— A new survey shows that the “top problem” cited by Americans is “government,” and the second top problem is “immigration.” For contrast, among the issues seen as least problematic for Americans are “unemployment-jobs” and “gun control/guns.”
In the survey, conducted by Gallup after the midterm elections, the polling firm asked Americans about the country’s top problems and then listed those issues that were “mentioned by at least 3% of respondents.”
Nineteen percent of respondents cited “government” as the problem, making it the top issue of concern. In second place came “immigration,” cited by 16% of the respondents. However, when broken down politically, 29% of Republicans said immigration is a problem but only 7% of Democrats said the same.
Only 8% of respondents said “unifying the country” was a problem, and only 3% said unemployment-jobs and then gun control/guns were a problem.
Also, only 5% said “healthcare” was a problem.
“These data come from a Gallup Dec. 3-12 survey, conducted as a looming budget impasse between Republicans and Democrats threatened to shut down the government,” reported Gallup. “The government has commonly been cited in recent years as the most important problem facing the country, with the problem having received or been tied for the most mentions — 22 times in the last 24 months.”
“As another potential partial shutdown of the Federal government approaches, government is again mostly likely to be cited by Americans as the most important problem facing the country,” said Gallup. “However, the current level noting government dissatisfaction is still below the 25% who cited the issue in January of this year, a few weeks prior to the last time the Federal government faced a shutdown. That shutdown ended after three days.”
Two “forensic accountants” have found what some would claim are the “smoking guns” with regard to the apparent illegal activities of the Clinton Foundation. I don’t want to dilute their testimony, so I defer to the video below, which ought to astonish readers regarding the apparent lack of interest in proceedings going further on investigating former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Is The Clinton Foundation Under Investigation?
One would think that in war the duty of a soldier is to kill the enemy before he kills you or your fellow soldiers. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are different in that the enemy doesn’t usually obey the rules of war, like wearing uniforms and rank insignia, and there are no “front lines” per se, only improvised explosive devices and sniper fire from second-floor windows or civilians used as human shields.
That is where Mathew Golsteyn found himself in 2010 when the Green Beret killed a Taliban bomb-maker who had killed two Marines, Sgt. Jeremy R. McQueary and Lance Cpl. Raymon A. Johnson, in a war where only one side obeys the rules and the other is trapped by rules of engagement that make no sense and an Obama administration treating the whole thing as a law enforcement matter:
Golsteyn, in 2010, had been deployed to Afghanistan with the 3rd Special Forces Group. During the Battle of Marja, two Marines in his unit ended up getting killed by booby-trapped explosives hidden in the area, and Golsteyn and his men later located the suspected Taliban bomb maker.
But there was a problem: the alleged terrorist was not on a list of targets U.S. forces were cleared to kill, Fox News previously has reported. After the man was detained, Golsteyn said the suspect refused to talk to investigators.
Under the rules of engagement, Golsteyn was ordered to release him. However, Golsteyn was concerned that if he did so, the suspect would have in turn targeted Afghans who were helping U.S. soldiers…
Golsteyn told Fox News he ended up killing the suspected Taliban bombmaker — although details of where and when the killing occurred are in dispute. Two years later, he’s facing a murder charge for it.
“Major Mathew Golsteyn’s immediate commander has determined that sufficient evidence exists to warrant the preferral of charges against him,” U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt. Col. Loren Bymer told Fox News in a statement Friday. “Major Golsteyn has been charged with the murder of an Afghan male during his 2010 deployment to Afghanistan.”
I was just watching “The Joe Pags Show” on television. I heard something much like this about the Flynn sentencing today (I paraphrase):
Judge to Flynn: “In all my years on the bench I’ve never accepted a guilty plea from someone who wasn’t guilty. You take three months to go figure this out/think this over.” (As I said — I paraphrase)
I think this is about exactly what a caller reported was said at that sentencing.
Most of the previous reports I had read said things like this: “The judge was giving all the signs that he was going to sentence Flynn to prison time. Gave him a chance to postpone to maximize his cooperation.”
What I heard on “The Joe Pags Show says something QUITE DIFFERENT.
On Friday, a U.S. district court in New York struck down a four decade-old state law banning the possession of nunchucks. Judge Pamela K. Chen declared in a 32-page ruling Friday that the 1974 law is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.
The law was first enacted as a response to state lawmakers’ fears that the popularity of martial arts a la Bruce Lee was inspiring hoodlums to get creative in their choice of weapons. The ban not only applied to would-be criminal nunchuckers on the street, it even banned the weapon’s use in martial arts training facilities. As The Washington Post points out, “They were so dangerous, lawmakers believed, that not even karate teachers could keep them in a locker at home.”
Enter plaintiff James Michael Maloney, a martial arts enthusiast, whose case against the law finally made it the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in January 2017. When the trial began, Maloney underscored the significance of the case in a blog post.
by: JD Heyes
When special counsel Robert Mueller was first appointed more than a year ago, critics pointed out that there was no justification for it — that it was all political — because there was no indication of any crime. “Collusion” with Russia, if it even had happened, is not illegal.
Mueller raised eyebrows again when he brought prosecutors on board who had blown cases in the past by inventing evidence, such as the “corruption” case against former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.
