Anti-Second Amendment activist David Hogg sure knows how to play the victim… but a wounded soldier just called him out on his perpetual lectures.
On Friday, a U.S. Army soldier named Derek Weida posted a scathing response to Hogg, who has proclaimed himself the voice of a generation on gun violence in America.
Whether you want to call Hogg a shooting “survivor” is up for debate. Perhaps “witness” is a better term: He was at the high school at the time of the tragedy, but only heard gunshots in a different part of the school.
In contrast, Derek Weida is a shooting survivor in every sense of the word. He literally took a bullet for his country… and gave up his leg due to injuries from that attack.
“I got shot on a house raid in Iraq,” the former soldier posted on Facebook. “My getting shot didn’t make me a professional on war, international relations, house raids (obviously), or guns,” he explained, seemingly criticizing Hogg for positioning himself as a gun control authority.
Weida explained that he isn’t particularly pro-gun himself, but feels that David Hogg is using the issue for self-aggrandizement and coming across as condescending and smug as a result.
Warning: Post contains explicit language.
RANT: Accurate portrayal of me listening to David Hogg speak. Look, I’m sorry dude, sincerely. It is horrible… School…
“Here’s my two cents: It’s not a gun problem, not a people problem, it’s a culture thing,”
the one-legged soldier wrote.
“Don’t ever be so quick to tell a whoooole lot of people how to live,” he warned Hogg. “F***ing NOBODY wants school shootings, mass shootings, shootings of any kind where somebody ends up injured or dead. Nobody.”
“It’s not even about the gun. It’s about the freedom and the right… And you can’t win an argument against that, nor should you,” he went on.
Weida, who served with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, scolded Hogg for demonizing law-abiding gun owners and portraying NRA members as blood-soaked murderers.
“Bad things happen sometimes but on the grand scale of things… Like 99.999% of people are good. Yes, let’s find ways to deter those .001% of people as best we can but they’re gonna accomplish their task regardless,” he stated.
“I guess I just want to say don’t be so quick to talk. Don’t be so quick to think YOU are somehow the ONE person who has things figured out,” the Purple Heart recipient suggested to Hogg.
Then he wrote something that countless conservatives have wanted to say to David Hogg for weeks.
“You want to make a change? Cool!! But… Try to be less of a c*** about it.”
He’s right on the money. Nobody — nobody — wants more school shootings. Not liberals, not conservatives, not NRA members. The problem that many on the right have with Hogg isn’t that he wants to reduce violence, it’s that he insults and smugly attacks anyone who doesn’t carry his banner.
David Hogg has the demeanor and attitude of someone who hasn’t yet learned that 17-year-olds don’t have all the answers.
If he has an ounce of wisdom, he’d be smart to listen to veterans like Weida who have faced their own deadly struggles… but realized that humbleness goes a lot further than hubris.
What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!
Don’t expect to see this in the mainstream media.
Of all the talking-head teenagers to emerge in the anti-gun hysteria that’s followed February’s mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, none have gotten more worshipful mass media coverage than Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School senior David Hogg.
But for those with more intimate knowledge of the atrocity than the average blathering CNN host, the picture of Hogg is a little different.
A Twitter post by Patrick Petty, whose sister, Alaina, was murdered by the maniac who attacked Stoneman Douglas on Valentine’s Day, casts Hogg in a light the mainstream media will never produce.
I find it funny that @davidhogg111 wants people to show him love while being nasty and vile to others. Worse than that, he and his friends have not said a word to me since the shooting, considering my sister died on 2/14 don’t you think it would’ve been loving to reach out to me? https://t.co/8Gn3UsatjI
— Patrick Petty (@Patrickpetty23) March 29, 2018
Now, there’s no question that the mainstream media has seized on the Parkland shooting to promote its anti-gun agenda. While the so-called “March for Our Lives” rally in Washington got over-the-top coverage, the families of victims who don’t share gun-grabbers’ goals have been ignored.
Hogg and the other ill-mannered teens who have apparently let the momentary fame of liberal victimhood get to their heads, have been treated like child crusaders, standing up for all that is right and just.
Conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham has even been the target of a boycott movement for daring to criticize the boy wonder from Broward County.
But Patrick Petty’s Twitter posting rips away the veil.
And as it turns out, he had plenty of support.
This sounds awful but i feel he’s using the situation of that day to fan the flames of his fame, he doesn’t care about those lost their lives beyond getting his name and views out there.
— TheIrishRed (@THEIrishRed111) March 29, 2018
Hogg and many others have an agenda. It is very clear. Sadly, he’ll keep being used to prop up a narrative until they no longer require his voice. He needs to be ignored for a while.
