Majority of Millennials feel that life is more stressful now than ever before

Comment by Jim Campbell

March 19, 2019

How is it that they can possibly know?

Characteristics of Millennials

Millennials grew up in an electronics-filled and increasingly online and socially networked world.

It is clearly the generation that could have benefited from military service, working at V.A Hospitals or being part of an apprentice program.


Many have chosen the role as “Queen of the house hold and made the choice to take care of their children at home.

It’s true, look at the video below for the truth!



Being a full-time mother is a daunting task requiring stamina, little quality sleep and on call status 2X7X7.

They are the generation that has received the most marketing attention.



It would be inappropriate to paint them with the same brush.

Many have served our country as volunteers in our recent wars.

They have gone on receiving degrees as well as advanced degrees leading productive lives.

As the most ethnically diverse generation, Millennials tend to be tolerant of difference.

Having been raised under the mantra “follow your dreams” and being told they were special, they tend to be confident.

While largely a positive trait, the Millennial generation’s confidence has been argued to spill over into the realms of entitlement and narcissism. 

They are often seen as slightly more optimistic about the future of America than other generations, despite the fact that they are the first generation since the Silent Generation that is expected to be less economically successful than their parents.

Which generation are you?

These are Western Cultural Generations. Japan and Asia and portions of Europe will have their own generational definitions based on major cultural, political, and economic influences.

Which Generation are You?

Generation Name Births
Age Today*
Oldest Age
The Lost Generation
The Generation of 1914
1890 1915 104 129
The Interbellum Generation 1901 1913 106 118
The Greatest Generation 1910 1924 95 109
The Silent Generation 1925 1945 74 94
Baby Boomer Generation 1946 1964 55 73
Generation X (Baby Bust) 1965 1979 40 54
1975 1985 34 44
Generation Y, Gen Next
1980 1994 25 39
iGen / Gen Z 1995 2012 7 24
Gen Alpha 2013 2025 1 6

Note: Dates are approximate and there is some overlap because there are no standard definitions for when a generation begins and ends. See the section below about why this overlap.


Disconnect from the iPhone, Internet or social media is one of their biggest gripes.

Oh the horror!

A majority (58 percent) of Millennials feel that life is more stressful now than ever before, according to a new survey.

In addition, one-third of Millennials believe their lives are more stressful than the average person’s, according to the survey by OnePoll on behalf of Endoca, a CBD oil company.

For Millennials, the source of tension is typically a myriad of small stressors – phone batteries dying, being stuck in traffic or long waits for appointments – that add up to big anxiety over time, according to the survey of 2,000 Americans ages 22-37.



‘Stress isn’t an abstract issue — it’s a significant problem and doesn’t necessarily have to be caused by one large inciting incident,’ said Henry Vincenty, CEO of Endoca.

‘No matter what’s causing our stress, we should take care to be proactive about finding solutions before it begins affecting our health.’

Half of Millennials cited losing a wallet or credit card as the most stressful life event, followed by 48 percent each who were overwhelmed from arguing with a partner and traffic delays.

Losing a phone ranked fourth at 44 percent, followed by arriving late to work (43 percent), slow WiFi (42 percent) and a dead phone battery (40 percent).



In addition, 39 percent feared forgetting their passwords, while 38 percent each were stressed over credit card fraud and forgetting a phone charger (they start to get anxious when their phone hits 23 percent).

Other modern-day stressors also came into play: nearly 20 percent of Millennials said that getting zero likes on a social media post would cause them more stress than having an argument with their significant other.

Arriving first a party is more stressful than a job interview for 22 percent of Millennials.

And going through with plans is more stressful than missing out on them for 35 percent of Millennials.

Americans lose nearly six hours a sleep each week due to stress – which adds up to 12 days per year.

Millennials said they lost sleep nearly three nights a week – or 138 nights a year – to stress.

Ironically, a plurality (41 percent) of Millennials said they cope with stress by sleeping, while 36 percent they deal with issues head on and 33 percent said they exercise to cope.

‘Stress may be inevitable, but it doesn’t have to be incurable,’ Vincenty said.



