Sunday, October 30, 2016

No one gives a damn about Blue Lives?

A few months ago, God laid it upon my heart to launch a Blue Lives Matter Celebration tour to dispel the evil myth that America's cops murder blacks. This insidious lie is spread by the Left (Hillary, the Obama Administration, democrats, Hollywood and mainstream media).

In essence, they have painted a bright red target on the backs of our brave men and women in blue who lay their lives on the line for us every day.

Stats confirm that blacks pose the largest threat to black lives, killing each other in consistently-growing epidemic record breaking numbers. Ironically, stats prove that cops are the biggest defenders of black lives.

However, we seem to be living in a time in which facts and truth no longer matter in America; only narrative and political spin for evil political gain. Screw the consequences and toll on human lives.

Our launch Blue Lives Matter event was top-shelf, a great production at the Ocean Convention Center in Daytona Beach, Florida. The mayor proclaimed it “Celebrate The Blue Day” in Daytona.

However, I must confess that I was extremely disappointed. In my mind, encouraging cops and pushing back against lies causing them to be assassinated was a no-brainer issue which everyone would rally behind.

Man, was I wrong. Shockingly, numerous powerful conservative media associates shied away from me. Local Republican, tea party and christian groups which I have had great relationships did not support my efforts for police.

Being the overly responsible first born that I am, I took my colleagues' rejection personal. Despite sending a zillion press releases, not one media outlet showed to cover our event. Though it was a struggle, thank God we raised $5000 to cover the cost of the event. Attendance for the debut event launching our Blues Lives Matter tour was low.

As I was leaving the convention center after packing up everything after the show (set pieces and a banner I painted), an elderly security guard scolded me, “You should have advertised young man! I saw nothing in the newspapers.” I smiled and got into my car.

Did I miss-read God's leading, telling me to launch a Blue Lives Matter tour? Instantly, I thought, “Stop doubting. You read God correctly.” I thought about Noah who God told to build an ark on dry land. Just because God tells you to do something does not mean everyone is going to rally behind you.

Weeks later, I continued scratching my head wondering why so few seemed interested in supporting police.

Then, I learned of democrat sleaze operative, Bob Creamer's Leftist tactical handbook, “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win.” The book exposes how the Left floods the airways with lies to discourage and demonize conservative thought; convincing conservatives that they are the weirdo minority. So, this why so many are afraid to publicly support police.

Dispute the Left's insidious evil con-game, I am extremely about this recent poll sighting a surge in Americans' respect for police.

“Three in four Americans (76%) say they have “a great deal” of respect for police in their area, up 12 percentage points from last year.”

I am thankful that God blessed me with a great team of volunteers, speakers and entertainers who made our Blue Lives Matter tour launch a first-class event. They are pumped and ready to go to other states.

With the presidential election in a few weeks, I decided to focus on getting Trump elected. Then, we will plan our next Blue Lives event.

Joe “Super Cop” Sanchez sent me the following: NYPD/FDNY Retirees for Donald Trump.

“With the anti-cop “Blacks Lives Matter” movement and cop-basher Al Sharpton supporting Hillary Clinton for President, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Al Sharpton and the anti-cop “Black Lives Matter” movement.”

Folks, I am fully committed to continuing God's call to spread the truth about our heroes, America's police. However, if there was any doubt about the dire-need for what I am doing, check out these attacks on police just in the last few months by shooters who boldly proclaim they “want to kill police officers.”

I must remind you that Black Lives Matter has sent out a clarion call to their minions proclaiming it “open season” on killing police and white people.

  • July 10, 2016: “White Cop Gets Ambushed, Shot During Routine Traffic Stop...” 
  • July 18 2016: “Ballwin Police Officer Ambushed During Traffic Stop is Paralyzed...” 
  • August 26, 2016: Maryville Police Officer Killed in 'Ambush'...” 
  • September 7, 2016: “Widow of Ambushed Baton Rouge Cop Reveals She's Pregnant...” 
  • September 17, 2016: “Suspect Shoots Philly Cop Several Times” - Leaves a note saying he was targeting Philadelphia police officers. 
  • October 6, 2016 (St Louis): “Police Officer Ambushed and Killed...” - 33 years old, leaves behind wife and 2-year-old son. 
  • October 8, 2016: “Three More Cops Ambushed in California...” 
  • October 13, 2016: “11 Cops Ambushed and Shot, 2 in Critical Condition...” 
  • October 17, 2016: “Cops Ambushed in Vallejo” 

After the presidential election, we will resume our Blue Lives Matter tour. My wife Mary and I have decided to purchase a state-of-the-art sound system to cut down the cost of our events.

