Okay, So When are they going to fire?

Shareholders Rake Anti-Gun Dick’s CEO Over Coals During Public Shareholders Meeting

Now, Dick’s Sporting Goods is hearing from its stockholders.

Since the company reacted to the February massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by betraying its customers who support the Second Amendment, Dick’s has been hit by the gun industry, from street-level stores to corporate decision-makers.

But at a shareholders meeting on Wednesday, Dick’s heard from people with skin in the game.

In a direct attack on Dick’s CEO Edward Stack and other members of the company’s board, shareholder David Almasi, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, raked the company’s leadership over the coals.

To the company’s top officers, Almasi charged, “virtue signaling” was more important than the company’s sales.

TRENDING: Smug NY Reporter Forced to Edit Out Racist Statement Printed About Kimberly Guilfoyle

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s announced it would no longer sell AR-15s (the “assault weapon” liberals hate the most these days) and would restrict firearms sales to those 21 years of age or older.

Those might be considered defensible business decisions, perhaps with worries about liabilities in mind, but Dick’s directors went even further, hiring an anti-gun Washington lobbying firm to actively work against Second Amendment freedoms in the nation’s capital.

Almasi cited that decision in particular in his attack.

Listen to the whole thing here:

After the Parkland shooting, Almasi said, “Dick’s Sporting Goods immediately engaged in corporate virtue signaling, by ending the sale of AR-15s, high-capacity magazines and other accessories. Dick’s also no longer sells guns to people until three years after they’re eligible for military service.

“In addition, Dick’s reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions, even though you’re literally in the business of selling guns …

“The company is willfully giving up money. It’s damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment, even while the vast majority of … citizens support the amendment,” Almasi said.

“Thirty percent of Americans own guns and another 11 percent live with someone who does. Now you’ve alienated them.”

Will Dick’s regret its anti-gun positions?

YesNo

.
98% (2240 Votes)
2% (41 Votes)

RELATED: Florida Revokes Hundreds of Carry Permits After ‘Deceitful’ Worker Sabotages Background Check System

According to Fox Business Network, Dick’s has made up for its losses in firearms-related sales in other areas and the stock has risen by 13 percent over the past month.

Liberals like the crew at ThinkProgress are crowing that that proves the Dick’s critics are wrong, but it could well be a short-term effect from the political moment. Dick’s got a lot of headlines out of its anti-gun stance, and liberals could well have decided to patronize the stories because of the publicity.

In the long-term, though, Dick’s has a vested interest in pleasing its outdoors customer base, and its anti-gun decision was a flagrant snub to millions of Americans who could well have been spending their money at Dick’s instead of at a competitor. And shareholders don’t like having company executives who are “willfully giving up money.”

It’s likely not the last time Dick’s shareholders rake the company execs over the coals.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Something to Think About…

Considering the chaotic and splintered condition of our Nation and the broken nature of our Christian church, just about anything could happen.  The Nation and Christians has to do several things.  We need to walk Circumspectly paying close attention to everything around us, pray for discernment, strength and a national Christian revival.  We must join together with our real conservative leadership and get rid of the Shadow Government and Drain the Swamp.  We know, according to Bible prophecy, that we will suffer the period of a one world order and Christians will be under great persecution, however, only God knows the appointed time.  It is my studied opinion, that the time has not yet come, and for the Christian and the Nation to continue to move through life as a free Nation, we must crush liberalism’s plan for globalization.  Pray with me for revival, with the heart of 2nd Chron 7:14.

God Bless you.

R.S. Helms.

 

The following story is reblogged on Bob’s Opinion from AMAC, the Daily Torch, and authored by Robert Romano … Thank you all.

 

 

 

AT&T-Time Warner Merger – Mass Media Consolidation Could Lead the Way to One-Party Rule in The U.S.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2018   |   By Collaborative Correspondent  

Time Warner ATT
Control the Media – Control the People

A vibrant and healthy democracy depends on the free marketplace of ideas.

Call it what you want. Viewpoint diversity. Access to alternative views.

