DiscoverClarity from Chaos Podcast
Clarity from Chaos Podcast
Claim Ownership

Clarity from Chaos Podcast

Author: Dave Campbell

Subscribed: 3Played: 40


Every episode brings insight to help guide through the Chaos and into Clarity. We focus on three principals; Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem.
106 Episodes
The Conscious Effect

The Conscious Effect


Stressles Success

Stressles Success


This highly acclaimed and captivating book offers the world the most thorough understanding to date of “the Warning,” or “the Illumination of Conscience”—a critical moment in human history when every person alive will see their soul in the light of divine truth—including fascinating stories of those who have already experienced it for themselves. “Christine Watkins has done a tremendous work…invaluable and timely” says Mark Mallet. Bishop Gavin Ashenden, Chaplain to the Queen of England (2008-2017) comments in his foreword to the book, “I devoured it, unable to put it down.”…“Inspirational…I highly recommend it,” says Fr. John Struzzo. Monsignor Ralph J. Chieffo urges, “Read this prophetic book and believe,” Dr. Mark Miravalle writes, “THE WARNING should be widely read and discerned seriously with an open mind,” and Fr. Bernardin Mugabo makes the heartfelt appeal, “I wish everyone would read this!” Bishop Ashenden, begins his foreword with, “Every so often a book falls into one’s hands that is particularly powerful in unveiling the mystery and power of God’s purpose for his Church today, and this is one such. If you are wondering whether or not you should take the time to read it, let me strongly encourage you to do so.” The prophecies of the Warning, as outlined and illustrated in this book, have come to us through saints and mystics, including St. Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Paul VI, St. Faustina Kowalska, Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, and Servant of God, Maria Esperanza. Some of these spiritual luminaries are still alive, such as exorcist, mystic, and Superior General, Fr. Michel Rodrigue; stigmatist and mystic, Janie Garza; and founder of the Dynamic Catholic Institute, Matthew Kelly.  Not only does THE WARNING substantiate an event of monumental importance, which appears to be on the horizon of time, but also carries the reader through compelling testimonies of those who have already experienced it personally and against their will. The book culminates in the spell-binding story of Marino Restrepo, hailed as a St. Paul for our century. Formerly a well-to-do Hollywood music producer who sank into serious sin and the New Age movement, he endured a torturous kidnapping by Colombian guerilla rebels for over half a year, during which he experienced an illumination of conscience. In addition, he received a unique gift of infused knowledge of divine matters, which he has been sharing with the world since 1999 in his world-wide, bishop-approved apostolate. And his is only one of the stories. . . The prophecies and testimonies of the Illumination of Conscience promise to astound, entertain, challenge, and prepare those who read this book and who believe. BIO: Mrs. Christine Watkins, MTS, LCSW, is an inspirational Catholic speaker, author, and radio and television host. Formerly an anti-Christian atheist, she began a life of service to the Catholic Church after a miraculous healing from Jesus through Mary, which saved her from death. Before her conversion to Catholicism, she danced professionally with the San Francisco Ballet Company. Mrs. Watkins is the author of the best-seller, Full of Grace: Miraculous Stories of Healing and Conversion through Mary's Intercession, and the #1 Amazon bests-sellers, Of Men and Mary: How Six Men Won the Greatest Battle of Their Lives, Mary's Mantle Consecration: A Spiritual Retreat for Heaven's Help, with its accompanying Prayer Journal, and Of Men and Mary: How Six Men Won the Greatest Battle of Their Lives. Enjoy the acclaimed book trailer to her book, Of Men and Mary by going to Mrs. Watkins is the founder of Queen of Peace Media. Check out all of Mrs. Watkins videos and books at and Check out the videos of her weekly Radio Maria show called "Find Something More, Find your way Home" on the Catholic YouTube channel: Queen of Peace Media. Click "Subscribe" and the click the bell to be notified of the latest show.   Mrs. Watkins holds a master's degree in theological studies from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley and a master's degree in social welfare from the University of California at Berkeley's School of Social Welfare. She has over twenty years of work experience as a spiritual director, licensed counselor, inspirational speaker, and retreat leader. Currently, she lives in California with her husband and three children. WEBSITE:, FACEBOOK: YOUTUBE:
Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today's Partisan Advocacy Journalism By John O'Connor  MEDIA ANALYST/AUTHOR: John O'Connor, Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate, and Began Today's Partisan Advocacy Journalism. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Northern California from 1974-1979, representing the United States in both criminal and civil cases.  The Trump administration all but made a “declaration of war on the House over the impeachment inquiry” on Tuesday in a letter from White House Counsel Pat. A Cipollone, who told House Democrats that the president would not comply with their “illegitimate proceedings. ”In a statement, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote: “The President has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it. For purely political reasons, the Democrats have decided their desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election allows them to conduct a so-called impeachment inquiry that ignores the fundamental rights guaranteed to every American.  These partisan proceedings are an affront to the Constitution—as they are being held behind closed doors and deny the President the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and many other basic rights.” Included with Grisham’s statement was the letter from Cipollone that dismantled many of the claims made by Democrat leaders in recent weeks and seriously damaged the credibility of their unofficial impeachment inquiry. Deep Throat’s lawyer discovers the Washington Post betrayed his client—while covering up the real truth about the Watergate scandal The conventional wisdom of Watergate is turned on its head by Postgate, revealing that the Post did not uncover Watergate as much as it covered it up. The Nixon Administration, itself involved in a coverup, was the victim of a journalistic smoke-screen that prevented mitigation of its criminal guilt. As a result of the paper’s successful misdirection, today’s strikingly deceptive partisan journalism can be laid at the doorstep of the Washington Post. After Deep Throat’s lawyer, author John O’Connor, discovered that the Post had betrayed his client while covering up the truth about Watergate, his indefatigable research resulted in Postgate, a profoundly shocking tale of journalistic deceit. In an era when numerous modern media outlets rail about the guilt of their political enemies for speaking untruths, Postgate proves that the media can often credibly be viewed as the party actually guilty of deception. Americans today mistrust the major media more than ever. Postgate will prove that this distrust is richly deserved. BIO: John O’Connor is an experienced trial lawyer, practicing law in San Francisco since 1972.  