Keep Our Service Free-Donate

Monday, August 31, 2020

Fear Of Social Unrest Is Everywhere

Poor Man Survival
Self Reliance tools for independent minded people…

ISSN 2161-5543

A Digest of Urban Survival Resources

In a year that has experienced a global pandemic, Depression-level job losses, a bevy of large-scale natural disasters from wildfires to Cat 4 hurricanes to derechos, the #1 current concern we're now hearing from our readers isn't any of these. Instead, it's the danger of social unrest breaking out in their local community.
Our cities are being destroyed and Democrat mayors and officials are defunding the police and encouraging the vandals and the arsonists, calling them “peaceful protesters.”
This new civil war now pits those of us who love our country and want a Constitutional government, as envisioned by our Founders, against those who would destroy our very civilization and freedoms.

Can our military prevent a 2nd Civil War?
   Divided loyalties within the armed forces could put the answer in doubt.

What would America look like if its military split into hostile factions? What would happen if thousands of American troops refused to carry out the orders of their commander in chief—or even took up arms against him? Nothing like this has happened in the United States since the Civil War. But today, more and more former defense officials are publicly accusing President Donald Trump of betraying his oath of office.
James Mattis, who is not only a prominent retired Marine Corps general but was also President Trump’s secretary of defense, had largely kept with the historic military tradition of not publicizing personal political views. On June 3, he broke his silence and issued a public statement condemning the president.
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try,” Mattis said in a statement obtained by cnn. “Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”
What prompted this outburst? Mattis was upset that the president had threatened to bring federal forces to confront the riots and lawlessness plaguing American cities. “Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled,” he had announced. “If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”

For President Trump to use the military to disperse rioters would require him to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. This was specifically what Gen. Mattis criticized. This power was last used in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush used U.S. Marines to stop race riots in Los Angeles, California; Mattis was a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps at the time. In his view there was apparently nothing controversial about invoking that act at the time. But today, Mattis claims Trump is the first president in his lifetime to divide people.
Whatever your views on President Trump, General Mattis, President Bush, the Insurrection Act or the United States itself, sharp divisions between the commander in chief and the military during a time of national turmoil represent a threat to the stability of the nation—and of the world.

Law and Order

Other top retired generals and admirals are also condemning the use of military force to restore law and order to American streets: Army Gen. Colin Powell, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers. Their condemnations have been joined by those of former defense secretaries Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, Ashton Carter and William Cohen. All totaled, 89 former national security leaders have accused the president of “betraying” his oath of office by mentioning the Insurrection Act.
The current rioting in America may not be bad enough to require sending in federal troops. Still, the Insurrection Act has been invoked 11 times in the past century. It is both legal and constitutional for the president to use federal troops to put down “an insurrection in any state against its government … upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened.”
Deploying troops into America’s streets is a serious step. Overusing this measure would indeed threaten what is left of the U.S. Constitution. Understandably, citizens want to be sure that action is necessary. But the fact that so many former defense officials are openly accusing President Trump of sowing division in the nation illustrates that the U.S. military is divided.
The irony of Colin Powell’s condemnation of President Trump is that Powell was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. He reportedly told President Bush, “All you’ve got to do is say it.” He oversaw the deployment of 4,500 marines and soldiers into the city. But today, he says President Trump has “drifted away” from the U.S. Constitution for suggesting he would do the same thing.
Many political analysts are warning that political division in the U.S. is worse now than at any point since the Civil War. Other analysts say a conflict as devastating as the Civil War could not happen to the U.S. again, because the military would quickly put down the rebellion.

“Anybody unwise enough to seriously take up arms against Uncle Sam on home turf would be crushed overnight by the full might of our armed forces, which have 1.3 million men and women on active duty,” security expert John Schindler wrote in the Observer. “Unlike in 1861, our states lack their own freestanding militias—despite lip service to state authority, our National Guard is fully integrated into the U.S. military—so there’s no force to even rebel against Washington. The notion that anybody could get even a brigade’s worth of organized troops to rebel against the feds is an online hothouse fantasy, not political or military reality” (July 4, 2018).
This assessment assumes that the U.S. military and National Guard are united and under the authority of the president. But is that true? Would America’s 1.3 million active-duty soldiers fight “anybody unwise enough to seriously take up arms against Uncle Sam on home turf”? Or would some of them like to see regime change?

