Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

On Sunday morning, a possible North Carolina voter fraud issue was brought to our attention by an activist Conservative friend on Facebook named Belinda Bee.

She pointed out an article from another Conservative blog, indicated further below, in which a stunning number of 112 year-old voters had apparently already cast their votes.  At the time, that number had been pegged at 758. Belinda asked me if  we could help make people aware of the obvious problems in North Carolina, as it regards vote fraud, by writing a fairly comprehensive media article.

I then quickly laid down the facts in a Conservative Refocus News story explaining the implications of what might be rampant voter fraud and published the article, which received a high number of reads. Later, we made the decision to run a more refined article in The Examiner, in which I routinely write news articles and opinions.

By this time the number of 112 year-old votes had risen to 832.

What I had not anticipated, in writing the story, was how far and wide the thing would eventually go. You see, back in 2010 we visited the same issue of a massive numner of 110 year-old voters in NC; however, while being heavily read, it was nothing compared to what we would see both Sunday night and today. Those same voters appear to have made it to the beyond ripe old age of 112, and to be sure, 114  is just around the corner.

Uh....so is a belated Happy Birthday in order to our zombie centenarians?

As of this writing, the article has viraled out into the Raleigh News and Observer, The Blaze, AboveTopSecret, and a massive number of websites too numerous to enumerate.  So, why now and not in 2010?

That would be anyone's guess,  but it may have something to do with the fact that Americans have had enough of what appears to be a state sanctioned lackadaisical approach to the people's vote and what we have already seen in the massive voter fraud that was on parade during the 2008 general election. Below is the story, as taken from both the Examiner and Conservative Refocus News:

There are obviously verifiable vote fraud problems in North Carolina.

In 2010 those problems surfaced meaningfully as indicated in the below voter fraud post from an earlier Charlotte Conservative Examiner article:

Perhaps in an effort to promote North Carolina as one of the healthiest States in the Nation, this latest voter twist comes to us from Susan Myrick of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina--not to be confused with Rep. Sue Myrick of NC who is unrelated. In a radio interview with local WBT Anchor Tara Servatious, Susan reports that she has been keeping track of the number of votes in North Carolina of individuals over the age of 110 years and apparently we have quite a few, over 410 of the 110 year olds--to be exact-- actually voted via absentee ballot on October the 28th. Yes indeed, now it would appear that good ole NC has the market cornered on the Centenarian vote.

At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote of over 2,660 people over the age of 110. Someone contact the Guiness Book and warm up the Ford, the Fountain of Youth exists and its right here in lovely NC. It's no wonder people are moving here in droves--maybe the use of tobacco isn't such a bad thing after all? But, on a more serious note, with all of the irregularities going on all over the place, we can now begin to wonder about a few things.

Apparently those ultra-healthy seniors over 110 have aged and are now astoundingly over 112 years old, and are still able to make it to the polls ahead of time.

According to a post originally from the Silence Dogood political blog report, there were at least 758 individuals over the age of 112 who had either risen from their respective graves, or otherwise, to vote once again for the Democrats in charge, who might apparently have also guaranteed them an ever-lasting vote for life and beyond.

In visiting the political tracking site, we later found the same story in evidence, except the number of centenarian voters had increased measurably to 832 voters over the age of 112. Of these voters, over 70% were slated as Democrats, with a diminutive 25% counted as Republicans. The rest were unaffiliated.

When peering a little more deeply at the numbers, we find that an astounding 2,374 people between the ages of 94 and 100 have already voted in the NC election to date. While an even more astounding 832 votes came from those individuals aged 112. However, according to the Guinness book of world records, the oldest living person in the world, at present, lives in Japan and is 114 years old. It would seem obvious that, according to the NC voter registry, this old fellow might be nudged aside in the near future, especially considering the crop of spry 112 year-olds, seemingly alive and well in the old North State.

In fact, two of the 112 year aged voters were mail-in ballots from overseas; ostensibly vacationing to escape the now bitterly polarized political contest, and who can blame them?

But it gets worse, when we note from another concerned voter, who indicated the following explanation, which goes but one full measure further to explain what's happening in NC during this voting season of, perhaps, persistent political zombies:

I overheard a nice lady about 70 telling her friend the following: "Yes, I voted today."

"Going back tomorrow too."

"They took us to a place that don't ask names and don't write nothing down. They give $20 each time."

She then handed her friend a card I couldn't see and told her friend to call the number.

This same tipster later sent a message indicating that he had, indeed, contacted the local election center, which immediately patted him upon the head, graciously, for being a good citizen, with a promise to check on it again much later, in due course.

Obviously there is a problem, one in which voter ID might clearly provide a solution. A thing that only the Democratic party swears against at any cost, and for reasons becoming quite obvious.

The massive response to the above article has ranged from the comical to the poignant. As some few people have dismissed the article, others have raised it as a flag to the rampant vote fraud which we all have seen and certainly know to exist in every state, without a doubt.

However, the response from the NC Director of Elections was both predictable and unconvincing to those of us who can't quite settle for a pat answer. In the Raleigh News and Observer article, they described the response to our article in this way:

The Examiner, a conservative website, posted a story that has been shared by several thousand people on Facebook and Twitter. State elections director Gary Bartlett said the story spread quickly enough on social media that his phone started ringing during church Sunday and hasn't let up since – and a glance at the widely-circulated story shows why: "Of these voters, over 70 percent were slated as Democrats, with a diminutive 25 percent counted as Republicans…Obviously there is a problem, one in which voter ID might clearly provide a solution. A thing that only the Democratic Party swears against."
Just one problem: "It's not voter fraud at all," Bartlett said.

Oops! Sorry to ruin the man's Sunday, but first of all, in identifying the Director's pervericative efforts, The Examiner is not a Conservative website, rather it is a website that identifies the political leanings of virtually every writer to begin with.  Something the Mainstream Media news outlets, like the News and Observer, would never do. However the NC Elections Director goes on to describe what "could" have occurred in this way: 

Until the 1980s only age was collected when people registered to vote – not necessarily their date of birth – so a default of Jan. 1, 1900, was used for those who had not provided a birthdate.
In 2008, 9,856 votes were cast by people who were “108.” In 2010, 9,194 people who were “110” cast ballots. There have been 899 votes by people aged "112" so far this year.
“These people have been registered for a long time,” Bartlett said. “Twice now, we’ve cross-checked these people with drivers licenses, but if we can’t find an exact match, we don’t change anything because we don’t want to put out false information."
While the votes do heavily favor Democrats, that has been the case so far in early voting, whether faux-elderly or any other age.