He has tried cases in state and federal court throughout the country. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Northern California from 1974-1979, representing the United States in both criminal and civil cases. Among his interesting assignments have been representation of the government during the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s; writing Fifth Amendment and “state of mind” briefs for the prosecution in United States v. Patricia Hearst; representing the FDIC, FSLC and RTC during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s; representing California Attorney General Dan Lungren in campaign-related litigation; defending R.J. Reynolds Tobacco in significant smoking and health litigation; representing Coach Don Nelson in litigation with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban; and representing W. Mark Felt regarding the revelation of his identity as Deep Throat. WEBSITE: FACEBOOK: ON CNN:
4 Achievable Steps for Turning Burnout into Brilliance By Denise R. Green   Stress is eroding the lives of too many of today's professionals. A landmark study by the Mayo Clinic identified the traits associated with workplace stress and burnout, including emotional exhaustion, bitter cynicism, a plummeting sense of accomplishment and "a tendency to view people as objects rather than as human beings." Whether you suffer from all these symptoms or just one or two, know that life doesn't have to be this way. We're all born with a spark, and then life piles on. But it's possible to clear off the muck so you can shine brilliantly again. Brilliance occurs when you feel a sense of freedom and agency over your life -- ease instead of struggle, and freedom instead of feeling trapped in a toxic body, relationship, thought pattern or job. Brilliance is the opposite of burned out, and a serious upgrade from blah. Through incremental and attainable steps, you can reignite that flame within you that has dimmed over the years. Consider what brilliance can mean across different areas of your life -- your mind, your body, your relationships with others and your relationship with technology. For example, your mind and inner world are brilliant when you feel a sense of ease, gratitude and confidence. Your body attains brilliance when you feel strong, grounded, energized and rested; when you have relationships that are full of ease, trust and curiosity; and when you have strong boundaries around your use of technology. Use these four achievable steps to turn your stress around, and to find your way back to a brilliant life that shines with purpose and fulfillment. Tame your thoughts.Getting hooked on emotionally charged narratives of anger, resentment, guilt or fear can have devastating consequences for your physical and mental well-being, affecting your emotional and physiological circuitry in powerful ways. Upgrade your thoughts by noticing when you think the original painful thought. Catch yourself thinking, and replace the painful thought with an upgraded belief that brings relief and prompts better actions. Repeat the new belief over and over until it becomes an embedded belief. Use daily routines as cues to remember to repeat your upgraded thought, like brushing teeth or before entering a meeting. In this way, you become the director of your life, empowered to change the script (and ending), rather than a mere actor performing at the whim of your brain's habitual thinking. Exude authentic confidence.Truly confident people exude both warmth and strength. Aligning your outward appearance and actions with who and how you want to be in the world can improve your self-perception, as well as other's perceptions of you. You can make changes to improve your confidence almost instantly: get a great haircut, improve how you dress, make eye contact, smile, stand and sit with good posture and keep your chin level with the floor. Changes to your physiology can take more time and effort, such as losing weight and feeling rested and alert. Exercising with weights or boxing will eventually create physical strength and a sense of empowerment that will carry over into your interactions. Nurture brilliant relationships.Toxic encounters switch on your sympathetic nervous system, putting your brain in a threat state where you're less able to access your "intelligent" brain, the prefrontal cortex. To live a brilliant life, you must attract and nourish relationships that make you happy, healthy and more effective in your life. You need people who make you laugh, who pick you up on a bad day and who remind you of your brilliance. If you're unhappy with your relationships, what qualities do you need to improve in yourself to build and sustain brilliant relationships? Do you need to be more appreciative? A better listener? More forgiving? Do you need to seek out new friends in places you like to frequent, like coffee shops or workout classes? Take steps to improve your relationships and connect with positive people. You can start by telling people how much you value them. Manage your relationship with technology.Most of us don't use technology as much as we let it use us. Technology has created a "constantly on" environment where we actually have less free time. It takes incredible willpower to resist our screens, but our addiction to technology and our mobile devices allows us less space to just be. It also zaps our productivity. If you want to have productive, fulfilling days, you must mindfully choose not to fall into the social media or news and entertainment rabbit hole. Turn off sound notifications, leave your phone behind in meetings and choose face-to-face conversations whenever possible.   Remember this about brilliance: It's not a destination you reach and then set up camp. It's more like a journey with unpredictable twists and turns. It's easy to fall off the path, but with attention and shifting, you can find your way back again.   *     *     * Denise R. Green is a speaker, writer and executive coach committed to helping people go from burned-out (or blah) to brilliant. After a successful career with Oracle Corporation and Charles Schwab, Denise founded Brilliance Inc., a coaching corporation whose purpose is to unleash human potential. For more than a decade, she and her team have helped thousands of people feel less stressed, and have more ease and fulfillment in all areas of their lives. Her new book, Work-Life Brilliance: Tools to Break Stress and Create the Life & Health You Crave (Brilliance Publishing, April 2017) is about reigniting one's internal spark. She has also authored the ebooks: Conversations for Brilliance, Influence the Boss, and How to Say No With Grace, Not Guilt. Learn more at
