The Trump vs Musk fight

Yesterday was tumultuous for Republicans and gleeful for Democrats who 2 minutes ago hated Musk for turning Twitter into an advocate for free speech and tackling the waste, fraud and abuse in the federal financial system. That really hurt the corrupt NGOs, the DEI crowd, the child abusing educators and their unions and the Climate gangsters sucking the federal teat for their existence. That's where Dems have their power.

 
Republicans loved Musk's help and even his joyful silliness, but his complaints about the BBB made no sense to Trump's base, those who had followed Trump during his campaign. Trump has been delivering on his promises to the voters. It was a plus, sure, but all candidates say they will stop waste. Why not have the smartest man in the world tackle it? No one I know who voted for Trump thinks Musk affected the outcome in November. If money talked, Kamala would be president and Beyonce would be secretary of state.

 
Now the fight is getting personal. Truly, I felt like a 5 year old watching a divorce of my parents--hopeless and helpless--tugging at their knees saying, "Please stop!". Or being asked to take sides in a girls' middle school clique fight when you like them all. The smartest man in the world was spitting in the eye of the most powerful man in the world, one who values loyalty almost more than anything else,
When I saw that "good-bye" in the oval office a few days ago and Trump gave him that odd gift, I was watching Musk's face and it was obvious he was not happy. He's on the autism spectrum (I've heard) and it's hard to know. I thought he might break his teeth from clenching. Trump looked the same--everything's great until it isn't.

Today I was reading Acts 25. It's all about massive power and wealth (Festus, Drusilla, Agrippa and Bernice) coming up against the gospel preached on the world stage by the greatest missionary for Jesus Christ. Wow. What a battle. No one in this week's cat fight can compare to that, but we know God was in charge then and still is.

The Democrat Party "democracy" they say we'll lose

Glenn Greenwald reminds us that the 2016 Democrat election (primaries) were rigged to favor Clinton over Sanders. In 2024 they had NO primaries--no voters had a choice. This is the "Democracy" the Democrats say we'll lose if Trump is elected. Power and money run the party, not the voters.

https://youtu.be/e37KAAbespU?si=tGRuNChL-EyC99tR

Where we are today

The Covid studies showed in the early months of 2020 that those over 70, obese, or with other conditions were at risk, and younger people weren't. Not enough money in that, so after a vaccine originally limited to the vulnerable in early 2021, the rest of the country was railroaded into lockdowns and vaccines. Except the low-income workers. (Even though most poor people in USA are white, we're already getting the "systemic racism" of Covid lockdown studies). They got the privilege of being the cashiers and delivery people and the restaurant employees who got to feed and clothe the wealthier classes who stayed home and worked at their computers. Even the churches bowed to the pressure of being less essential than Kroger cashiers. Masks and lockdowns have since been proven ineffective in stopping the spread. Voting rules were set aside without the people's approval further creating divisions among citizens, friends and families. Vaccines have been only partially protective--a few months. Yet many of the mandates still are in effect; the vaccines still have emergency use approval supposedly because nothing else is available (which is forbidden to even mention). Biden slapped mandates on schools, corporations and government agencies with the help of Big Pharma and Big Tech after initially creating doubt in the vaccine because Warp Speed was a Trump policy, destroying careers and the economy as he moved on to the biggest drug of all--naked, raw power. FDR even with the Great Depression and WWII didn't have the power Biden does. To keep the power, the federal government then subcontracted censorship to "non-profit" misinformation agencies, so now we are swimming in lies and censorship caused by the very people who should be protecting us.

What is Black Lives Matter about? Marxism.

What is BLM really about? It's not race, so stop thinking "civil rights," or even "equal rights." It's about POWER and MONEY. Simple. Clarity. No different than the Reformation, or the Crusades, or even our own 18th century revolution which wrested the power from England and enabled the richest nation in the world to develop. The little guys get hurt, and the power brokers walk off with the fat purse.

 
This video is a tiny introduction to BLM, so take 3 minutes to be informed, to see what's really going on. Then you can trash all the nonsense you see in the liberal media and social media about "white supremacy" being the problem of the unrest. A recent report on white supremacy by Washington Post couldn't locate any problems on the Left, even with cities burning all last summer and Portland having regular explosions and attacks on police and federal buildings. Do you really think all these corporations are suddenly as "woke" as the college administrators? Now there's your "white supremacy." 

• Coke, MLB, Delta trying to destroy millions of jobs in black Georgia and taking the power and money to white Colorado. 
• If there weren't a pot of gold at the end of the trans/gay/black rainbow do you think they would give a flying fig? 
• Do you really believe that 3 white teenagers with rifles driving around in a pick up are destroying thousands of small businesses and the livelihoods of their employees? 
• Why do you think the SC story of a black former athlete killing 6 whites, including 2 children, disappeared overnight, yet the Columbus story of a policeman saving the lives of two black girls when he shot a third continues to make the rounds of the news? One story doesn't sell, doesn't meet the narrative, and the other does. 

