It’s purely a disingenuous misinformation campaign.  It’s as simple as that…, and it’s intentional.

The biased mainstream media, democrats, and liberals in general, know they’re pushing a false narrative, but they push it anyway to be divisive. They push it to drive a wedge between President Trump and his supporters and minorities in our country.  Over 90% of immigrants, legal and illegal, are from minority racial populations.

They push the false “immigration” narrative so they can push the false “racist” narrative as well.

It’s “the swamp” painting President Trump and Conservatives as something they’re not, so that all of the people who don’t really pay attention get that general impression.

Liberals always conveniently leave out the ILLEGAL part of “illegal immigration” and the ILLEGAL part of “illegal immigrants” when they spout off and cry about these topics with their fake indignation.

“The swamp rats” represent FAKE news, FAKE policies, FAKE concern, and a FAKE administration and adherence of the laws of our land.

Imagine, if you will, President Trump, smiling, in a picture with the Grand Wizard of the KKK.

Further, imagine what the media’s reaction would be to the

The picture we’re talking about here was taken in 2005 of then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington, DC. It was finally released on 01/20/18 after a 13-year cover-up to protect Obama’s political career.

Why was Farrakhan welcome at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus in the first place?

And why did this photo need to be hidden away and not mentioned?

Well, Mr. Farrakhan is a black supremacist (the equivalent of a white supremacist, only black) and an anti-semite (meaning he hates Jews) who also holds anti-gay views (definitely not LGBTQ politically correct). And there were rumors of an association between Obama and Farrakhan circulated during the 2008 presidential campaign in addition to the concerns about Obama’s membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, led by the racist preacher Jeremiah Wright.

The photo was taken by a Journalist named Askia Muhammad. Mr. Muhammad was confronted by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (I wonder who that was) about the photograph, and he eventually surrendered it to Farrakhan’s chief of staff. He secretly kept a copy of the image for himself, but he never told anyone and never released the image, for fear of retaliation against him.

Mr. Muhammad believed the photograph would have destroyed Obama’s chances in a national election. “I gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy,” Muhammad said, in an exclusive interview with the Trice Edney News Wire. “But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration, and then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover.”

Louis Farrakhan has led the Nation of Islam (NOI) since 1981. The NOI is a newer religious movement founded in the 1930s by Wallace Fard Muhammad, a man who claimed to be “the Messiah cometh” of Islam.

NOI’s primary beliefs, as clarified under the leadership of “the honorable” Elijah Muhammad in the 1940s and 50s, include that white people are inherently “devils.” White “devils” are, according to the NOI, bred to be evil for hundreds of years and eventually learned their “training” to enslave blacks.

Askia Muhammad said he felt more at ease about the photograph after Farrakhan publicly revealed in 2016 that he had met with Barack Obama when he was a senator. Muhammad also obtained Farrakhan’s permission to publish the photograph for a potential book in 2017.

The late NBC journalist Tim Russert asked candidate Obama, at a 2008 debate in Cleveland, Ohio, whether he accepted Farrakhan’s public support. Obama responded by claiming he had denounced Farrakhan and had “consistently distanced” himself from him.

Obama said, “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit his support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

There are other, similar, instances in which Barack Obama claimed to have had no association with radicals and was later discovered to have lied.

For one, Obama claimed during the 2008 campaign that he had no continuing links with “former” terrorist Bill Ayers (This is a whole other story! Don’t get me started!), although he served on a board with Ayers and hung out socially with him at his home in Chicago.

No worries though. I’m sure the biased mainstream media will ignore this story just like they ignore any other negative story about a fellow “swamp dweller.”

Information for this article was contributed by Joel B. Pollak and Ian Mason.

“Life isn’t about finding yourself, it’s about creating yourself.” – George Bernard Shaw

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t….you’re right.” – Henry Ford

“If we did all the things we were actually capable of, we would amaze ourselves.” – Thomas Edison

“By the time you realize that your mother and father were right, you usually have a child of your own who thinks you’re wrong.” – Charles Wadsworth

“Talking quietly with confidence is always better than making a lot of insecure noise.” – Mr. Erickson

“Everything was impossible until someone did it.” – Unknown Author

The word is out.  Social Media sites across the board are censoring certain user accounts, censoring “offensive” and “unappreciated” message content, and apparently doing so from a liberal-biased point of view.

