Now is the time that Trump needs prayers and local help, because now the big guns against him will come out…people, get busy, we need to help the one man who is America’s last hope…MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Posted in Uncategorized
By Kevin “Coach” Collins
We have been lied to and misled by so called “conservatives” for at least twenty years. The broken promises from “conservative” Republicans have arrived as fast as the pieces of candy on Lucy’s conveyor belt. We even began to lie to ourselves, believing “Well they’re doing the best they can with what power they have.”
Laboring under that belief we overlooked George W. Bush’s ineptitude; and made excuses for his not knowing how to fight a war against Muslims and the hostile Democrat controlled media.
We steamed while the “conservatives” did nothing to combat the ridiculous charge that the economic mess we are in was “Bush’s fault” and by extension our fault. We watched everything we hold dear destroyed or cheapened while cowardly “conservatives” did nothing but moan about needing the House and the Senate. We worked hard and gave them both and they laughed at us, made fun of us and ignored us.
Now we are told that we can’t support Donald Trump, a man who is not a politician. They don’t realize this is why we support him. We don’t give an EXPLETIVE DELETED about the “fringe” of Trump because at the core is a willingness to fight illegal immigration and the war on terror.
What the “conservatives” don’t understand is that we well understand and expect Trump to let us down more than once as our president and realize their candidates will do the same; but we also know there is a huge difference between Trump and the rest: He’ll stop illegal immigration and fight to win against terror.
Sure he will do things that are embarrassing but so will every other guy running. Trump will do two things that are not embarrassing: Build the Wall and bomb the s^&t out of ISIS.
This is why we support him.
Related posts:
* Do our loved ones & friends KNOW ?
By now you’ve seen the pictures and they’re heartbreaking.
Brazilian babies are being born with deformed heads and underdeveloped brains — the classic signs of a birth defect called microcephaly.
And it’s all supposedly due to the Zika virus that’s now made landfall right here in America.
But while our government is declaring a public health emergency and Big Pharma is rushing to create a vaccine, a group of doctors in South America is sounding a very different alarm.
They’re claiming that a popular pesticide found in everything from our water supply to pet products is really behind the microcephaly outbreak.
And the Zika virus may be just a smokescreen to protect billions in profits — all while putting countless babies in harm’s way.
There’s nothing more devastating than seeing innocent babies born with defects that will make every day of their lives difficult.
And as parents and grandparents, we’d do everything we can to protect the children we love from conditions like microcephaly.
But the more I started digging into the hysteria around the Zika virus, the more it started to look like people were more interested in making a buck than saving babies.
Our government is getting ready to spend billions to fight Zika and the drug companies are promising quickie vaccines that’ll have moms-to-be lined up around the block. It’s like these Big Pharma sharks smell blood in the water!
And it looks like the water is where they should have been looking all along.
Because a coalition of South American doctors has discovered a new and very likely culprit behind the microcephaly outbreak. It’s a pesticide called pyriproxyfen that’s poisoning the water in Brazil and lots of other places — including right here in America.
And this is no wild conspiracy theory, either, no matter what you’re going to hear from Big Pharma and even our government. In fact, pyriproxyfen is actually designed to cause birth defects!
It keeps mosquitoes from infecting the water by causing deformities in their larvae and killing them.
And while we discovered the Zika virus 70 years ago, they just started using pyriproxyfen in the Brazilian water supply in 2014.
That’s right around the time all these microcephaly cases started showing up — and that sounds like one heck of a coincidence to me.
Rio Grande do Sul, the fifth most populated state in Brazil, has even stopped putting pyriproxyfen into the drinking water of its more than 11 million residents.
But you can bet that the chemical industry and Big Pharma are already circling the wagons, trying to convince us that pyriproxyfen is as safe as mom’s apple pie. Sumitomo Chemical, the $22 billion company that makes the stuff, practically called these South American doctors quacks and said there wasn’t any “scientific basis” for their findings.
Sure, what are the odds that a dangerous pesticide could cause birth defects? We’ve never seen that before, right?
And what’s really scary is that we’re all being exposed to pyriproxyfen in places we’d least expect. It’s in pesticides we use in our homes and gardens, and it regularly finds its way into our water supply.