Stop believing a pack of lies by WaPo, NYT, LAT or the Columbus Dispatch; unhook from CNN and MSNBC. You've got the evidence; you have a brain. Find the independent journalist or reporter with a camera and a voice and dig in or lose your country.

https://youtu.be/8J68p5l-gjQ

Why are Democrats so inconsistent—power. Michael Smith, guest blogger

How can one justify a city-wide ban on E-cigarettes and fund "safe injection sites" for drugs?

How is it even remotely logical to ban cigarettes and promote legalization of marijuana?

What sense does it make to ban private assistance to feed the homeless and then complain that there isn't enough funding for food programs for them?

How can you argue for free healthcare for illegal non-citizens when American veterans can't get help?

How can you argue that it is discriminatory to refuse to bake a cake for a same sex wedding but forcing a baker to do so against their will is not?

How can you cry about the sanctity of elections and then refuse to put measures in place to validate the eligibility of the voters?

How can you argue that a particular redistricting is unconstitutional and then promote open borders?

How can you argue argue for background checks and restrictions to own a gun and ammunition because "if it can save one child, it is worth it" and then say that abortions should be free without restriction?

How can you argue that school shootings are aberrations when more children are aborted each day in abortion clinics than are killed in all school shootings?

This is your modern Democrat party.

They no longer are required to make sense.

This is all about power and pandering to anyone who will vote to give it to them.

Michael Smith, guest blogger.

Wisdom according to Joan

“Sanctuary” cities (in clearer language) are hideouts for lawbreakers. These cities are providing “aid and comfort” to people who have broken our laws to enter this country. Aiding and abetting criminals is not a “humanitarian” goal; it is, in itself, another crime. If I provide a place for a burglar (another kind of lawbreaker) to evade capture, I am also arrested and charged with a crime. Why is this not applicable to those local elected representatives who openly help lawbreakers evade the law?”

Joan Shaw Turrentine is blogger and Facebook friend, former teacher and pastor’s wife.  And also,

"The truth about all the political crazy that's creating havoc in DC? It's not about immigration. It's not about Trump. It's not about taxes. It's not about the wall or even abortion. It IS about hanging on to power and keeping a seat on the gravy train that is public office."

I agree with Joan on this, and I add that no one in my lifetime has threatened that power base as much as President Trump. So by deflection he is hated, and those of us who voted for him are reviled and kicked out of our social circles and families.

Who is anti-women?

If you look deeply, everything the Left/socialists/Democrats offer/demand is anti-family, anti-fertility and therefore, anti-woman. Whether it is

•  free contraception,
• abortion on demand,
• suing nuns and colleges that won't comply,
• offering sewage for entertainment which exploits our minds and bodies,
• same sex marriage,
• the lie of sex reassignment/third gender,
• the military draft of women,
• the siren call of a career during our best years,
• the importation of brown women to bump up the country's fertility rate (now below replacement) while cleaning our offices and houses,
• heavy college debt borrowed from the government that demands years of labor from us during our fertile years, or
• creating both an unnatural, hyper-vigilant child centered society or an anti-child atmosphere when we women can finally focus on our first calling.

The ultimate goal is to destroy the nation by weakening its strongest building block.Women.

Lent Day 6–The 2nd temptation of Christ

I usually don’t copy an entire story/meditation, providing a link instead.  But for this one, it was so appropriate to power grabs of today, I hope Father Robert Barron won’t fault me for providing the whole thought. You can receive these by e-mail.

Photo by Lisa Hendey

 Having failed at his first attempt to tempt Jesus in a direct and relatively crude way, the devil plays a subtler game: "The devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant."

This is the more rarefied, more refined temptation of power. Power is one of the greatest motivating factors in all of human history. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, the Medicis, Charles V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Nixon, and Kissinger - all the way down to your boss at work. These are all people who have been seduced, at one time or another, by the siren song of power.

We notice something very disquieting in the account of this temptation: the devil admits that all the kingdoms of the world have been given to him. He owns and controls them. That is quite a sweeping indictment of the institutions of political power. But it resonates with our sense that attaining high positions of power and not becoming corrupt is difficult to do.

It might be useful here to recall the two great names for the devil in the Bible: ho Satanas, which means the adversary, and ho diabolos, which means the liar or the deceiver. Worldly power is based upon accusation, division, adversarial relationships, and lies. It's the way that earthly rulers have always done their business.

A tremendous temptation for Jesus was to use his Messianic authority to gain worldly power, to become a king. But if he had given in to this, he would not be consistently a conduit of the divine grace. He would be as remembered today as, perhaps, one of the governors of Syria or satraps of Babylon (and do you remember the first-century satrap of Babylon?)

No, Jesus wanted to be the one through whom the divine love surged into creation, and so he said to Satan, "It is written: 'You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.'"