We will drive to as many cities as possible; fly when necessary. Please help fund our tour at my website:

As Burke said, “All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.”

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman:  The Conservative Campaign Committee

The UK Guardian declared prolific writer, singer and songwriter Lloyd Marcus the Tea Party Movement's most prominent African American, seen on Fox News, CNN and more.

Rejecting hyphenating, Marcus is renowned for proclaiming, "I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus AMERICAN."

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Minimum wage: Good intentions - Bad law

All the goodwill in the world can't repeal the Law of Demand: Make it more costly to
employ low-skilled workers, and fewer low-skilled workers will be employed.

On "Carpe Diem," his lively economics blog, University of Michigan professor Mark J. Perry likes to use Venn diagrams to needle those who "do not have a strong need for intellectual consistency."

On topics ranging from drug prices to campus diversity to imports from China, he shows how common it is for people to simultaneously hold contradictory positions, oblivious to the fact that they are logically irreconcilable.

Perry's latest diagram is a riff on two ballot initiatives facing voters in Washington state this Election Day. Initiative 732 would impose a statewide tax of $15 per ton on carbon dioxide in order to reduce greenhouse emissions. Initiative 1433 would increase the state's minimum wage to $13.50 an hour in order to guarantee a "living wage" to all low-skilled workers.

As Perry writes, hundreds of thousands of progressive Washington voters will doubtless support both ballot questions, oblivious to the contradiction in doing so. After all, if you recognize that artificially hiking the cost of using fossil fuels will give emitters an incentive to shrink their carbon footprint, then you should recognize that artificially hiking the cost of hiring low-skilled workers will give employers an incentive to shrink their workforce.

Conversely, if you don't believe a higher minimum wage will reduce employment opportunities for unskilled laborers, then you shouldn't expect higher taxes on carbon to reduce energy use that generates CO2. He who says "A" must say "B" — unless he has no need for intellectual consistency.

There's little mystery about what happens when the price of something goes up: All other things being equal, the demand for that something — a quart of strawberries, a ticket to Pittsburgh, a new waitress — goes down.

The Law of Demand is about as fundamental an economic axiom as there is, and it can't be revoked by politics or worthy intentions. Force up the cost of employing low-skilled workers, and fewer low-skilled workers will be hired.

Lawmakers, journalists, and activists typically disguise the real-world impact of minimum-wage increases behind sentimental language about compassion and social justice. On Wednesday, the Cook County, Ill., Board of Commissioners voted to mandate a phased increase in the minimum wage to $13 an hour.

The commissioners, reported the Chicago Tribune, were "seeking to help lift people out of poverty by raising the wages of the lowest-paid workers." The sponsor of the ordinance, aglow with self-righteousness, proclaimed passage of the new measure "the moral and right thing to do." Wouldn't he and his fellow commissioners, he demanded, find it unbearable to live on the state's minimum wage of $8.25 an hour?

Perhaps they would. But they would find it even more unbearable to live on an hourly wage of $0. That's the true minimum wage in Cook County and everywhere else — and it will be earned by unemployed, low-skilled workers who won't receive paychecks they would have received if the new ordinance hadn't dissuaded employers from hiring more people.

Minimum-wage bills are popular, especially among liberals inclined to rank good intentions above good results. Earlier this year, the Democratic governors of California and New York signed laws gradually boosting the minimum wage in their states to $15 an hour.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both called for large increases in the federal minimum wage. The initiative to raise Washington's minimum wage is one of four appearing on state ballots in 2016. (The others are in Arizona, Colorado, and Maine; a fifth, in South Dakota, is a referendum on a law allowing workers younger than 18 to be paid less than the minimum wage.)

It's easy to see — and, if you're in politics, to take credit for — the extra money some workers earn when a minimum-wage hike is legislated. What's not seen are the paychecks that are never issued because businesses didn't expand. Or because companies decided to invest in new equipment instead of new employees. Or because workers' hours were cut back.

Consider Seattle. In 2014, city officials adopted a $15 an hour minimum wage and subsequently hired University of Washington researchers to assess the law's impact. The report, issued in July, found that while low-wage workers who kept their jobs were indeed paid more per hour, "the unintended, negative side effects on hours and employment muted the impact on labor earnings."

After Seattle's minimum-wage hike took effect, Ivar's Seafood Restaurants announced
that it was raising menu prices by about 21 percent.