Indeed, not a bad answer.  Just reconcile the issue to those pesky data problems, something we have seen our ultra-modern governments do time and time again, especially when trying to explain something that appears to defy explanation. One has to wonder, however, what the exact motivation might be that sends the Democrats to the polls so much earlier than the Republicans?

However, in noting the NC Elections Director's answer, we noted another problem apparently in play, and it can be found at a website called the "TheCaller.com," located in Corpus Christie, Texas.  In a July, 2012 article The Caller website provided an explanation to the same exact issue, a massive number of Centenarian voters that could not possibly be accurate.

In this article, here is what the Brooks County Elections Director indicated: 

A computer glitch listed several voters in the May primary as 112 years old, according to the Brooks County elections administration.

“These people are not dead. They are alive,” said Soila Cavazos, assistant to the elections administrator.

The birth dates are at issue in a lawsuit filed by Jim Wells and Brooks County District Attorney Armando Barrera alleging voter fraud.

Cavazos said the voters in question registered to vote in the 1970s, when a birth date wasn’t required. When they get their voters registration cards in the mail, they should come in and have the birth date corrected, she said.

Rich Parsons, spokesman with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office, confirmed that Jan. 1, 1900, and Jan. 1, 1901, are placeholder dates used when a registration application is filled out without a birth date.

Same exact problem, same exact solution being "none?" What are the odds? Or could it possibly be something else?

Noting the fact that there is a vague plausibilty in both answers is undeniable. However, if the problem lies in the old style of registering voters all across the nation,  then why do we not also see this same problem all over the US?

Maybe the Blaze, in their covering article's conclusion, put it best in concert with our thoughts on the matter:

So why so many “voters” over the age of 110?  Well, how many deceased persons remain on the voter rolls and are being impersonated by fraudsters assuming their identity to vote?  This problem might be solved by asking for some form of identification, but no voter ID laws exist in the state.  One thing is certain, there’s something fishy going on in North Carolina.

To be sure, there does appear to something fishy, however, our Elections Director, along with the News and Observer, seem not too terribly concerned with actually verifying that these voters are still alive and kicking, in that these impossibly old voters have been ongoingly recorded now for the past several years.

In noting the most glaring part of the problem, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3 to 1 margin in the "NC centenarian vote" we should also be apprised of another possible answer.

Appointed in 1992 by Democrat Governor Jim Hunt, later by Democrat Gov. Jim Easley, and later still by Democrat Gov. Beverly Purdue, we wonder how the  NC Elections Director, Mr. Bartlett,  might react to all of this were he a Republican or even an Independent?

The glaring problem, under virtually any other circumstance, would probably have been handled long ago.

Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

We have all seen it over the past four years, although few will admit it regarding this President, Barack Hussein Obama. While overseeing and even being operative in plunging virtually every economic indicator across the nation downward, Obama has seemingly doubled down on his promise to transform America.

And transform he has.

In fact, were it not for the 2010 election, where with the aid of the Tea Party's impetus, and the Republicans' new ability to block much of Obama's "Change We Can Believe In," the change that President Obama had initially sought might already have been largely completed.

So cast all of those other broken and otherwise campaign promises aside, as they should easily be revisited in this President's second term, provided that he achieves one. Whether you're an Obama fan or not, this President has not only eviscerated the Democratic Party of those malleable Governmental Centrists, and to a lesser degree the Republican Party of theirs, Obama has also dazzlingly highlighted the main differences between the Democratic and Republican Party platforms, along with their requisite ideologies,  in a way that no single individual in American history, ever has.

However, in order for Obama to complete the job that he initially set out to do, here are just ten out of perhaps hundreds of both Liberal and Progressive reasons to vote, once again, for Obama and allow him to put the proverbial final nail into a construct that has been almost irredeemably transformational across virtually every economic, foreign, and social policy front.

1.    Capitalism, Wealth and the Defeat of Overt Prosperity

The drumbeats were being felt before they were actually heard, beginning in 2007. Free market American Capitalism was falling increasingly under concerted assault. Despite a prodigious number of Progressive Democrat millionaires in Congress, led by multi-millionaire Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and despite Obama's $ 6 Million dollar book deal just prior to his taking office, the Progressives were successfully vilifying the political Right as being cronies for the wealthy.

The President came out of the inaugurative gate attacking virtually every business organization in existence for 'unfairly' trying to profit from the labor of America's workers. Naturally, the first thing to attack  in defeating Capitalism was the word profit itself due to its allowing America's business owners to gainfully expand their businesses and put more of the proceeds into hiring more workers which would then increasingly damage the cause of the Workers Party and its constituents, while making even more money for these greedy business types who make up the bulk of US tax revenue.

Indeed, the Progressives say that profiting from the labor of American workers must come to an end and what better way to do that than to whisper sweet change into America's ear while laying her down to doze and putting an end to employers ingratiating themselves at the Worker's expense. The plan has largely worked too, meaningfully established in 2009. Since that time, the job pool has shrunk tremendously despite gains in overall population. There are, in fact, less people working now than in 2009 when the President took office, but because of the shrinking job pool in the US, the unemployment number has ostensibly dropped to below 8% and just in time for the 2012 election.

Those who claim that Obama isn't singularly brilliant, at least in the Collectivist model, just haven't been watching very closely.

2.   Obamacare and the Nationalization of America's Healthcare

The liberally educated class and the Elites just naturally know better than those simpletonian rural Americans, especially the ones who bitterly cling to their guns and their religion, even the President himself stated that.

 

It has been a goal since the early 1900's for the Progressives to eventually machinate a changeover to a form of care just like the rest of the Socialist inclined masses across the globe. You see, America's healthcare system, despite being known as the best on the planet, was being administered by large corporations and insurance companies, two of the worst capitalist models known to the Liberal world.

Worse, businesses were being lauded for having bought and even paid for these policies of health insurance for free, thereby taking the health of the people away from the all-knowing government professionals and putting it into the hands of the profit-seeking business class who failed to deserve any sort of merit for their copious profiteering at the people's expense. Some of these policies were even paying for virtually every treatment, many even to the first dollar, which was grossly unfair to those individuals who lacked the ambition or motivation to put themselves into a similar position.