Critics chimed in again after Mueller hired a number of prosecutors with known connections to Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton and President Obama, several of whom actually donated to their campaigns.
Throughout his investigation into alleged nefarious behavior surrounding POTUS Trump and his 2016 campaign, Mueller has done much to warrant the criticism he has received. And now he’s under fire again for something so obviously wrong it defies belief that he’s still able to continue his investigation.
As noted by Debra Heine at PJ Media, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General could not recover text messages from the iPhones of fired FBI official Peter Strzok and his one-time paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, during their time as members of Mueller’s special counsel team because they were scrubbed.
Fox News added that the iPhones had been given to Strzok and Page by Mueller but were then cleaned by a records officer after both were dismissed from the team, according to a new report from the DoJ IG’s office.
In regards to Strzok’s phone, investigators for the IG’s office were told that it “had been reset to factory settings and was reconfigured for the new user to whom the device was issued.” The records officer for the special counsel said she had “determined it did not contain records that needed to be retained,” and as such wrote in her records log, “No substantive texts, notes or reminders.” (Related: If Dems say acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is biased, why didn’t they feel that way about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?)
You can’t make this up
Quoting the report, Fox News noted further that the officer told the IG’s investigators that she did “not recall whether there were any text messages on” Strzok’s phone, though “she made an identical log entry for an iPhone she reviewed from another employee on the same day that she specifically recalled having no text messages.”
In a phone call, Page told the special counsel’s office (SCO) after she left the team that she left her government-issued iPhone and laptop on a bookshelf at the office. The SCO located the laptop, but when the OIG asked for the iPhone on January 24, 2018, the SCO could not locate it.
It was finally located in early September 2018 and the OIG took custody at that time. The report states that on July 31, 2017, two weeks after Page left the special counsel, her iPhone was also wiped and restored to factory settings.
Her phone was not summarily reissued to anyone else within the agency. What’s more, no one within Mueller’s office or the Justice Management Division of the DoJ has a record of who took custody of Page’s iPhone and reset it, the report says.
“Office of the Deputy Attorney General told the OIG that the Department routinely resets mobile devices to factory settings when the device is returned from a user to enable that device to be issued to another user in the future,” the report notes.
In addition, the report says that a “technical glitch” led to a group of text messages between Strzok and Page to vanish.
You couldn’t make this stuff up if you were trying to write a Hollywood script for a political thriller. And yet somehow the American people are supposed to just swallow all of this without question.
Unfortunately, too many of us will, which is in large part why nobody has really been held accountable yet. Including Robert Mueller.
Despite hundreds of billions of dollars in accumulated anti-Trump media attacking the Trump White House for the last two years, President Trump remains extraordinarily popular among tens of millions of patriotic American voters. The reason is simple. Donald Trump, for all his supposed flaws, loves his country and its people. That’s it, and for so many who suffered eight years of a former president who despised all things American, that’s all it ever needed to be…
THIS IS A STORY OF A TIME WHEN FAMILY MEANT EVERYTHING, WHEN THE BOND BETWEEN BROTHERS WAS UNBREAKABLE, AND THE DESIRE FOR TRUE FREEDOM, UNSTOPPABLE.
While it may seem hard to believe, there was a time when the citizens of Venezuela were allowed to keep and bear arms. This wasn’t the distant past we’re talking about either. It was only in 2012 that the socialist government of Hugo Chavez enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law.” When it was passed, the authors of the legislation pulled no punches, saying that the explicit purpose of the law was to “disarm all citizens.”
That bill was spectacularly successful, massively reducing the volume of privately owned firearms. Then, when the new tyrant, Nicolas Maduro took power and sent his swarms of federal troops and government “militias” out into the streets to crush any opposition to his regime, the unarmed populace had little recourse in the face of government guns. This fact is highlighted by a Venezuelan educator now living in exile in Ecuador. (Fox News, emphasis added)
As Venezuela continues to crumble under the socialist dictatorship of President Nicolas Maduro, some are expressing words of warning – and resentment – against a six-year-old gun control bill that stripped citizens of their weapons.
“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”
The unarmed population in question probably couldn’t afford to purchase any replacement firearms at this point even if it were legal. Keep in mind that most of Venezuela is so starving and impoverished at this point that families are renting caskets to display at funerals for their deceased loved ones and then burying them in plastic bags.
The effectiveness of the Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law was regularly highlighted by the government on state-run television. Here are a few of the items they featured.
- A program allowing citizens to voluntarily trade in their arms for electrical goods
- A tally of only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders
- Meanwhile, more than 12,500 gun confiscations were conducted by force
- Broadcasted displays of public weapons demolitions in the town square
Any of this sounding familiar to you yet? Government offers of gun “buybacks” (even if it’s in trade for goods)… mandatory gun confiscations… the destruction of weapons rather than having them go back into circulation? In case you don’t feel like clicking through, all of those linked stories in this paragraph come from events here in the United States, not in some foreign ****hole country.
If you’re watching what’s happening under expanding gun control programs in Democrat/socialist run blue states these days, consider the end game. And to do so, look no further than Venezuela. It’s really working out gangbusters for them, isn’t it?