Continue reading

Posted in Majority of Millennials feel that life is more stressful now than ever before | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Issues Most People Don’t Know About the United States Supreme Court

Comment by Jim Campbell

March 19th, 2019

It’s very difficult for the average person to make any sense out of how the leftist/progressives determine what will be their pending next word leading them to complete destruction.

2020 progressive/Democrats warm to expanding Supreme Court.

A series of White House hopefuls are expressing new interest in remaking the courts — payback for Republican aggression during the Obama presidency.

Their goal,”Payback for Republican aggression during the Obama presidency.”

A great deal makes no sense in the process of selecting and appointing a potential Supreme Court Justice.

As the reader will note below a potential appointees sex, and color are taken into consideration. WHY?

The most disturbing is that the potential nominee is not required to have judicial experience or knowledge of the law.

What good would they be in making decisions, where former SCOTUS findings as well as that of lower courts must be taken into account before the best decision possible is rendered.



They still are seething over the fact the Republicans blocked the nomination of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland.

In order for their party to continue on this track, they must be mired in the past and not looking toward how they can make things better for all Americans now and in the future.

The U.S. Supreme Court of the United States receives over ten-thousand cases to be heard, they can only handle 80.

Imagine, sitting on death row with exculpatory evidence showing that DNA proves you didn’t commit the crime.

This is justice?

Look no further the Democrat controlled House refusing to put forth any meaningful legislation are meeting in the middle with Republicans to get positive legislation approved and signed into law by the president.


Things The Reader Might Not Know About the U.S. Supreme Court.

Find out seven surprising facts about how the nation’s highest court works and how it’s changed over the years.

March 19, 2019

1. The court was around for 145 years before it got a permanent home of its own.

The court convened for the first time in February 1790 in New York City, then the nation’s capital.

From 1791 to 1800, it assembled in Philadelphia, which served as the capital while Washington, D.C., was under construction.

Starting in February 1801, the court began meeting in Washington, where it occupied various sites in the Capitol building for more than a century.

(After the British burned the Capitol in 1814, the court even temporarily met in a private home.)

In 1929, at the urging of Chief Justice William Taft, Congress authorized some $9.74 million to erect a building the court could call its own.

The marble structure, in use since 1935, was designed by architect Cass Gilbert Sr., whose projects included New York City’s Woolworth Building (the world’s tallest skyscraper from 1913 to 1930), along with several state capitols and other public works.

Today, the building features its own police force as well as a top-floor gym, with a basketball court nicknamed “the highest court in the land.” Shooting hoops and lifting weights are banned while court is in session, however.

2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices.

In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10.

In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court.

Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.

In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire.

Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

3. There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice.

The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation’s highest court.

To date, six justices have been foreign-born; the most recent, Felix Frankfurter, who served on the court from 1939 to 1962, was a native of Vienna, Austria.

The youngest associate justice ever appointed was Joseph Story, who was 32 years old when he joined the bench in 1811.

Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who served from 1902 to 1932, retired at age 90, making him the oldest person ever to sit on the court.

One thing every justice who’s served shares in common is that all were lawyers before joining the court.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, before attending law school was standard practice, many future justices got their legal training by studying under a mentor.

James Byrnes, who served on the court from 1941 to 1942, was the last justice who didn’t attend law school (Byrnes, who also didn’t graduate from high school, worked as a law clerk and later passed the bar exam.)

Harvard has produced more members of the court than any other law school; to date, 20 justices have attended or graduated from the venerable institution, which was established in 1817 and is America’s oldest continually operating law school.

4. Justices are appointed for life but can be impeached.

Associate Justice William O. Douglas put in 36 years and 7 months on the bench, from April 1939 to November 1975, the longest tenure of any justice in the court’s history.

Douglas’ successor, John Paul Stevens, was part of the court from December 1975 to June 2010, making him the third-longest serving justice.

(Steven Johnson Field, who served from 1863 to 1897, comes in second.)

Although they are appointed for life, more than 50 have chosen to retire or resign; that number has included the likes of John Jay, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Charles Evan Hughes, Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, and, more recently, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor.