Sadly but predictably, "the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance appears to have lowered employment rates of low-wage workers . . . . The effects of disemployment appear to be roughly offsetting the gain in hourly wage rates, leaving the earnings for the average low-wage worker unchanged."

Seattle isn't anomalous. Investor's Business Daily reported last week that Dunkin' Donuts franchise owners in New York "are dragging their feet in opening new stores amid concerns about a higher minimum wage."

In January, Walmart cancelled plans to build two new stores in Washington, D.C., in part because the capital's big minimum-wage jumps have made expansion too risky. The blow to food-industry workers in the city has been even harsher: In the first six months of 2016, D.C. restaurants shed 1,400 jobs — the steepest six-month decline in 15 years.

Minimum-wage laws invariably make more jobs unaffordable and more workers unemployable. Bromides about giving a raise to workers on the lowest rung of the economic ladder may give legislators and advocates the warm-and-fuzzies.

But workers still struggling to reach the bottom rung aren't fooled. Their life is hard. Minimum-wage hikes make it even harder.

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Senator Shelby to FBI Director Comey

Alabama's U.S. Senator Richard Shelby Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS), sent a letter to FBI Director Comey regarding the news that the Bureau re-opened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. (letter noted below or click here)

The Honorable James B. Comey
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Dear Director Comey:

I am writing in response to the letter you sent me regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) intention to re-open the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Due to the serious nature of this matter, I request that the FBI expeditiously and thoroughly conduct its review.

In July, you held a press conference where you explained to the American people that Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” with classified information while using a private e-mail server.

Unfortunately, it has now become apparent that the FBI, with all its extensive resources and highly-trained personnel, closed an incomplete investigation that resulted in only partial findings. I firmly believe that the American people deserve to know the facts – all of them.

There is much at stake in how this investigation is conducted. Not only is the Bureau’s examination a reflection on the current Administration and Secretary Clinton, but it is also critical to the integrity of the FBI and the American people’s ability to place their trust in government.

I believe that your recommendation and the Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton set a dangerous precedent for the way we hold our public officials accountable. While I am pleased that the FBI is re-opening this case in light of new information, it is imperative that the Bureau immediately evaluate the material to complete this investigation.

The American people are electing their next Commander-in-Chief only days from now, and they deserve to know the conclusion of your review prior to Election Day. Let me be clear: This should be your utmost priority.

Sincerely . . . .

Senator Shelby always welcomes your comments. Contact him at this link.

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Dangers of a 3 parent baby

The first baby with three parents has been born this year, raising troubling questions about our culture’s dedication to human dignity.

The U.S. Constitution is predicated on the principle of the inherent worth and dignity of the human individual. Fundamental rights do not depend on any other fact than that each of us is a unique human being. Thus, any proposed legal action or scientific endeavor is subordinate to those rights.

Often, however, we find that proposed scientific “advances”—particularly in areas like genetic engineering—trample on the rights and dignity of the individual.

Genetic manipulation resulting in embryos that incorporate DNA from three adults has been in laboratory experimentation phases since the 1990s, but now the first birth of a baby with genetic material from three parents has been reported. Multiple methods of creating three-parent embryos exist (a detailed explanation can be found here).

In this case, New York City fertility specialist Dr. John Zhang used a method called “maternal spindle transfer” to create five such human embryos—one of which was transferred to a womb and resulted in live birth. While the baby is now a few months old, New Scientist didn’t break the news until September.

The overall goal, sometimes called “mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT),” is to replace genetically defective mitochondria—the organelles responsible for generating energy and metabolic function of the cell—in a woman’s egg with healthy mitochondria using a female donor egg.

Genetically defective mitochondria can cause serious, even lethal, health problems. But MRT procedures actually transfer a nucleus, repository of the majority of the cell’s genetic material (which means they use human cloning technology), into the presence of genetically different mitochondria.

This is germline (heritable) genetic modification, which means that the modification affects not only the new manufactured individual but also will be passed on to future generations.

The risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents.

Zhang performed the transfer of the genetically manipulated embryo to a woman’s womb in Mexico because it is currently illegal in the United States. Rather than pause to debate the potential consequences of such manipulation, American scientists are pushing to make this procedure legal in the U.S., touting its “glorious potential.”

In 2015, Congress passed an amendment to the omnibus spending bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., which prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from entertaining any submission that proposes “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include heritable genetic modification.”

Thus, Zhang, unable to get approval to proceed with genetic manufacture of embryos in the U.S. and unwilling to debate the consequences of these human experiments, fled the country to do his experiments.

