate groups, and individuals should be held liable for intimidating voters for it would be a pleasure to see Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and even such small fry haters as ‘Polly Sighbe fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Saturday, October 27, 2018

NBC News deliberately hid vital information that would have helped clear Brett Kavanaugh

Ever since I read those memorable words of President Thomas Jefferson when he said,
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”
I’ve become suspicious of the news media.  But it hasn’t always been that way…
Recalling a memory of long ago (sometime before I entered high school) I once made a statement that I assumed to be true at the time.  An older brother asked, “Where did you hear that?”  I responded with, “I read it in the newspaper.”  He promptly snapped back at me as some brothers do, “Don’t believe everything you read!”
As the years passed it wasn’t too difficult to figure out just how polluted the news media was…better stated as, “Just how polluted the news media is…”  If I can use as an example:
In an interview with Barbara Walters back in the early nineties, Hillary Clinton was caught in a boldfaced lie and Walters just smiled and went on with the interview as if no one noticed.  Well I noticed but the easily fooled were easily fooled and they become Hillary followers.  And since Hillary is an anti-Constitutionalist her followers acted likewise.
Now here comes Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court, probably the most knowledgeable Constitutionalist ever to be chosen since the Founding Fathers first framed the words.  Well if you’re a Hillary follower they can’t have that… and so it goes, the truth becomes suspicious when that polluted vehicle called NBC News attempts to frame Kavanaugh (See the following commentary by John Nolte).  ~ Norman E. Hooben
NBC News Hid Information that Would Have Cleared Kavanaugh of Avenatti Rape Allegations
By John Nolte

NBC News deliberately hid vital information that would have helped clear Brett Kavanaugh of the serial rape allegations Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, leveled against him.

On September 16, Kavanaugh and his loved ones were dropped into a pit of hell due to allegations of sexual assault from Christine Blasey Ford. Although her story quickly fell apart during public testimony, for the three-plus weeks that would follow, in an effort to derail his confirmation, Democrats and their allies in the establishment media did everything in their power to personally destroy this man as a drunken serial rapist.

NBC News and Avenatti played a huge role in this obscene smear campaign. One notable example was NBC breathlessly publishing and airing an assault allegation against Kavanaugh that was quickly exposed as a hoax. NBC did not even bother to independently corroborate this allegation prior to airing it. A Democrat handed NBC the smear, and NBC ran with it.

To make matters worse, we now know NBC News withheld crucial information that undermined the allegations made by Swetnick, the Avenatti client who accused a high school-aged Kavanaugh of spiking punch bowls at house parties so he and his buddies could engage in serial rapes.

And we know NBC deliberately withheld this crucial information because NBC is now admitting it had this information all the way back on September 30.

On September 30, a week prior to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, during the most intense days of this scandal, when Kavanaugh’s confirmation was still very much in doubt, here is what NBC did not want the public to know…

If you recall, although he withheld the name, Avenatti tweeted out a sworn statement from a woman who backed up Swetnick’s outrageous rape allegations. In her statement, this second woman swore that she, too, had witnessed Kavanaugh spike punch bowls and take sexual advantage of girls.

Well, unbeknownst to us, NBC interviewed this anonymous witness on September 30, and she recanted!

But only now is NBC News bothering to report this bombshell:

Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, “I didn’t ever think it was Brett,” the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick’s claims.
When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, “no.”

Wait, it gets worse…

On October 3, NBC News again spoke to this woman, and this time, she all but accused Avenatti of fabricating her statement:

Reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only “skimmed” the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: “It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn’t see anyone spike the punch…I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.”

When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: “I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence; Male or female.”

And now, we come to the grand conclusion…

When asked about the total contradiction between his client’s sworn statement and what she told NBC, after it no longer matters, NBC now informs us, “At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, [Avenatti] added in the phone call, “How about this, on background, it’s not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?”

So Avenatti’s witness, the woman he brought forward to bolster Swetnick’s serial rape claim, totally recanted to NBC News, and NBC News hid this news until now.