Only one justice ever has been impeached: Samuel Chase, in 1804. The U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase, an outspoken figure accused of acting in a partisan way during various court proceedings; however, the U.S. Senate acquitted him in 1805 and he remained on the bench, where he had served since 1796, until his death in 1811.

5. William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as U.S. president and on the court.

Taft served as America’s 27th president, from 1909 to 1913, during which time he appointed five associate justices and one chief justice.

After losing his bid for re-election, Taft, a graduate of Yale University and Cincinnati Law School, and a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals prior to his presidency, went on to teach law at Yale and serve as head of the American Bar Association, among other activities.

In 1921, following the death of Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, whom Taft had appointed when he was in the White House, President Warren Harding nominated Taft as White’s replacement.

As the court’s 10th chief justice, Taft successfully advocated for passage of the Judiciary Act of 1925, which enabled the justices to choose which cases they wanted to hear (today, the court follows the so-called rule of four, by which at least four justices must vote to grant a petition to review a case before it can be heard by the court).

Taft served as chief justice until February 1930, when he resigned due to poor health; he died the following month.

6. George Washington appointed the most justices to the court.

The president of the United States has the sole power to nominate Supreme Court justices when there are openings on the court, and each nomination must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

George Washington made 11 appointments to the court, while Franklin Roosevelt made the second highest number of appointments, nine.

Only three presidents besides Andrew Johnson did not make appointments: William Henry Harrison (who died in 1841, a month after his inauguration), Zachary Taylor (who passed away in 1850, 16 months after taking office) and Jimmy Carter.

To date, presidents have submitted 160 nominations, including nominations for chief justice.

Of that total, 124 were confirmed, with seven of them opting not to take the job. America’s 10th president, John Tyler, who assumed office after the death of William Henry Harrison, made nine nominations while in office from 1841 to 1845, but the politically unpopular Tyler managed to get just one of those nominations confirmed by the Senate.

7. In recent years, the court has received some 10,000 annual requests to review cases, but hears only about 80.

The justices usually only take on cases involving significant legal principles or cases in which lower courts have disagreed about the interpretation of federal laws.

Most of the court’s cases come to it on appeal from lower federal courts and state courts; however, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (the right to hear a case for the first time, before any appellate review) in a few instances, such as cases involving ambassadors or disputes between two or more states.

Because the justices primarily hear cases on appeal, it’s uncommon for witnesses or evidence to be presented in court.

Instead, attorneys submit written legal arguments (briefs) in advance and justices typically listen to oral arguments, where each side has 30 minutes to make a presentation, during which the justices can ask questions.

(The courtroom is open to the public during oral arguments, which are not allowed to be televised or photographed; since 1955, the court has made audio recordings of oral arguments, which are released after the arguments are over.)

The justices later meet in private to discuss and vote on each case. In the event of a tie vote, the decision of the lower court is upheld.


Continue reading

Posted in Issues Most People Don't Know About the United States Supreme Court | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

2020’s politically correct presidential election

Comment by Jim Campbell

March 18th, 2018

Fourteen progressive/Democrats have announced they will be running against President Trump.



This brings back memories of the 2o16 elections when a similar number of candidates entered the presidential primaries on to see one by one them fall to the way side as it was clear that voters were sick of usual politicians with worn out ideas and wanted bold new change.



The pursuit of political correctness may appeal to those on the left but it will get none of them the nomination.

I’ve yet to see anyone on the left with the ability to light up the electorate and the positive following who are willing to put up money to see him elected for a second term.



What we have is far to many people with socialist ideas, and that is an economic platform that will die before it will fly.

This is not to suggest for a moment that the current president doesn’t have flaws, as he certainly does.

Those he doesn’t have for the most part are made up be the media which serves no useful purpose other than being co-conspirators in their lust to “Get Trump.”

I don’t believe so, only time will tell.

Axios News Service

Mike Allen

March 18, 2019


Why it matters: Look for 2020 Democratic candidates to be more careful than ever not to offend anyone, while Trump revels in the contrast with a stream of outlandish assertions and observations that will delight his followers.