Polarized Military

During his first five years in office, former President Barack Obama fired at least 197 military officers, leading to speculation by active and retired military personnel that he was purging the military of ideological dissenters. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told Investors Business Daily in 2013 that Obama was “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged” (Oct. 13, 2013).
It is hard to quantify political division in the U.S. military because officers generally do not publicly criticize their commander in chief until after they have retired. But a 2019 survey of 1,630 active-duty troops conducted by Syracuse University found that 50 percent of respondents had an “unfavorable” opinion of President Trump, compared to only 42 percent who had a favorable impression. The same poll found President Trump more popular among the enlisted troops than among officers, with 43 percent of enlisted soldiers having a favorable opinion of the president, compared to only 33 percent of officers.
As Democratic politicians are encouraging race riots and former generals are accusing the president of betraying the Constitution, this division represents a severe strategic vulnerability: disunity.

A 2018 survey of 829 active-duty troops conducted by the Military Times found President Trump’s support was highest among marines. Over 65 percent of Marine Corps respondents approved of President Trump’s job performance, compared to 49 percent of Navy respondents, 38 percent of Army respondents, and 36 percent of Air Force respondents. The overall military was slightly more conservative than the general public.
The fact that half the military disapproves of President Trump’s job performance is probably rather standard for American politics. But at a time when Democratic politicians are encouraging race riots and former generals are accusing the president of betraying the Constitution for suggesting that the military could help put down those riots, this division represents a severe strategic vulnerability: disunity. This disunity is between the military and its elected commander in chief, and between the solders within the military itself.
Some of the groups behind the riots—like Antifa, Refuse Fascism, and the Revolutionary Communist Party usa—have openly stated their goal to overthrow the United States government. What if these agitators stir up an insurrection so large that military troops are required to preserve America’s constitutional form of government? These groups are trying to tear down America’s constitutional system of government because they can’t build another one until that happens. Therefore they are trying to dissolve the glue of society by dividing the police from the people, the military from the people, the military from the commander in chief, the officers from the enlisted men, and the enlisted men from each other. The fact that 89 former national security leaders are publicly speaking against President Trump is a much more significant victory for these agitators than the establishment of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle, Washington.
Is it true that anyone “unwise enough to seriously take up arms against Uncle Sam on home turf would be crushed overnight by the full might of our armed forces,” as John Schindler suggested? Or would certain troops sit this fight out or even take up arms on behalf of the protesters?
America is bitterly divided. Prominent observers are discussing the possibility of civil war, and one 2019 Georgetown University poll showed that two thirds of Americans believe the U.S. is “on the edge of civil war.”
Think about that for a moment. The Civil War took 620,000 American lives, about 2 percent of the nation’s population, and more deaths than all other American wars from the American Revolution to the Korean War combined. Could America be on the edge of another such catastrophe? Our technological capacity to kill is much higher now than it was in 1865. If the military split into hostile factions, the potential for mass violence is much higher today.

Civil War

You can see the fault lines of this seismic conflict forming.
Some people trust America’s military to preserve peace; others join right-wing militias or radically left groups like Antifa and the Democratic Socialists of America, which want to replace, rewrite or ignore the Constitution. As these trends unfold, tensions are building and the rule of law is breaking down. For 100 million Americans to die in a civil war, the nation’s military will have to be broken.
Civil War President Abraham Lincoln once stated, “All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the Earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. … If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

Sidebars of note:

Democrats Say Trump Responsible for Violence in Democrat-Run Cities

How to Create a Home Defense Plan
The number of firearm sales have skyrocketed given the current situation that’s taken over our lives. Many people are now first-time gun owners solely for protection purposes. To me, this correlates to a need for education. Just having a firearm in your home for protection in no way means you’re “suddenly safe”. 

Trump has been the most supportive POTUS of our military in years…despite that, some in the military support socialist Biden?!


How prepared are you to survive a world-changing disaster? As Canadian Prepper explains in this video, you may not be as prepared as you think you are. 

He lists ten reasons you may not survive what’s coming. Here they are:

 1. Poor Physical Health - A majority of people are simply not physically fit in this day and age. This is also one of the most overlooked aspects of prepping. Few things will test your physical health and stamina as much as a major cataclysmic disaster.

