Did President Trump Ever Claim To Be A King?

Trending today - "YOU ARE NOT A KING". The thread was created around a claim that President Trump claimed to be a king. The question is two-fold:

1) Did he make such a claim, and

2) If not, who started such a claim

We begin by determining the basis for any such claim. According to SNOPES and our own research, it began when President Trump "did directly quote the conspiracy theorist and radio host Wayne Allyn Root as saying that “The Jewish people in Israel love [Trump] like he’s the King of Israel” and “like he is the second coming of God.". In other words, Mr. Root, not Trump, made the "king" reference. Trump only quoted him directly, and did not make any claim to it, nor that he believed any of it.

I have been known to quote Obama and Bush - that does not mean I believe in every word they said. On the contrary.

Radical liberals, likely funded by one of the 123 organizations funded by George Soros picked it up. Knowing how ignorant Twitter trolls (i.e. brain-dead zombies) are, they simply put out the claim that Trump claimed to be King, and removed the context that it was a quote by someone else. And just as predicted, the rabid Trump haters on Twitter swallowed it hook, line and sinker, never bothering to even look for the truth. It did not take long at all for it to trend, as liberal trolls on Twitter have a gang mentality, which propelled the lie around the world.

And that was the intent. The PuppetMaster had his minions put out a lie, and his puppets fed it to the Twitter trolls. That's how it is done in the world of fascists. Saul Alinski wrote about it in "Rules for Radicals." Adolph Hitler wrote about it in "Mein Kampf".

The fact that YOU ARE NOT A KING is trending says much more about the Trump-haters on Twitter than it does about President Trump.

/

Bloomberg Wrong About 2008 Housing Crisis

In a recent clip of presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg explaining what happened to cause the 2008 housing crisis and subsequent economic crash, he was a lot more wrong than right. His simplistic explanation gives us a view into his simple mind.

While he was semi-correct about banks issuing risky loans in red-line districts, claiming that to be the cause is like blaming the stove for burning your steak. The steak burns because someone puts the heat on, and then does not watch it.

Here is what really occurred, and how it was Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, along with a complicit Congress and the incompetence of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who all played their parts like good little Soros' puppets:

Anyone who kept up with the news is aware that the major cause of the financial meltdown was caused by worthless mortgages issued to people who simply were not capable of paying for the homes they bought. But what many people do NOT know is that those mortgages were created thanks in part to Barack Obama, Dodd, Frank, Reno and Clinton - all Democrats.

As detailed in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. In other words, banks would not issue mortgages to poor people or minorities living in a "redline" district. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act and helped spawn the current financial crisis by forcing banks to issue mortgages to people who could not afford them.
Obama was one of the attorneys representing ACORN in this effort. In a speech to Acorn, Obama said, “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.” Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. He was the attorney representing ACORN in the lawsuit against Citibank that eventually resulted in the financial meltdown.

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Plaintiff’s Lawyers:
Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the Community Reinvestment Act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”
 
The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

In short, Obama sued the banks and forced an end to redlining. Clinton and Reno pushed it to the hilt, insuring every poor person the chance for home ownership. These risky mortgages forced lenders to bundle them into the now infamous "derivatives" and sold to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, overseen (not) by Sen. Chris Dodd & Sen. Barney Frank. The mortgages did not get paid, resulting in the meltdown that we are still suffering from.

And then what did America do? The attorney who was responsible for the meltdown was elected President of the United States to "fix" the problem.

Obama stated in yet another speech that "We tried our plan and it worked." And he's correct - his plan DID work. His plan, according to what he had done over the previous three decades and what he promised to do ("fundamentally change America") was to destroy capitalism and free markets so a quasi-socialist nanny state could take over. And his plan IS working.

If you need proof, since Obama was inaugurated:

* the unemployment rate jumped from 7.2% to 8.3 %, and has stayed above 8% his entire term of office - his plan "is working"
* the median income in America dropped from $58,000 to $50,000 - his plan "is working"
* the national debt has increased a whopping 51%, from $10 trillion to $16 trillion - his plan "is working"
* gasoline went from $1.85 to nearly $4.00 a gallon - his plan "is working".



For Democrats, it has always been about the government ruling the people instead of vice-versa, and to be the ones in power when that happens. And that is STILL their objective.

/

President Trump's Charitable Donations of His Salary

When Donald John Trump took office in January 2017 he promised to donate his $400,000 a year salary to charity and other good uses on behalf of the American People. The mainstream media, however, tends to ignore this and the great majority of citizens do not know anything about either his generosity, or where he gives all that money. Even in a search online it was difficult to find complete information, but I did manage to dig up the facts, at least through the 2nd quarter of 2019. I did find that he did, indeed, donate in the 3rd and 4th quarter, but was unable to dig up details as to who the funds went to. It may not be published as yet.