I even found that it’s being used in flea repellants we give to our dogs, like K9 Advantix. Just think how many pregnant moms have come into contact with this stuff just working in their gardens or trying to protect their pooches.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. If we’ve been exposed to pyriproxyfen all this time, why aren’t we seeing lots of microcephaly cases in America?
Well, the truth is, we are. Every year around 25,000 babies in the United States are diagnosed with it.
Trust me, the whole story about this microcephaly outbreak still hasn’t come out yet. But in the meantime, it’s a good idea to check all the labels on your pesticides and pet products and steer clear of pyriproxyfen.
And if there are any pregnant women in your life, please share this warning with them, too.
Because when it comes to the health of our babies, we can’t be too careful. And we sure can’t wait around for our government or billion-dollar corporations to tell us the truth.
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Sources:
“Brazilian state suspends larvicide used to combat Zika virus” February 14, 2016, Fox News Latino, latino.foxnews.com
… and the winner is…
The conversation started with unwarranted comments from the Holy Father, Pope Francis. The Pope’s comments stirred the very roots of the mainstream media. It seemed all they could talk about on Thursday, February 18, 2026
“A person who thinks only about building walls, whatever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.” —Pope Francis talks about Donald Trump’s plans to build a wall between the U.S./Mexican border, 2/17/2016
“It is hypocritical to teach one thing while concurrently supporting its opposite.” —Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall, NewsWithViews.com, 9/27/2015.
I made the above comment September 2015 in an article that was an open letter to Pope Francis regarding the catechism of the Catholic church which teaches adherents of the faith that when adopting a new nation as “home,” the laws of the new nation must be followed. When someone enters the United States illegally, they first thing they do is violate our laws. Thus, it is hypocritical for the Catholic church to teach one thing and for the Pope to recommend something different from what the church teaches.
In addition to being hypocritical in his comments, the Pope ignored Biblical commentary that says “Judge not lest ye be judged” when he decided it was okay for him to declare Donald Trump a non-Christian without even knowing him.
Did he actually say Donald Trump is not a Christian? No. Read his comment above. He did not say that. The Pope was, however, responding to a specific question from the media about Donald Trump’s proposal to end illegal immigration. Thus, the comment was specifically directed at the Donald.
The media flew into immediate “we have a legitimate anti-Trump story… let’s see who can get it published first” mode. The problem is, it is not a legitimate anti-Trump story. It is a legitimate anti-Republican candidate story because every person running for the American presidency supports the building of a wall to stop the out-of-control flow of people entering freely into the United States across the Rio Grande River.
The media chose to make it a Trump story because it fills their need to help convince the American people that Donald Trump would not make a satisfactory President. They don’t like him. They want an establishment candidate like Marco Rubio or John Kasich.
So, what the media is telling you is untrue – no unusual surprise there. It is a lie that the Pope says Donald Trump is not a Christian. What the Pope said is far more serious than that.
The Pope, whether or not he intended to, said that all Republican candidates who believe a wall needs to be built to halt illegal aliens from entering our nation and bringing with them disease, poverty, threats of violence, and cowardly refusal to clean up their own governments (they prefer to run away) are not Christians. It is not Christian for Americans to want to stop the flow of illegal drugs – drugs that kill so many young people physically, mentally and, yes, Pope Francis, spiritually – into our country. It is also not Christian to do what we can to stop the murder of innocent American women on San Francisco wharfs, I guess.
The Pope also said I’m not a Christian – and neither are you if you believe we need a Trump-recommended wall to secure our nation from those who would enter illegally. If you are a Christian and you buy off on that pap… what’s wrong with you?
Some commentators just couldn’t resist the opportunity to stick it to the presidential candidate who they just don’t get. They are all shaking their heads… what Trump says should be (from journalists’ perspectives) turning off the American public. Instead, his poll numbers go up every time they say “Well, he’s done it now… his numbers will go down.”
The media is insulated from the true and deep anger of the American people. They do not understand that when Trump says “There were no weapons of mass destruction,” many millions of Americans believe he’s right. Journalists do not have the slightest idea that those millions of Americans also believe the U.S. Government is somehow complicit in 9/11; so when someone mentions it, journalists think it’s being said by a conspiracy nut. They don’t understand that when the Pope says all people who believe we need a wall to secure our nation are not Christians, it upsets more than a little bit those who believe themselves to be Christians but think we need to stop illegal immigration.