Also know as Chet for “Chester the molester, is far to creepy, even his wife know that.

It should come as no surprise, but images like the one below have all been cleansed from the internet.

I had to go back to my previous articles to find this one.



  • On one side, you have President Trump, easily the most politically incorrect figure to win the White House in the modern era. He loves nothing more than to taunt liberals, the media and America with throwback thinking and insults. 


  • On the other, you have the most diverse Democratic field ever, showing early and enthusiastic insistence on inclusiveness, as well as race, gender and lifestyle sensitivity.

This weekend was a sneak peek: Beto groveling and Trump bellowing.

O’Rourke apologized for joking during his first two days on the trail that his wife is raising their three children “sometimes with my help.”

  • For good measure, he admitted his white male privilege had benefited him, and he said his preference for a running mate would be a woman.
  • “Beto Apologizes for Being White & Male After his followers trashed him over a joke about his wife.”

At the same time, Trump was tweeting love for two embattled Fox News hosts — Tucker Carlson, who made misogynistic comments on a radio show a decade ago, and “Judge” Jeanine Pirro, who made an anti-Muslim comment on her Fox show.


Continue reading

Posted in 2020's politically correct presidential election | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

America doesn’t need Gavin Newsom for President

Comment by Jim Campbell

March 18th, 2019

Is California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, a progressive/socialist, a Marxist or a leopard who can change his spots on a dime when he believes it to be necessary.

Or is a  the face of  fascist?


All  Governor Newsom needs is a pair of boots and he’s ready to roll.

Fascists see their citizens as a unit which must be under control. The state decides the values which must be shared by all. They develop, interpret, and direct the entire life of the individual. They suppress any opposition.

The military controls everything. Criticizing Nationalism and Patriotism is a crime punishable by treason.

Fascists don’t like international trade deals.

They want their country to be self-sufficient and strong on its own.

Unions are illegal as are any organizations which may question the ruling elite.

It is an accepted belief that Fascism is a totalitarian form of government, one that is in total control.

Think of fascism as a method of politics. It’s a rhetoric, a way of running for power.

Of course, that’s connected to fascist ideology, because fascist ideology centers on power.

But I really see fascism as a technique to gain power.

People are always asking, “Is such-and-such politician really a fascist?” Which is really just another way of asking if this person has a particular set of beliefs or an ideology, but again, I don’t really think of a fascist as someone who holds a set of beliefs.

Newsom has already imposed rent control is California.

He has done away with the death penalty.

He is pushing for the legalization of marijuana and Universal Health Care.

In other words he learned  little or nothing from Obama’s health care debacle.

He has imposed his view that low-cost housing must be built in California’s more wealthy suburbs.

He is easy on crime.

Newsom rejects the wall between U.S. and America protecting our sovereignty.

Inbreeding within political families?

Of course the video below can present a view shared by the makers, It’s up to the viewer to decide for themselves if it’s on the money or not.



The was only elected because he ran against  Republican John Cox in a Blue State dominated by voters who are too ignorant to vote.











Cox did not vote for Trump in 2016, a decision he now says he regrets, but he echoes many of Trump’s positions.

He approves of the plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and rejects what are known as sanctuary laws that limit cooperation between federal and local officials.

He says that they help to protect undocumented immigrants who have committed a crime.

Cox blames the California Environmental Quality Act, the state’s broad environmental law, for contributing to the state’s affordable housing shortage and says he would repeal it.

He would reverse California’s gas tax rise, passed by the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature as the first step in raising $5.4 billion for transportation projects.

He criticizes the increase, whose repeal is on November’s ballot, as regressive.

He says he supports Second Amendment rights.

“San Francisco Democrat comes out as a pro-criminal autocrat.”

Lloyd Billingsley



“Gavin Newsom’s real ambition is not California’s governor seat,” University of San Francisco political science professor James Taylor told the San Francisco Chronicle, “it’s the presidency of the United States.”

In similar style, Tad Friend of the New Yorker touts Newsom’s Bobby Kennedy look, as “Newsom seeks to embody Kennedy’s grainy glamour, to provide moral clarity in a bewildering hour.”