4 Emotional Intelligence Skills to Transform Your Leadership Style By Steven Stein, Ph.D. In today's work settings, many of the old-style hierarchical and authoritarian styles of leadership have become obsolete. We’ve witnessed significant strides in replacing rewards-punishment "transactional" management styles -- that have mostly proven unproductive -- with "transformative styles" in which organizational leaders inspire their teams to achieve a collective purpose. And yet we're still in the transition zone where we need more leaders equipped with the skills that combine interpersonal abilities, including empathy and trust, with the capacity to model creative problem solving when faced with tough situations. We refer to this skill set as Emotional Intelligence, or EI. The awareness that EI is an important job skill -- in some cases even surpassing technical ability -- has grown in recent years. In simple terms, EI is the ability to identify and manage emotional information in oneself and in others. But, we continue to experience a scarcity of this new brand of leadership talent. According to a global survey by Deloitte, leadership was rated the most urgent concern when considering gaps in workforce readiness. Why haven't we done a better job of cultivating emerging leaders? One reason is that we continue to mistakenly believe good technical or sales skills translate to good management skills. The thinking seems to be: if they excel at analyzing, fixing, selling and so on, then they can likely lead others to excel as well. But these skills and competencies have little to do with being a good leader. Another erroneous standard of leadership talent is mistakenly assuming that high IQ is a predictor of leadership strength. While it's likely that leaders have higher IQs than followers, the qualities that make up strong leaders go far beyond one's cognitive intelligence. Finally, choosing leaders based on personality remains widespread.  Characteristics such as aggressiveness and extroversion, that tend to stand out in job candidates, don't always correlate with self-awareness, flexibility and influencing others. The forceful leaders may be good at giving orders, but that doesn’t always translate into inspiring subordinates into action. The traits that new bodies of research confirm as the most effective in improving workplace morale -- and the bottom line -- directly relate to qualities associated with EI. After gleaning results from the largest database of EI test scores in the world, researchers have identified four pillars of EI that form the foundation of competencies needed to buttress today's business world for success now and into the future. The good news is that EI traits can be cultivated and improved. Practice these four pillars of EI to transform your personal and organizational leadership style: Express authenticity on every level.Acting without integrity can be the kiss of death in today's world. Today's best leaders must be viewed as credible, fair and "real." Bombastic, arrogant and dominating people are out. For today's leaders, humility is a strength. People will respect you more and go the extra mile if they think you are real. Coach others to realize their full potential.Today's more equitable workplaces run on collaboration and mentoring, not policing. The best leaders coach their teams through tactics as simple as "management by walking around" and one-on-one meetings where they listen to employees' concerns, offer feedback and guidance and take responsibility for removing any roadblocks. Communicate the organization's mission in a way that inspires employees, suppliers and customers.More and more companies are realizing they are not in business just to make money or produce a product. Developing a sense of higher purpose (for example, Google's mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful") heightens engagement and motivation for employees and other stakeholders, which helps attract and retain the right people. Insightful leaders communicate a purpose, meaning and vision, and express a hopeful view of the future. Encourage innovation and risk-taking.More success will accrue to organizations that encourage their employees to think creatively and champion new ideas. That doesn't mean everyone gets their own R&D budget, but it does require that leaders give their people more autonomy and license to explore changing customer needs and provide a fair, safe and encouraging hearing when employees propose new ideas. They also need to be understanding when new, risky ideas don't succeed. Innovative leaders spur imaginative and autonomous thinking and see challenges as learning opportunities.   *     *     * Steven Stein, Ph.D., is a leading expert on psychological assessment and emotional intelligence. He is the founder and CEO of Multi-Health Systems (MHS), a leading publisher of scientifically validated assessments. Dr. Steven Stein is the author and coauthor of several books on emotional intelligence, including his new book, The EQ Leader: Instilling Passion, Creating Shared Goals, and Building Meaningful Organizations through Emotional Intelligence (Wiley, May 1, 2017), and the international best-seller, The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success. He has consulted for military and government agencies, corporations and professional sports teams. Dr. Stein has also consulted on numerous reality TV shows, providing psychological expertise and candidate screening. He has appeared on more than 100 TV and radio shows throughout North America. For more information, visit