To date, President Trump has donated the entire $1.2 million dollars of his salary for the public good. You would think that would be considered news in the media, but most do not even mention it. And that is the reason for this post. If you find it of interest and believe more people should be made aware, please pass this post on to everyone you know.

So, for the sake of promoting knowledge, here are the details of his donations, by year and quarter:

FIRST QUARTER 2017 - $100,000 to the National Park Service to help with long-deferred maintenance projects on the nations 25 battlefields

SECOND QUARTER 2017 - $100,000 to the Department of Education to fund a STEM-focused camp for students

THIRD QUARTER 2017 - $100,000 to the Department of Health and Human Services to combat the opioid epidemic

FOURTH QUARTER 2017 - $100,000 to the Department of Transportation to support its programs to rebuild and modernize the crumbling infrastructure

FIRST QUARTER 2018 - $100,000 to the Department of Veterans Affairs to support its caregiver programs

SECOND QUARTER 2018 - $100,000 to the Small Business Administration to assist veterans transitioning from military life into the private sector

THIRD QUARTER 2018 - $100,000 to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism for research

FOURTH QUARTER 2018 - $100,000 to the Department of Homeland Security

FIRST QUARTER 2019 - $100,000 to the Department of Agriculture

SECOND QUARTER 2019 - $100,000 to the Office of the Surgeon General

Anyone unaware of these donations, and who they benefited, might consider getting their news from a source that at least mentions President Trump's hundreds of accomplishments in just 3 years, that they might be informed enough to make their own decisions.

/

What If (Iowa Caucus Kerfuffle) [UPDATE]

[UPDATE: 3 days later it looks like I was correct with this post]

I realize there are dozens of conspiracy theories "out there" as to what happened in Iowa, and why. And I realize that the following will be just one more. But what if THIS one, which makes sense, is actually true?

It's no secret the DNC does not want Bernie Sanders as the nominee. It is also no secret that they realize the devastating rift in the Democrat party, between socialists and establishment. So I began to wonder, "What would I do if I were in charge of the Iowa Caucus?"

I'll make it short and sweet - I would discredit the results, even if I publish the true results. If it began to appear that Sanders was way ahead of all the others, I would simply make the caucus results appear questionable in the minds of the people. I would hold off on providing the results, and then claim there are issues and the results would be delayed. Then I would wait at least one, maybe two days for the pot to boil and conspiracy theories to foment, then publish the results and swear they are true and accurate.

And no one - no one - would believe that for a New York minute. The conspiracy theories would take over.

And while the DNC would be publishing true results - let's say Sanders won in a landslide - only Sanders' supporters will believe that, and it would seriously cramp the Sanders campaign going forward.

Not only would that taint the Sanders campaign, it would give a boost to Bloomberg - the  so-called "establishment" candidate, as he was not even in the caucus. He is the only one left unscathed.


Which just may be the objective.

/

Senator Mazie Horono (D-HI) Does Not Honor Oath

Democrat Senator Mazie Horono, openly showing how Democrats, even in Congress, feel about the law and the Constitution of The United States. She stated in a video-taped message to America:


 “I don’t care what kind of nice, little, legal, Constitutional defenses that they came up with.” – Dem Sen. Mazie Hirono - see https://twitter.com/i/status/1223232113857769473




Which puts her square at odds with her Oath of Office, which states that, under oath, she swears to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. She simply does not care about either the law, the Constitution nor even her Oath of Office.

That is as unAmerican as it gets, short of actually committing sedition or treason.


That makes her unfit to hold any elected office anywhere in America. And if the good people of Hawai'i have any respect for law, the Constitution and America, they will  kick her to the curb as soon as possible, because as a representative of the state, she puts a stink on the entire state.

/

America Is NOT a Democracy - it is a REPUBLIC

Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State i this Union a REPUBLICAN FORM of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

America is not a democracy - it is a Constitutional Republic. And there is a very real difference, which was clearly stated when the framers of the Constitution specifically declined for America to be a democracy.

The government began calling itself a democracy with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.With the help of other Democrats and a complicit press, he pushed constantly for the people to accept it, for reasons only the politicians seemed to understand. Even school textbooks were published that named America a Democracy - oh, it sounded so good! Being a Progressive Liberal Democrat, FDR realized that his agenda could only succeed if the people were to accept America as a democracy, and not the Republic that it was. Like today, most ordinary people were just too busy with their own lives to be concerned - or even notice - that their Constitutional Republic was slowly being dismantled.