Note, however, that the Aderholt amendment does not prohibit human gene editing on born individuals. Congressional prohibition of the practice highlights the importance of the dignity of the human person and gives us a chance to consider all the potential ramifications of forging ahead with practices that amount to irreversible genetic modifications of human beings without their consent.

The United Kingdom has approved creation of three-parent embryos, and a U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee recently recommended that the FDA approve three-parent techniques for in vitro fertilization.

The caveats included with the recommendations do little to assuage concerns. The committee recommends that this genetic engineering be 1) used only for women with serious, life-threatening mitochondrial disease; 2) require long-term medical follow-up for children born with genetic material from three parents; and 3) that only male embryos be transferred to the mother’s uterus.

First of all, risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents. Parents are looking to this procedure because they wish to have a biological child, but do not wish to pass on a genetic disease. This prompts the question: Is the wish for biologically-related offspring sufficient to justify germline genetically modified children?

Concern that these procedures will eventually give rise to full-blown eugenics practices is valid. Where do we draw the ethical line when we take the next step of using mitochondrial genetic engineering—or other genetic manipulation techniques—to create people with other “desirable” characteristics?

Second, the potential health risks for these genetically modified children and their offspring are unknown. If the past failure of embryonic research and experimentation in the areas of disease treatment or vaccine development is any indication, there are far-reaching health consequences to be considered.

The National Academy of Sciences committee tacitly admits to the potential for long-term harmful effects by recommending long-term follow-up and male embryo transfer only. Recently, the Charlotte Lozier Institute published a paper highlighting the problem of sex-selective abortion in the U.S. and abroad. The selection of male-only embryos for transfer only exacerbates that problem, as the female embryos will be either immediately destroyed or used in further embryo-destructive experimentation.

Each embryo is biologically a unique human individual. Despite the “glorious potential” of genetic manipulation of human embryos, we must never lose sight of the preeminent consideration of human dignity and ethical practice.

In the end, this is an issue of human rights—not of harmless scientific experimentation. Congress was right to hold the dignity of the person above the impulses of scientific experimentation, and robust public debate on the ethics of this practice and the potential alternatives to it should follow.

Anna Higgins, J.D., is an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and an attorney specializing in sanctity of life policy issues, ranging from conception to end of life care. She has been active in the pro-life movement for many years, including serving as a volunteer counselor at two pregnancy help centers. ~~ the Daily Signal

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Life on Purpose from Mary Jane Popp

Available on Amazon
Is living what matters most?

Can that living change everything?

I know someone who truly believes that purpose is the key.

Dr. Victor Strecher knows.

When he lost his daughter to a rare heart disease at age 19, he made it his life mission to find purpose, and help others do the same.

This life event challenged every aspect of his personal and professional experience, and drove him to an exhaustive search from ancient philosophy to cutting edge science to pinpoint the potential and impact of purpose in our lives.

He claims that purpose can:

  • Add Years to your life 
  • Reduce risk of heart attack and stroke 
  • Cut risk of Alzheimers by more than half 
  • Help us relax during the day and sleep better at night 
  • Double the chances of staying drug and alcohol-free after treatment 
  • Activate antibody and antiviral response and diminish inflammatory cells  
  • Increase good cholesterol Repair chromosomes

In “Life On Purpose” Dr. Strecher has a six-step guide to help you discover your purpose in life. 

1.) CONSIDER WHAT MATTERS MOST TO YOU. Choose the top three you care about most in your life. Achievement…Community…Creativity…Enjoyment…Expertise…Independence…Kindness…Relationships…Reputation…Responsibility…Security…Self-Control…Spirituality…Tradition…Vitality - - Once you have selected them, spend time thinking about or write why each value is important to you.

2.) THINK ABOUT THE PERSON OR PEOPLE YOU’D LIKE TO EMULATE (NOT IMITATE). Someone in your family? An historical figure? A public figure? A cartoon character? This is your purpose and you can choose whatever mix of people you like. Just remember, you are who you choose to be, so be careful who you choose.

3.) TAKE THE HEADSTONE TEST. That’s right. Draw a headstone, write your name on it, then write your date of birth. For the date of death, write TODAY. What would your epitaph be? What would you want people to say about you at your memorial service?

4.) NOW THAT YOU’VE PRIMED THE PUMP, ASK YOURSELF. WHAT ARE THE GOALS IN MY LIFE THAT MATTER MOST?” To make it easier, you might want to break these into personal, family, work (or school), and community goals that you deeply value.