Moreover, NBC News believed Kavanaugh’s chief tormentor — Avenatti — was attempting to “thwart the reporting process,” and NBC also chose to hide this information until long after it mattered.

So what we have here is an NBC News eager to publish completely unfounded allegations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh while at the same time hiding vitally important information that would have helped to clear Kavanaugh at the most crucial time of this scandal.

In other words, in a partisan effort to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation, to do its part to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, NBC News published uncorroborated smears against him and then engaged in a deliberate cover up of a legitimate story that backed up Kavanaugh’s claim of his innocence and his claim that there was a coordinated campaign at work to personally destroy him.



Thursday, October 4, 2018

Bret Kavanaugh, I'm posting this for you. What they really want is to control the future of society.

Opening Statement by Norman E. Hooben

Never in the history of the United States of America has there been such character assassination during the selection process of a nominee to the Supreme Court...NEVER! And this is exactly what is going on by the Democrat Party who has rabidly attacked, accused, and found guilty of nothing, their slaughter of Bret Kavanaugh; most likely the highest qualified Constitutionalist judge in the last hundred years...or longer!  Why is that?
We can probably sum up all of the reasons by quoting the first modern day progressive of the twentieth century, President Woodrow Wilson.
"We must control the courts and they shall control the future society. In effect, they must rewrite the Constitution." ~ President Woodrow Wilson
The Democrats under President Obama aided immensely, Wilson's wishes for that ultimate control of society by appointing with no fanfare at all, Elena Kagan; most likely the worst Constitutionalist this side of Wilson's presidency.  Her senate selection made all those in favor complicit in the anti-American/globalist movement.  We should also note that this movement has its beginning in the Communist/Socialist dreams of Karl Marx ←yeah, you can study that part on your own time to come to the same conclusion. Oh, in case you think my opinion of Elena Kagan was just thought up in thin air...put this in your sail boat fuel (sorry if you don't know that one, its the wind)...read the following:

Source: The New American
Tuesday, 01 June 2010
Harvard Law Dean Kagan Replaced Constitution Studies With International Law
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D
On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the Supreme Court's 2009–2010 term. A significant entry in the catalog of Ms. Kagan’s remarkable achievements is her deanship of the über-prestigious Harvard Law School. In 2003, she was named, as the school’s first female dean, to succeed Robert C. Clark, who had held that post for over a decade. While manning the helm at Harvard Law, she attracted attention of alumni and observers for steering the ship away from the tried and true “case-law method” of studying the law.

A central plank in Kagan’s revolutionary platform is the abandonment of the requirement that students at Harvard Law School study constitutional law. The course’s place in the curriculum was replaced by classes examining the laws of other nations and international law.
In fact, according to the requirements for receiving a J.D. as listed on the Harvard Law School website, the study of our republic’s founding document is nowhere to be found.

In 2006, after the changes were proposed by Kagan and approved by the faculty committee evaluating the suggestions, the school published a news release to explain the changes and Kagan offered the following justification for the de-emphasis of constitutional law studies:
From the beginning of law school, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe — global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems. Accordingly, the Law School will develop three foundation courses, each of which represents a door into the global sphere that students will use as context for U.S. law.

The press release identifies the three new required courses Kagan introduced to take precedence over constitutional law. The first covers comparative international law and was designed to “introduce students to the sources, institutions and procedures emerging over time through the bilateral and multilateral arrangements among states as well as the participation of nongovernmental actors.”

The second class, called “Legislation and Regulation” is designed to familiarize students with he world of legislation, regulation, and administration that creates and defines so much of our legal order.” In other words, the regulations and codes promulgated by the bureaucracy are more critical to the definition of our legal order than is the Constitution.

The final course, on comparative law, “will introduce students to one or more legal systems outside our own, to the borrowing and transmission of legal ideas across borders and to a variety of approaches to substantive and procedural law that are rooted in distinct cultures and traditions,” the release said. Again, Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama’s nominee to sit on the Supreme Court, believes a survey of “legal systems outside our own” is more valuable than a study of the Constitution.