Everyone should get a fair shake, regardless of effort expended.

Even worse, the dirty word profit was once again being exchanged for the misery of the people. Wealthy Doctors and hospitals were actually trying to profit from those who had no money in the first place. It was time to change all of that and put things into the hands of a wise central government who had the people's best interests at heart. Now, as soon as the full effects of Obamacare are finally realized, not one of the unworthy will be allowed to receive free insurance coverage. And if anyone doesn't pay for insurance, then there will be over 16,000 agents of the most feared organization in America in place to penalize them, if not worse.

Those that are too poor, like always, will still have Medicaid, so that the bitter-clingers and their wealthy co-conspirators in the obtuse middle and upper-middle class, will still be the ones who are paying for all of the new expenses. But now, as soon as all of the greedy insurance companies falter out of business due to profit limitations, our unwasteful government under the supervision of the political class, will be administering social justice on a full-time basis.

All of this, just as it was envisioned long, long ago by the Liberals and their Progressive associates, led by the one, being Obama, who made it all happen and who will even do more.

3.   Making it Difficult for Big Banks and Business in General

Capitalism just doesn't work, stated President Obama in a Chicago speech in 2010. Allowing others to fend for themselves simply isn't fair. It's a prehistoric model, say the Progressives, an archetype that has seen its best day. Just look at the success of the Euro- Socialists said the Liberal academians, well,  prior to 2010, anyway.  The Eurozone was and is a model for success that America must eventually follow if she is to 'keep up' both socially and economically.

But first, traditional Capitalism and its free market governmental framework must be defeated.  What better way to defeat it than to use the power of government itself to essentially crack the foundation from the inside of its antique structure? So the President and his Congressional champions set to work and a brilliant Trojan-style campaign for the transformation of America's business dreadnoughts began.

"Belief in Capitalism is blind faith; this philosophy of letting people fend for themselves has failed."~Barack Obama, October,2010

First attack the big banks into a fawning submission, indeed,  after the meltdown they were the most vulnerable. Next up, nationalize the failing auto companies and award the proceeds to the Worker's Unions', followed by the insurance companies, then the ancillary healthcare providers. After that, the Conservative champions of big business by virtue of attacking their actual businesses, thereby weakening and engendering fear for those who might dare to speak out.  Then single others out, except for those of the powerful business elites who chose to join in the Progressive cause of penalizing and ostracizing the wealthy, the industrialists, and the lesser classes of small businessmen and women.

All the while, outwardly praising small business' ability to provide jobs so that no one could nail down what is actually happening in the regulatory strictures, which were acting as the proverbial straw, used to  break the backbone of small business in America. Obamacare, given just a few years more, should finish the proverbial job as the screws are tightened like the coils of a constricting serpent in concert with the now miserably over-regulated banks, which fear lending  small business any meaningful capital due to their collective terror at breaking draconian Government capital requirements.

Then, all will be right....and Obama's lifetime dream will be fully realized.

4.   Mainstream Media Co-opting of America into its Rightful Place

It began in the fifties and the volume would be gradually turned up in such a way that no would notice it until it was too late. The first and best place to accomplish an easy takeover of the cluelessly naive and vulnerable Fourth Estate in America must begin within the print media. From there, the tentacles would stretch out into the televised media and its powerful networks. From there it would be the media provenders on the web. As technology increases, their tentacles would lengthen and grasp each iteration of the media in turn.

Should anyone protest, they will call it a myth, or complain that the Liberals just naturally take to the media which would become a powerful tool of convenient excuse and social activism. Meanwhile, those who train the media personalities, writers and anchors, being the academians in the universities and colleges, would be co-opted. Financial gifts and the tendrils of brotherhood must be established into these universities while creating a secular climate of cliques, so that traditional America would have few if any inroads to utilize and voice their views.

Communist Rule#20- Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions~Communist Goals,1963 US Congressional Record

 America, as the predominant world power,  simply cannot continue as in the days of old; no one country should have more power than a world organization dedicated to peace, world submission and establishing a set of goals for every nation which must be eventually adhered to.

And so it was that the media would contrive a perpetual grasp on the throat of the flow of information in America and engender the tasks of the wily Progressives for nearly two generations. 

Hand well played, indeed in Obama's  difficult battle of withering the might of the free world's leader. The Colonialist United States of America finally taken down to its rightful position by the fellowship of the bling and its ringleader, who needs but just a little more time.

5.   Undoing Judeo-Christian Values

America, to the Liberals, as a country founded upon what they would consider to be the ridiculous principles and teachings of the ancient Jews and the Christians, was a notion suffused in idiocy from the outset. If, in fact, these principles were so great, then why did America lose over 600,000 men and women in a fight both for and against slavery in the American Civil War? 

The Progressives know, as in most authoritarian governments, that a belief in God is anathema to a central all-knowing government. All hope should endemically reside in the people's submission to their government, not to some cartoon-like belief in a mythical immortal savior; then and only then, can a nation move forward with one governmental structure of wise men in charge, which will then set  down edicts as they deem fit, rather than depending solely upon the limits, set down on ancient paper, by an uneducated if not ridiculous peasantry bore of  ill-educated sophists.

The US Constitution, which say the Liberals, seems to constantly refer to some fabulous mythic being, is the one governmental document that provides for a government grounded in the mythos of a divine being granting inalienable rights to individuals. Progressives, on the other hand, intrinsically know that rights should flow from those in power and should be subject to the needs of the many at the time, rather than the needs of the few or the one.

In this way, government will be allowed to flow and react rather than to be limited by what they call  ridiculous religious principle that's somehow set in the concrete of secular Democracy. How can that possibly work, they say? The American people have been unerringly lucky for the past quarter millenia and the outrageous success of the US can only be ascribed to an historical hiccup of dumb luck.

Certainly, a centralized command and control system rendered into deferring those cumbersome  individual rights over to an oligarchy of the wizened will smooth out the constant cycles of the oscillating free market and its dependence upon dumb luck or what the Proletariat calls their "God." 

They, the Progressives, certainly don't call Obama their Messiah for nothing....

6.   Nominalizing and Defeating Conservatism

Those knuckle-dragging Neanderthals of the US Constitution, the Conservatives and their ridiculous 'common-sense' approach to life, business and even government in general, are the Liberals' greatest enemies, even more so than the bible-thumping Christians. In fact, the Liberals are even now doing everything in their power both through the media and the government, at least while it still is in the hands of Progressives,  to stamp out the sanctimonious fires of Conservatism that are engulfing America.