— Michael Pratt (@MikePrattPhotos) March 29, 2018
David Hogg doesn’t care about your sister’s life, or loss thereof. He’s a tool – always has been & always will be. I’m sorry for your loss, Patrick, as most all of Americans are. I’m sure you’re frustrated w/how Broward County became a proving ground 4 bad political policies.
— John New (@JohnNew2015) March 30, 2018
That last tweet summed it up. It’s difficult to say how the commenter was using the word “tool” here, it might have just been an insult for a guy with an overinflated ego (which certainly sounds like it fits). But it’s true in a more literal sense, too.
It’s important to remember that Hogg and his compadres who appeared with him on that Time cover are teenagers — and they all have a teenager’s arrogance, conceit and ignorance. They’re frauds, but they still have the excuse of youth.
But the liberals who have made them such objects of adulation are adults – men and women with a lifetime of experience manipulating the public and its emotions in the service of the “progressive” agenda, which generally means stripping rights away from American citizens.
They have been using these teenagers as tools for their own political profit – no doubt with a firm eye on the upcoming November midterms.
Families members of victims who don’t share the gun control agenda have been treated abominably, as National Review’s Mairead McArdle pointed out. And they were treated that way by the so-called “adults” who organized the Washington protest.
Petty and the other family members who’ve been frozen out by Hogg and his high school clique have a grievance, and it’s personal more than political.
But the mistreatment of the families of Parkland victims who don’t share the liberal agenda goes well beyond the teenagers who’ve been dominating television screens for more than a month.
Family members of victims who don’t fit the “narrative” of the gun control movement can expect no sympathy from that movement’s supporters – or its figurehead leaders like Hogg and Co. And no coverage from the major networks that support it.
The likes of Patrick Petty hold no interest for progressives. So when it comes to a story like this, don’t expect to see it in the mainstream media.
What do you think? Please tell us In comment below!
The much-feted March for our Lives protests taking place across the world are not what they appear to be. While we can all get behind the idea of making children in schools safer, the idea behind the protest is not only flawed thinking, it also has decided to ignore the reality of the situation.
Consider, the March is for the purpose of banning “assault” rifles. The reality is that rifles are among the safest guns available and are not responsible for the vast majority of gun deaths in America. Why is it that the March has focused on something will actually make very little difference? Could it be that it is being used as nothing more than a tool to begin the slow chipping away of the Second Amendment?
The New York Times reports that:
“173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”
Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? But then consider that each and every year, almost 4 times as many people are killed with handguns in Chicago alone. Yet there is no March against this. And remember, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
So there thinking is wrong…Now let’s look at the motivation.
Clearly it can’t be to stop deaths, otherwise, they would be going after handgun ownership. COld it be that the true target is the NRA because they back politicians who are more often Democrats?
This is a “decapitation” exercise to remove powerful lobbyists and political support form opponents of Democrats, nothing more.
They are using traumatized kids to serve their bigger agenda.
This is a complete fraud to get votes! They don’t care about the kids or anything/anyone else that matters, only MONEY!!
Think about this people!! If Dems get their way?
It’s back to stone knives and bear skins primitive living defense,
they’ll walk all over you and take what ever they please!!!!
It’s been said, we’ll be leveled back to the “stone ages”, that’s what will happen if all the guns from the good law supporting citizens are striped away and replaced with just “rocks” to throw etc.”
To defend with? NOT GOOD!!!!
The much-feted March for our Lives protests taking place across the world are not what they appear to be. While we can…
During a report this week, a local Minnesota reporter blew some uninformed liberal minds by touting some basic facts about gun ownership in his state.
“We took a very hard look at these numbers, and we did find that Minnesota has a very high rate of gun ownership — one of the highest in the country — but it has a relatively low rate of violent crime,” revealed Minneapolis station WCCO reporter Pat Kessler in a segment Thursday.
He added that in 2017, Minnesota “set a new record for firearms background checks,” processing 473,975 checks on permits, 94,383 checks on handguns and 125,516 checks on long guns.
In other words, more people attempted to purchase weapons in the state last year than ever before.
“Minnesota set another 2017 record, too,” his report continued. “The State Department of Public Safety reports 283,188 Minnesotans now have permits to legally carry firearms in public.”
Listen to the full report below:
Interestingly, these numbers coincide perfectly with the research of economist, commentator and gun rights advocate John R. Lott, whose award-winning 1998 book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” centers around the thesis that a well-armed population deters crime.
“Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself,” he explained in an interview that year with the University of Chicago Press.