In today’s media and information-driven society and culture, being able to find the opposing view on an issue, to compare the pros and cons of public policy matters or different products and services, is critical to how the American people make decisions about just about everything.

What to buy? Who to vote for? What to watch? Which music to listen to? What to wear? The plethora of choices we have today is owed entirely to the openness of the Internet and other media that facilitates and enables brand development.

But what if that process could become compromised or disrupted in a bid to control media? To control what messages were available to the public? This is the very real danger facing policymakers today in an environment increasingly moving towards mass media consolidation.

With federal judge Richard Leon’s approval of the $107 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, allowing the two companies to combine, the floodgates are opening for content distributors like AT&T — which owns Directv — to also own much of content that plays on those platforms.

Now, Comcast is expected to bid against Disney to buy much of Fox’s media content properties.

So, what’s the problem? Besides the antitrust laws that are invoked by monopolization in any industry, mass media consolidation has meant fewer and fewer companies controlling almost all major media in the country.

A comprehensive Free Press 2018 study on major media ownership finds that just 21 corporations own all the television broadcast stations, 21 that own the radio broadcast stations, 13 that own pay television channels, 11 that own daily newspapers and 18 that own telecom and cable. That number keeps getting smaller every time there’s another merger.

A chapter on the topic in Censored 2006 by Bridget Thornton, Britt Walters and Lori Rouse, “Corporate Media is Corporate America” noted the massive overlap of individuals who sit on the boards at major media outlets and those of non-media corporations.

Then there is the dominance in tech by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Rapidly, the number of separately owned options is dwindling.

Along with media consolidation, there is also a growing call for political consolidation in Washington, D.C. — and even one-party rule.

In April, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira that called for “Democratic One-Party Rule” in the U.S. as a means of reconciling the nation’s challenges and implementing the progressive agenda. You see, all that debate by Congress and disagreement over which direction to go in is getting in the way of that agenda, so democracy no longer functions the way they want it to. Today’s captains of the information industry are getting impatient. They want to see Utopia in their lifetimes.

It will be anything but.

But leaving that aside, forget about competitive elections, Leyden and Teixeira warn: “America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order.”

The resolution: “Democratic One-Party Rule.”

Dorsey’s comment was astonishing, writing briefly, “Great read.” Really? What about the part where the authors called for one-party rule? What about the part where they called it a civil war? No?

Just, “Great read,” as if having one political party control the most powerful country in the world to govern with no dissent as the climatic outcome of a civil war “without firing a shot” was just an after-thought for the billionaire.

Who needs alternate viewpoints when there’s media empires to consolidate and an undemocratic agenda to implement? Just hurry up and work it into the afternoon schedule. Dictatorship by close of business. Can we get that yesterday?

Twitter like other social media giants cast themselves as an open platform, a device for free speech basically and the marketplace of ideas. But what if big media doesn’t live up to that and starts censoring political content of one of the two major parties in a bid for absolute power?

Would that be “anti-competitive” enough for Judge Leon to say it might pose an antitrust issue under federal law?

That is why the AT&T-Time Warner merger today is so important for the media landscape of tomorrow, and why the Justice Department must appeal Judge Leon’s decision, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

It may not happen overnight, but we are witnessing the end of media. This is the age of medium. And if we are not careful, one day there may only be one-party rule, too. That will not lead to liberty and prosperity, but to tyranny.

From – Daily Torch – by Robert Romano

A Deep Concern …

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion … from AMAC Newsletter.