To make it even worse, the Conservatives have successfully  made the argument that it's Obama's policies that have failed America when it's quite obvious to anyone, with a degree, that Obama is trying to transform America just as he had promised. The $ 16 trillion dollar deficit that the hard-right Conservatives complain about the most, should be taken as high as possible so that Obama can finally complete his herculean task of providing everyone in America with a guaranteed salary of $ 26,000 per year.  Bush's deficit increase to $ 10 trillion, in his blind interest of defeating terrorism, was probably one of the silliest undertakings ever in government history, however, aid it did, in accelerating the Progressives towards their highest of Holy Grails which was to limit privacy, increase security, and dampen rampant liberties.

In fact, as it regards 'man-made disasters,' every fool knows that the Islamic fundamentalists  just want the US out of the Middle East and not insulting their religion, that's all they require, then they will leave America good and well enough alone.

Sure the system, once all of the Progressive goals are achieved may go through some hard times as a result, maybe even bankrupt itself, but the food lines, energy shortages and the impossibly high interest rates  that everyone knows is coming will be temporary, at best. Once the new paradigm is firmly established,  an artist who simply desires to paint, or dance, or even take pictures all day long for a few years, can do so and still make a living wage, but now in the interests of life's highest form, which is the pursuit of art, literature and higher learning skills, rather than uselessly toiling on America's infrastructure or worse.

Why can't anyone, aside from the Liberals,  see the wondrous possibilities, as facilitated by Obama,  in all of this?

7.   Instituting Islamic Fundamentalism Worldwide

Why all of the confusion regarding the Progressive  liaison with the Islamists? Everyone knows that it's the Christians and the Jews, and especially those ridiculously attired Mormons, who are America's greatest internal enemies.

The thing to remember is that Freedom of religion, especially as it regards the Islamic fundamentalists, has never been more important because the Islamists are extraordinarily violent, unlike the Christians and Jews, which is easily reason enough for the Liberals to co-opt friendship with the hardline Muslims. Not only that, the establishment of Sharia law in the US is the one thing that can eventually render the US Constitution as virtually useless. The bizarre way that the Islamists treat women, is more cultural than religious anyway, so the Liberals can easily defeat that  particular Islamic predilection once ultimate victory is achieved by the Progressives.

 

Indeed, when Sharia law is firmly rooted, the Progressives will then demand a waiver from adhering to Sharia law and, due to the Liberals' efforts in defeating Conservatism and the other religions, the Islamists will undoubtedly comply. Besides, anyone who is an enemy of American Conservatism will always be considered a best friend to the Progressive cause, no matter what, in the end.

The fact that the President was steeped in Islamic culture from the very beginning, and understands systemically the challenges of the Islamic world, can only aid the Progressive strategy of passive-aggressive capitulation.

8.   Sequentially Redistributing America's Prosperity

The initial impetus of world redistribution, which began in the UN by mostly poor member states, was to utilize global warming/cap and trade provisions, to embark on the greatest voluntary transfer of wealth, the planet had ever seen. Unfortunately, a formerly hidden collapse in world temperatures which was uncovered in the Global Warming Meltdown of late 2009, dealt a death blow  to the UN machination. The Progressives, at that time and under the leadership of President Obama, were very close to tying down what would have become a global redistribution network siphoning wealth from the most industrious western nations and into to poorer countries.

The fact that most of these poor countries have a form of totalitarian leadership, as frequently stated by the relentless Conservatives,  had nothing to do with the problem. In fact, the reason these countries have  singularly powerful totalitarian leadership, is certainly because of their lack of indigenous wealth.

America, it's well known throughout the world, has an overabundance of wealth that would be better served if given to the leadership of these poor nations. Once that occurs, the leaders will distribute the wealth into the hands of each individual citizen and poverty will be defeated in one fell blow. In a second term, a refreshed President Obama will  easily bypass Congress and set forth a collection of UN imposed world taxes, levied only for those nations deemed to wealthy, in the west, and distribute the America's prosperity across the globe.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

9.   Totally Defeating American Militarism

It is a well-known Progressive fact that America's defensive juggernaut of a military is far too large and far too powerful for any individual nation to stand up against, alone. The UN can only cower at America's terrible military might, especially as it regards her jealous shielding of Israel. In addition, the United States' ability to project power across the globe allows for her to bully other nations who also have rights and should never be bullied despite their often questionable if not aggressive actions against what the colonialists euphemistically term "American Interests" or what the political center deems "human rights."

 

In addition, Liberals believe that the Conservative illusion of American exceptionalism, as the President stated, is a myth.  America is no less exceptional than any other nation in existence. Progressives, in fact, believe that there should be no borders, anywhere. Nor should there be a collection of vulnerable non-nuclear nations set against nuclear nations. This is one particular reason why Obama has astoundingly reduced the overall number of nuclear missiles down to a handful compared to what the US once had. If elected, as he whispered to Russian President Medvedev, he will do much more.

This is also why Obama has been dragging his feet on controlling Iran's nuclear aspirations. Just as Obama stated, Iran is a small nation and should not be considered a threat. Its repeated assertions to wipe Israel from the map are nothing more than political hyperbole designed to fire up Iran's Islamic fundamentalist base.

 

Once American military might is heavily curbed, her soldiers massively retired, her Navy drawn down to the size of many other nation's Navies, and her air force largely swept free of air superiority fighters, all other nations will then begin to love America rather than to fear her and the US will also be limited in military options. Then the world peace that Progressives have always sought will finally be possible.

In a second term, Obama will make this long-held Liberal dream possible, if not fact

10. Shredding the US Constitution

The US Constitution is a relic say Progressives. Even Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg stated the same in instructing the new Egyptian government not to look at the US Constitution, but rather South Africa's which allows for more of what a government can do both to and for a person rather than what it cannot, as in the US Constitution. President Obama voiced essentially the same opinion when he stated that the US Constitution simply wasn't broad enough on what government should be able to do both to and for an individual or even group.

The separation of powers has repeatedly confounded Obama, in his efforts to install a unilateral Liberal dream into motion. So much so, in fact, that Obama has repeatedly bypassed the Constitution while placing his presidency at the mercy of a Right-Wing Supreme Court and even possible impeachment.

