Progressive Socialsits Hate War But Hate Trump Even More

What you have stated in the passed as being your stand on a subject can be changed to reflect any new hatred and still have credibility. How come?

Could it be those that watch and listen really don't care what your thoughts were in the pasted, only what fits the present thinking?

What matters as a leader of the collective, are your thoughts in line with the present narrative and match their agenda and ideology.

Trump Defends Majority Rights, Freedom of Religion, First Amendment Rights

Progressive socialist's hate for religion on display.

What ever happened to majority rule, minority right? When 99.8% of the population, 100's of millions of individuals finds no fault in a situation and yet is deemed wrong by a group gathered in a room in the local school house, something has gone terrible wrong with our system of law. Morally and ethically.

Much like at Christmas Nativity, nearly all local city Officals have banned the depiction of the birth of Jesus in a manger on public land because one or two out of thousands find it offensive.

How and why is this a reality? The minority has a right to state their case to officials but the majority have a right to establish their right as the majority to win the discussion.

Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court to Protect Cross-Shaped War Memorial

Kevin Daley / @kevindaleydc / December 27, 2018

The Trump administration filed an amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief Wednesday urging the Supreme Court to protect a 93-year-old war memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, that is shaped like a Latin cross.

The court will soon decide whether the cross-shaped World War I memorial violates the First Amendment’s ban on religious favoritism.

The justices agreed to take the case on Nov. 3.

The Trump administration’s brief emphasizes the need for the high court to clarify its jurisprudence concerning religious displays in the public square. Since 2005 the justices applied two different tests for assessing the constitutionality of sectarian symbols in public settings.

Confusion has followed in lower federal courts as to which test should govern the so-called public display cases. That uncertainty, the government says, “encourages challenges to longstanding displays like the Memorial Cross, which in turn fosters the very religion-based divisiveness that the establishment clause seeks to avoid.”

“Cases like these cannot help but divide those with sincerely held beliefs on both sides,” the brief reads. “This case presents an opportunity for the Court to adopt a standard for establishment clause challenges to passive displays that will reduce factious litigation, provide clarity to lower courts, and promote consistency across cases.”

The administration then offers a solution to that problem: It urges the justices to resolve public display cases with reference to the practices of the Founding Fathers. The brief favorably cites the high court’s approach to a 2014 case called Town of Greece v. Galloway. In that case, a five-justice majority said the town board of Greece, New York, did not violate the Constitution by opening monthly public meetings with a prayer.

The case arose when several Maryland residents represented by the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit seeking the memorial’s renovation or removal in 2014. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found for the American Humanist Association in October 2017, concluding that the memorial was an unconstitutional government endorsement of Christianity.

“While the Latin cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds value as a symbol of death and resurrection because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ,” the decision reads.

The full 4th Circuit denied review on an eight to six vote, prompting several dissents, including one which warned that the panel decision imperils similar monuments in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

The American Legion erected the memorial, known locally as “Peace Cross,” to honor the World War I dead of Prince George’s County in 1925. A state commission has administered the site since 1961.

Oral arguments are scheduled at the Supreme Court for Feb. 27 and a decision is expected in June.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, emaillicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Muller Burns His Bridges : Investigation Based Only On The ''Seriousness of The Charge''

Robert Muller is no longer understood as being legitimate.

So the bottom line is why is this investigation still going on? Easy! The Mueller team is wholly infested with progressive socialist liberal democrats.

The Muller investigation was and is a fraud  with criminal intent to change the outcome of the past presidential election by any means necessary.

It's not a matter of the law, truth and consequences, it's only about the ''seriousness of the charge'' to manufacture the consequences necessary that this investigation was based on in the first place, to destory Donald Trump.

Mueller Investigation Stirring Up More Trouble Than It’s Finding

Victor Davis Hanson / @VDHanson / December 27, 2018

After 19 months, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has charged a number of targets with almost every conceivable sin—except collusion with Russia to throw an election. Yet suspicion of collusion was the reason that Mueller was appointed in the first place.

President Donald Trump’s former consigliere, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. But as part of his plea deal, Cohen also confessed to a superfluous charge of a campaign finance violation.

Cohen allegedly negotiated a nondisclosure agreement concerning a supposed past Trump liaison with porn star Stormy Daniels. Yet no one alleges that Trump used cash from his 2016 campaign account to buy Daniels’ silence.