 2. Bad Medical Issues - If there are any medical procedures that you have been postponing, the time to get those things done is now. Whether it’s an eye problem, surgery, or dental work, if things get bad you may not have another chance to get those things fixed...

You may also like...

Useful Resources from our storefront-See new items!

You Can’t Buy Life Insurance After You’re Dead-Prepare NOW for Emergencies…

Support our efforts by shopping my storefront…

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Obama’s Anti-America Mystery

Poor Man Survival

Self Reliance tools for independent minded people…

ISSN 2161-5543

A Digest of Urban Survival Resources

Obama’s Anti-America Mystery

Why would an American president conspire to smear the reputation of an American hero, overthrow the U.S. government, and realign the nation’s interests with those of the number one terrorist-sponsoring nation in the world?
Thomas Jefferson once said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
A great deal of vital information is being unearthed about which every American must not be ignorant. It reveals unprecedented corruption by government officials that is undermining our freedoms and the political structure of our constitutional republic!
Americans’ ignorance and lack of concern regarding these truths is making us extremely vulnerable to people who want to destroy this nation. The United States is already dangerously close to becoming a police state.
Handwritten notes from former Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok have confirmed that Barack Obama personally directed an illegal investigation targeting retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Flynn is a decorated war hero who has saved countless American lives. But the Obama administration listened in on his phone calls and illegally leaked his conversations to the media.
If government agents can slander and spy on a well-connected American hero like General Flynn, what can they do to you if they disagree with your political views?
After the Department of Justice dropped its case against Flynn on May 7, President Donald Trump said that what President Obama did was “the biggest political crime in American history, by far!” He later added, “Obamagate makes Watergate look small time!” When the type of tactics Obama was using become routine, your freedoms can be stripped at will. The nation becomes a dictatorship.

Obamagate goes far beyond personal animus between Barack Obama and Michael Flynn. It was a plot to overthrow the U.S. government and realign American interests with those of the number one terror-sponsoring state. A number of political analysts have revealed how President Obama tried to accomplish this devious goal. But they are at a loss as to why he would do something so evil.
What motivates Barack Obama is a mystery to most analysts, but the Bible reveals this mystery. People need to understand what a dangerous threat this is to America’s very foundation!
All this is prophesied in your Bible. But to understand it, you have to study it. If you do, then events in America will begin to make sense, and you will see how, sadly, this nation’s days are numbered!

Targeting General Flynn

Two days after winning the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump met with President Obama in the Oval Office to discuss the transition to the new administration. Of the many issues Mr. Obama could have discussed with Mr. Trump during their 90-minute meeting, he mainly wanted to talk about two people. He told Mr. Trump that the two people he really had to worry about were North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un—and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Why was President Obama so concerned with General Flynn?
Many consider Flynn an American hero. As an intelligence officer in the Army, he tracked down Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was good at his job, and President Obama nominated him as director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. But in this new office, Flynn exposed how the Obama administration was failing to effectively fight the Islamic State and other enemies in the Middle East. He told colleagues that he felt like a lone voice warning that the United States was less safe from radical Islam than before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria. He thought truth was the best thing, and they shoved him out.”
He also criticized Obama for failing to support the enemies of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, a strong ally of Iran. According to former Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang, “Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria. He thought truth was the best thing, and they shoved him out.” He had been on the job for only two years when the Obama administration forced him into early retirement in August 2014.
But telling the truth about Syria was not the only thing that got Flynn in trouble. He was also a vocal opponent of President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.
General Flynn was well educated in intelligence-gathering techniques. That unnerved Obama officials. They were doing a lot of illegal spying on American citizens, and Flynn was well placed to expose their crimes. Clearly they were nervous about what Flynn might say: About a year after forcing him to retire, they started to spy on him.
A former senior Treasury Department official told the Star Newspaper Group that, starting in December 2015 and continuing well into 2017, Barack Obama’s Treasury regularly surveilled Flynn’s financial records and transactions. This was unlawful, but the Obama administration didn’t care. They were obsessed with targeting Michael Flynn.
Obama administration officials told the public that Flynn had illegally colluded with Russia. This was a bald-faced lie.
So how did Flynn end up as the Obama administration’s prime target? American journalist Lee Smith answered this question in an article for the Tablet, “How Russiagate Began With Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying Campaign.”
“Why were officials from the [Obama] administration intercepting [Flynn’s] phone calls with the Russian ambassador?” Smith wrote. “The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy, which was rooted in his July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (jcpoa). Flynn had said long before he signed on with the Trump campaign that it was a catastrophe to realign American interests with those of a terror state. And now that the candidate he’d advised was the new president-elect, Flynn was in a position to help undo the deal” (May 22).
In other words, the smear campaign against Flynn had nothing to do with Russia. It was all about stopping Flynn from helping President Trump undo the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal!