Obama and the new Democrat party have been forced into blazing a large number of completely original routes around the US Constitution by using regulatory bureaus, Czars and even tax schemes to effect Obama's change we can believe in. But the only way the Liberals can truly achieve their dream is to upset and belabor the process that the US Constitution requires. As in many nations, once the intricate processes laid out within the Constitution are continually usurped, then the Republican model of Rule of Law will eventually give way to a true social Democracy, which is rule by the masses.

Then and only then will the Left's dream of a true Democracy be fully realized and the new US welfare state will truly be delivered into the hands of those 'most deserving.'

This is both Obama and the political Left's dream and the race, heading into November,  is tight.

 Related from Barry Secrest

 Not Good Enough Even For Government Work: Ten Reasons Why Obama Won't Be Re-Elected

 If you would like to make a comment or become involved directly with Conservative Refocus and our many friends, please click on one of the below links and join either the page or the group.

Please also remember to visit the very popular 'Conservative Refocus News' section of this website.

Barry Secrest's articles can also be found at the Examiner.com, Webcommentary.com, and many other websites.

Facebook Group

Conservative Refocus

  Barry Secrest

Sometimes I have to stop and ask myself:  "Is any of this even for real?"

A stranger in an ever stranger land is the feeling that sums it all up. Truth has become the new fiction, and the fiction of old has become the new truth, a la George Orwell, in this "new America" that simply cannot work--well, at least not for very long, anyway. Faith, even, for many has become hope, rooted in the often deranged platitudes of self-interested politicos in this new age, and hope has become  a form of Obama 's new American strategy pinned largely on an alteration of US velocity, that being stalled and spiraling downward, although most "reports" will deny the ugly fact.

But they will tell you that everything is going "just as planned," no big thing,  just get used to it.

Were it not for a large number of friends and associates in the social media and otherwise, many of us would feel as being unpleasantly unhooked from a matrix-like fantasy world that a large number of others are still hooked into.  I mean, seriously, take Obama's debate performance against Romney, just for starters.

The entire debate could be summed up by that one great moment in the Blockbuster hit movie, "The Avengers,"  after the mayhem that the freedom-robbing villain had delivered worldwide, when the Hulk  finally zeroes in on the guy who's been causing all the trouble. The Hulk froze, just for an instance, as the terrible instigator of the movie shouted what amounted to a tyrannical insult at the Hulk commanding his submission, and then the big, heroic monster did the thing that delighted millions of viewers into giddy laughter, around the world.

The Hulk scooped the Demi-God up in one powerful hand, and then soundly bashed him around on the floor for what must have seemed as an eternity to the easily crushed Potentate, and then dropped him to the ground and stalked away, almost dejected at the ease of the contest,  mumbling "puny God."

 

The movie villain could only lay there, his body partially submerged in the hollowed out shards of broken concrete, meekly whimpering, while perhaps wondering what had made him to think that he was so great in the first place.

And that pretty much sums up the last four years of the Obama presidency, after Romney reduced the authoritarian President into a broken heap on the Colorado stage.

This "guy," Obama, has been nothing if not a glorified train wreck, causing more havoc than he ever tried to solve, and we have chronicled all of this pretty much from the beginning. But as Obama figuratively lay there, meekly whimpering, on the stage in Colorado, there were still those who quite incredibly seemed to think that Obama had performed just swimmingly. Indeed, Obama was quite the showman, his body, while being smashed into the floor and thrashed all about, showed a certain grace and elan that would be hard for mere mortals to even begin to emulate.

Especially while being euphemistically flung all about in the arena of ideas, Obama was inordinately fluid as if without any true structure, replete with plastic arguments akimbo. Empty, he was; also, at many times he seemed almost not to even be there. Dispassionate too, as if his frequent stabs at coherent thought had been delivered by an over-heated, if not impossibly over-tasked, processor.

This was why, with my family looking on with momentary concern, I found myself  laughing hysterically, mid-point in the debate, at nothing in particular but everything altogether.

This was the real Obama, the one that those of us in the real America had not euphemistically hooked ourselves into.  The veil had been lifted, and nothing was there, quite predictably. However, that's when all the fun quite actually began, and it wouldn't take long for America to see another great lie hilariously exposed.

Excuses, Excuses or Narcissistic Anoxia?

You see, after the fact, many of the "still hooked-in's" tried to argue the Mount Everest excuse, on behalf of Obama, which sought to compare a relatively benign 5,000 foot altitude of Denver to the same de-oxygenated hypoxia of a 29,000 foot Mount Everest. No, it's no joke for those of you who might not have heard. Al Gore, not surprisingly, was the one who came up with that particular explanation which even rivaled his man-made global warming fiction, in its vacuous implausibility. But was Obama running a de-winding marathoner's pace "in place" behind the podium? Maybe...sort of as a form of handicap, since Obama was going up against a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal of Conservatism...right.

But then, if a 78 year-old man in Lehrer, and a 65 year-old man in Romney, can both perform superbly, then what, exactly, are the White House Doctors trying to hide from us concerning Obama and his sudden onset of shallow altitude sickness?

Perhaps it was some new form of narcissistic anoxia, you know, head in the clouds and all that.

Others of the Neo-Neutered class placed the fault at the feet of a missing teleprompter and sought to blame the debate commission for omitting Obama's invaluable tool of thunderous timidity. So, the most brilliant President ever elected must use someone else's pre-canned words?

"Woah-kay!"

John Kerry was blamed, by none other than the Obama team themselves, because as Obama's "debate-practice Romney," Kerry failed to channel Romney's true aggressiveness.  So, like, did they somehow miss the Romney-Gingrich debates in Florida? Might want to pay attention, boys....

Moveon.org seemed stuck on the fact that Romney had called Obama "Bro" during the debate. Okay, I missed that, but maybe Obama was distractedly stuck in one of those endless ancestry.com search-loops on his Blackberry, while debating, but trying to figure out if indeed Romney was somehow kin to him and exactly where, so that he could divinely travel back in time and slay the guilty forebears, thereby wiping out Romney's entire timeline and making the debate disappear. Works for me, at least as much as the other explanations do.