“There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate — as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”
Other research bears this out. Five years ago Forbes columnist Larry Bell pointed to a then-recent Pew Research Study that found that “(n)ational rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes” had dropped significantly since the mid-1990s.
But as noted by Bell, “Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers.”
“Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before,” he wrote.
And according to data from the FBI, the number of background checks conducted annually have only grown since then, jumping from a total of 19.6 million in 2012 to a high of 25.2 million in 2017.
More people are seeking out and obtaining guns, and yet America’s top metropolitans are continuing to see record “drops in crime and murder.”
Why is that? I’m not going to speculate because I’m not a trained researcher, but I will quote John R. Lott, who has said many times over, “More guns, less crime.”
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about the statistics out of Minnesota.
What do you think about the “more guns, less crime” narrative? Scroll down to comment below!
The state of Illinois cannot be said to be a ‘firearm friendly’ state by any stretch of the imagination. However, in a recent unanimous ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state law that seemed designed to be a “categorical prohibition” for the state to abuse.
The law said, in essence, that carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a number of public places was a crime. Using this law, Julio Chairez was arrested and charged in Aurora, Illinois (a Chicago suburb) with a Class 3 Felony. By appealing his case to the state Supreme Court, he scored a great win for anyone concerned with their Second Amendment rights in the state of Illinois.
The case of People v. Chairez was appealed all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court because though Julio Chairez did not contend that he had broken the state’s laws concerning firearms near parks (and a host of other locations), he contended that the law was wildly unconstitutional.
Apparently, the entirety of the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with him.
This particular law barred firearm owners from bringing their firearm within 1,000 feet of numerous places. The list included parks, schools, courthouses, public housing, public transportation facilities, and more.
Due to the law’s design, and the density of parts of Illinois (such as Chicago and its suburbs), it was scarcely possible for a legal gun owner to traverse the city or go for a walk without constantly violating the law.
In his appeal, Chairez’s attorneys argued that these ‘exclusion zones’ were firearms were not allowed amounted to what was, in effect, a blanket ban on carrying guns in public in most of Chicago.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned an actual blanket ban on carrying firearms in 2012, and this de facto ban was the state of Illinois’ response to not being able to deny people the right to carry firearms for self-defense.
The state of Illinois did not let their terrible last attempt at denying people the right to carry a firearm go without a fight, however.
In front of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the state of Illinois’ representatives argued that the Supreme Court had allowed reasonable laws concerning “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court HAS made allowances in the past for localities to bear arms from being carried in certain public locations. However, these allowances do not extend past the property line, and they certainly don’t extend a thousand feet in any direction past the property line.
According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in an earlier judgment, the state of Illinois’ law created a burden on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In their ruling, the court said that such a burden can only be constitutionally viable if the state can point to an “extremely strong” public-interest reason behind the burden.
Further, the state has to be able to prove that there is a “close fit” between its ends and its means, which the state of Illinois failed to do.
The Seventh Circuit Court stated the Illinois government failed to provide any sort of evidence that their law had any impact on the “risk it identifies.” The ‘risk’ the law ‘identified’ was that carrying firearms would be a ‘risk’ to children and other individuals in parks and other listed areas.
However, the state did little more than speculate that this was the case and provided no evidence that their law did anything to curb firearm violence around the state’s parks.
According to the Illinois Supreme Court, the rule made it ‘legally perilous’ to carry a firearm anywhere in the state. Among other problems, there was, and is, no way for Illinois citizens to know if they were going into an ‘exclusionary’ zone.
It is obvious to the casual observer that this law was designed by the state of Illinois not to improve its dreadful crime statistics, and not to improve the city of Chicago’s absurdly high incidence of shootings, but rather to inhibit legal gun owners.
It was cheap, and it was a last-ditch attempt by a state that has a terrible record on respecting the Second Amendment.
And thanks to the Illinois Supreme Court, and to Julio Chairez, the state has just lost another of their dishonest tools for denying people their right to keep and bear arms.
Illinois may never be a state with firearm regulations as those of the state of Indiana, immediately to its south. However, every small improvement is cause for celebration and rejoicing.
for article comments from the Website…
NOTE: Snopes is very biased! I will included the BCB article below:
The US has confirmed it is finally ready to cede power of the internet’s naming system, ending the almost 20-year process to hand over a crucial part of the internet’s governance.
The Domain Naming System, DNS, is one of the internet’s most important components.
It pairs the easy-to-remember web addresses – like bbc.com – with their relevant servers. Without DNS, you’d only be able to access websites by typing in its IP address, a series of numbers such as “22.214.171.124”.
More by circumstance than intention, the US has always had ultimate say over how the DNS is controlled – but not for much longer.