Instead, the accusation is that Cohen and Trump used Trump’s own money, but they did not report the payout as a “contribution” to his campaign. But Trump likely would have paid off Daniels anyway to protect his marriage, family, and reputation, regardless of whether he was running

If you take media-sensationalized sex out of the equation, Trump, like any other American, has the right to pay anyone whatever he wishes to keep quiet about past embarrassing behavior, whether that be secretly gulping down too many Big Macs or cheating on the golf course.

Apparently, Cohen was leveraged by Mueller’s team to plead guilty to a crime that was likely not a crime. And in circular fashion, his confession was used as proof that the non-crime was actually a crime after all—and thus could serve as yet another way to find something on Trump.

Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty to giving false testimony about a “crime” that also apparently did not exist.

It was not a crime for Flynn to talk with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition. Yet the Russian diplomat was being surveilled by American intelligence, perhaps to reverse-target Flynn by getting something on him on tape.

The secret taping was green-lighted by a federal court in the midst of the hysteria created by the Christopher Steele dossier paid for in part by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Then, Flynn’s name was illegally leaked to the press.

The FBI sent two investigators to interview Flynn, apparently on the prompt of acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Barack Obama administration. Yates, who served as the interim attorney general for 10 days, apparently came up with the ludicrous idea that Flynn might have violated the Logan Act. That law is an ossified 219-year-old statute about meeting foreign officials that has resulted in only two indictments over the years.

Next, former FBI Director James Comey counted on the Trump administration’s inexperience and broke normal protocol by sending investigators to interrogate Flynn directly without bothering with the usual administration intermediaries. Comey’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, misled Flynn into assuming that the interview would be a friendly chat among “allies.” Flynn was told he would not need a lawyer.

Flynn complied, rightly assuming that it was not a crime for a transition administration official to talk with a foreign ambassador. He also likely was not fully aware that the FBI’s intent was to have him say something that would contradict the FBI’s secret transcripts of his talks with the Russian ambassador.

It gets worse. The FBI agents, who presumably had transcripts from Flynn’s talks with the Russian ambassador to compare to Flynn’s interview answers, expressed the belief that Flynn did not seem as if he was lying to them. Yet that conclusion was apparently overturned at some point by the FBI. To this day, the only real evidence that Flynn lied is his confession—and apparently the second thoughts of the FBI investigators, who reinterpreted their initial impressions in a much later official report.

Mueller seemingly wanted Flynn to testify about something that might prove that the Trump administration colluded with Russia. When that did not work, Flynn was later leveraged to “confess” to having lied to FBI investigators, who originally thought that he had not lied about a “crime” of talking about foreign policy with a Russian ambassador—an act that in itself was not illegal.

Once Flynn confessed that he lied, his legal costs diminished. His son was not indicted by Mueller. He was promised little or no jail time by cooperating with the investigation.

One of Flynn’s investigators was subsequently fired FBI agent Peter Strzok, who had exchanged texts with his paramour, fellow FBI official Lisa Page, in which they shared their disdain for Trump and their desire to keep him from ascending to the presidency.

Add it all up, and we have reached the point where the Mueller team may be constructing more crimes than it is finding.

(C) 2018 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

A Change In Leadership Will Help? : California's One Party Political System

Whoa - not to worry. Spending $billions of dollars on at train going no where, carrying no one is okay. That the state is in default is of no concern. The one party system in California is working as planned.

To take from others by force to enrich themselves as an ligament system of governance is to beg a suspension of disbelief.

Decades of progressive socialist liberalism in California has shown the country and the world that insanity, as an agenda and ideolog works well to defeat common sense, ethics and morality. Welcome to the real world of democrats in control!

No agenda. No Plan, No money. Who cares? We have ours! Pull up the

rope, I'm on board.

Civilization Has Evolved : Where Is Common Sense? Reason? Logic?

What the problem is, civilization has taken a terrible toll on nature. Even humans that at one time believed that reality was something where one lived. But as witness the nightmare of the lettered channels on television and nearly all of the main stream media, lost in a dark place inhabited by creatures of unbelievable shapes and ideologies, realty is nowhere to be found.

We are now rapidly heading into a sink-hole of insanity, where mother nature has developed, over the centuries her agenda to bring reason and logic to all animals. The trouble is now too many humans have escaped the agenda she set down for them to evolve as members of a community, not a collective of ''dark-place'' dwellers unaffected by reason and or logic.

Putin Attacking America? Why? : democrats Are Doing That For Him

And the progressive democrats are doing a great job of it. Worse there are millions ready and willing to do their part to bring America down, along with the media.