The Big Bird Agenda

Then we have the "Big bird" excuse, which spoke to Obama's outrage after Romney's indirect attack on PBS, at the President's thought of never seeing America's "future national symbol" on public TV again. Lehrer, at Romney's mention of this, seemed to turn a familiar shade of pale-yellow, making us wonder if perhaps Lehrer might be the unknown alter-ego of the Big Bird, himself. I mean, how do we truthfully know who's under all of the rubber and feathers and wouldn't this explain Lehrer's halting failure as Moderator, for not smacking the insufferable Romney with a ruler across the palm after each oral venture? That Romney! what a clever tactician, he is...

Obama's lead campaign personality, Stephanie Cutter, blamed Jim Lehrer, himself, as the Moderator, of all people. Why? For not tossing El Magnifico more life-lines than he already had done? Sheez, at one point, I thought Lehrer was going to get out and start pushing. He was actually augmenting Obama's inadequate words in order to try to make Obama's points for him. Romney, at some point must have thought he was debating both Lehrer and Obama, and didn't seem to care. Probably because he kind of liked the thought of a 78 year-old Liberal coming to the distracted Obama's rescue on national TV, of all places. And you actually want Obama dealing with the cut-throat Chinese and the Russians, when he has to be helped-across -the-debate by a now doddering senior citizen, for God's sake? 

The NY Times, in all of its "pissonance," seemed to blame Obama's lacking debate performance on Romney's ability to "control the conversation," as if he were the sub-moderator, while also outlining the Obama team's ultimate answer to the debate, which was to accuse Romney of lying. A thing that the Mainstream Media seemed to latch onto over the next several days. Only problem is, the media has tragically failed to enumerate, specifically, in virtually every case, any lies that supposedly were in evidence by Romney.

Many news articles to follow stated that Romney had changed his stance on numerous issues, however, none of these specific issues were in evidence, when pressed. The media, in fact, simply began largely to reflect the Obama campaign's talking points, without offering up any specific instances beyond "friends of Romney siad he was lying and altering his positions." Right...some friends, huh?

Attack of the Debate Killing Hanky

But then there came the piece of all pieces from the mainstream beltway, which sought to ridiculously explain Romney's use of a stealthily contrived handkerchief apparently brimming over in concealed notes, as the Romney secret weapon which was used to reduce Obama to a stuttering heap. Yes, indeed, the white hanky of surrender had been brilliantly transformed into a tool for victory!

Alas, wrong again poor Moriarty....

You see, the writer of the one post in particular that I, personally, zeroed in on, was unfortunately forced to recant his entire article. So, it wasn't the hanky's fault either, but were there any other excuses?

Alien abduction of Obama's brain? Romney carrying a sub-sonic personal hypnotification array aimed directly at our unsuspecting President?

 HAARP interference with Obama's personal environment? Chemtrails appearing directly over the President and inside the auditorium, produced by a microscopic, sub-atmospheric vessel spewing Dissonno-Rays? 

 Oh, I know! Undetected Mormonic Cross, submerged in sugary drink and blessed by the Right Rev. Mike Huckabee....

Other Plausibilities

So, what could it have been that might have affected His Eminence so terribly, if anything?

Well, maybe "The Last Journalist", Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, had the partial answer last week, when he sat down with Sean Hannity and alluded to Obama's seeming distractfulness throughout the debate as being for a reason and one that does not bode well for Obama, at all.

You see, the rumbles have been coming for a week and the rumors began gathering speed over the weekend, but this newly released report had teeth and would only come to full light on the exact day this article would be set for release. But the report, itself, would speak volumes of distraction for the most transparent administration ever to see the dark of night.

In fact many's the time we have heard Obama deliver what many of us considered a mystifying diatribe that seemed to hold no merit regarding foreign intervention or donations to various US political campaigns. Here is a direct quote from Obama himself on the subject of foreign money being contributed to American campaigns from 2010:

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. ~Barack H. Obama, 2010 State of the Union address

I have always found it mildly interesting that Obama threw that last bit of wording into this particular quote, now I believe we know why. On September 26th, An organization called The Government Accountability Institute  released a report titled Campaign Funding Risks that would blow the lid off of what politicans from both sides may have been accepting in the way of foreign US campaign funding. However, in the case of Obama's campaign, which just reported record campaign earnings for the month, bringing it to the $1 Billion level of donations, the information will probably prove to be beyond damning.

The Facts

Fact #1: The Washington Examiner reports  that the website Obama.com has been steering traffic to the Obama campaign donor site. The Problem? 68% of Obama.com's traffic comes from foreign nations.

Fact#2: Obama.com is owned by a Chinese Obama bundler in Shanghai, China, which also has questionable ties to the Communist Chinese Government.  The website owner is also heavily vested with Chinese state run television entities.

Fact#3: The Obama campaign has verifiably switched the security check function off on all credit card contributions, making unverifiable foreign contributors almost impossible to identify.

Fact#4: While the media has focused almost singularly on Super Pac contributions, which are used by both parties, the media has largely ignored the problems associated with foreign credit card contributions, which make donations less than $ 200 unreportable.

Fact#5: The Romney campaign, and virtually every other Presidential campaign of the past, has used the 3 or 4 digit security code function for every donation. Only the Obama campaign has elected to completely disregard this security checking feature.

Fact#6:  According to a Washington Free Beacon report, there is compelling evidence suggesting that not only has the Obama campaign violated Federal election law, they have done so deliberately.

Fact#7: Also from the Washington Free Beacon, The Obama campaign, via credit card contributions, has received over $ 500 million in online, credit card contributions since 2008, and hundreds of millions more during the 2012 election cycle.

Fact#8: The Obama campaign's main website, BarackObama.com receives over 48% of all its web traffic from other countries. By comparison, this news and opinion site, Conservative Refocus, receives only about 22% of its traffic from overseas.

Fact#9: By turning the security code function off on credit card transactions, the Obama campaign gives up millions of dollars that it could save by otherwise turning the security code function back on. Why?

Fact#10: The Mainstream Media, particularly ABC News, chose to run a completely misleading and corrupt report as an adjunct to this story, by claiming that foreign donor sites were being run by a con artist out of South Hadley, Massachusetts, which is a transparently biased effort to completely mislead viewers who might have seen vestiges of this report, so that blame would be deflected on behalf of the Obama Regime, once again.

Any questions?

 

 

Conservative Refocus

Barry Secrest

There he perched, settled comfortably on a stool, the crease in his trousers as sharp as the prow of an icebreaker, making the elites squirm with unbridled excitement. Calm and settled, Obama peered about his surroundings alertly as if searching for, and yet not finding,  the tell-tale teleprompters that had defined his, in many ways,  extemporaneously flawed regime.