Apart from the statements included in the press release, Elena Kagan explained her justification for the curriculum changes she instituted at Harvard in a 2008 article published in The Green Bag, a legal journal dedicated to publishing brief, readable articles about the law. In the piece, Kagan explained that the effect of global crises and the call for global governance made it necessary to minimize the role of constitutional studies in favor of classes more apropos to the equipping of lawyers with “tools for all the roles they will be called on to play."

One of the very important roles that these future leaders will play, according to the article, is the quest to find workable solutions to problems “ranging from climate change to terrorism to economic insecurity."

Neither the press release nor The Green Bag article indicates why Kagan believed that these classes could not be added to the curriculum without relegating the study of the Constitution to elective status.

While the benefits of the courses of study created by Elena Kagan are debatable, it is difficult to find a single sound argument for downgrading the study of constitutional law to elective status. That is not to say that a class improving students’ international perspective is unnecessary. As a matter of fact, many of our own Founding Fathers made the study of international law one of the key aspects of their own education in anticipation of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The unanswered question is: Why could Elena Kagan not find room for these new classes without pushing the study of constitutional law to the margins of the Harvard course catalog? Why was it an either/or situation, and why did she come down on the side of international and regulatory law and against the Constitution?

It would be similar to the English Department at Harvard determining that Shakespeare would no longer be required reading for students interested in a PhD in Elizabethan English literature.

Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, reckons that the changes made by Kagan at Harvard offer a glimmer of insight into Kagan’s perception of the Constitution and its place in American jurisprudence. Even a scintilla of evidence is valuable given the dearth of reliable indications of Kagan’s constitutional mien.

“One of the things [that] we don’t know about Kagan, which she has not been terribly forthcoming on in previous questioning (during her nomination) for solicitor general, is how she views international law,” Alt said. “Should domestic law be influenced or modified by international law? We don’t know what she thinks.”

Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president power to nominate and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, judges of the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of the Senate to enquire into Elena Kagan’s constitutional bent and her propensity for interpreting our foundational document in a manner consistent with established principles of federalism, separation of powers, and limited government.

As Mr. Alt, understandably concerned with the message sent by Kagan’s near obliteration of constitutional law from the basic curriculum of Harvard Law School, observed, “This is an important question because there are others in the Obama administration, like Harold Koh, for instance, who have suggested with regard to the First Amendment, for instance, that perhaps the First Amendment should be modified in some way in accordance with international norms, in order to facilitate compliance with international agreements.” Harold Koh is the Legal Adviser to the Department of State and is controversial for his advocacy of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States.

The First Amendment that Koh would "modify" to conform to international standards of liberty reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This article was modified to reflect the fact that constitutional studies were not wholly abandoned, but were purposefully de-emphasized and reduced to little more than elective status in the curriculum of the Harvard Law School while Elena Kagan was dean.

Friday, September 28, 2018

...the greatest political evil under our Constitution!

by Norman E. Hooben with Dustin Koellhoffer's Democratic Party Playbook

I have often stated that I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican although it's hard to remember the last time I voted for a Democrat.  Brought up in a democratic stronghold where I thought the word republican connotes something that I should veer away from less I be attacked by monsters from outer space... and that's even before I ever heard the word 'politics' !  Obviously I was pretty young the first time I heard anything about political parties and what role they play in our country.  But as voting age rolled around I took an interest in these people who call themselves politicians.  I listened to them speak and paid very close attention to what they were preaching.  Then when it came time to vote my first vote was for a guy that told the truth.  For you see it was two Democrats running against one another for some state office.  I actually caught one of them lying so that's where I made my decision...it's been so long ago I don't even remember who won but I was establishing my political stance early, vote for the guy who tells the truth!  As the years rolled by and I found myself in different locations (career military) I stopped voting absentee from my hometown but rather registered to vote wherever I was stationed (except overseas).  At some point in time (I think I was in Texas) I realized that most of the politicians I was voting for were Republicans...again, honesty was the deciding factor.  And yet knowing what I was doing I never once voted straight ticket...until the last three voting cycles for by then the Democrats were almost completely taken over by the Communist left (Remember, they said they would do it... "15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States." from the list of communist goals: Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35).
Keeping in mind my opening line "...neither a Democrat or a Republican" my most memorable quote from our Founding Fathers that keeps me away from so-called party politics comes from our 2nd president, President John Adams:

  "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution"

Now what started me on this rant is the following article by someone that I don't know a lot about but he seems to be honest...and if this is true then we should all be paying attention to President Adams end-quote, "This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." and by that I mean the Democrat Party...the greatest political evil under our Constitution!  Have a nice Day, Norm (see below)

By Dustin Koellhoffer
I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh.  The only way to describe leftist liberal Democrats in one word is SCUM!  They have undermined America’s economy, worked to make Americans their debt slaves, managed the nation’s decline, turned young Americans against America, aided America’s enemies, enabled an invasion by foreigners, weakened her military, sabotaged her economy, and duped the ignorant with their twisted ideology.  Declaring Kavanaugh to be guilty of sex crimes unless he can prove himself innocent shows exactly how backwards their thinking is when it comes to justice.  Democrats, who put men in little girl’s bathrooms, now say that any allegation of sexual abuse must be believed – but only against Republicans.  Theirs is the ideology of debasing righteousness.
Democrat leftists believe that Republicans are guilty until proven innocent.  That it is not possible to prove one’s innocence means that they can convict and execute Republicans just by making any false accusation.  Republican conservatives believe you are innocent until proven guilty, meaning you actually have to produce evidence to prove your accusation is not a lie because it is an absolute truth that people lie.  As Democrats make a circus of sewage out of a SCOTUS hearing, they ignore their own defectives who commit crimes and betray America.
Barack Hussein Obama met in the White House with and gave secret American intelligence to the Muslim Brotherhood.  He funded them to form ISIS and armed them.  He then allowed their Jihad to blossom and attempt to re-form the Caliphate.  Obama then changed the American Rules of Engagement to protect terrorists.  He committed American planes to bombing the desert, wasting American ordinance as he stopped military production and reduced America’s military capacity.  He then sent Navy SEALS to their deaths at that hands of an enemy who knew they were coming because Obama, America’s Moslem socialist Commander-in-Chief, informed ISIS of SEAL operations in advance so they could be prepared to destroy them.
There is a million times more evidence of the truth of this than there has ever been of Brett Kavanaugh being a sexual predator.  Leftists in media are falling all over each other in their efforts to declare they believe Kavanaugh’s accusers and his guilt.  Were they there?  Did they witness these events?  Or do they just take the word of a psychotic pathological liar because they, too, are psychotic pathological liars?
Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer is the truth.  Is Kavanaugh a sexual predator that six FBI background checks failed to discover?  Or is Kavanaugh being railroaded by a pack of lies, his character being assassinated in an attempt to sabotage Trump who Democrats abhor, and that Democrats are lying in unison because they hate America?  Democrats have been caught in thousands of outright lies about Trump for the past four years.  The obvious answer is the one that has evidence to prove it.
Kavanaugh’s innocence demands that Republicans get their heads of their posteriors and confirm him to the Supreme Court.  Democrats can spend the next forty years pulling more “proof” out of their rectums, but people who don’t have their brains lodged in the same orifice will see them for what they are.  Democrats say all their different witnesses wouldn’t lie?  Why not?  All liberal Democrats have been caught lying in unison!  Who do they think they’re fooling?  Only an idiot lemming would believe them at this point.
It should be obvious to anyone with a moral compass and a functioning brain that the left are liars.  Their two-faced ideology condemns the righteous without proof and exonerates their own guilt despite proof.  Their ideology is identical to that of Islamic Sharia law that declares in any dispute between a Moslem man and an infidel that the infidel is wrong and guilty of a crime for accusing a Moslem, even if there is proof the Moslem man robbed, raped, or murdered an infidel.  Only in Islam is honor killing and this kind of injustice acclaimed.
This is Satanism straight up!  Who wants to be on the side of evil?  Evil people.  Self-righteousness, prejudice, and bigotry are the three legs of the tripod of unrighteous judgment.  Convicting innocent people without facts is how evil breeds evil.  Deception, pandering, and demagoguery are the methods by which the left dupes the ignorant.  Only by learning the facts can one find the truth.  And only by developing a moral compass can one find one’s way past the evil that deludes them.
The Kavanaugh hearing, like the Russia investigation, is all pre-meditated character assassination by Democrats.  Smearing and slandering good people is the heart and soul of leftist hate.  There is no good in leftism.  There is no right in the left.  There is nothing positive that they bring to life.  There is only negative.  Learning and understanding that fundamental truth and living with the axiom that the left is never right is the only way to assure that you are not one of their dupes.
Geraldo Rivera said there are “two truths” in the Kavanaugh-Ford testimony.  Just because she believes her own lies doesn’t make them true.  There is no such thing as two opposites being true.  Seeing things from the wrong perspective does not make it true or right.  There are only those who delude themselves into believing their own lies.  Contrary to Rivera’s misconception, Kavanaugh’s confirmation will not help the Democrats who have revealed their evil nature to the world.  Only those who lack a moral compass will remain Democrat lemmings who scorn the righteous.