 

Nearly Four In Five College Departments Don’t Employ A Single Republican

 

columbia-university-college-768x500

 

To set foot on an American college campus, as anyone who’s spent a picosecond thereabout lately can tell you, is to step through a left-wing looking glass. But a jaw-dropping new study from the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reveals just how deep the rabbit hole goes: among tenure-track college professors at the nation’s top-ranked liberal arts schools, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than 10 to 1.
Rather than culling data from some voluntary survey, the report uncovers the political leanings of 8,688 elite academics by cross-referencing publicly available voter registration information with faculty lists from 51 colleges. At these schools, “78.2 percent of departments do not employ a single Republican.” And that’s just the topline.
The numbers below the fold, broken down by college and field of study, are even more alarming. Over at Wellesley College, perhaps best known for fostering pantsuited diplomats and disdain for the late Barbara Bush, there are 136 Democrat professors for every Republican. More than a third of the colleges assessed have ratios of at least 20-to-1.
At the low end of the spectrum are schools like the Naval Academy, where still more than twice as many Ds as Rs appear at the front of the lecture hall. Lopsided leanings are also evident in key disciplines, such as environmental studies (25-to-1), the humanities (32-to-1), and sociology (44-to-1).
Even If You’re Liberal, This Is Bad News
Look, it’s news to no one (except maybe the frequently confused Matt Yglesias) that the Left smothers conservative thought in academe. But at this magnitude, the consequences go far beyond who gets to wear tweed jackets with elbow patches. Each year, America’s universities ingest millions of bright but ideologically inchoate young people fumbling towards adulthood. Failing to expose them to an extensive menu of different ideas is a sure recipe for parochialism and intellectual indolence.
Even those who would welcome a unanimously liberal generation of Americans must recognize that a mind untested is as useful as a pencil unsharpened: it may be the tool you need, but good luck filling out your Scantron. The most valuable test of one’s worldview is to be confronted by an earnest exponent of a different or even contradictory one.
Moreover, consider the impact of straitjacketed thinking on academic inquiry. Despite being lavished with billions by American taxpayers, the social sciences are engulfed in a vexing replication crisis. Hundreds of findings once considered axiomatic have been impossible to reproduce, casting doubt on entire corpuses of published work in some disciplines.
Is this really all that gobsmacking, however, given the tool we use to appraise its validity? Peer review aims to ensure that academic evidence can be trusted by subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny of reviewers with expertise comparable to the author. Yet as activists and politicians grasp ever more desperately at studies to lend scientific heft to their policy wish lists, academic research has become increasingly politicized. A panel drawn from a cohort of homogeneous thinkers cannot be expected to fairly assess evidence that has a political impact.
Look no further than the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a tool social psychologists developed that purports to measure unconscious prejudice. After being cited in more than 3,000 peer-reviewed papers by “psychologists [desiring] to help solve social problems,” and eagerly circulated by fellow travelers in the media, it was revealed that the test returns wildly unreliable results and has no impact on discriminatory behavior.
Despite failing to meet basic scientific standards, the IAT has been taken by more than 17 million people worldwide, featured in multimillion-dollar federal grants, and made the centerpiece of countless corporate diversity workshops. These academic blunders carry a price we will continue to pay until we recognize the limitations of peer review in an echo chamber.
This Means the ‘Consensus’ Is Tilted
The same applies to the notion of “scientific consensus,” commonly aired today in discussions about climate change. In 2014, noted demagogue John Oliver excoriated the media for daring to present viewers both sides of a political question by holding a “statistically representative” mock debate. To illustrate the percentage of scientists who agree on climate change, he trotted out 97 extras in white coats to shout down three climate skeptics.
To this profusion of unintentional irony, the NAS study adds another nugget: the 25-to-1 partisan ratio among environmental studies faculty means that out of professors who declare for a party, 96.2 percent are Democrats. By no means does this invalidate the conclusions of climate scientists. But policymakers should be aware that the oft-cited “consensus” is not necessarily a meeting of purely objective minds.
Let’s face it: the academy’s ability to perform credible peer review and proclaim scientific consensus will be hindered until it reclaims ideological pluralism. But how? The study argues that, “[t]he solution to viewpoint homogeneity may lie in establishing new colleges from the ground up” because reforming hidebound institutions “seems a very tall order.” Yet a vast new expansion, in the context of bloated federal outlays and overextended state budgets, seems even more improbable.
There is no choice but to reform existing universities, although it will take a Herculean effort from within to expand the institutional Overton window. These days, you can hardly walk through a quad without turning up some provost or vice chancellor underfoot, vowing to promote diversity. It’s past time for these administrators to show some mettle and apply that principle not just to race, sex, and creed, but to ideas also.
That means ceasing the assault on academic freedom and putting the kibosh on the heckler’s veto. Those interested in a truly plural discourse on campus should also think twice before reaching for the typical administrative pro-diversity playbook. Mandatory training seminars and hiring quotas are poor solutions, whomever they favor. Instead, we should take matters into our own hands.
Here’s How to Start
First, students and professors with divergent views must be bold enough to publicly voice them. The chilling effect of overwhelming viewpoint discrimination drives right-leaning prospective young academics into tight-lipped diffidence, if not different callings altogether. The magnetism of compelling mentors—visible evidence that conservatives indeed belong—is an indispensable counterweight that must be strengthened.
Meanwhile, freethinkers should join (or promote and support) nonpartisan organizations that defend viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech on campus, like the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The surveys, tools, and research that groups like these produce are materiel for the vanguard.
Finally, right-leaning professors should strive to play a larger role in peer review, though not a tendentious one. These panels should not become venues for ideological combat, but a variety of perspectives is a needed check on cognitive biases, to which even pedigreed scholars are susceptible.
It goes without saying that all this may come at a substantial individual cost, denominated in professional opportunities and even personal relationships. But it must be paid. Otherwise, partisan faculties will continue to gather momentum like heavy stones tumbling down a hillside. The few conservatives in academia must be willing to stand athwart these boulders yelling Stop, no matter the risk of being flattened. The integrity of the academy depends on it.
From – The Federalist – by William Estes

Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion..

via Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

The Protocol Used Really Stinks Bad.

Reblogged from an article from Nox and Friends by -Uriel-  Thanks for the post.

Comment by Bob’s Opinion … R.S. Helms

I will truly be disappointed in President Trump is he releases the memo redacted.  He is the President not the upper echelon in the intelligence community and especially the FBI.  It would not be the first appointee or nominee that the staff recommended that has turned out to be bad for the administration.  But just because Trump appointed the now FBI director does not mean that he appointed him to be rogue and unaccountable, or lead the nation.  Trump is President, and the FBI works for him.

The Shadow Government must be exposed and disposed of, and any in congress who have any connection to them and has been unconstitutionally protecting and covering up their wrong doing for the past four or five decades.  This is just the tip of the iceberg, and the corruption goes to all agencies who actually have been writing regulations (laws), harmful to the people and security of the United States.  The Washington Swamp is deep and far reaching in the slime of corruption.

Thanks for reading…  R.S. Helms

 

Panicked FBI sent officials to WH to stop FISA memo release

Panicked FBI sent five officials to the White House to stop FISA memo, and look who they lobbied

BizPak Review
Samantha Chang
February 1, 2018

In a move that should surprise no one, the top brass at the FBI — many of whom are Obama holdovers — does not want the FISA memo detailing alleged surveillance abuses of the Obama FBI released to the public.

Less than a day after President Trump revealed he “100%” plans to release the memo, the FBI issued a statement claiming it has “grave concerns” about Americans seeing the memo. The White House plans to release the FISA memo today.

With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it,” the FBI statement said. “As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy.”

But Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the FBI’s desperate ploy as evidence of more “stonewalling” by the agency to cover up the widespread surveillance abuses it had committed under the direction of Barack Obama.

 

————

Twitter:  Mike‏
Here it is from Nunes: the clearest indication yet of what’s coming. The FBI used lies from the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant against Carter Page, which it then used to fuel a whisper campaign against Trump. Abuse of power, pure and simple. Everything else is commentary.

 ————

“Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies,” Nunes said in a statement.

Congressman Nunes added: “It’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intelligence agencies and courts are never misused like this again.”

 

A panicked Schiff complained Republicans had “secretly altered” the memo before sending it to President Trump’s desk for review.