Calling it a constitutional republic is not just semantics. There are significant differences. I would like to cover those differences by using quotes from the founders in no particular order of time with comments about each. I have studied the Federalist papers for many years as well as the Constitution. I have also studied the debates of the federal convention. We have all the information we need to know what kind of government we were given and how it functions, or I should say how it should function.

In 1823, in a letter to Judge William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson praised that the form of government we had was a Republic. It should be noted that in a democracy there is no purpose in distributing powers because a democracy or a representative democracy enacts legislation simply by a majority approving it. In a Republic, the majority cannot over-ride the rights of individuals, such as in passing laws that are not equally applied to every citizen, or "carving out" supposed "rights" to benefit only certain people or groups.

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. … A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” –Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, 1794

In recent years we have seen a very clear and distinct disrespect of the Constitution being fomented by a certain political group and party. They call to eliminate the Electoral College, because they want  a simple majority rule. They  ignore freedom of speech when they do not agree with that speeech, and the freedom to worship unfettered is curtaied, and often insulted. The right to keep and bear arms is under direct assault, and they have no use for due process if it gets in their way. They have said so on the floor of the House and the Senate.

In the days of the Framers, such persons would have been tried for sedition.

In Federalist 39 Madison states the definition of a Republic as the constitutional convention held it: 

“If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people

One of the founders, in one of his commentaries noted the internal inclinations of a democracy, as opposed to a Republic:

“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” –Fisher Ames


And John Adams: “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”  

"A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot (i.e. D.C). A republic may be extended over a large region (i.e. the entire country). James Madison Federalist 14 

But perhaps the most specific dissertation was by Madison:

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of the citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. - James Madison Federalist 10

At one point or another ALL of the founders decried a democracy in favor of a Republic. Since FDR, democrats and progressives have been determined to change that so they can wrest control from the people ad unto themselves. And if they have to dismember the Constitution piece by piece - which they are doing - then so be it. And with it will go our power, and subsequently our liberties and freedoms.

The short take - in a democracy a small number of elitists and politicians can make all decisions by a majority rule amongst themselves, to grow government and their own power. In a Republic, the majority cannot trample over the rights of individuals, and the role of government is limited to the 8 powers listed in Article 1 Section 8.  That all stopped with FDR.

/

 

Nobel Peace Prize is Such A Farce - More Evidence

I used to believe, as do many, that a Nobel Prize of anything was a truly distinguishing achievement.

That was before I did some research and easily discoved things like Barak Obama receiving the Peace Prize upon getting elected - even though he had never done anything at all in the name of peace, and that all it took was to simply be a liberal globalist getting elected. In fact, President Obama droned more people than any other president, built cages for immigrant children and sold automatic weapons to the Mexican Cartels.

And today, Swedish (of course) lawmakers nominated Greta Thunberg for the Nobel Peace Prize, though nothing she has done contributes to world peace. On the contrary, she has been divisive. And I am sure that the fact her great grand-father was a Nobel Committee founder who awarded the Peace Prize to himself has nothing to do with this nomination. Nothing at all. Right?

In going back to the very founding of the Nobel Prize committee, this comes up, which shows Greta's real motives, and they are very contrary to humanitarian efforts. Seems she has taken up her great grandfather's cause:

"According to myheritage.com records, Greta Thunberg is a great grand-daughter to Svante Arrhenius who was involved in eugenics and was a member of the board of the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (i.e. ethnic cleansing). In other words, he pushed a Nazi agenda. The website eugenicsarchive.ca states the following about this:

"Arrhenius involved himself in the eugenics movement by joining the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene, a group focused on researching and promoting the benefits of controlled reproduction in humans (Broberg & Roll-Hansen, 2005). This society was formed in 1909 in an attempt to popularize eugenics and encourage policy changes to promote eugenics (Bjorkman & Widmalm, 2010). The "population control" - eugenics - was directed at those who were not "pure" - the same standard set by the Nazi party. Arrhenius was not only a member of the society; he was on the board."

And it gets worse...

Greta's great-grandfather, this Svante Arrhenius became involved in the founding of the Nobel Institute and the associated Nobel Prizes. He used his influential position as a founder to arrange Nobel Prizes for his friends (Jacobus van't Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald and Theodore Richards) and tried to prevent his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst, Dmitri Mendeleev) from receiving them. HE also gave himself a Nobel Prize because he was involved in setting up the institute that awards the prizes. So science, then, was all about favoritism and not about scientific endeavor.