5.) ASSEMBLE THESE VALUED GOALS INTO AN OVERALL LIFE PURPOSE. This is where you want to stop and ask yourself, “Is this purpose bigger than myself?” Ask yourself this simple, timeless question” “In living toward this purpose, will I treat others the way I would like to be treated?” Make sure the suit fits.

6.) WEAR THE SUIT. Post your purpose in a place you will see it every day. Make sure you can recite your purpose to yourself or others. Consider sharing your purpose with the people who are close to you. If the purpose doesn’t fit, change it until it does.

So many of us are focused on diet and exercise. Dr. Strecher ptovides us with the true secret to living with health and wellness. The good Doc is an award-winning pioneer in the field of behavioral science and Professor at the University of Michigan School of Health.

You can check out his website at

Life on Prupose” tells us how living for what matters most…really does CHANGE EVERYTHING!

From the files of Mary Jane Popp at KAHI Radio in Sacramento, California


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Hey Hillary - You got more mail

Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will." ~ Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist.
"Too many of today's artists regard editorial cartooning as a trade instead of a profession. They try not to be too offensive. The hell with that. We need more stirrer-uppers." ~ Bill Mauldin.
Youra was one of the first recipients of a Fulbright Scholarship and worked in Latin America. He served as an editor of Current Thought on Peace and War at the United Nations in New York.

"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.

Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington. Visit the Youra Studios at

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

The deplorable duo in action

Okay, I’m hyperventilating. Tony combines beautiful drawings with biting politically incorrect wit and laugh out loud humor.” – Larry Elder – TV and Radio personality at at Fox News and KRLM AM 870

Lighten things up! Political discussions and debates don’t always have to be deep and long-winded arguments with points and counter points. Sometimes we just need to take a step back from it all and have a good laugh.

With so many discouraging things happening in our country lately, that’s the only thing we can do to keep from crying.

Conservative artist Antonio Branco is a master at encapsulating deep and complex issues in a simple comic.

He has written his first book in a series and takes on a wide array of issues, from food stamps to global warming to foreign policy, Antonio isn’t afraid to say what he thinks.

Presented in a coffee table book style, this is the perfect conversation starter with friends and family that pick it up and start glancing through it’s pages.

Who knows, that liberal aunt of yours just might come over to the right side because of this book!

This 80 pages, hardcover comic measures 8″ x 10".

Read more from A.F. (Tony) Branco at this link.


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Final debate answers dictator question

Compared with the second debate, the final encounter between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was mostly a snooze, but we did clear up one point of contention.

Now the American people know who to support if they want to complete the Latinization of the United States and install a tin–pot dictator in the White House just like South of the Border.
  • A vote for Hillary will be a two–fer: She’ll undermine the Constitution while changing the drapes.
Hillary’s answer to a question regarding her criteria for appointments to the Supreme Court cleared up everyone but the media’s confusion. A crucial question since the next president will fill one open seat and potentially two to three more as leftist hacks move on to the final venue.

In 416–words Hillary didn’t bother to mention the Constitution until the next–to–last sentence and even then it was an incorrect procedural reference to the confirmation process.

Instead of appointing judges who will defend the Constitution, her goal is to make the Supreme Court a mini–legislature where she determines the membership and the decisions.

Even worse, Hillary — like other tin–pot dictators — intends to tell judges how to rule BEFORE she appoints them. The Clintonista judiciary is to “stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.

For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, [and] will stand up and say no to Citizens United.”

That’s not a litmus test — those are marching orders.

Hillary’s philosophy is a fundamental perversion that overturns a constitutional order dating from the founding and the rule of law itself.

The law is not to be a respecter of persons, or as Leviticus 19:15 instructs: “[Judges] shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

The role of the Supreme Court is to apply the law, in this case the Constitution, to the case at hand, regardless of the social standing or sexual preference of the individuals involved in the case. Lawsuits aren’t handicapped like horseraces. A judge doesn’t give a poor minority the benefit of the doubt; he gives him the benefit of the law.

Hillary’s whims will determine what is constitutional and what is not. Take her differing views of two court decisions. Roe v Wade re–wrote the Constitution to permit killing as long as the victim was under a certain age.

Citizens United held that money in campaigns was a form of speech and laws passed by Congress that banned this speech/money violated the 1st Amendment. At that the ban only applied to certain commercial enterprises. Corporate money was banned, but union money — just as commercial — was not banned, since that money helped elect Democrats.