For their part, Californians are now bewildered by the governor’s benevolence to the state’s worst criminals.



As the Sacramento Bee reported, Gov. Newsom “plans to sign an executive order Wednesday morning granting reprieves to all 737 Californians awaiting executions.”

The governor’s action comes “three years after California voters rejected an initiative to end the death penalty, instead passing a measure to speed up executions.”


Did we miss the categorical  and emphatic no in his comments?

Newsom claims the death penalty system has “discriminated against mentally ill defendants and people of color,” while not making the state safer and wasting “billions of taxpayer dollars.”

According to the Bee, the governor’s moratorium invites a “vitriolic” response from death penalty proponents and “some of the families of murder victims in the state.” The piece cites no family members of those murdered by recipients of the governor’s reprieve.

The initial story of the San Jose Mercury News was in effect a press release for Newsom, citing Natasha Minsker of the ACLU, the state’s major criminals’ lobby, that Newsom was showing “bold leadership.” The piece also failed to name or quote any relatives of murder victims.

As those victims could point out, Newsom is not a judge, and in fact the former San Francisco mayor and Lieutenant Governor is not even an attorney. Newsom was not present at any of the murderer’s trials and has produced no new exculpatory evidence of any kind in any of the cases. Even so, Newsom charges that the “death penalty system” is discriminatory toward “people of color.”

As it happens, the criminal justice system does not try any suspects based on skin shade or ethnicity.

All suspects are tried only according to the proportion in which they commit crimes.

And in crime, as in all areas of life, statistical disparities are the rule, not the exception.

Every one of the 737 murderers Newsom reprieved was duly tried, convicted, and had exhausted all available appeals.

So the massive reprieve for murderers effectively trashes the police, detectives, and district attorneys who gained the convictions, and the judges who upheld them.

The reprieve also disrespects the voters who in 2016 rejected Proposition 62, which would have eliminated the death penalty, and approved, Proposition 66, which speeded up the process for executions.

Most of all, the mass reprieve abuses the families of those murdered by the beneficiaries of Newsom’s largesse.

Those are some of the most vicious killers in state history, including Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped and killed Polly Klaas, only 12 years old, and serial killer Joseph Naso, who murdered six women.

Also gaining a reprieve was “Tool Box Killer” Lawrence Bittaker, who raped and killing five teenage girls in 1979 after torturing them with pliers and screwdrivers.

These cases grabbed media attention but death-row inmate Luis Bracamontes somehow escaped notice.

In 2014 in Sacramento, the false-documented Mexican national, a previously deported criminal, gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis.

During his trial, Bracamontes said “I wish I had killed more of the motherfuckers.”

The Mexican then called African American witness Anthony Holmes, whom he had shot during an attempted carjacking, a “nigger.”

Then the Mexican shouted “black lives don’t matter” at African American family members, including Danny Oliver’s wife Susan.

This racist murderer got the death penalty and now resides on San Quentin’s death row, where like more than 700 others he got the good news of governor Gavin Newsom’s reprieve.

It took many Californians by surprise but others saw it coming. As it happens, Gavin Newsom is an acolyte of another anti-death-penalty ideologue, former governor and three-time presidential candidate Jerry Brown.

Brown’s choice for Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court was his former campaign chauffer Rose Bird, only 40 years old and without judicial experience.

In 10 years as California’s Chief Justice, Bird heard 64 capital cases and never voted to uphold a death sentence.

The criminal included Theodore Frank, duly convicted of kidnaping, torturing, raping, murdering and mutilating two-year-old Amy Sue Seitz in 1978.

On November 4, 1986, by a two-to-one margin voters booted Bird, the only chief justice in state history to be removed by a vote of the people.

Voters also ousted justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, both Jerry Brown appointees, who sided with Bird on the death-penalty cases.

In 2001, Theodore Frank died of a heart attack in prison.

Previously deported Mexican Juan Corona murdered and mutilated 25 Americans, never got a death sentence, and died on March 4 at the age of 85.