Obama’s Iran Deal

The Obama administration implemented its nuclear deal with Iran on Jan. 16, 2016. Under the terms of this agreement, the United States lifted oil and financial sanctions on Iran, while Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent.
General Flynn had left the Obama administration 17 months before, and he was a vocal critic of the deal. He wrote a 2016 book, The Field of Fight, describing correspondence between the Iranian government and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Apparently al Qaeda was working on chemical and biological weapons in Iran, but the Obama administration refused to declassify the proof.
Flynn also warned that the Russians were cooperating with the Iranians and would probably not help the U.S. fight radical Islamic terrorism. Still, the Obama administration agreed to let Russia export more than 100 tons of natural uranium to Iran—enough to make 10 nuclear bombs!
Flynn warned that the Russians were cooperating with the Iranians. Still, the Obama administration agreed to let Russia export more than 100 tons of natural uranium to Iran—enough to make 10 nuclear bombs.
Now, the whole message the Obama administration was peddling about the Iran deal was that it would prevent the mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb. Yet they colluded with Russia to give Iran a hundred tons of uranium! What was really going on?
General Flynn condemned Iran as the “world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” and advocated a strategy aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government. He criticized the Obama administration for trying to align America with the interests of a terrorist state. So when President-elect Trump appointed Flynn as a national security adviser, Obama went to work trying to get rid of Flynn.
As Lee Smith put it, “Russiagate was not a hoax, as some conservative journalists call it. Rather, it was a purposeful extension of the Obama administration’s Iran Deal media campaign, and of the secret espionage operation targeting those opposed to Obama’s efforts to realign American interests with those of a terror state that embodies the most corrosive forms of anti-Semitism” (ibid).
How could the American public be so ignorant as to allow such disastrous foreign-policy decisions?

Crossfire Razor

To smear General Flynn as a Russian agent, Obama’s fbi opened a counterintelligence investigation called Crossfire Razor. Having found no evidence of any wrongdoing by Flynn, investigators planned to close the case on Jan. 4, 2017. But then fbi agent Peter Strzok was directed by top officials at the fbi to ensure the investigation of Flynn stayed open.
Court filings in Flynn’s criminal case show that Strzok texted an unnamed associate on Jan. 4, 2017, “Hey if you haven’t closed razor, don’t do so yet.” Strzok’s order was delivered at the behest of fbi leadership, which he referred to as the “7th floor.”
The next day, intelligence officials met in the Oval Office to brief President Obama about the findings of their report on Russian interference in the election. Present at the meeting were: Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, cia Director John Brennan, fbi Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers.
After the initial meeting, President Obama held a follow-on meeting with Susan Rice, Joe Biden and the two individuals that would retain their positions into the next administration: Comey and Yates. This meeting was documented over two weeks later in an e-mail Susan Rice sent to herself immediately after leaving the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.
The Justice Department has disclosed handwritten notes from Peter Strzok recounting what Comey had told him about this January 5 follow-on meeting. These notes show that Obama knew details about private conversations between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that even Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates did not know. This meeting shows that Obama was personally overseeing the effort to take down Flynn.
Strzok’s notes recount how Comey told Obama that Flynn’s phone calls looked legitimate and that Obama told Comey to “make sure you look at things, and have the right people on it.” They also recount how Vice President Biden brought up the Logan Act—an 18th-century law that forbids private citizens from discussing foreign policy with foreign governments. The law is likely unconstitutional and definitely does not apply to national security advisers for incoming presidential administrations. But it ended up being key in taking down Flynn.
Obama and his top brass listened in on conversations between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador and then accused Flynn of violating an obscure 18th-century law. They then used the transcripts of those perfectly legal conversations to entrap Flynn.
Seven days after the January 5 Oval Office meeting, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius published a story about Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador, and he raised the non-issue of the Logan Act. How did the Post find out about Flynn’s phone calls? The Obama administration had illegally leaked that information in an attempt to set up Flynn.
The Post article triggered the mainstream media and Democrat politicians to focus their attention on Michael Flynn.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador. Consider what a Washington Post reporter, Adam Entous, said during a conference in October 2017. He explained that the newsroom was made aware of the fact that Flynn was having conversations with Ambassador Kislyak, but that it wasn’t worth reporting because, “There’s no reason why he shouldn’t be having that conversation.”
Entous said that Ignatius could write about it because he was a columnist and, “Unlike me as a news reporter, he was able to just throw this piece of red meat out there and just say, ‘There was this conversation. What was it about?’”
By getting the media to write about the Flynn phone calls, the Obama administration was giving the media bait it could use to trap the incoming administration. And it worked.
Flynn could be forgiven for not remembering every detail of each phone call he had with the Russian ambassador. The Obama administration, on the other hand, had transcripts of each of his phone calls and could use the transcripts to entrap him.