Both decisions can theoretically be overturned by a future court, as long as it’s not a Clinton court. Hillary says Roe v. Wade “guarantees a constitutional right” to abortion, as if the wording is actually part of the document, while Citizens United is a decision “[judges] must stand up against.”

If you are interested in learning how Hillary’s philosophy of appointing judges whose first loyalty is to the left and not the Constitution works in practice just look at the situation in Venezuela. Bloomberg News reports strongman President Nicholas Maduro has used his appointed judiciary to block a citizen–generated recall vote guaranteed in the country’s constitution.

Maduro’s unilateral edicts and the political situation is eerily similar to ours: “Even after losing power in Congress 10 months ago, Maduro has managed to stifle constitutional attempts at removing him … In coordinated actions, courts in five pro­government states suspended signature collections on Thursday, prompting the national electoral council to halt the process nationwide.”

That ends any hope for a recall vote.

And don’t take comfort in the false assurance that we won’t be facing a recall situation here. Maduro uses his court for routine government, much like Hillary would like to if she gets the chance. Does this divide between the executive and legislative sound familiar?

“The legislature and executive remain at loggerheads, paralyzing the democratic process. Maduro even approved his 2017 budget through the supreme court, bypassing legislators.”

A Hillary Clinton administration will be a continuation of eight years of Obama decline, only she will add to the Oval Office collection of office supplies.

Hillary will have a phone, a pen and a rubber stamp Supreme Court.

Final Debate Answers Dictator Question from Michael Shannon at The Whole Shebang (mostly)

Click Here to Read Michael Shannon

Michael R. Shannon is a commentator, researcher (for the League of American Voters), and an award-winning political and advertising consultant with nationwide and international experience. He is author of "Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with added humor and available on" 

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

The High-tech lynching of Donald Trump

In October of 1991, then Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas faced a contentious Senate hearing that focused on allegations made by a former subordinate, Anita Hall. She claimed that Thomas sexually harassed her in several ways, including making references to a pubic hair on a coke can and supposedly praising a porn star.

The Senate Judiciary Committee spent days reviewing these allegations and were on the verge of rejecting Thomas for the position. When Thomas was finally given a chance to address the committee, he responded with justifiable anger.

He lambasted the Senators and blasted the entire proceeding with a very effective and indignant retort. Thomas said, “This is a circus.

This is a national disgrace, and from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order this is what will happen to you.

You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

This show of outrage allowed Thomas to turn the tables on the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Eventually, Thomas survived and was confirmed, but he has never been given the respect he deserves as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To this day, he is discriminated against as a conservative African American. For example, the new National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington D.C. gives plenty of attention to Anita Hill and other radicals like avowed communist Angela Davis, but ignores Thomas, the only African American member on the nation’s highest court.

This is truly a disgrace, but, of course if Thomas was a liberal, he would be given the royal treatment by the museum.

The high-tech lynching of Thomas was replicated in 2011 by the media when African American businessman Herman Cain was the leading candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. After several good performances in the debates boosted Cain to the top of the polls, allegations surfaced in the media that he sexually harassed several women.

Immediately, Cain was under siege and his poll numbers collapsed. Although he denied the charges and called the campaign against him “a witch hunt,” the damage was already done and his campaign was toast. After his exit from the race, the women in question disappeared as well. Cain was effectively eliminated not by verifiable evidence of wrongdoing, but by suspicious allegations alone.

Obviously, Thomas and Cain suffered greatly from unfair and unproven attacks; however, their treatment was nowhere near as bad as the kind of hell that 2016 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is enduring in this campaign. He is facing his own type of high-tech lynching in this presidential race.

Although he is not an African American, Donald Trump does share some characteristics with Thomas and Cain. Like Thomas and Cain, he is a conservative who thinks for himself and has “different ideas.” As Thomas faced attacks for not kowtowing to “an old order,” Trump is taking on something very similar, an entrenched establishment in many different areas.

His campaign is simultaneously opposed by the political establishment in both parties, international financial and political powers, the media elite, and the clear majority of the Wall Street financial power brokers.

While his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has universal Democratic Party support and is receiving campaign assistance from the President, Vice President, First Lady, former adversary Senator Bernie Sanders and almost every elected official in her party, Donald Trump is literally standing alone against these powerful forces arrayed against him. One result has been almost universally negative media coverage of his campaign.

A report by the Media Research Center (MRC) showed that between July 29 and October 20, the broadcast networks news programs devoted more time to Trump than Clinton. Nevertheless, the researchers found that the Trump coverage was an astounding 91% negative. Trump rightly calls this this type of media treatment “greatest pile-on in American history.”