A rep for the House Intelligence Committee responded by saying the only “edits” that were made were grammatical ones, and “two edits” specifically made at the request of Democrats and FBI officials.

As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes is obligated to inform Congress of FISA abuses being committed to illegally spy on private citizens, which is reportedly what happened to Donald Trump before he became president.

“Chairman Nunes has an obligation — an obligation — to inform Congress when there has been FISA abuses. And so all he’s doing is following on his constitutional duty to let us know about that,” Meadows said. “It’s time for transparency to the American people.”

Read the complete article HERE.

–00–

According to WND there are top agents that have reviewed the information and could not point to any inaccuracies. Yet most of MSM is displaying prominently that there are “grave concerns.”

First, I am sure there are concerns.  Guilt does that. No one wants to get caught doing some naughty, corrupt, or personally damning deed. Need to protect pride or save oneself from repercussions at all cost is reasonable, especially if an option is prison, loss of property, or forever branded as traitor–unacceptable but understandable. You did the deed then you own the consequences.

Second, it is NOT acceptable to withhold the four-page document outlining government wrongdoing from the last president. As long as there are innocent parties and informant names withheld and specific legal information involving a case not displayed to the public eye then there should be no reason not to make the information public.

We absolutely know that Obama, a shadow group, and his administration were attempting to take over our country and its sovereignty. To deny citizens the right to see and read for ourselves what is in the memo and finally understand that we were right all along is not acceptable.

There might be serious repercussions — yes. There might be some reason for alarm to the health and property of particular individuals from crazies — yes. But you guys — OUR EMPLOYEES — do not get the right to decide for us or hide, cover up, in any way alter, or destroy that information. It is time all of it came out in the open.

We have reached the point of no belief without full discloser and the end of tolerance for delays, excuses, collusion, obstruction, or any other action except TRUTH. If we freak and panic, so be it. Sometimes unfortunately the most meaningful lessons are those permanently etched in a memory which was harsh or caused by fear or panic.

Our premier US investigative agency is in tatters from those who have misused and abused it. Now there needs to be a thorough cleaning. Agents loyal to the US not to Obama or some foreign entity are the only ones that should be within its walls and under its shield. Everyone else deserves GITMO time.

We as a nation cannot heal if we are not allowed to see the problem, understand the real ramifications of actions, and find a way forward in unity to a better country. The same can be said for all of the key players being brought before a court to answer for their corruption and any seditious or treasonous actions. We need as a nation to believe that justice has been served; that steps have been taken to never allow this again; that money has returned that was stolen; and most importantly that lives of those who have suffered or been lost have found peace.

We expect justice not wholesale slaughter like during the French Revolution. We expect equality under the law for rich or poor, old or young regardless of sex, religion, country, or activity. We can no longer tolerate the knowledge that there are those from within and without our own country who have been actively selling out our national identity, our rights, our security, and been attempting to enslave our country for generations to come for any sick, perverted, egotistical, or ideological reason.

–Uriel–

Junk Science…

Climate Change Alarmism Is ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out,’ Retired NASA Physicist Says

Share
Tweet
Email
NASA climate change global warmingHOUSTON—Unvalidated climate models that don’t correspond with physical data and the requirements of the scientific method contribute to unfounded climate alarmism, a retired NASA physicist said at the Heartland Institute’s recent America First Energy Conference.

Since America’s national security depends in part on energy security, unsubstantiated claims about global warming that prevent policymakers from making “rational decisions” with regard to the development of U.S. energy resources have become a national security threat, said Hal Doiron, a 16-year NASA veteran.

The “propaganda” underpinning climate alarmism is “causing tremendous political bottlenecks” that prevent government officials from “doing the right thing” on energy, he said.

Doiron, who helped develop the Apollo Lunar Module’s landing dynamics software during NASA’s moon missions, also expressed concern that the U.S. military has been directly affected by climate alarmist claims separated from sound science.

He criticized the Navy for “preparing for something that is unreasonable and would cost too much money” in the form of “extreme sea-level rise,” which has not been borne out by rigorous scientific study.