“You have people coming in, and I’m not just saying Mexicans – I’m talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they’re coming into this country,” Trump told Jake Tapper at CNN last June. It is a message that resonates with the American people because it is true. Trump has previously stated that the Pope has no understanding of the dangers of America’s open border with Mexico. He is right.
Prior to the Pope’s departure for Mexico, Trump called the Pope “a very political person.” Frankly, I think the Pope should return to the Vatican and straighten out all of the money laundering and other banking problems in the country where he controls policies before he tells America how to run ours and defines for us who is a Christian and who is not.
Bear in mind as you read this material, there is no nation-state in the world with higher walls around it than the Vatican. Those walls kept the Nazis out of the Vatican during World War II just as they would keep drug-dealing criminals out of America today.
When, Pope Francis, will you open your doors… or, at the very least, use your influence to get governments around the world to open buildings owned by the Catholic Church so Muslim immigrants can move in and enjoy freedom and Muslim worship services?
When will the Vatican begin accepting immigrants who run away from chaos and tyranny, from death and destruction, to seek asylum in a country safer than the war-torn piece of land they seek to leave? Surely the Pope would not suggest other nations make sacrifices that are unacceptable to him? That, too, would be hypocritical. What will the Papal reaction be when Muslims – most of the ones departing the Middle East appear to be young men, not families – demand “their part of the Vatican” (or Detroit or London or Paris) be governed by Sharia Law?
I may be wrong, but wasn’t it the hypocrisy of the highest-ranking Jewish authorities that allowed (or even perhaps encouraged) the purchase of doves and “soul-saving” memorabilia to be sold on the steps of God’s Temple in Jerusalem? It caused Jesus Christ to lose His temper (the only time I believe He displayed anger) and throw the merchants who would market the Lord as if He were a product made by Proctor and Gamble or Microsoft from their Temple lemonade stands. “Oh, ye hypocrites!” were, I believe, Christ’s exact words.
Since the Pope spoke words about anyone who builds walls rather than bridges not being a Christian, and since the Vatican has some of the highest walls around it I’ve ever seen, and since the Pope isn’t inviting the starving masses from the Middle East into the Vatican – there can be no other definition of the Pope regarding this matter: “Hypocrite!”
As a former Catholic, I find those words difficult to say. They are, however, the truth.
Unfortunately, by supporting people who flee tyranny rather than supporting them to effectively fight it, the Catholic church supports a lack of responsibility for fighting tyranny and the tyrants who seek to enslave us all – politically, spiritually, and economically. I believe that is not only wrong, but immoral.
We all need to ponder the words “legal immigration” and “illegal immigration” and the negative impact of illegals on the lawful citizens of all nations… often threatening the survival of the lawful so the unlawful can survive. Is that the Catholic objective? If so, the Pope should make clear his views on this issue so Catholics can, as all members of all religious sects do, re-evaluate whether the Catholic church represents their beliefs.
Do the Pope’s views represent the views of all Catholics? Or, just the Jesuits?
In all humility, the Pope should stop telling others to do that which he is not prepared to do. It damages his and the church’s credibility.
All of the above is based on facts, not opinions… yes, even the use of the word “hypocrite.” One is defined by what one does. But here’s a bit of a conspiracy theory for you to ponder.
Remember St. Malachi? What if St. Malachi’s dream is true? He said there would be 112 more Popes and that the final Pope would lead the Catholic church into apostasy — meaning the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief. Pope Francis is the 112th Pope since St. Malachi had that dream.
What are the necessary elements of a New World Order?
First, the establishment of an international monetary system (the central banks are working hard on that one). Second, some form of international “currency;” (I don’t believe it will be a currency, I believe a system of non-currency will be visited on us worldwide – more on that in another article). Third, an international religion is needed. As the communists once said, religion is an opiate for the masses.
Could it be that Pope Francis is leading the church to apostasy? Does he support illegal immigration and a North American Union as step one in forming an international church and does he envision himself at the head of this “church”?
Pope Francis has certainly raised some interesting questions, some well-deserved anger, some strange judgments about who is and who is not a Christian, and what his possible motives for raising such issues are.
Did Donald Trump err by responding against Papal comments as strongly as he did?