Three Practical Ways to Turn Naysayers into Innovators by Ed Harrington Finding new product ideas and innovations to excite customers requires colossal creative effort and a certain comfort level with risk-taking. The considerable effort to take a product from idea to development to launch is both time and energy intensive. If it also demands dealing with naysayers at the table who poke holes in every idea expressed along the way, valuable momentum is lost. It's important to acknowledge that we all have an inherent bias against venturing into unknown territory. We're descendants of risk adverse ancestors whose self-preservation instincts served them well in a time when potential danger lurked behind every boulder or bush. But in today's world where innovation rules the day, our survival necessitates overcoming these ingrained behavioral biases that hinder new ideas and stifle creative solutions. Take for example Negativity Bias: We're conditioned to allow negative impressions to form more quickly than positive ones. A seminal study has proven that, in our minds, bad is stronger than good -- negative information, experiences, and even negative people have a stronger effect on us than positive ones. When Negativity Bias joins us at the table, it can stymie even the most adept thinking -- like trying to run with lead shoes. Negativity Bias often keeps us from voicing creative ideas for fear of being thought foolish, impractical, or just plain odd. Yet, early in the innovation process, ideas should be golden nuggets that expand our thinking and promote discovery. When we err on the side of caution and believe that early-stage ideas need to be fully formed and complete, we automatically lapse into judgment mode instead of discovery mode. To preempt this natural tendency, each member of the group needs to set out in the spirit of contributing half-baked, even impractical ideas, just to see where they might lead. To get past our individual and collective Negativity Bias when the goal is to create something new, turn to these three useful practices: Consciously change from "Yes, but…" to "Yes, and…" language.Groups effectively kill innovative ideas with "Yes, but…" comments. Purposely using "Yes, and…" emphasizes what people are in favor of, and invites broader participation. It helps the team respond to new ideas in a way that illuminates their potential while also acknowledging that ideas don't have to be perfect at the outset. List what you're for along with what you wish for.When you think of a new idea, make a list of the aspects that are interesting or promising about it (what you're for), and that show its potential. Don't worry about addressing any problems with the idea. Instead, focus on what's good about it. Next to the for list, make a list of what you wish for with the idea. This isn't a list of cons, but focuses on the issues within the idea that may require problem solving. Use language when you propose wish for items, such as "How might we…(reduce the cost);" or "I wish…(it could be safe)." Finally, use the wish for list and try to generate solutions. This method allows you to optimize the original idea. Let humility keep you honest.No one has the complete picture, ever. Imposing idea-killing pronouncements when the group is striving for creative ideas is not only counter-productive, it smacks of arrogance. It's possible to extract value from even the most outlandish ideas if you give them proper consideration. Let humility give you the space to become more playful in the creative process and get the most out of every idea.
In a recent interview with Ms. Bijou we discussed simple ways that you could begin to rewire your thinking in order to help begin to resolve some of the destructive negative thinking we all find ourselves doing from time to time.  Enjoy the insights of one of the leading Therapist in the country. Jude is the Founder of Attitude Reconstruction, Teacher, Trainer and Workshop Leader of Attitude Reconstruction and Communication.  In addition she is the best selling author of:  Attitude Reconstruction: A Blueprint for Building a Better Life    which has won the following awards: 2012 Winner of Benjamin Franklin Award 2012 Fore Word Reviews Gold Award in both Self-Help and Psychology 2012 Silver Nautilus Award in Self-Help, Personal Growth, Psychology 2012 Winner Los Angeles Book Festival in How-to category 2012 Living Now Book Awards, Gold Medal Winner Personal Growth 2012 International Book Awards, Winner Health: Psychology/Mental Health
Ask 7 Questions to Banish Negative Thoughts   By Ora Nadrich We have some 60,000 to 70,000 thoughts a day, and many of them are negative: I can’t do that. I’m not good enough. It’s never going to happen for me. I don’t deserve this. As we embark on a new venture or work toward a new goal, they pop up and wreak havoc on our plans and self-confidence. Since thoughts create beliefs, which then create behaviors, negative thoughts can undermine us right into a standstill. But there’s a way to stop negative thoughts right in their tracks. All it takes is challenging them with 7 direct questions, starting with: Says Who? Here are the seven questions we need to ask to disarm those negative thoughts: Says Who?Whenever a negative though pops into your head, ask it: Says Who? The question exposes a negative thought for exactly what it is: a doubt that can disrupt your life and damage your sense of well-being. Have I heard someone say this thought before?So many of the voices in our head are actually echoes. They’re old words we heard someone else say to us, such as a parent, spouse, or boss. By identifying the originator of the thought, you can find out if it really belongs to you. Many times, it doesn’t.   Do I like this thought?Go ahead and ask yourself: Is this thought desirable or appealing? If not, then ask yourself: why are you thinking it? If you don’t like what you’re hearing, you don’t have to listen. Does this thought make me feel better? Negative thoughts tear us down instead of build us up. They seep into our psyches, wreaking havoc. Ask yourself: Is this thought making you feel better or worse about yourself? If it doesn’t enhance your self-esteem in any way, why are you thinking it? Does this thought work for me? Is this thought useful or productive for you? With this question, you can take a look at whether or not a thought supports your desires or goals. If not, why are you thinking it? Am I in control of this thought? –Does this thought have any kind of hold or power over you? Or, are you in control of it? If not, ask yourself why you would let a thought have power to control you. Remember, you are the commander of your own thoughts, not the other way around. Do I want to keep this thought or let it go?With this question, you’re finding out if you want to hold on to a thought that serves no useful purpose for your well-being. If it’s not doing you any good, it’s probably doing you bad. So let it go.  Make it habit (like brushing your teeth) to ask these questions every day. Soon you will find yourself on the way eliminating the negative thinking that slows you down, and turning those hecklers into your own cheering squad. Then you can get on with your life. You can identify your goals, attain improved inner awareness and realize more fulfillment — in your life, career, and relationships. It all starts with a question: Says Who?