The Perjury Trap

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe recently declassified the Flynn transcripts. In all those transcripts, the word “sanction” appears once, and it was brought up by Ambassador Kislyak. The Federalist’s Sean Davis wrote: “The transcripts show that while Kislyak obliquely raised the issue of financial sanctions against certain Russian intelligence officials, Flynn himself never discussed the financial sanctions against Russian individuals and entities levied by the Obama administration. Instead, Flynn focused on preventing U.S. ‘tit-for-tat’ escalation following the Obama administration’s expulsion of Russian diplomats.”
The day after the January 12 Post article, members of President-elect Trump’s staff were asked by the media about Flynn’s call, particularly about the topic of sanctions. Flynn told his co-workers that he didn’t remember discussing sanctions. Then on January 15, Vice President Mike Pence publicly stated that there had been no talk about economic sanctions between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Pence said that Flynn told him that neither sanctions nor the decision to expel diplomats came up on the call. The transcripts of the call do reveal that Flynn spoke to Kislyak about the expulsion of diplomats, however. This miscommunication is what was ultimately exploited by the Obama holdovers to force Flynn’s resignation.
Pence, however, did not have access to Michael Flynn’s transcripts—and neither did Flynn himself. But the Obama administration did.
On Jan. 23, 2017, three days after the inauguration, the Washington Post ran an article titled “FBI Reviewed Flynn’s Calls With Russian Ambassador but Found Nothing Illicit.” This article was designed to put Flynn at ease. There was obviously nothing illicit in the phone calls and everyone knew it. But the Obama administration pushed ahead with its plan to catch Flynn in a lie.
On January 24, fbi Director Comey sent Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka to Flynn’s office at the White House. The agents were sent to lay a perjury trap against Flynn. Armed with the transcript of his phone calls, the agents invited themselves into Flynn’s office, pretending they were there to casually talk to him about reports in the media.
Flynn’s “sin” was forgetting that the word “sanction” came up once during a phone call four weeks earlier. Because Flynn denied having a conversation about sanctions, the Obama holdovers determined that he was lying and actively misleading members of the Trump administration. Some even publicly speculated that Flynn would be susceptible to Russian blackmail because of the call.
On January 26, Sally Yates told President Trump’s counsel that Flynn made statements to them about sanctions that were untrue. Flynn continued to publicly state that he did not discuss sanctions. Then on February 9, the Post wrote about the content of Flynn’s phone calls. Disclosing that information to the press was illegal. Citing “unnamed current and former officials,” the Post reported that Flynn “privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials.”
“It’s not hard to see why [Obama] went after Flynn …. But why Obama would choose the Islamic Republic as a partner and encourage tactics typically employed by Third World police states remains a mystery.”
The article embarrassed the Trump White House and led to Michael Flynn’s forced resignation on February 13—not because of anything he said to the Russian ambassador, but because he made Vice President Pence look bad by not fully communicating with him about everything he discussed on the phone with Ambassador Kislyak. The Obama administration holdovers were actively trying to sow chaos for the incoming administration. In the end, they achieved their goal, causing the public to believe that Flynn was trying to cover up some sinister crime with Russian agents.
In fact, the whole situation was orchestrated by Barack Obama to protect the Iran nuclear deal.