It will give up its power fully to Icann – the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers – a non-profit organisation.
The terms of the change were agreed upon in 2014, but it wasn’t until now that the US said it was finally satisfied that Icann was ready to make the change.
Icann will get the “keys to the kingdom”, as one expert put it, on 1 October 2016. From that date, the US will lose its dominant voice – although Icann will remain in Los Angeles.
If anyone can, Icann?
Users of the web will not notice any difference – that’s because Icann has essentially been doing the job for years anyway.
But it’s a move that has been fiercely criticised by some US politicians as opening the door to the likes of China and Russia to meddle with a system that has always been “protected” by the US.
“The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet,” warned a letter signed by several Republican senators, including former Presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz.
Whether you think those fears are justified depends on your confidence in the ability of Icann to do its job.
It was created in 1998 to take over the task of assigning web addresses. Until that point, that job was handled by one man – Jon Postel. He was known to many as the “god of the internet”, a nod to his power over the internet, as well as his research work in creating some of the systems that underpin networking.
Mr Postel, who died not long after Icann was created, was in charge of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Administration of the IANA was contracted to the newly-formed Icann, but the US’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Department of Commerce, kept its final say over what it was able to do.
It’s that final detail that is set to change from October. No longer will the US government – through the NTIA – be able to intervene on matters around internet naming.
It rarely intervened. Most famously, it stepped in when Icann wanted to launch a new top-level domain for pornography, “.xxx”. The government wanted Icann to ditch the idea, but it eventually went ahead anyway.
From October, the “new” Icann will become an organisation that answers to multiple stakeholders who want a say over the internet. Those stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technical expertise.
“It’s a big change,” remarked Prof Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey.
“It marks a transition from an internet effectively governed by one nation to a multi-stakeholder governed internet: a properly global solution for what has become a global asset.”
Technically, the US is doing this voluntarily – if it wanted to keep power of DNS, it could. But the country has long acknowledged that relinquishing its control was a vital act of international diplomacy.
Other countries, particularly China and Russia, had put pressure on the UN to call for the DNS to be controlled by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union.
GETTY IMAGESImage captionRussia had been among the countries
calling for the internet to be controlled by the UN
A treaty to do just that was on the table in 2012 – but the US, along with the UK, Canada and Australia, refused, citing concerns over human rights abuses that may arise if other countries had greater say and control over the internet and its technical foundations.
Instead, the US has used its remaining power over DNS to shift control to Icann, not the UN.
In response to worries about abuse of the internet by foreign governments, the NTIA said it had consulted corporate governance experts who said its the prospect of government interference was “extremely remote”.
“The community’s new powers to challenge board decisions and enforce decisions in court protect against any one party or group of interests from inappropriately influencing Icann,” it said in a Q&A section on its website.
As for how it will change what happens on the internet, the effects will most likely be minimal for the average user.
“This has nothing to do with laws on the internet,” Prof Woodward said.
“Those still are the national laws that apply where it touches those countries.
“This is more about who officially controls the foundations of the Internet/web addresses and domain names, without which the network wouldn’t function.”
View comments Website only..
From the inception of ICANN, the U.S. Government and Internet stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department’s June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government “is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management.” ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence. At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions.
The change is expected to have little, if any, effect on end users, nor do proponents of the global multistakeholder model foresee negative consequences to setting ICANN free. Opponents beg to differ, however, viewing it as a threat to both the stability of the Internet and the security of the United States.
Every American should worry about Obama giving up control of the internet to an undefined group. This is very, very dangerous.
Since the Internet now permeates our lives in every possible way, it is disturbing that Obama has relinquished U.S. control over its underlying structure. Control will be turned over to a global panel, which will include totalitarian countries that do not value our First Amendment protection of free speech.
Our announcement has led to some misunderstanding about our plan with some individuals raising concern that the U.S. government is abandoning the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. This announcement in no way diminishes our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth and innovation. We will continue to advocate for U.S. interests and an open Internet through our role on ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and in other international venues including the Internet Governance Forum.
This transition is “giving the Internet to authoritarian regimes.”
The U.S. Government has made it clear that we will not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government or intergovernmental organization.
The criteria specified by the Administration firmly establish Internet governance as the province of multistakeholder institutions, rather than governments or intergovernmental institutions, and reaffirm our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth, innovation, and free expression.
The U.S. government will only transition its role if and when it receives it receives a satisfactory proposal to replace its role from the global Internet community — the same industry, technical, and civil society entities that have successfully managed the technical functions of Internet governance for nearly twenty years.