All you need to do to answer that question is to answer this one: Until Trump responded to the Pope, what was the number one news story on Thursday, February 18, 2016? It was South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s announced support for presidential candidate Marco Rubio. After Trump’s comments, I heard nothing about Haley choosing to support Rubio. I heard only about how Donald Trump responded to the Pope’s comments.
If you doubt this man is brilliant, you need to look at the facts. He not only got a great deal of support from all Christians – Independents, Republicans and Democrats – for standing up to a Pope who decided he gets to define who is a Christian and who is not – but he took the number one news story away from Marco Rubio and made it his own.
That is brilliant.
The death of the intrepid Justice Antonin Scalia has shaken the political world. If his successor’s appointment cannot be delayed until the next presidency, it’s assured that an unassailable hard-left majority will control the Supreme Court. This will mean, conservatives warn, the end of significant Second Amendment rights, curtailment of many religious freedoms, and a consistent rubber-stamp for the “progressive” agenda.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of replacing Scalia — the court’s pre-eminent legal mind — with even a pale imitation is slim. For it to happen,
• the Senate will have to exhibit fortitude and delay the confirmation of a successor.
• a Republican will have to win the presidency.
• the GOP will have to retain the Senate in November, when 24 GOP seats but only 10 Democrat ones are up for grabs.
• the Republican president in office will have to nominate someone not a wolf in constitutionalist’s clothing; the chances of this alone happening are likely less than 50 percent.
The probability of all four of the above coming to pass isn’t great. And, regardless, while we will fill the great Scalia’s position, we’ll never fill his shoes. Yet perhaps the real solution to this problem lies with something Scalia himself said — just last year.
The real issue here is not whether Scalia’s successor will abide by the Constitution.
It’s whether we will.
Consider: In a representative republic of 320 million people, we’re all now talking about how one appointment of one unelected lawyer can radically change the face of American law, rights, and freedoms. Anything wrong with this picture?
This isn’t to say that a civilization’s fate being radically altered by one man’s death and another’s ascendancy hasn’t been humanity’s norm. Autocracy has been humanity’s norm. The king would pass on and people might lament, “You mean Aylwin, that kid who drools on his cloak, is next in line? How shall we be ruled?” But does this sound like a concern in a land of, by, and for the people? The fact is that a government cannot be stable if one man’s fancies and fortunes can have such a great impact on it and the wider society. Did the Founding Fathers — who were most concerned about avoiding the aggregation of power by any one entity — really devise such a flawed system?
This brings us to Scalia’s comment, made in his dissenting opinion in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage) ruling. To wit: With “each decision … unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence,” he warned his colleagues. To what was he referring?
Obviously, the Court has neither army nor police to enforce its judgments; it is government’s executive branch — headed by the president on the federal level and governors in the states — with the constitutional warrant to enforce law. And whatever executive branches don’t enforce doesn’t happen, period, no matter how much black-robed lawyers stamp their feet.
But is this just a matter of might makes right? Aren’t we to be a nation of laws? For sure.
A nation of laws, not lawyers.
Laws — not judicial decisions.
There is a difference. Note that Scalia complained of decisions “unabashedly based not on law,” clearly drawing a distinction betweendecisions and laws. Conclusion? An executive branch upholding illegal decisions is, by definition, not safeguarding the rule of law.
And an executive branch that defies ignores illegal court decisions is preserving the rule of law.
“Defies” is crossed out above because that term can connote resistance to authority. But the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being. What “authority” over all and sundry does it have? Some will now answer, “Judicial supremacy!” Let’s examine that.
The legislative branch has the power to make law because the Constitution grants it. The executive branch has the power to enforce law because the Constitution grants it. And the courts exercise judicial supremacy — where its decisions constrain not just its own branch but the other two as well, making it not a “co-equal” branch but a super-legislature/über-executive — because ____________?
The answer has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court unilaterally declared the power in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.
That’s right: Like an upstart seizing the reins in a palace coup, the Supreme Court assigned the Supreme Court its oligarchic power, all without the force of arms. It’s a nice con if you can pull it off.