About The Author:

Dustin Koellhoffer

I am a retired paramedic/firefighter who served 25 years in the city of Dallas. I have degrees in Journalism, History, Military Science, and Military History that I spent most of the last forty years studying. I have also spent much of these forty years in scholarship studying Christianity, Islam, America, and world history. My writing is from the perspective of a conservative Christian libertarian and I use my free time in retirement to observe what is happening in politics. Much of what is in the news is propaganda that I have been trained and know how to recognize. My purpose is to expose the dysfunctional thinking of the Left and counter it with good sense conservative principles.


Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Never Trust A Rhodes Scholar...or anyone married to one!

In 1891, gold and diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes formed a secret society, the "Society of the Elect", to "absorb the wealth of the world" and "to take the government of the whole world", according to Rhodes. According to Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, in The Anglo-American Establishment, Rhodes' conspiratorial secret society lasted almost 60 years. By that time, enough members of the society and Rhodes Scholars had penetrated the areas of politics, economics, journalism and education, so that the society was simply replaced by a network of power elite, who would openly pursue world government.

According to Quigley:

"The [Rhodes] scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out Rhodes' purpose."

And in case anyone doubts the credibility of Prof. Quigley regarding this matter, The Washington Post article (March 23, 1975) about him and his information obtained from the power elite's "secret records" was titled "The Professor Who Knew Too Much."

Cecil Rhodes' secret society was comprised of a small "Circle of Initiates" and a larger semi-secret "Association of Helpers" which formed Round Table Groups. Members of these groups along with members of the Fabian (Socialist) Society as well as "The Inquiry" (a group formed by President Woodrow Wilson's chief advisor, Col. Edward M. House) formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Great Britain, and its American branch, the CFR. Both Prof. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope and CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in A Thousand Days have referred to the CFR as a "front" for the power elite. And in Men and Powers, former West Germany chancellor Helmut Schmidt referred to the CFR as "the foreign policy elite," which prepared people for "top-level missions" in government and "other centers of international policy" and "had very silent but effective ways of seeing to its own succession."

Members of Rhodes' secret society networked with Fabian Socialists, who established the London School of Economics in 1895. One early Fabian, H.G. Wells, in New Worlds for Old explained what he called "a plot," whereby heads of state would come and go, but bureaucrats trained at the London School of Economics, for example, would remain in government making rules and regulations furthering the goals of the Fabian Socialists.

Wells broke with the Fabians, not in terms of goals, but only in believing they should be open about them, as he explained the coming synthesis of western capitalism and eastern communism into a world socialist government. In this regard, he authored The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928) and The New World Order (1939), in which he said sovereign states (nations) would end and "countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it."

The power elite understood that it would be difficult to get the people of the world to accept a world government all at once, and so a gradualistic approach was suggested. Association of Helpers member and Canadian Rhodes scholar P.E. Corbett in Post-War Worlds (1942) wrote:
 "A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government... World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development."