The MRC report indicated that the media was much more interested in the allegations of groping and inappropriate sexual behavior of Trump toward women than the various Clinton scandals involving her emails, the Clinton Foundation, the Benghazi terror attack, her health problems or the WikiLeaks disclosures. This analysis was prepared after the MRC reviewed 588 news stories on the broadcast news shows during the 12-week investigation.

The broadcast news report followed another amazing study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity, which found that 96% of all media professionals who donated to either presidential campaign supported Hillary Clinton.

This type of bias even extends to Fox News as millions of Americans noted after the showdown this week between host Megyn Kelly and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich blasted Kelly for her obsession with the allegations against Trump and said she was “obsessed with sex” instead of being interested in important issues of public policy.

In these final days of the race, the media has their marching orders, “destroy Trump.” It will be difficult to completely suppress the bombshell news that the FBI is reopening an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, but the media will still find plenty of time to highlight women making very old and dubious allegations against Trump.

The entire presidential campaign has been a sad commentary on the state of our corrupt and biased media today.

Fortunately, more Americans are becoming aware of this high-tech Trump lynching.

Hopefully they will discount the drumbeat of negative messages that are all around them and make an important commitment to support Trump and “Make America Great Again!”

To order a copy of Jeff Crouere’s new book, “America’s Last Chance,” 

Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. 

For more information, visit Jeff's web site at or email him at

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - Please become our Partner and click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Hillary stepped in it again says Trade Martin

Courtesy of Trade Martin Music "On Top of the News"

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Friday, October 28, 2016

Catholics and Evangelicals are waking up

Catholics and Evangelicals are again under attack by the secular Progressive media. New WikiLeaks email show clearly the efforts formulated to undermine Christian faith by infiltration and permeation.

This is of grave concern for Christians, who are under fire all around the world. There are many letters circulating that are addressing this matter, and this letter from the archdiocese of Pittsburgh says it eloquently...

I have included, just after, a letter sent from Trump to Catholics, and I urge all people of faith to read it.
My dear family of the Church of Pittsburgh,

There is an important matter that falls under my responsibilities as bishop which has taken front and center stage – the upcoming elections. One of the things I treasure most about you, the faithful of the Church of Pittsburgh, is the open way in which you offer suggestions to me and make requests of me.
Sometimes those requests conflict. 
The election issue is one such example. Some of you have asked me to speak out publicly about the presidential candidates. That I can not do. The important document written by the Bishops of our country entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: 
A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States (available at underscores the important point that the Church cannot, I repeat, cannot tell people for whom they must vote.
However, the document is very clear about highlighting two things about our voting privilege:
(1) the right that we have to vote as American citizens is precious.
(2) the obligation that we have to bring our faith to our voting is sacred.
As we approach the coming elections, I implore you to consider both: your right to vote; and your obligation to bring your faith to the voting booth.

To assist you in both might I suggest four important steps. (1) Familiarize yourself with the issues of the campaign; (2) Learn what the teachings of the Catholic Church are regarding those issues; (3) reflect on both in a spirit of prayer, and (4) Vote.

To assist you in understanding what the teachings of the Church are regarding the various campaign issues, I would recommend that you consult with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults or the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. 
Moreover, you might also want to secure a copy of Faithful Citizenship. Since the presidential election of 1976 and every four years, we the Bishops have offered updated versions of this important document to assist voters as they exercise their voting rights coupled with the responsibility of an understanding of the issues from the perspective of faith.

Now there is a second issue which I need to address with you as well. Over the course of the last several weeks, several people who are recognized as Catholic leaders in our diocese have espoused a public rationale for why they personally are choosing to vote for a particular candidate for the presidency. 
These reflections have appeared in either local newspapers or in national periodicals. A number of you have raised questions with me about their statements.

Over the course of the past week especially, I have reflected long and hard about how I might be able to respond to the many questions that you have placed on my desk about such statements.

I wish to clarify the confusion that has been caused by these public statements with the hope that any division that has been caused by such remarks and worse any scandal that may have resulted from such comments is addressed. 
It is important to say once again that no one has a right to tell anyone how to vote. Moreover those who have offered their personal interpretation of the Church’s teaching do not speak for the Church and in some part do not reflect the teaching of the Church.