We are living in America, aren’t we?

Yes, but, “Toto, we aren’t in Kansas anymore.”

Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, Reddit, WeChat, Instagram and others are in on the alleged “cleansing” of American thought and speech.

Their methods are referred to as “shadow banning.” This is because the user is usually not aware that they have been banned, and they might never actually realize it. Although everything appears normal to the messenger, their message goes out to a very limited audience, or to no audience at all.

It seems that only “acceptable” language, opinions and thoughts are allowed to propagate the social media super highways, while less desirable opinions are forced onto the backroads. The question is, who determines what’s “acceptable” and what isn’t?

Various social media sites have admitted to this practice, but they quickly fall back on the user’s failure to comply with their “terms of service,” which basically allows the sites to do whatever they want, and for any reason.

Well, these sites are all free, and you usually get what you pay for after all.

You do have to ask yourself, however, “What the hell is this country coming to?

We are going to be hearing the term “DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) a lot in the upcoming month. Why is this, and what is this?

So what is DACA?  President Obama created the DACA program through executive order in June of 2012.  This programs allows young people brought to this country illegally by their parents to get a temporary reprieve from deportation and to receive permission to work, study and obtain driver’s licenses.  DACA applicants had to be younger than 31 years old when the program began. They also had to prove that they had lived in the United States continuously since June 15, 2007, and that they had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16.  Those signing up for DACA had to also show that they had clean criminal records. They have to be enrolled in high school or college, or serve in the military. (Wow!  That’s a lot of documentation for someone who is undocumented!)  Their status is renewable every two years.  Conservatives felt Obama overstepped his authority, but they decided not to challenge it.

And why are we going to be hearing so much about DACA? Since DACA was not passed as an actual law, and its validity and parameters had been in question, President Trump felt it would be wise to give Congress six months to come up with a law that would properly address the DACA issue before dealing with it himself (what can be created by executive order can also be terminated or modified by executive order). Well, that was five months ago, and time is running out. (Congress, I’m sure, will push their vote, if they can even get to that point, to the last possible minute.)

Who are these “dreamers” that fall under the DACA program anyway? About 800,000 immigrants, who were children when they arrived in the U.S. illegally, have benefitted from the program. Most arrived from Mexico (80%), El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, although there are also several thousand from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Europe.  They reside in every state, with the largest concentrations in California and Texas. Currently, there are nearly 690,000 of these immigrants still enrolled in the program. At this point, Dreamers range in age from 16 to 36.

The biased mainstream media would have you believe that most Dreamers are valedictorians of their high school class, but sadly this is not the case.

According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 2,139 DACA recipients have had their protected status revoked due to crimes including: murder, rape, alien smuggling, assaultive offenses, domestic violence, drug offenses, DUI, larceny and thefts, criminal trespass and burglary, sexual offenses with minors, other sex offenses, gang related involvement and weapons offenses.

In these cases, they sound a lot more like “Nightmares” than “Dreamers!”

Keep in mind also that any future determinations about the status of the Dreamers will most assuredly include their parents and probably other family members as well, which could push the numbers we’re talking about here to well over a million.

How about Congress passes a law that says, “When a funding bill expires, the funding shall continue as it was prior to the expiration until a superceding bill is passed.”

That makes too much sense, doesn’t it?

This way, programs and people are not held hostage by incompetent elected officials, and we don’t have to suffer through these ever recurring, annoying, funding deadlines.

According to a recent survey from SurveyMonkey and Ozy Media, it has been determined that 33% of NFL fans made a conscious decision to stop watching NFL games during the 2017 season.

Wait, what!?

Yes, you read that right. A third, one out of every three, NFL fans stopped watching, boycotted, the NFL in 2017 for various reasons!

Most people in America recognize this is mostly because of NFL players protesting (kneeling) during the National Anthem. The only people that seem to want to refuse to recognize this are members of the fake news media, of course, and the NFL itself, led by its clueless commissioner, Roger Goodell, who just received a $10 million per year raise and a five year contract extension while managing to lose a third of the NFL’s fan base.  Shrewd!

The survey allowed its participants to select more than one answer, which is why the total goes over 100%.