With him on the stage, two Hispanic journalists were holding court. The crowd of nervous attendees was not quite adoring at first, but acceptably awed in presidential parlance, smiling  at the thought of being in the same room as "the One," proudly sharing the trace amounts of carbon dioxide being expelled by El Magnifico.

The President did a lightning-fast review, in his mind's eye, on how the initial moments had unfolded. The introduction had gone well, no trips as he had smoothly mounted the stage, his crowd was energized and the President was in his town-hall-styled element, as he once again sequentially recalled the bullet-point outline painstakingly downloaded from his ever-nervous handlers.

Obama, left-aligned wheels wobbly-turning, had already performed numero uno by throwing in a bit of Spanish lingo at the initial phase of this new crop of soon-to-be glamee's. With a flawless flourish after his introduction, the President had expertly gushed "muchas gracias," making the crowd roar with delight, while at the same time establishing a common reference point between both he and his newly found rabano'.

Secret Ingrediantes'

As the onlookers waited expectantly and the hosts settled in, Obama, having already deemed himself victorious in this outing, rather amusingly reviewed which question he might get first from what obviously seemed to be a clearly enamored grouping of similarly pigmented devotees;

Boxers or briefs?  Hamburgers or hot-dogs?  The secret ingredient of his special White House Brew?

Instead, however, and to his immediate chagrin, he got this one:

We know in Libya, four Americans were killed. We know now that Ambassador Chris Stevens warned about security days before he was killed. Many people want to know whether — if you expected so much anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world?  And why wasn’t your administration better prepared with more security at our embassies on September 11?

Rut-Roh! We're not in Kansas anymore Toto...

Taken aback, while quickly regaining his composure, Obama's mind burst into motion as outraged sparks glittered on the outskirts of his awareness; however, the stripped down core of his essay answer  would amount to a disingenuous deflection of blame:

There was an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad.

Gee, I wonder if they believed that, Obama must have mused.

The facts, despite a media attempt at inf0-constipation, spoke to something else altogether. The assault was from a militant group with ties to Al Qaeda, it had been planned well in advance, there had been un-acted upon warnings communicated to the US State department. The attack had included, quite possibly, weaponry that had been fronted to the Libyan rebels by the US government during the recent Libyan Revolution.

The State Department had later scrubbed this letter from its OSAC website. (Courtesy of Gateway Pundit)

The sneak attack had even been tactically sound having been carried out in dual stages.

It had absolutely nothing to do with an anti-Muslim video released two months prior as a trailer for a movie that had supposedly been circulated in 2011. But most of these people probably knew nothing about these facts, at least for now, and so the interview would continue unabated by the facts in absence, or at least that's what El Presidente' must have thought until the next question arrived:

Mr. President, I want to ask you something that is known as the “Obama promise,” and you knew that I was going to ask you about that. On May 28th, 2008, we had a conversation in Denver, Colorado, and you told me the following — and I’m going to quote you: “But I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.”

I want to emphasize “the first year.” At the beginning of your governing, you had control of both chambers of Congress, and yet you did not introduce immigration reform. And before I continue, I want for you to acknowledge that you did not keep your promise. 

"Suffering maíz y frijoles !"

The anger from Obama, at being directly confronted by this insufferable tandem of Hispanic journalists, was almost too much for him to contain. Indeed, the President had known of the questions to be asked in advance, however the insolent tone in which they were being proffered left much to be desired, especially for the most powerful man in the world. His eyebrows furrowed as he wondered, who do these people think they are?

His oblique answer would, once again, be a collection of deflective excuses. Instead of simply admitting his failure, Obama layered the causalities of failure at the feet of virtually everyone and everything but himself, when in fact, Obama had actually done very little on the question of illegal  immigration, perhaps due to the fact that far too many other transformative directives were yet to be accomplished.

But Obama's rambling answer, riddled with bullet-point excuses, could be boiled down to this one remark:

What we could not get was a single Republican, including the 20 who had previously voted for comprehensive immigration reform, to step up and say, we will work with you to make this happen.

 

Obama, unremarkably, left out the fact that these same Republicans had been locked out of the law-making process from day one of his ascension to the bully pulpit. So, what did the President expect from what he had always considered as the evil opposition? Maybe a palm-fronded path for both he and the ass of a party upon which he rode, when he finally did need their help?

A Question with Questionable Tense(s)

But the actively shielded interview would go on; it was, in fact, one of the best and most direct interviews of the President  in his entire four years. However, the most telling point within the interview would not occur until very near the end. After a brief explanative surrounding the next question, Obama was hit with this one:

Mr. President, what is your biggest failure?

It was an intelligently, interesting query with a misleadingly singular tense, and one that seemed totally at odds with the traditionally fawning, but lily-white, cheer-leading, media of the inner-beltway, which seemed almost afraid to ask these difficult questions for fear of upsetting El Magnifico. Normally, the legacy Media within the US asks the inverse question, laughably being "What is your greatest success?"

"Success for whom?" Being the standard sardonic response from the Right.

However, this time, Obama's eyebrows shot up and he leaned forward aggressively to answer, his countenance was stern while his voice was a bit sarcastic. He meandered for a bit, rubberly recapping his previous excuses, and then uttered the following:

The most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside. You can only change "it" from the outside.

For a micro-second, you could've heard a pin drop within the cavernous hall.

This because, in many ways, Obama had just uncharacteristically admitted that he had failed in his grandest promise of all, while having been a cog within the interior of the US bureaucratic machine for at least four years, preceded by almost a decade of serving within the interior of state government.

Well, it's according to what the meaning of "IT" is....

From a man who, at the outset, had made promise after promise about how things would change, both domestically and globally, to the point of the oceans even subsiding, Obama now actually has the nerve to tell the American people that things can only be changed only from the outside and only 45 days from his possible re-election. This after he has already set the course for the nation's collective well-being, if not wealth, headed directly toward the treacherous shoals of economic failure and collapse.

Hmm....but what if we take the President's argument and apply it only on a clearly literal basis of logic?

Let's say that one would like to renovate the interior of one's home, representing the interior of the governmental bureaucracy,  but only from the outside; so how, quite possibly, might this be accomplished? Can one change the interior color of the paint from the outside? The furnishings? Carpet, hardwoods, wallpaper?  Can anything anywhere even be moved about on the inside, from the outside?