Lies, Lies, Lies

On May 12, Joe Biden was interviewed on abc’s Good Morning America. George Stephanopoulos asked him what he knew about the Flynn investigation, and he dogmatically stated, “I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.” Then when he was pressed about his role in the Jan. 5, 2017, meeting, he revised his answer, and said, “I thought you asked me on whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted. I’m sorry. I was aware that … they had asked for an investigation, but that’s all I know about it.”
Peter Strzok’s handwritten notes have since revealed both statements to be lies. It was Biden who brought up the Logan Act as a possible means of prosecuting General Flynn. Now the Democrats act like such lies are nothing to be concerned about. But the reality is, lying is the modus operandi of those Obama-era officials!
They called American hero Michael Flynn a clandestine agent of Russia. Such lies are hard to even fathom, yet millions of people believe them. These officials have been repeatedly exposed for this kind of deception. They believe it is right to lie when it is for an “important purpose”! They have no fixed principles. And very few will hold them to account!
America’s Constitution was made to rule a moral, self-governing people, a well-informed people who will hold their leaders to a high moral standard. Ignorant people can never make our Constitution work. The ignorance of the American people regarding what is happening here is disastrous.
Something deadly dangerous has seized the country—far more than people realize. There is a spiritual dimension to what is happening, and you cannot understand these events unless you recognize that. We must know our enemy to understand what is happening in America.
Lee Smith wrote a book titled The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History. Smith is an expert on how Obama and his colleagues tried to frame Donald Trump, Michael Flynn and others for crimes they did not commit.
Still, Smith does not understand why Barack Obama so vehemently supported Iran. “It’s not hard to see why the previous president went after Flynn: The retired general’s determination to undo the Iran Deal was grounded in his own experience in two Middle Eastern theaters of combat, where he saw how Iran murdered Americans and threatened American interests,” he writes. “But why Obama would choose the Islamic Republic as a partner and encourage tactics typically employed by Third World police states remains a mystery” (emphasis mine).

Teachers call Child Services when kids miss online class
Teachers are serving as the state’s newest surveillance into your home.
The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families issued a fact sheet for teachers outlining when they should call DCF-- the agency which can take your children and put them in foster care.
Did a kid miss an online class? Call in child services, because that could be evidence of neglect.
Teachers are also encouraged to pry into the home life of students on camera.
“Who is home today to help you with learning?”
“I’m having a hard time hearing you due to background noise/I’m hearing some other noises in the background, what else is happening at your house today?”
“I saw a person walk by your screen, who is home with you today?”
One mother has already had a DCF visit for leaving her 7-year-old boy with his teenage brother while she worked.
They used to call that babysitting. Now, apparently, it’s neglect.

Avoid the trap the system is setting to imprison you
Millions of people are about to enter a financial purgatory not of their doing, becoming little more than modern slaves. They’ll be called “evicted” or “foreclosed” by the media.  But if we define a slave as someone forced by existing legal circumstances and approved cultural norms to work for another person, then that’s exactly what these people should actually be called; modern-day slaves. Too harsh?  Not really. Allow me to make my case.

When it comes to stockpiling food, shelf life is by far one of the most important factors that preppers must pay attention to. While most foods will have a limited shelf-life, there are a few foods that can be safely stored for more than one hundred years.

If you are looking for foods that you never have to worry about going bad, check out these seventeen survival foods that can last a century.
 However, before you go out and start buying them, keep in mind that these foods will only last a century if they're stored properly. Be sure to read the food storage section at the end of the article for more information...

You may also like...

Best Free Antivirus Software

It is a good idea to periodically re-evaluate and update the antivirus software on your computer. In this story, PC Magazine tested and evaluated 17 different free programs, and awarded "Editor's Choice" to Kaspersky Security Cloud Free. Read the full reviews and see how other brands rated.

Useful Resources from our storefront-See new items!

You Can’t Buy Life Insurance After You’re Dead-Prepare NOW for Emergencies…

NEW! Home Circuit Power Saving Device-Save 30—90% on Your Electric Bill.

Home Circuits Power Saving Device-Environment Friendly!

…as advertised in Reader’s Digest

Power Electricity Energy Savings Device- 30% or more Savings 90V-250V 50Hz-60Hz
Easy-to-use---No Maintenance Provides or a more stable environment for your household electrical grid…invented in Germany

Support our efforts by shopping my storefront…