Who Are Progressive Socialist democrats? : Really, Who Are They?

As if we didn't know already! The new wave progressive socialist liberal democrats are not nice people as they have no connection to the general population. They are a separate entity entirely.  Their entire focus is on getting and keeping the power to control, even if it means the entire country goes into default and ruin.

The progressive democrats are not like most other Americans, their intention is to do us all harm by their mindless and shameless grab for power. And yet millions willingly vote for democrats and therefor self destruction. Why is that?

Electromagnetic Pulse Discussed : A Total Break-Down of Society

One has to wonder why in the face of reality our representatives are willing to subject the population to such a catastrophic event just because it would cost too much, it's hard for them and the general public to understand making it not popular.

Given the Untied States has many enemies that would love to see us suffer such an event and have the means to do so, it makes good sense to at least discuss the possibility of making the necessary changes to our power grid and what would the actual cost be to the consumers. And given the catastrophic results of such an event, it must be started and now.

Electromagnetic Pulse Would Devastate Our Power Grid. Here Are 3 Steps We Must Take Now.

John Venable / December 14, 2018

The Air Force released its 2018 Electromagnetic Defense Task Force report last week, which concluded that an electromagnetic pulse—generated either by a nuclear weapon or solar flare—could cripple systems that rely on the electromagnetic spectrum.

The report echoes a recent Heritage Foundation assessment that warns the United States is ill-prepared for such an event.

Solar flares are eruptions of intense high-energy radiation that take place every day on the surface of the sun. Lower-intensity flares regularly hit the earth, affecting radio communications and power line transmissions—but the magnitude, intensity, and duration of some solar flares (storms) can be devastating. In 1859, one such event literally set telegraph machines ablaze and knocked their operators unconscious.

Over time, telegraphs gave way to radios built around vacuum tubes, and the associated technology began to improve and become inseparable from every aspect of American society. In the early 1900s, radio receivers were common in many households and two-way radio communications became a military necessity.

When nuclear weapons were developed, the U.S. government became concerned about the effect an electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear weapon might have on those systems. To test those effects, in 1962 it detonated a weapon at high altitude, and the ensuing pulse went off the scales of the array of scientific sensors. The pulse was so strong that it blew out street lights and caused phone outages more than 800 miles away in Hawaii. And over time, the blast destroyed several U.S., British, and Russian satellites.

Electronics of that era were much more resilient to electromagnetic pulses than those of today. Smartphones, computers, ATMs, nuclear power facilities, and virtually every other facet of our day-to-day lives now rely on electromagnetically sensitive circuit cards.

Nowadays, even a relatively small electromagnetic pulse can cripple everything from personal electronics to those in tactical vehicles, command and control nodes, and the drones that have been so effective for our military.

Our adversaries know how to exploit these critical vulnerabilities, and several have the capability to do it.

A high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon over the U.S. would incapacitate power grids for weeks if not months. While the ensuing power outage would bring chaos to major metropolitan areas, it would have catastrophic effects on our nuclear power plants. The report states that without near-immediate restoration of power to the pumps that cool the nuclear rods at those facilities, we could suffer meltdowns in reactors at 60 different locations.

There is currently no civil or military plan to restore power to these facilities. And while the military has standards meant to protect key components from the effects of an electromagnetic pulse, there are many areas where those standards don’t apply or where uncertainties remain.

The integration of digital systems—from flight controls to fuel injection—is now part and parcel to military and commercial aviation. The report framed this vulnerability with the loss of a helicopter shortly after it had flown over a high-powered antenna array. The electromagnetic interference caused the helicopter’s digital carburetor to shut off fuel for the engine.

The crash highlights the potential impact an electromagnetic pulse could have on all critical digital components and sensitive receivers like the radar arrays on our aircraft. While most fighter and airlift aircraft incorporate shielding and system backups that would allow for their safe recovery following an electromagnetic pulse, their military utility would, at best, be in question.

In order to protect our infrastructure, the report provides three major recommendations:

First, we must build stronger alliances that can rapidly attribute and then deliver a credible response to deter an aggressor from attempting such an attack.  

We must motivate state regulators and power companies to secure our electrical grid now, in order to mitigate the severity and duration of the effects of an electromagnetic pulse.

Finally, we need to encourage civil-military relationships that can quickly recover the critical components of our infrastructure.