According to several well-researched stories, the global warming story is about establishing a world government and population reduction via ethnic cleansing. In fact, a manifesto from a former UN Secretary General shows that global warming was invented to frighten the world population and then push through an agenda of population reduction, that the population must be reduced to fight climate change. Eugenics, again.  That is the same agenda that can be traced to Greta's great-grandfather, who awarded himself a Nobel Prize.

And as recently s 2015 Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change  stated, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model (capitalism) that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”. That would require destroying America as a Constitutional Republic, taking our wealth, and re-start their quest for population control (eugenics)


'Nuff said...

Impeachment Is Not About Trump - It's About the Senate

[Editor's Note: if you value our Constitutional Republic and wish to do your part in preserving it for future generations, it takes more than just saying, "Yeah, this post hits the mark!" It takes YOU, passing it on - Facebook, Twitter, emails - whatever you can do. This time the "Silent Majority" has to do more than just talk a good game. We need to come together and ACT. Thank you]


Will Republicans Win The Battle But Lose the War?

Republicans throughout the nation are pulling together to insure a Trump re-election in 2020. And from the current window, it looks increasingly like a shoe-in. It looks as though they will win the battle - but can easily lose the war!

Think about it - by focusing on the Presidential election, the eye is taken off the ball in play. If Trump wins the White house, but loses the Senate, he will be neutered. Without a Republican Senate, he will be unable to install any more Supreme Court Justices - or ANY judges at all. Trade deals will sink. Immigration reform will become "open borders". In fact, the entire Trump agenda will shrivel, and "Keep America Great" will become nothing more than a fading bumper sticker, and any hope of a "red wave" will consist only of the tears of conservatives having lost any hope of limited government.

The purpose of this post is to wake Republicans up. All Republicans in every state. Don't worry about Trump - he'll be re-elected because he has been keeping his promises to make America great again. But to KEEP it great will require getting out there and giving full, strong support to every Republican running for the Senate and the House in your district.

Make no mistake - Pelosi is NOT trying to take down Trump - she gave up on that because she sees what we all see - he will likely sweep. Instead, she is keenly focused on putting Republican Senators from swing districts into tight spots by forcing them to take positions that their districts may not favor. For example, Senators like Cory Gardner and Susan Collins, both from "blue" states, will be forced to vote on convicting or exonerating Trump on the impeachment charges.

We can count on Pelosi stooping as far as necessary to usurp Republicans in Senate and House races. She will use every dirty trick she can dream up. She will spin like a gyroscope, and lie like Baghdad Bob. Be prepared for it, and support your Republican candidates at every level of government.

And here is the WHY behind the desperation of Democrats  - they realize Ruth Bader Ginsberg is unlikely to remain a Justice for 5 more years, and if Trump is re-elected, and the Senate remains in the hands of Republicans, the liberal agenda is done - not just for 4 years, but for 40.

We do not need to Congress to be "red" forever, but we do need to turn it red for at least four more years if we are to give Trump what he needs to finish the job of making - and keeping - America great.

15 Year Old Buys Gun w/o Background Check

Yes, you read that correctly. A 15 year old boy walked into a department store and bought a 12 gauge shotgun. The store owner called his father to make sure it was okay. The boy walked out of the store with that shotgun under his arm.


I can hear Mike Bloomberg and his "Everytown" cadre of liberal supporters having screaming fits. "How could that happen? The boy, his father and especially that store owner should be arrested," they are likely saying in complete shock!


But it did happen! That boy was me. And it was a regular, daily occurrence  in 1960's America. In fact, a person could browse through the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, choose from dozens of rifles and shotguns, mail in the money and they would mail your firearm back to you.


And although guns were as easy to get as candy bars, mass shootings were virtually unheard of. And while that was 60 years ago, believe it or not NONE of the many guns I have owned have ever killed anyone (not counting 'Nam - and those weapons belonged to the government)


To sane, logical reasoning people with common sense, this would suggest two things:

1. guns are not the problem, and
2. something changed after the 1960's that began causing some, albeit only a few people to go on killing sprees.

Those same rational people would then come to the conclusion that, to reduce such crimes, we must identify and effectively address the issues that cause the problem. And we have already proven that it is not guns. Prior to the mid-20th century, guns were far more prevalent on a per person basis  than they are now. In the 19th century, virtually every family had at least one firearm on hand. So, it simply has nothing to do with guns, and has everything to do with whatever is causing certain people to go off the deep end. Why, after hundreds of years are some young people now bouncing off walls - even the suicide rate is escalating?