“We think it as competent and as necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infections articles.” -New York v. Miln, Chief Justice Philip P. Barbour 1837 Throughout our history, the United States have always adapted our immigration policies to suit the times and the will of the citizenry. Progressives have worked aggressively for decades to systematically rewrite history in support of their destructive ideologies. They must distort or ignore facts because facts lead to truth and common sense, and those are their greatest enemies. One such recent example is the claim that Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump is a xenophobe, a racist and an anti-immigrant bigot for proposing we change our immigration policies to meet today’s specific needs. Much of the population associates him with these disparaging terms but cannot cite a single reason for holding this belief, except that they hear it over and over again from the liberal media and that is their intention. In the wake of increasing Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist attacks within the United States and around the world, Donald Trump recently introduced a plan he refers to as “Extreme Vetting”.  As Trump stated, “Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.” Trump’s overall position on legal immigration would include temporarily suspending entry by individuals from countries with high numbers of potential terrorists. On illegal immigration, Trump has promised to adhere to the oath all Presidents must take by enforcing both the U.S. Constitution and existing laws.   He claims he will stop the flow with a wall on our southern border, which he intends to “make Mexico pay for.” President Obama, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Progressive Representatives and even the Pope, all of whom are regularly surrounded by walls and armed security guards, have decried Trumps’ proposals as unprecedented and contrary to American values. However, their mission to eradicate facts is incomplete. Our true history is still available, and on Mr. Trump’s side. For the first 7 years of U.S. history, under our first constitution (The Articles of Confederation), immigration fell under State jurisdiction.  Requirements varied from State to State and included stipulations that immigrants take an oath disavowing loyalty to their country of origin; that they be of the Christian religion; of good character, etc.  Almost immediately after the U.S. Constitution went into effect in 1789, the 1790 Alien Naturalization Act established national guidelines requiring all immigrants be ‘free white persons’ (which excluded slaves, indentured servants and most women, all of whom were considered as dependents), that they be of good moral character, and that they take an oath of allegiance supporting the U.S. Constitution. Later laws changed the period of residence and required immigrants to disavow any title of nobility. However, citizenship itself was bestowed by any court with jurisdiction in the immigrant’s State of residence. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. Miln with Chief Justice Philip P. Barbour writing: “We think it as competent and as necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infections articles.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president. At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million. Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa. The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors. The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs. The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties. Clinton's campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. "It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton's basis for meeting with these individuals," spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it "a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation." Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered "lie after lie after lie." "Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office," he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office." Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected. On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities. Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000. "There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors." Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department. "If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic. Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors. Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics." State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal." Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records. S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues. Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed. Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him. American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000. As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure. By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money — a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case. "Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend. Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert. Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP." Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed." Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank." Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday. In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke. Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment. Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time. The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011. Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia. MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment. When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team. Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation. "The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.
"Donald J. Trump has shaken up his presidential campaign for the second time in two months, hiring a top executive from the conservative website Breitbart News and promoting a senior adviser in an effort to right his faltering campaign.  Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become the Republican campaign’s chief executive, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser and pollster for Mr. Trump and his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, will become the campaign manager.  Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, will retain his title. But the staffing change, hammered out on Sunday and set to be formally announced Wednesday morning, was seen by some as a demotion for Mr. Manafort.  The news, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, was confirmed early Wednesday by Ms. Conway in a brief interview, but she rejected the idea that the changes amounted to a shake-up and said that Mr. Manafort was not being diminished.  “It’s an expansion at a busy time in the final stretch of the campaign,” she said, adding that Mr. Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, would remain in their roles.  “We met as the ‘core four’ today,” Ms. Conway added, referring to herself, Mr. Bannon, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates.  People briefed on the move said that it reflected Mr. Trump’s realization that his campaign was at a crisis point. But it indicates that the candidate — who has chafed at making the types of changes his current aides have asked for, even though he had acknowledged they would need to occur — has decided to embrace his aggressive style for the duration of the race.  Both Ms. Conway and Mr. Bannon, whose news organization has been very favorable to Mr. Trump since he entered the primaries, are close with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the father-and-daughter conservative donors who have become allies of the candidate and are funding a “super PAC” that is working against Hillary Clinton." 