This isn’t how our system is meant to work. A governmental branch derives its power from the Constitution — not from itself. And how dangerous is this usurpation? Founding Father Thomas Jefferson warned in 1819 that judicial supremacy’s acceptance would do nothing less than make “our constitution a complete felo de se” — a suicide pact. He explained:
For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial supremacy] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation…. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.
Abraham Lincoln, who ignored the Dred Scott decision, also agreed. As Princeton University professor Robert George put it while conducting a December interview with Senator Ted Cruz, Lincoln said “that to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases, no matter what, no matter how usurpative, no matter how anti-constitutional, would be for the American people — and I quote now the Great Emancipator — ‘to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’” Jefferson was even more pointed,writing in 1820 that judicial supremacy is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” And so it has come to pass. We’re now reduced to arguing about how the next appointed oligarch will shape us wax people.
Satirist Jonathan Swift wrote, mocking the legal profession in Gulliver’s Travels, that it is a maxim among lawyers “that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again,” no matter how preposterous. Just as bad, however, is when we abide by judicial supremacy again and again, simply because it has been done before. Part of what motivates this deference is ignorance and (bad) habit, and part is cowardice and political expediency. After all, hiding behind unconstitutional court rulings allows politicians to avoid making difficult decisions. When Ohio governor John Kasich said last June after Obergefell that faux marriage is “the law of the land and we’ll abide by it,” he was essentially stating “Hey, don’t look at me. The Court did it!” Of course, he also said that now “it’s time to move on,” which he was more than happy to do. He has got his political career to consider — Constitution be damned.
Any president, governor, or legislator worth his salt would do his duty and tell usurpative judges to go pound sand. Some will say that this would set off a “constitutional crisis,” but newsflash: We’re already experiencing a constitutional crisis. This occurs not when the Constitution is protected by bringing to heel those who trample it, but when that trampling goes unanswered.
By the way, you know who else apparently questions judicial supremacy? Barack Obama. He has shown willingness to ignore the courts; in fact, he has been so dismissive that a federal appeals court actually ordered the administration in 2012 to submit a letter stating whether or not it recognized the judiciary’s “power.”
Of course, Obama will defy constitutional laws; in contrast, “conservatives,” being conservative (as in reluctant to take bold action), won’t even ignore unconstitutional rulings. It’s an old story. Liberal-controlled localities have been nullifying (ignoring) federal immigration and drug laws for decades. But conservatives consider nullification — even in the defense of legitimate freedoms — some kind of radical action, despite Jefferson’s calling it the “rightful remedy” for all federal usurpation. And “conservative” justices tend to feel constrained by “precedent,” even the unconstitutional variety, yet don’t expect any liberal Scalia replacement to bat an eye at overturning constitutional precedent that contradicts the leftist agenda. Is it any wonder conservatives never saw a cultural or political battle they couldn’t lose?
One might say conservatives fight by Queensbury rules while liberals operate no-holds-barred, but it’s not even that. Though conservatives are allowed to throw punches, they prefer to stand and block and be a punching bag — while the liberals throw sand in their eyes and kick off their kneecaps.
Calling the Court a “threat to American democracy,” Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent, “It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” We won’t talk the court out of its power-mad, usurpative bent. Only power negates power. It’s time to stop acting like impotent fools and start showing the Court how impotent it really is.
 | Christian Zionist on Sweden on brink of civil war:… |
 | georgeallen2007 on Sweden on brink of civil war:… |
 | Sweden on brink of c… on Sweden on brink of civil war:… |
 | Susie Bowman on One of America’s deadlie… |
| Christian Zionist on One of America’s deadlie… |
 | williamjamesward on One of America’s deadlie… |
 | silverback on CNN Rocked by Huge Backlash Af… |
| Missile launched by… on Missile launched by North Kore… |
 | MeThePeople on Illegal Immigrant Arrests Doub… |
 | Freedom Rider on Missile launched by North Kore… |
| MeThePeople on Japan Scheduling More Evacuati… |
| MeThePeople on Missile launched by North Kore… |
| georgeallen2007 on New Jersey Homeland Security O… |
| Free Our Internet (F… on Free Our Internet (FOI) Rolls… |
| MeThePeople on Media Goes Full Retard Over Tr… |
DianeMarie
Cathy
chulai1968
Truth Prevailing
Publius Huldah Freedom Rider Christian Zionist
radioroger2015
revaustinmiles
Steve