The threat of an electromagnetic pulse generated by a solar storm or nuclear device is real, and the impact it would have on our nation with its current level of readiness is nothing short of disastrous. The steps required to minimize this threat are expensive, but we need to absorb those costs now, as the cost of trying to recover after the fact may prove to be insurmountable.

Man- Made Climate Change Summit : 'We Need More Money And Power'

Climate change is simple to understand, it is only about the money and the power to control. Everything else is unimportant. 

As many in the know have subscribed to the notion there is no man-made climate change, the surge now isn't puzzling as it comes on the heals of Donald Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement, the biggest loser in the Paris agreement as the Untied States would have to pay $billions of dollars to countries that couldn't care less about global warming. Now the big money pit is gone, the changers will now have to dig deeper into the suckers that are left.

But wait, how is it that most weather forecast for tomorrow are usually only close to being right, but the IPCC and others can forecast anywhere between 50 and 100 years what the weather will be?????

This is totally insane, a debauchery of ethics and moral behavior. But when huge sums of money is a stake, the mass killers and tyrants all kinds come out to get their share.

The biggest winners are all of the small and corrupt countries that have no intention of agreeing to anything that would lessen their grip on power. They just want the money to buy more arms, weapons to kill off any opposition in their own countries to solidify their power, and then attack their weak neighbors.

Climate change is the brain child of progressive socialists that found a home after the old Soviet Empire ended and they had no where to go. Where else better could such group as progressive socialists find so many willing participants to be duped into self destruction.

Man-made climate change concept is understood to be delusional, implausible, unpromising, criminally conceived, diabolical, degenerate, contentious, shameless, treacherous, psychotic, neurologically malfeasant and just plain wrong!! History littered with bodies of the failures. It's there for all to see.

But in the end, why has it been so easy to find so many to believe and support the lie?

Al Gore got rich on the backs of the ignorant and stupid.

Weather Forecasters Warn of Impending Danger as US Climate Skeptics Upend UN Climate Summit

Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC / December 27, 2018

KATOWICE, Poland—TV weather forecasters who understand the potential dangers of climate change are well-positioned to educate the public and spur them to take action, participants said in a panel discussion at the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held here earlier this month.

A major theme at the conference—widely known as COP24—was that severe remedial measures are needed to mitigate rising levels of carbon dioxide emissions before severe weather conditions can take hold.

The meeting, which ran from Dec. 2 to Dec. 14, took its inspiration from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which released a new report in October that concluded limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius—rather than 2 degrees Celsius—between now and 2030—would be beneficial to human populations and ecosystems.

But the report’s Summary for Policymakers also said that “rapid,” “far-reaching,” and “unprecedented” changes would be needed across society to achieve this reduction in the rate of increase in temperature.

Enter Climate Without Borders, an organization founded in 2017, which brings together about 140 weather presenters (as the forecasters are commonly referred to outside the U.S.) from 110 countries.

Jill Peeters, a Belgian weather presenter, started the group when she placed all her weather contacts into a WhatsApp group. From there, it grew into an organization devoted to sounding the alarm about extreme weather and climate change.

Peeters, who took part in the panel discussion on Dec. 4, told her audience that science is on the side of weather presenters who are willing to engage the public about emerging dangers associated with climate change that’s already in motion.  “TV weather presenters are seen as a trusted source,” she said. “We are backed up by science, and this is the basis of our communications.”

The weather forecasters who helped found Climate Without Borders have the ability to reach about 375,000,000 people, according to the group’s website.

The Daily Signal asked Peeters during the question-and-answer session whether she had any reaction to the so-called “yellow-vest” protests that first erupted in Paris prior to the start of the COP24 meeting. The yellow-vest protests are directed at French President Emmanuel Macron’s carbon-tax policies, which have raised the cost of fuel across the country.  “I’m in Belgium, so I could see this up close, and it is a tough situation,” she said. “It can be a challenge to reach people, but that’s what we are trying to do as weather presenters. We are trying to be climate communicators.”

The aim of Climate Without Borders is mostly to try to identify and communicate what the problem is, rather than advancing specific policy proposals, Chi-Ming Peng, a weather presenter from Taiwan, explained during the panel.

Jaroslaw Kret, a weather presenter in Poland, discussed the challenges of communicating with different audiences.  “Some countries have more ‘deniers.’ Some countries have less ‘deniers,’” he said. “Some countries are more educated. Some countries are less educated.”