Obama makes Bush his Blame Czar

"The Senior Adviser [Valerie Jarrett] seems to have forgotten that she is the power [fretting about the tea parties and town halls]. Admittedly, this is a recurring lapse on the part of the administration. There was Barack Obama only the other day, blaming everything on the president – no, no, silly, not him, the other fellow, the Designated Fall Guy who stepped down as head of state in January to accept the new constitutional position of Blame Czar. Musing on problems in Afghanistan, Obama blamed the "long years of drift" under his predecessor. The new president – OK, newish president – has been Drifter-in-Chief for almost a year but he's too busy speaking truth to the former power to get on top of the situation. It could be a while yet. In his more self-regarding moments, such as his speech to the United Nations, he gives the strong impression that the "long years of drift" began in 1776. Mark Steyn

89% of Americans are satisfied with their health care

That was the findings of a study done by ABC News/USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation poll in September 2006. Obama assured Americans that if they liked their health insurance, they could keep it, and as we've watched these huge, multiple bills overwhelm the legislators and the public's ability to understand, we've learned that there's no way that can happen. Either we'll be taxed more if the plan we like is better or covers more than someone else's, or our employer will drop our plan because something cheaper is available from the government. The latest ploy from Reid is for states to "opt out" of the public option. Oh yes, calling it something other than public option is also a plan (Pelosi).

Let's take another look at that 2006 poll, and ponder why health care "reform" became number one on Obama's agenda, so important that he even had to put our troops in danger in a war that he said was more important than Iraq (during his campaign). Why was it so urgent when 89% of the people were happy with their health care, and even 70% of the uninsured were satisfied with their health care and nothing would happen for four years?

A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today, released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. . . .

Those with recent serious health problems, possibly the people with the best knowledge of how health care is working, were generally the most satisfied. Ninety-three percent of insured Americans who had recently suffered a serious illness were satisfied with their health care. So were 95 percent of those who suffered from chronic illness. . . .

70 percent of the uninsured who indicated their level of satisfaction said they were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health care, and only 17.5 percent said they were "very dissatisfied." . . .

"It is a common finding in public opinion research," Henry Aaron, a senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution, told FOXNews.com. "People are satisfied in the small, but dissatisfied in the large. People are satisfied with their child's teachers or school, but dissatisfied with schools generally.... They are satisfied with their doctor or their last visit to the hospital, but they are dissatisfied with what they perceive is happening with medical care as a whole. This finding is just one additional example." . . .

A majority of the uninsured are not desperately poor; about 60 percent of them have personal incomes over $50,000 per year and pay out of their own pockets when necessary, rather than paying for insurance. Others manage to obtain care at highly discounted rates as charity cases.

But there are two other reasons why most uninsured are satisfied: About 14 million of the "uninsured" qualify for Medicaid, and pre-existing conditions do not exclude people from joining the government program. As a result, many who are eligible for Medicaid wait until they need care to register, so they are effectively insured at all times even when they are not formally enrolled in the program.

In addition, once those who are already effectively covered by Medicaid are excluded, nearly 70 percent of the remaining uninsured are without insurance for less than four months. The large majority may be uninsured for such short periods of time that being uninsured is never relevant for their ability to get health care. Summary here.

His reasons for "reforming" the health care that most of us are happy with, even the uninsured, are his own.

1) He wants, needs and craves, a signature event for his first year--a bauble for his first Christmas in the White House.

2) It's a critical step in taking all other freedoms away from the American people, particularly the massive computerization of records that he wants. It will make the Patriot Act look like a drop in the ocean.

3) It's a huge industry--something like 1/6th of the economy, $2.2 trillion in 2007. It will only temporarily satisfy his voracious quest for power, however.

4) Socialized medicine is the hallmark of all socialist countries--he can't drag us kicking and screaming in that direction without that notch on his belt and he can't be a global leader/czar/dictator without proof he's up to the challenge.

Isn't this what the diversity czar recommends?

B. Joseph White, University of Illinois president, resigned amid reports the school admitted politically connected applicants over more qualified at the Urbana campus (my alma mater). Sounds like today's news stories about Mark Lloyd. And what a throw back to the 50s. When I went to school, there was a terrific dating ratio created by the school's policy on women. We were a rather select minority because standards were higher for women applicants--I think you had to be in the upper 10% of your graduating class, but for men it was probably upper third. Maybe that's an urban legend, but that's what I was told when I asked why it was 4:1, men to women. Really, if you couldn't get a date for Friday night. . . I'm just saying.

Anyway, back to my point. We now have within the Obama administration a "diversity czar," Mark Lloyd, who believes in order to move minorities (apparently don't have to be poor or disadvantaged--just have to have the right skin color) to positions of power, some in the majority group (i.e., people of European roots who haven't co-mingled their genes) will have to voluntarily (or not) step down. Nothing about qualifications, skills, merit, intelligence. Just ethnicity. Just color. Hmmm. Call me crazy but I think America went that route and decided it wasn't right. This should make some of Obama's closest associates a little nervous, like Buffy and Toes and Dr. Death. I'm not sure being a Jew gets you any points with Mr. Lloyd, or even being a white, female union activist. Unless Buffy is a lesbian, then she's safe. Being a well connected to radicals and communists, wealthy black Chicagoan will "move you on up to the East side."

I'm really not familiar with White or the allegations, but when Blago and Rezko's names come up, the crumbs always seems to lead to Obama, so I'm sure it's best for all if he just fades to gray.