The anti-gun crowd will claim that it doesn't matter - taking the guns is easier and will stop the carnage. Yes, it certainly is easier, if you don't count the casualties from the civil war it would cause. But it would NOT stop the carnage. If the reasons why a person kills is not addressed, he will still kill. He will use a knife as they do in the EU, or a bomb, or chemical or biological weapon. Killers will kill regardless of any gun laws.


The ONLY way to address the issue is, as stated earlier, to find the causes and address them effectively. To ban the only thing the average person has with which to defend himself and family is nothing short of insane.


The first thing we need to understand is that most shootings are not a product of mental illness, though it appears that way. It is actually a result of mental conditioning. More and more young people are being conditioned by our current culture to act with anti-social behaviors. After all, mental illness has always been with us, but has not resulted in so many mass murders in so short a time. No - but what is new is our rapidly changing - and deteriorating - culture.


Certainly, studies have shown that normal children are not turned into sociopaths because of things like social media bullying, violent video games  and movies. But if a child is not "normal", if he is borderline unstable, such things can certainly push him over the edge. Look at all the young people who have committed suicide because they were bullied online!


If I were tasked with creating a culture where people feel so disassociated with others that it would result in a mass shooting, here is what I would do - ask yourself if this hits a chord.


The very first thing I would do is disable the persons' conscience. To do this, I would take God out of his or her life. It makes no difference whether or not there is a God - whether God created us or we created Him does not make a difference in how we do or do not have a moral conscience. In other words, if we do not fear God because we do not believe in a Heaven and Hell, we have much less reason to lead a life of morality.


Then I would take away the old-fashioned idea of taking personal responsibility for our actions; that life choices should be like those in video games, where there is a do-over for any choice - simply end the game and start over. No consequences for making poor choices.


Along that same line, the next thing I would do to insure a good crop of mass murderers would be to get rid of any semblance that there is any sanctity of life; that life, itself, is not all that important. To this end I would promote abortion, ensuring that children grow up with the realization that it is just hunky dory to end a human life as long as it is deemed to be inconvenient. If you make poor choices, it's just time for a do-over. No consequences. This takes the lack of personal responsibility to it's highest level - life and death.


To further the development of a mind that is capable of mass murder, I would invent addictive video games that teach developing minds not only how to kill everything in sight, but to feel excitement, and even joy at doing so - an adrenaline rush. And that is the addictive part of such games. And like any other adrenaline rush, it drives adrenaline junkies to move up to a bigger, better rush. Seeking the ultimate high.


And to make sure unstable minds have no reason to NOT commit murder, I would invent social media, where such individuals can live in a world where there is no need to actually meet face-to-face with other people, or make real, human, personal connections that would otherwise provide the individual with relationships that can ground them to reality. In a recent poll, 22% of millennials  say they have NO FRIENDS! So, who in their life is anchoring them? Who is instilling personal connections with others, to provide them with a sense that other people have value?


Finally, I would fill the teaching staff at colleges and universities with professors intent on indoctrinating students with radical ideas, and put the mainstream media into the hands of those who would further promote radicalism, and brainwash people by not offering an unbiased view of their story lines.


Of course, it is even more complicated than this, but these are the things I would do that would insure that susceptible people would be prone to mass violence. And I am absolutely certain that these things do contribute heavily. And that is why we, as a people, need to reconsider the long-range results of changes in our culture and begin working on making changes to those changes.


And just how do we do that? In the home! Families - particularly parents - need to take an active role in reducing the impact of such things. Provide your children with a moral compass through religion. Teach them the importance of taking responsibility for their choices so they will be more likely to use greater care in making those choices. Then work to teach sanctity of life by ending abortions of convenience, and limit them to those that involve a life-threatening issue or incest. And limit your child's dependence on addictive video games, even if non-violent, and severely limit their use of social media. In fact, ban social media for any child under the age of 16 - give them a chance to make real, face-to-face relationships with others. And require your representatives to set up a program that monitors universities and forces them to teach our kids HOW to think, and not WHAT to think. And stop watching/listening/reading media that show a clear bias in their reporting.


Do these things in every family, and mass murders will become the rarity they should be. And if a child's family is unable to do so, for whatever reasons, we need after school programs that help to fill that void.

And just for the record, gun control has never been about guns. It's about control, and disarming the public so they cannot fight back if and when the government decides to wrest the power from the people, as every government eventually gets around to.


/