While Faithful Citizenship speaks about the moral choice which we each must make when we enter the voting booth, the manner in which we vote must weigh all the issues with a clear reflection on the teachings of the Church. The primary theme of Faithful Citizenship is the right to life and the dignity of every human person. 
As the United States Bishops made clear, this is the foundation of a moral vision for society. We cannot dismiss this foundation principle as secondary in our thinking. As the bishops insist, we cannot consider abortion or euthanasia as merely two issues among many to be weighed or dismissed with a shrug. 
Nor can we exclude other issues that also are pro-life: concerns about the poor and immigrants, concerns about peace and war, concerns about bigotry and prejudice, concerns about capital punishment, and other social justice issues.

Having offered these few thoughts on the upcoming electoral process, it is my sincere hope that I have clarified some of the questions which you have raised, especially in light of some well-known Catholics who advocate for your vote for a particular candidate from their own personal perspective.

As we are prepare for this year’s elections, remember to know the issues, know the Church’s teachings, pray about both and vote. To do so as a woman or a man of faith highlights the right we have as American citizens and the responsibility we have as members of the Church.

Grateful for our belief that “Nothing is Impossible with God,” I am Your brother in Christ,
Most Reverend David A. Zubik - Bishop of Pittsburgh
Author's note:

Here is the letter that Trump sent Catholics dated October 1, 2016.

So called Catholics are trying to undermine the faith to vote for abortion, socialism, and to trust in the system. Here is a letter fighting back.

"Your Church and your religious freedoms are under an ongoing attack being carried out under the direct control of Barack Obama, a man many of you helped put in office. While you were taking care of yourselves and your families and trusting in the wrong people, your Democrat Party has turned on you and your Church. You must now choose which one to stand with.

There may have been a time long ago when we could be both good Catholics and good Democrats, but that alliance is now a relic of the past.

Holding on to the comfort of uninformed robotic voting followed by a smug sense of having “done your duty as a citizen” is a dangerous mistake. Catholics who have taken refuge in this position are as much enemies of our nation as Catholics who willfully work to undermine our freedoms because in fact, they are achieving the same ends.

The largest potential voting bloc in American politics is the Catholic Vote. Those of us who have watched willfully blind and/or maliciously motivated Catholics erode both our nation and our Church can now no longer merely stand by and complain. Hand-wringing but doing nothing makes us just as guilty as the empty heads and the maliciously motivated in our faith.

Those who pay attention to such things will recall that during Obama’s fake government shutdown, he targeted two of his favorite enemies for special persecution: The Catholic Church and America’s Military.

One of Obama’s targets was Father Ray Leonard, a Catholic Chaplin assigned to Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia. Father Leonard was threatened with arrest if he performed mass, administered Catholic Sacraments including Reconciliation and Last Rites, or even entered his church during Obama’s fake government shutdown.

Father Leonard filed a lawsuit to regain his rights and was immediately subjected to retaliation from Obama’s lawyers. They are withholding some of his pay and announced that his legally signed and executed contract is “being reviewed.” His is the only such contract “under review.”

Obama is NOT going to march us out of our homes and shoot us; he is just going to destroy our Church if you and I let him by doing nothing."

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Resurrecting from the dead to vote

Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will." ~ Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist.
"Too many of today's artists regard editorial cartooning as a trade instead of a profession. They try not to be too offensive. The hell with that. We need more stirrer-uppers." ~ Bill Mauldin.
Youra was one of the first recipients of a Fulbright Scholarship and worked in Latin America. He served as an editor of Current Thought on Peace and War at the United Nations in New York.

"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.

Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington. Visit the Youra Studios at

We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]

Things Learned About Democrats

It's tragic that nearly everything we suspected about the broken Democratic Party has turned out to be true. After the WikiLeaks release and the release of the Project Veritas recordings, we can now confirm that:

  1. Democrats have embraced violence as a campaign tactic. In fact, they have no problem with people being seriously hurt as long as their political goals are met. 
  2. Free speech means nothing to the Democrats, and they will use violence to suppress any speech with which they disagree. 
  3. Democrats have embraced voter fraud by "bussing people in," and have done so for decades. 

The integrity of elections are a big joke to Democrats.

Click here to read the entire article at The Conservative Review


Dan Bongino is the bestselling author of the book Life Inside the Bubble and now The Fight. He is a Contributing Editor at The Conservative Review and was the 2012 and 2014 Republican nominee for the United States Senate and 6th congressional district in Maryland. 

Dan served for over a decade as a special agent in the United States Secret Service, and currently owns a security consulting business. 

You can follow Dan Bongino on his website, at Facebook or on Twitter.


We are compelled  to pay for this Free Speech Zone - - We would be pleased if you became one of our Free Speech Partners - - Just click the DONATE link below or contact the editor-in-chief [at]