The true answer to these questions of change from the outside is a resounding "NO."

Now, perhaps we can add on to the overall structure, a room addition say, from the outside, which is euphemistically what Obama has accomplished by adding newly attached structures for the overseeing  of America's  increasingly huddled masses, via Obamacare, for one of many examples. We can also stand outside and shout to the top of our lungs, or maybe even fling a rock through a window, hoping that those within will either hear or notice and make the needed interior changes to what they, on the inside, consider to be their abode. But without sending our commissioned artisans inside to meaningfully effect the changes we desire, nothing will probably ever occur.

"You can only change "it" from the outside"

However, if looked at in an entirely different way,  perhaps we can decipher Obama's true meaning of change from the outside. You see, there are, indeed, several ways we can deconstructfully change the interior without going inside from the outside, but what might those ways be and how can they be accomplished?

Well, one way is to simply burn the house down, that certainly can be accomplished from the outside, and quite easily, point in fact.  Could this be what Obama meant? One could also demolish the interior of the house from the outside with a specially trained team of demolitionists, you know, like the Islamic terrorists from 9/11, or perhaps even Obama's team of cabinet-level collectivists, more affectionately known as Czars.

The interior could also be changed by simply evacuating those within by means of forceful eviction; something those on the far-Right insist is at the center of Obama's often bizarre edicts.

The interior could easily be heavily altered into oblivion, also, by what many might see as a naturally catastrophic event, but in this case, brought on by the storms of destructive change that initially appear as constructive panaceas, at least at first glance. However, the main point in all of this would suggest that the answers to many of the mysteries of the Obama Regime that the Center-Left sees, but fails to question,  would seem to lie at the very core of why America is probably, sooner rather than later, doomed to implode due to a failure to act by those whom the American people have placed their trust in, with a special nod to the Fourth Estate, better known as the now corrupted Mainstream Media.

The Audacity of Corruption

Democratic Pollster Pat Caddell, long a mainstay of the Center-Left, is one of only a few universally admired Democrats remaining that the political Right will now listen to and actually learn from, and there is a reason for that. It's because the Democrat Party of today has left Caddell behind and is now dedicated solely to the causes of Socialism and its withering effects on an economy. In a recent and very powerful speech at an "Accuracy In Media" conference, Caddell made the argument that exemplifies the new Conservative Media's reason for being:

Caddell's pwerful message is the very reason why many of us in the Conservative Media  have suspended much of the things we formerly enjoyed in order to become citizen journalists and opinionists, ala Brietbart, while also accomplishing the often difficult task of maintaining jobs and even businesses.

This site, Conservative Refocus, was one of the first in a new era of an outraged America, begun back in 2009, and dedicated to simply getting at the unvarnished truth that was systemically missing from the conversation. We were, in effect, being  enjoined as a nation by a Largely Socialist Media and One-Party rule, singularly dedicated to the ideology of the clueless Far-Left, and at any horrible cost, which is at the core of a book written by me and edited by fellow author and this site's editor, former academian Kim Stallings.

Some of our Countrymen, it would seem, both at the Center and of the Center-Left, still largely don't quite understand the group with which they are attaching themselves, nor the consequences of their allegiance.  It's those we are trying to bring into the fold, while informing the majorities of America who count themselves as ones still beholden to the traditional values of guaranteed success for our offspring and the nation.

You see, at some point in the previous decade, the Mainstream Media at large had gone missing, and we were going to do our part to correct it, while also corralling the wagons around those who stood out, in our number, who were terrifyingly exposed. But corral we did, and in learning the basics, we more often than not excelled at our labor of love if not some bit of desperation.

Reasons for Being

In fact, Pat Caddell's searing message hit home both personally and meaningfully for me when we go all the way back and look at this site's original "About Message" written in 2009, and still there to this day:

The Founders of this nation were grounded in the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  We believe that this country, over time, has severely strayed from these principles.  The onslaught of our liberties at present is unparalleled, as indicated by the most informed observers of this country's history.

Our work began where the Fourth Estate's original role had been largely abandoned by the traditional media.

So, why me personally and why this site? Not really important, suffice it to say that at age 18, in a desire to both see the world and serve my country, I joined the US Navy as a Destroyer-man and proudly served for six years, while also gaining an understanding of the dangers that exist in other countries that America would still find largely alien to this day.

After the Navy, I had a burning desire to enter the world of business at the tender age of only 24, and only a few years later I went to work for the company  I would eventually own. As I learned new lessons and relearned old ones in the business world, I was amazed at how a lot of hard work and just a little bit of luck can produce profound results in a Constitutional Republic dedicated to a free market and the rule of law.

I was, in fact,  saturated, early on, in the Liberty of what it means to live in America and to be an American, especially after having temporarily sacrificed that Liberty to serve her.

You see, the remarkable essence about America's Free Market system, at its core, is about service to others with an individual's unique skills, whatever those skills may be. The better you serve others, the better off you will be.  The inverse of this rule also holds true: If your service is poor, you will frequently suffer, and yet we are all free in making that particular determination. I have further learned in this Free society that there are those who work hard and there are also those who work smart.

In America, either one of these main ingredients will, more often than not, net one success, regardless of the endeavor. But its when those two things come together is where an individual can find outrageous success, and that outrageous success is always just a little more effort away from most of the people I know. In essence, in the USA you are free to choose whatever route you desire knowing that no one can take that away from you, well, at least for awhile longer, anyway, and that "while longer"  is the lurking danger that many of us have now identified as being the direct threat to America's prosperity.

With the attacks on freedom and the free flow of misinformation, and an enfilade attack against our Liberties, as detailed by this site's news section on a daily basis, America is imperiled, more now than perhaps at any other time in its history. This new enemy is not easily seen and almost impossible to detect for many hard-working Americans, and virtually impossible to identify for those hardly working, our valuable Seniors excepted.

It has become beyond obvious at present that, in the traditional Media of today, our Fourth Estate has largely placed an embargo against the truth.

Oh, they will let just enough in,  just often enough, to maintain the illusion of functionality, but that small amount of truth tends to be spun in such a way that America, in large part, has no true idea of what is happening nor whom it can actually trust, at any one time.

But if anyone needs reminding, you might consider fishing a coin out of your pocket and taking a close look at what it says, it should still be stamped there, at least for a little while longer.