With the U.S. withdrawal from stewardship over the IANA functions, the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union will take over the Internet – making it easier for repressive regimes to censor speech online.
The transition process that is underway will help prevent authoritarian countries from exerting too much influence over the Internet by putting control of key Internet domain name functions in the hands of the global community of Internet stakeholders — specifically industry, technical experts, and civil society — instead of an intergovernmental organization.
The U.S. Government transition will lead to blocking of web sites.
The Internet is not controlled by any one government or entity. It is a network of networks. The U.S. Government’s role with respect to the Domain Name system is a technical one. Our work has been content neutral and policy and judgment free.
Free expression online exists and flourishes not because of U.S. Government oversight with respect to the Domain Name System, or because of any asserted special relationship that the U.S. has with ICANN. Instead, free expression is protected because of the open, decentralized nature of the Internet and the neutral manner in which the technical aspects of the Internet are managed.
We have made clear in our announcement of the transition that open, decentralized and non-governmental management of the Internet must continue.
David Emery is a San Francisco-based writer and researcher who has covered online hoaxes and rumors since 1997. He will forever regret not coining the phrase “bimbo eruptions.”
What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.
But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current case law. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.
Snopes Got Snoped
SNOPES IS RUN BY A MAN AND A WOMAN WITH NO BACKGROUND IN INVESTIGATION USING GOOGLE.
Snopes.com has been considered the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. Once negative article by them and people point and say, “See, I told you it wasn’t true!” But what is Snopes? What are their methods and training that gives them the authority to decide what is true and what is not? For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.
David and Barbara Mikkelson pictured above; are from San Fernando Valley of California. They started their website ‘Snopes’ about 13 years ago. After a few years it began gaining popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral. But over the past couple of years people started asking questions when ‘Snopes’ was proven wrong in a number of their conclusions. There were also criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues, but rather asserting their beliefs in controversial issues.
In 2008, State Farm agent Bud Gregg hoisted a political sign in Mandeville, Louisiana referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet. The Mikkelson’s were quick to “research” this issue and post their condemnation of it on Snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Mr. Gregg into taking down the sign. In fact, nothing of the sort ever took place. A friend of Mr. Gregg personally contacted David Mikkelson to alert him of the factual inacuracy, leaving him Mr. Gregg’s contact phone numbers. Mr. Mikkelson was told that Mr. Gregg would give him the phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would inform them that they had never pressured Mr. Gregg to take down his sign.
But the Mikkelson’s never called Mr. Gregg. In fact, Mr. Gregg found out that no one from Snopes.com had ever contacted any one with State Farm. Yet, Snopes.com has kept their false story of Mr. Gregg up to this day, as the “final factual word” on the issue.
What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-modivated.
So if you really want to know the truth about a story or a rumor you have heard, by all means do not go to Snopes.com! You could do just as well if you were a liberal with an internet connection. Don’t go to wikipedia.com either as their team of amateur editors have also been caught in a number of bold-faced liberal-biased untruths. (Such as Wikigate and their religious treatment of Obama.) Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.
Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do.
It is our duty to get Trump elected, in so as much to hold him accountable.
Something too many stood silently by that enabled this to occur in the first place..
Our Individual Rights Trump all.
Bono, an Irish Rock star, makes more sense than our own American president. Bono states America is an ‘idea’; a great idea. He also said, “I would not diminish Trump supporters because their angst is real.” Both parties in America are corrupt. Whoever sits in the office of the American presidency affects everyone in the world. Our President states, “We can only realize the promise of the UN’s founding if powerful nations like my own accept constraints.” Well Mr. Obama, I as an American citizen, will only accept the constraints of the United States Constitution! The elitist globalists in the UN do not have my back or anyone else’s back; they are consumed by power.
Obama has, from the very start, proved he is not a loyal American (if he is one at all) and never honored the oath of the office he “occupies”.
Barack Hussein Obama is a globalist TERRORIST. …PERIOD!
The UN must accept constraints on its power grab schemes where the United States Constitution is concerned. One of those constraints is that it must stay beyond the 200 nautical mile economic limit of the United States and its territories.
In other words, get the US out of the UN, get the UN way the hell out of the United States! (And take Barry with you.)
Ummmm no you POS Obummer NO WE DON’T period. Where the hell does this guy get off????
Click Here For Job Listings....
This is Fraud. Using Traumatized kids to get future Votes!
People who have never suffered through extensive exposure to chronic barking often find it difficult to understand why it should be such an incredibly upsetting, debilitating ordeal. This section tells you why that is, beginning with a discussion of how our bodies react to exposure to chronic noise.
Remembering September 11th, 2001 :( :(