CBS NEWS August 11, 2016, 7:01 AM CENTCOM accused of manipulating intel on ISIS Last Updated Aug 11, 2016 7:20 AM EDT According to a hard-hitting government task force report released Thursday, intelligence generated by the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) was manipulated to paint a rosier picture of the U.S. effort to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The report finds that, beginning in mid-2014, final intelligence reports issued by CENTCOM contradicted the initial internal assessments made by its own analysts, reports CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod. "The facts on the ground didn't match what the intelligence was saying out of the United States Central Command," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., a member of the task force. The military CENTCOM is responsible for American security interests in 20 nations, stretching from Egypt through the Arabian Gulf region and into central Asia. The task force stemmed from a whistleblower complaint from a senior analyst at CENTCOM alleging that intel had been manipulated. The complaint is under active investigation by the Defense Department inspector general. "There's enormous evidence about how this information from talented career professionals inside the analytic arm at CENTCOM did their job and accurately depicted what was going on on the ground, but when it got to very senior levels, that information was changed," Pompeo said. But it wasn't just classified intelligence. The task force also found that CENTCOM's public statements were far more positive than events on the ground warranted -- such as in March 2015 when CENTCOM Commander Gen. Lloyd Austin testified to Congress. "The fact is that he [ISIS] can no longer do what he did at the outset, which is to seize and hold new territory. He has assumed a defensive crouch in Iraq," Gen. Austin said. While the report found intelligence was in fact manipulated by CENTCOM, the task force found no evidence that orders for those changes came from the White House. House Report on CENTCOM Intelligence
"The first case of locally-acquired Zika virus has arrived in Palm Beach County. Gov. Rick Scott said Monday the infected person recently traveled to Miami-Dade County, ground zero for an outbreak of Zika acquired through domestic mosquitoes. State health officials are attempting to determine where the unidentified person contracted the virus. Before Monday’s announcement, the state said that 20 people in Palm Beach County had been infected while traveling outside the United States to countries — mostly in the Caribbean and Latin America — where the virus is widespread. South Florida has 17 cases of locally-acquired Zika, including at least 14 in a one-square-mile area in Miami’s Wynwood neighborhood, a popular arts district just north of the city’s downtown. There have also been two confirmed cases in Broward County of non-travel-related Zika. Scott said Monday that state officials still believe local transmission of Zika remains confined to the Wynwood area. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took the unprecedented step last week of warning pregnant women not to travel to Wynwood. People who have visited Wynwood since June 15 have been advised by the CDC to put off getting pregnant for several weeks." Michael's book: Devil Inside the Beltway Michael Daugherty is a government whistle blower by necessity, and CEO of a cancer detection laboratory by trade. A small business owner taking on federal agencies with courage that rivals David meets Goliath, Michael is on a tireless crusade to honor his constitutional rights and the rights of every U.S. citizen. Michael s story of victimization by a cyber-security company linked to federal agencies is not unique that he s telling his story is. In a play-by-play account of questionable government practices, Michael reveals his chilling tale about how our security is not the safety we think it is. His book The Devil inside the Beltway is a must read for anyone who values freedom or takes it for granted.
Paying Tribute to Iran Matt Fitzgibbons, Recently, the President of the United States was discovered to have secretly organized a shipment of $440 million to Iran which happened to coincide with the release of four American prisoners held in Tehran. It was paid in foreign currency, ostensibly because it is illegal to pay U.S. Dollars to Iran. At least two more Americans have since been arrested. Was it a ransom or a tribute to Iran? For a thousand years (from the 9th to the 19th centuries) the four nation states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, were known as the Barbary states. During this period, they were widely feared by anyone travelling by sea throughout the Western Mediterranean. From the cliffs above their ports, they would identify passing ships from miles away and ambush them with as many as 80 corsairs to kill, steal their cargo, crew and passengers and either hold them captive for ransom or sell them into slavery. They would, of course, pay a pre-negotiated sum to the State’s leader, and divide the rest amongst themselves, keeping the healthy and killing the rest. From the 16th to 19th centuries, Barbary Pirates sold as many as 1.25 million souls into slavery, raiding Italy and Spain so often that coastal villages there were considered too dangerous. At various times, their attacks reached as far as Iceland and Ireland. Algiers alone was said to have had as many as 20,000 captives at one time. Prisoners of wealth might secure their freedom through ransom but those less fortunate were doomed to a life of slavery. The more powerful European nations eventually negotiated treaties which required them to pay annual bribes (referred to as tributes) to enable their ships to be left alone. Periodically, the Barbary Pirates would break the treaties as an effective means of negotiating more money. But since the smaller nations were unable to afford the bribes, their ships were regular targets, which effectively reduced