Doiron defines unvalidated climate models as those that do not agree with physical data. Public policy and military planning should be based only on models validated by physical data, he said.

“At NASA, we have a policy: You can’t make a design decision on a spacecraft or rocket that is not validated,” he said. “You don’t make critical decisions based on ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ Yet our government has been doing that with respect to climate alarm, because too many academics in universities are writing papers, drawing conclusions from models that don’t agree with physical data.”

Doiron is part of a group called “The Right Climate Stuff,” which includes engineers and scientists from across generations who have taken part in NASA’s most high-profile missions dating back to Apollo.

The group has produced its own “rigorous, earth surface temperature model using conservation-of-energy principles” that operates similarly to the way the surface and internal temperature of a spacecraft is analyzed, the Right Climate Stuff team explains on its website.

The reports produced from the analysis provide more “realistic projections” of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature over the next 150 years that show severe anti-fossil fuel regulations are not justified, Doiron and other former NASA team members contend.

“The scientific method requires that your hypothesis and theories be confirmed by physical data,” he said. “Computer models are not physical data, although I think many in academia don’t understand that.”

When unvalidated models are compared with validated models based on physical evidence, the validated models predict much less global warming, Doiron said. Moreover, the fact that unvalidated models often don’t agree with each other should be a “big, red flag.”

The retired NASA physicist is calling for U.S. policymakers to establish official data on two key metrics; specifically, “the true sensitivity of surface temperature to greenhouse gases” and a “reasonable projection of greenhouse emissions and [the] concentrations rise in our atmosphere.”

Doiron and his team have developed “a new metric” called “transient climate sensitivity,” which measures how much warming can be seen with a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the “way that it’s actually happening,” based on a “very small amount of [carbon dioxide] each year.”

That’s something that can be measured and verified against available physical data, he said. But because policymakers, including military planners, are not operating from reasonable projections, they are not in a position to adequately plan for the future, Doiron cautioned.

Another way climate change alarmism has worked to undermine America’s national security standing is by consuming too much of the military budget at the expense of military readiness, a top naval commander said during the panel discussion.

Adm. Thomas Hayward, who retired from the Navy as chief of naval operations and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after serving as commander of the 7th Fleet and commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, also addressed the Heartland Institute’s energy conference and sounded concerns.

For the past six to eight years, Hayward said, climate change has been given “a higher priority” than the readiness of the Navy’s fleet. During that time, the Defense Department has spent $100 billion on “just climate change,” while the Navy has spent “$58 billion chasing what is called the ‘green fleet.’”

That means many Navy vessels are using biofuels, but Hayward wonders how many ports around the world are equipped to accommodate Navy vessels that rely on a high percentage of biofuels, and he worries how that would work in a combat situation.

This report has been modified to state correctly how much Hayward said the Defense Department has spent on climate change.

From – The Daily Signal – by Kevin Mooney

RINOs … And What We Should Do.

Drain the Swamp 00

 

 

 

 

me 001
R.S. Helms … 6-15-2006

 

 

Open Letter to Republicans

Yes, I voted for President Trump, and I don’t presume to second guess him in his strategy for draining the Washington Swamp, and the Deep State, Shadow Government, or actually an over inflated oversized liberal bureaucracy of government employees, of government agencies, and Obama spent eight years, people listen to me, EIGHT YEARS fine tuning to his agenda.  He said he would and we laughed at him, well guess what he divided even the divided in this nation.

The liberal Democrats and the millions of liberals bought and paid for are totally out of control, acting more like they are demon possessed than just a simple delusional spell, no they are far removed from any type of constructive thought. Conservatives should know what to expect from the slimy left.  As well, we know the media and press are so far gone that they can’t even tell lies anymore, lies that make any attempt to pass the smell test.

Nonetheless, there is a greater danger to this present administration, it is the RINO Establishment!  Fake conservatives, some are outright and admittedly out to over through the Trump administration, and all the RINOs are being led by:

  • John McCain
  • Graham
  • Kasich
  • Rubio
  • Ryan
  • McConnell

Nonetheless, there are others who insert themselves from time to time.  One outlet has it as 70 republican congressional politicians who are part of the Establishment RINOs who can change their support at the drop of a political hat.