The results of the survey, when asked why they quit watching the NFL, are:

32% In support of Donald Trump

22% In solidarity with players kneeling

13% No interest in teams playing

12% In support of Colin Kaepernick

11% As a result about findings regarding traumatic brain injuries among

players

8% Games are boring

46% Other

If you notice, the survey did not even give “players kneeling during the National Anthem” or “disrespecting the flag” as possible reasons! That is obviously also why “Other” is such a high percentage.  If you’re taking a poll or a survey, the “other” category should really never be your highest response category, unless your initial assumptions are totally off the mark, or you want it to be for some reason. Hmmm, what could that reason be? Just another example of biased interests attempting to “spin” the results of a survey or poll.

I also don’t understand how the results of this survey wash with the claims by the NFL that their TV ratings are only down 10% from their ratings in 2016.

When in doubt, always follow the money.

What we have here are a lot of rich team owners and a lot of advertisers, who spend ungodly amounts of money on the NFL, trying to protect their interests. Money has a way of being able to “adjust” how the “truth” is presented to “We the People” for our consumption.  The problem these people are finding now is that “We the People” are watching our media diet more closely, and we won’t just swallow anything anymore.

I’ll be on vacation starting tomorrow, 1/13/18, and I’ll be back on Monday, 1/22/18.  Stay thirsty my friends!

This question may seem a little confusing, but not when you actually stop and think about it.

Presidential elections are won by having a majority of the Electoral College votes, which are accumulated on a state by state basis. So, a poll which represents support on an overall level, a national level, may actually be misleading. It may be interesting, to a certain extent, but not definitive, election-wise.

A candidate may win the overall “popular” vote by many millions of votes, yet lose the election.

Our Constitution was specifically designed this way, to make sure that a few highly populated states could not basically take control of the entire country.  The authors of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and John Adams, were quite wise in this respect.

So, even though a national presidential poll does not really reflect how a President actually gets elected, how do these polls work?  How are they conducted?

First, some facts to help us gain some perspective.

Regarding national elections:

235 million people in our country are of age to vote.

There are 200 million of us who are registered voters.

Only 60% (120 million) of registered voters actually vote.

Regarding Polls and phones:

Polls are conducted solely over the phone now.

237.7 million people own a cell phone.

91% of adults have a cell phone.

Near or below poverty level people are more likely to be wireless.

45.9% of households still have a landline.

Landlines are more likely to be targets for telemarketers.

Many of us don’t see how the views of a 1,000 people or so can accurately predict the views of hundreds of millions.

Many of us think we have an idea of how the polling process works.

Well, let’s see.

Probability sampling is the fundamental basis for all survey research. The basic principle is, if selected correctly, a randomly selected small sample of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people from which the sample is obtained.

The key to reaching this objective is a fundamental principle called equal probability of selection, which states that if every member of a population has an equal probability of being selected in a sample, then that sample will be representative of the population.

In the case of national polls that track elections and other issues, the target audience is all adults who have a landline phone or a cell phone.

Here’s where it gets tricky. According to the Gallup polling company, “Findings from telephone surveys are based on standard national telephone samples, consisting of directory-assisted random-digit telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. This complicated process starts with a computerized list of all telephone exchanges in America, residential and cellular, along with estimates of the number of phones these exchanges have attached to them. The computer, using a procedure called random-digit-dialing (RDD), actually creates phone numbers from those exchanges and then generates telephone samples from them. In essence, this procedure creates a list of all possible household phone numbers and all possible cell phone numbers in America and then selects a subset of numbers from that list for interviewers to call.”

Then, “Within each contacted household, reached via landline, an interview is sought with the adult 18 years of age or older, living in the household, who has had the most recent birthday. Calls to cell phones are not handled this way because they are typically associated with one individual rather than shared among several members of a household.”

You got that?

The fact is, polling companies have been forced to use a procedure like this because polling via phone is really the only practical option and many residential (landline) phones are unlisted, and almost all cell phone numbers are unlisted.

I understand the general process being used by polling companies, I’m just not sure that I agree that their processes generate a sampling of the population that is representative of that population on a national scale.

Be careful of your thoughts, for they become your words.

Be careful of your words, for they become your actions.

Be careful of your actions, for they become your habits.

Be careful of your habits, for they become your character.

Be careful of your character, for your character becomes your destiny.

– Ancient Chinese proverb, author unknown