competition, driving up the value of the wealthier nations’ goods. It was simply the cost of doing business. Benjamin Franklin is said to have heard London merchants say, “if there were no Algiers, it would be worth England’s while to build one.” By the early 18th century, Great Britain’s Royal Navy had become so powerful; they could negotiate more modest tributes. If the pirates didn’t like it, England would sink enough of their ships or shell their ports until they agreed on a price. Up until the American War for Independence, America benefited from this arrangement as a British Colony. During the War, she was protected as an Ally of France under their treaties with the pirates. Afterwards, the Treaty of Paris officially ended America’s war with England, and then it was a very different story. In 1777, Morocco was the first nation to publicly recognize the United States and in 1784, it became the first Barbary state to seize an American vessel and its crew. While in England, having been commissioned by Congress to seek commercial treaties with that nation and Portugal, John Adams met the envoy from Tripoli. He said at the time that the man was either a saint or the devil himself but didn’t know which. American merchantmen in the Mediterranean were regularly murdered and sold into slavery but the envoy told Adams that “his only interest in life was to do good and make other people happy”, assuring him that Americans would be free to travel by sea unharmed for a million dollars or so. Adams would have preferred war over tribute, but knew that Congress neither had a Navy for war nor money for tribute. The then Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, successfully negotiated a treaty with Morocco arranging for the return of the captured merchant ship Betesy and its crew. However, the treaty included an expensive tribute amounting to 1.5 million dollars, or 10% of the U.S. Federal Government’s annual expenditures each year for the next 15 years. The other three Barbary states saw an opportunity and attempted to extort exorbitant sums from the new republic through treaties which proved to be too expensive. In 1785 Algerian pirates captured the schooner Maria and Dauphin, demanding $600,000 each for the return of the ships and their crews. In 1786, when Jefferson and Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, they asked him why his people were making war with a nation that had done them no harm. Jefferson later wrote of the ambassador’s response as, “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” The two crews languished in prison for over a decade. Jefferson advised Congress against paying tributes as he believed it would only lead to more attacks. Writing to his friend John Jay, Secretary of State to the Continental Congress, Jefferson said, “Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish it often prevents it. This reasoning leads to the necessity of some naval force, that being the only weapon with which we can reach an enemy. I think it to our interest to punish the first insult: because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others. We are not at this moment in a condition to do it, but we should put ourselves into it as soon as possible.” Adams’ experience with the envoy from Tripoli directly lead to the creation of the U.S. Navy in 1794 with 6 frigates and it’s continued funding when he was elected the second President. And while Thomas Jefferson, the third President, did not share Adam’s commitment to expanding the expensive Navy, Adams had had the foresight to create a Navy which was now at Jefferson’s disposal. So on Jefferson’s inauguration when the Pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000 up-front from Jefferson’s new administration, and an additional $50,000 per year, Jefferson refused. He would not allow the United States to sacrifice its honor by paying bribes, no matter what it was called or however old a tradition it was for European nations. The Pasha declared war. In 1801, the American schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Andrew Sterret defeated the much larger 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli in a three-hour battle without a single American casualty. In 1802 Jefferson sent America’s best ships as part of a larger force to the region and ordered that all prisoners be treated humanely. In 1803, Commodore Edward Preble blockaded the Barbary ports and sent a small detachment of U.S. Marines to burn the captured U.S. Philadelphia which had run aground and been set up against them as a gun ship. British admiral, Horatio Nelson, purportedly referred to the episode as “the most bold and daring act of the age.” The American naval force attacked the Tripoli harbor while 8 Marines led by 1st Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, with an army of 500 mercenaries, captured the city of Derna after a march from Alexandria across the desert. The pirates soon requested peace and $60,000 for the return of the American prisoners. This allowed Jefferson to make the distinction between paying ransom for prisoners and tribute as a bribe. In the early 1800s our young Republic had only 6 frigates, a small force of Marines and no standing Army. What they accomplished would be unbelievable had it not actually happened. But then, that is often the case when Americans are motivated by honor. Today, the United States have the most powerful military in human history but our allies don’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us. Our current President announces a line and our enemies promptly cross it. When he negotiates with them, it emboldens them just as it did when our young nation naively paid tribute to the Barbary Pirates. Whether our President’s recent payment to Iran was a tribute or a ransom is irrelevant. The distinction no longer matters. The United States are in a far different position than we were in the early 1800s. Both are dishonorable. As Jefferson so wisely stated, “an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.”