It is my intent to spend the time I was spending on reposting and commenting on liberal politicians who are out there leading the rhetoric and simply manufacturing lies for the liberal media to sensationalize.  If there ever was a conspiracy to incite sedition and violent sedition it is what is happening now.  aside from some of the Democratic leaders overtly inciting violence and violent protests, I will simply let them flap their mouths in the wind of defeat.

I am changing my focus, from the liberals, to the RINOs and anytime one of these Establishment Bottom Feeders, makes a comment negative to the Trump agenda, or the Trump Administration, I will make a big deal of it on Social Media, in blogs, and where I can write a letter to the editor of the Fake News I will, I will send copies to my congressional representatives in both the house and Senate, I will campaign against the opposition and any RINO who is running in the primaries, and in general elections.  And will campaign against the credibility of any and all RINOs.

People a man died (He was a liberal socialist who was shooting up Republican politicians), but he died because of the liberal rhetoric inciting violence against Republicans and The President of the United States; critically wounding several.  Friends it was not about guns, it was not about mental illness, it was about political rhetoric of violence against President Trump, his administration, and against conservatives.  Nothing more and nothing less, a result of the madness, and division created by the imp commander in chief, Obama.

Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, who in many cases have went to the streets to incite this sort of slimy behavior while addressing radical liberal socialist groups, we know what to expect from them, and they keep getting our support, by the conservatives making derogatory remarks and re-posting the memes and posts.  It is in our outrage and frustrations that we are simply giving more and more press to their vile cause.

We have seldom attended the same focus on the RINOs, some are just simply traitors to the once conservative Republican Party, others are seeking revenge for being exposed for who they are, slime-bags who are corrupt, and hell bent to make this a socialist nation and under the delusion that they will be among the ruling elite of a socialist democracy.  We need to take up the sword of a free constitutional Republic, and go on the offensive, with as much energy as we are spending on defense.

The tide of liberalism is mounting with the involvement of the accelerated Muslim and illegal alien population, more and more votes for the liberal radicals who are seeking to over through our nation.  and our own Republican politicians have been more than willing participants in stopping or changing the Trump agenda or promises to suit the RYAN agenda.  Two RINOs who took Clinton Campaign money and I have an undocumented opinion that they also took Russian money as well as overtly received Soros money; perhaps they should be the ones under investigation, but what’s new about corruption.

The RINOs have enabled the socialist Democrats to usurp unconstitutional authority over the Administration, by protecting the Shadow Government, overtly by demanding a reason for firing any of them, which is the president’s prerogative, if the president fires one of them say as he did with Comey, is that he has that right, nonetheless, he did so after protecting him several times when the Republicans were calling for his dismissal.  What he should do is fire all of them, and replace them with conservatives who will do their job.  He needs to get rid of any staff or Cabinet who are not doing their job.  The very ones who are wanting to continue the Russian connection to the campaign are the ones who voted in their sanctions against Russia and not the more effective measures of the Trump sanctions, so where should the investigation be focused?  You know who and what.  McCain is the first that should be under investigation, for colluding with Russia, and with ISIS.  Yet he is jumping up and down about Russia and Trumps first stop on his visits to the Middle East, was with Saudi Arabia, which, by the way are an ally, of course not one of the most trusted, but still an ally.

Russia is an enemy, and any deals with them should be only in the support of a common goal, against a common enemy.  McCain and Ryan have only one reason to go against the president; and that would be stop him and increase their power.  At this point, congress and the nation’s best interest.  So yes these RINOs aforementioned, will receive my attention and comments in social media.  It is time that we the people, started putting America first, by flushing out the Fake Conservatives.   is doing what the liberal left wants them to do.  and because of their obstruction congress has pretty much tied the hands of the President, until he drains the swamp, and puts the government back to working for the people