COP24 participants were widely critical of President Donald Trump and his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which was negotiated at the COP21 meeting in Paris and adopted in December 2015.

Trump critics in attendance included the U.S. Climate Action Center, which operates under the #WeAreStillIn hashtag that was prominently displayed in the COP24 exhibit hall. The Center draws from a coalition of cities, counties, tribes, faith groups, and colleges and universities that support the Paris Agreement, which calls on participating countries to curb their carbon emissions.

But Craig Rucker, the president of the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit based in Washington that favors free-market solutions to energy policy, told The Daily Signal that Trump “made the right call” in withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.  He also pointed to updated scientific research from the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change challenging the findings of the U.N. report, which was released at a media event in Katowice during the COP24 conference.

“The only consensus on climate change that exists is among those in the ‘climate alarmism’ movement,” Rucker said. “There are a growing number of scientists from across the global who point to natural influences as what drives climate, and not human activity.  “The policies that the U.N. is pushing in the name of climate change would be very harmful to average people. That much is made evident by the protests in France,” he added.

Marc Morano, publisher of the Climate Depot website, a project of the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, called on Poland and other countries to follow Trump’s lead and withdraw from the Paris Agreement.  “Poland should get out of this treaty and stand up to the United Nations and the European Union,” Morano said in an interview. “Poland could start a movement that begins to unravel this treaty, which will do nothing for the climate, while raising energy prices across the board.”

Morano, the author of the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” described Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement as a form of “daring diplomacy” that should be emulated.

The Daily Signal contacted the media spokesperson for the COP24 presidency seeking comment on the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report and the position of U.S. climate-change skeptics, but got no response.

In many respects, climate skeptics operate at a disadvantage, Rucker said, because they are up against the media, Hollywood, and a public education system that advance what he calls “alarmist theories” on climate.

Although 195 countries that are parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the language of the climate change agreement during the December 2015 COP21 meeting in Paris, the agreement has not been fully implemented.

At the conclusion of the COP24 meeting, almost 200 countries agreed on a rulebook for curtailing global warming that would lead to full implementation of the agreement.

Chile is set to host the COP25 meeting in late 2019. Brazil had initially been selected as the host country, but incoming President Jair Bolsonaro has said he may withdraw his country from the Paris Agreement.

Conservative Caucus' Meadows Explains Shut-Down : Trump Threatens Shuting The Border.

It is strange that the progressive socialist liberal democrats would double down on demonizing the 62 million voters that elected Donald Trump, accusing them of being the problem on immigration and any other issues that run contrary to the progressive socialist's agenda and ideology.

And as of today, the President said if he doesn't get the money for the wall, not only we he not open the government, but he will shut down the  border completely! We have moved into new territory on leadership. God bless Donald Trump!

Meadows takes a stand willing to take the hate from

the progressive socialist democrats for siding with Trump.

Mark Meadows Says Trump Will Not Budge on Requested Amount for Wall Funding

Henry Rodgers / @henryrodgersdc / December 26, 2018

Republican North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said President Donald Trump will not budge on the $5 billion requested for a border wall Wednesday, as the government enters its sixth day of a partial shutdown.

Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said he does not believe Trump will agree to the Democrats’ counteroffer of $1.3 billion that could be used for the border wall, saying he does not think the amount is “reasonable.” The government will remain shut down until a compromise can be worked out among the two parties.

“I can tell you, if they believe this president is going to yield on this particular issue, they’re misreading him, misreading the American people,” Meadows told CNN on “Inside Politics.” “I see no evidence that would suggest he would come even close to 1.3” billion in border wall funding.

This comes as Meadows pushed strongly against a short-term funding bill that would have funded the government until Feb. 8, saying the wall is necessary and that “the time to act is now.”  “The time to stand up for the American people and fight for wall funding is now. If the president vetoes a [continuing resolution] without wall funding, the American people and his allies in Congress will back him up. We’ll support him. The time to act is now. That’s why we were elected and it’s time we follow through,” Meadows told the The Daily Caller News Foundation days before the partial government shutdown.

Trump said the federal government will remain shut down unless there is an agreement on some type of border wall or fence Tuesday when speaking to reporters in the Oval Office.

Incoming acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney also warned it is “very possible” the partial government shutdown will run into 2019, as Trump insists funding for the border wall must be included.

The two parties will have to figure out an agreement, and the senators must be present for a vote on the Senate floor to send a bill to the president to sign and end the government shutdown. The House will not be in session Thursday.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.