The New America

The New America


HEY, MICHELLE: Here’s 7 Ways You & Barack Made America NOT Great by Dan Perkins Clash Daily Guest Contributor As I was driving home this past weekend, I heard on the radio about the breaking news of the killing of three policemen and the wounding of three others in Baton Rouge. A great fear came over me, I found myself asking, “Is this the beginning of the American Sunset?”, “is this the end of the great experiment started by our founding fathers?” Are there signs that the American Empire is over? After doing some research, I found 8 ways to tell if it is over, and for the most part, they come from Saul Alinsky. He told us his theory and I have found the scary facts that support the idea of the end of America. Many of you are probably asking who is Saul Alinsky and why is he so important? Saul David Alinsky died in June of 1972, and he was a community organizer and writer before Barack Obama. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. His often quoted 1971 book “Rules for Radicals”, became the handbook for radicals including President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Alinsky received much criticism, but also gained praise from many public figures for his work. He focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America. In the 1950’s, he began turning his attention to improving conditions in the African-American ghettos, beginning with Chicago and later traveling to other ghettos in California, Michigan, New York City, and a dozen other “trouble spots”. His ideas were adapted in the 1960’s by some U.S. college students including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary wrote a college thesis on Alinsky and his goals. In 1970, Time magazine wrote, “It is not too much to argue that American Democracy is being altered by Alinsky’s ideas.” So, what did he believe? Healthcare Alinsky believed that Hitler was the founder of universal healthcare; he believed his collective universal healthcare concept was “racial hygiene,” the elimination of certain “undesirable” segments of the society, as life not worth living. Under the appearance of reproductive freedom, black women are committing genocide on their own people. According to the Guttmacher Institute “abortion rates among Black women are much higher than we thought: They are four times the rate of white women.” The highest abortion rates among Black teens occur in Texas (78 per 1,000), New York (76 per 1,000), Delaware (51 per 1,000), Michigan (45 per 1,000), Ohio (35 per 1,000) and Rhode Island (30 per 1,000). While Black women account for 13 percent of the female population, they accounted for 30 percent of all abortions. In New York City, the number of Black abortions exceeds the number of Black live births. Poverty “Poor People are easier to control and will not fight back if the government is providing everything for them to live.” The Chart below shows what has been happening to the poverty level in America.   Government Debt Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level.” That way you are able to increase taxes to pay the interest on the debt, and this will produce more poverty by taking a larger share of household income.   Take away their guns “Remove the ability of Americans to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a Police State – total local control.” See these: Time to get rid of the Second Amendment? Repeal the Second Amendment– Baltimore Sun MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Get Rid of Second Amendment  Yes, Hillary Wants to Get Rid of the Second Amendment Welfare “The government takes control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).”   Education “Take control of what People read & listen to; take control of what Children learn in School.” American test scores ranking along with International Test Scores: Math Grade 4, 12th Grade 8, 28th Grade 12, 19th Science Grade 4, 3rd Grade 8, 17th Grade 12, 16th   Religion Jacqueline Martin’s research entitled “Its all about me” concludes that the decline of religion and the dramatic increase in secularism is the result of generations with a “me” focus, with little or no attention to the needs of others. She claims that the millennials with their “me focus” are now driving the decline. Class Warfare Mark Hendrickson writing in Forbes magazine said: “Those who believe in individual rights and liberty always have tended to reject the Marxian paradigm that pits the rich against the poor. Today, we hear all about this alleged class warfare. President Obama harps on income inequality, so does the IMF. French economist Thomas Piketty’s current bestseller, “Capital in the 21st Century,” echoes the same theme. Well, I have bad news for both those on the right and those on the left: Yes, there is class warfare in America, but it’s not between the rich and poor, but between the political class and the rest of the citizenry who bear the brunt of political power and pay the price in lost liberty, property, and opportunity.” Racial inclusiveness was a major chord in Obama’s speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and on that note, he proclaimed: “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.” The Democratic Left funded along with George Soros MoveOn.Org, which built Black Lives Matter. The Gallup Poll of March 2-6, 2016 reported: In U.S., Concern About Crime Climbs to 15-Year High Percentage of Americans who worry “A GREAT DEAL” about crime violence: 53% worry “a great deal” about crime, compared with 39% in 2014 44% are concerned about drug use, also up significantly since 2014 60% Say Race Relations Have Gotten Worse A new Rasmussen Report national telephone survey finds that 60% of likely U.S. voters think race relations are worse since President Obama’s election nearly eight years ago. That’s an 18-point jump from 42% in late 2014 and up from 43% when we first asked the question in August 2013. Just nine percent (9%) believe race relations are better now, little changed from the previous survey, while 28% say they have stayed about the same. The above numbers are already so overwhelming that they may not be reversible. If Hillary becomes President the balance scale of survival may well tilt towards destruction of America. More spending with no significant increase in revenue from taxes paid on increasing profits and wages may well rapidly accelerate the ultimate collapse of America. Many Americans find it difficult to believe that we are on the brink of no longer being America. We will still be called America on the maps, but be assured we will no longer be America, at least the America I knew. As our financial resources diminish because we are taking care of more and more people from cradle to grave we become more vulnerable to foreign attacks both financially and physically. I believe the reason for the high percentage of worry about crime and the awful race relations in America is because the people who are bound by the chains of dependency on the government feel constrained and they want more. Generations of Americans, depending on the government to survive have breed contempt for the government and those Americans who have more than they do. They have reached the point of desperation to break the chains of oppression. Glenn Beck said recently, that America is a country of rugged individualism. I fear that Glenn may be living in the past, for the rugged I see in the future is the type of lives we may well face.   Dan Perkins is a currents events commentator who writes for: The Daily,,, and He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan can be heard on his weekly radio show on on Tuesdays at 8 PM Eastern
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store