In California, murderers can kill as many people as they want and keep their own lives, even if they get a death sentence.

A future governor might reverse Newsom’s order, so voters might get a chance to push back against the pro-criminal governor.


Continue reading

Posted in America doesn't need Gavin Newsom for President | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

For White People Only

Comment’s by Jim Campbell

March 18, 2019

This is not intended to be a racist piece, it is being written to show how blacks use racism to further their cause in Congress while the most its members bring down the overall I.Q. of the entire congress.

I will continue to up date this tab at the top of the blot as more absurdities are put forth by those who could not get a job in the private sector.



Remember it was Jackson who arranged for both of his sons to acquire beer company franchises.

He was also Bill Clinton’s “Spiritual Advisor,” when “Helping him.” with  multiple acts of sexual deviancy including alleged rape.

While doing so, Jackson, then married fathered another child out of wedlock with another woman.

In 1969 he brought the world up close and personal with political corrected when he created the term, “African-American.”

I refuse to use the term, I call blacks what they are, black.

Notably there have been numerous blacks who didn’t get in line with this nonsense, Professor of Economics, Thomas Sowell comes readily to mind.

We can’t forget the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s peaceful march for civil rights through the streets of Selma, Alabama, Rosa Parks and others.

The contributions of Black Soldiers fighting in every war the U.S. has become involved is also well-known.

Examples Below:


Examples below:

Does Waters need to be bitch slapped or what?

The commies on the left have their Congressional Black Caucasus, it’s time for the average white person to be represented.


Finally, she showed her true colors!

Charlie Rangel’s recent conviction on 11 ethics violations brought to my attention the fact that Rangel was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.


Clearly the poster boy for term limits among so many others.


Mr. Rangel, 86, lamented the fierce partisanship that has come to dominate the nation’s politics and poison relationships on Capitol Hill.

“As my wife and I look at photographs that were taken over the last 40 or 50 years, it’s hard sometimes to think who were Democrats and who were Republicans. Relationships were so much closer, and that doesn’t exist today by a long shot,” he said.

Those misgivings bled into the lingering resentment over his House Committee on Ethics conviction in December 2010 on 11 counts of misconduct, including use of a rent-controlled residential apartment in Harlem as a campaign office, failure to pay taxes on rental income from his beach villa in the Dominican Republic and using official House letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at The City College of New York.

I’m convinced that I was targeted” by Republicans in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, said Mr. Rangel.

“However, I’m a politician, and I understand it.”

Still, Mr. Rangel insisted that he had put that episode behind him and was satisfied with the legacy he is leaving behind after 22 terms as a congressman

I hadn’t realized that there were racist groups allowed in the U.S. Congress, but sure enough, there it is.

But wait: In all fairness, the fact that Congress allowed the “Black Caucus” in the first place most certainly has to do with different times, times in which black people were fighting for equal civil rights.

The Democrats don’t need white people anymore?

The best video of the bunch in proving the reason for this article was laid out by the useless Texas Congress woman who is noted for nothing more than her cowboy hats!

Predictably, because the racist black woman was reflecting the CNN strategy the interviewer didn’t interrupt her rant and challenge her.

It’s sad to see another gorilla escape from the jungles of Africa.

Perhaps we can start a fund to purchase a one way ticket to where she belongs.

I’m looking for a longer version where the white guest was likely going to challenge her and his comments ended up on the cutting room floor.


If she weren’t a member of congress, who in the private sector would hire her?

Just another black racist, seriously worth viewing to get a better clue as to who  these folks are and their true agenda which at the moment is to bring down the Trump Administration by impeachment, with no grounds to do so.


The answer to the rhetorical question is NO!

She didn’t hear all of the phone call from the president to the grieving widow? 

gives us a break congresswoman.

It’s understandable in this American’s eyes how the Black Caucus came to be, considering it was created in 1969.

The question in my mind is why it still exists today.

Current laws make racial discrimination illegal.

Many of these laws were not in place in 1969 when the Congressional Black Caucus was created, but over the years laws were put into place which leveled the playing field between blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans.

Racism is now against the law.

Hallelujah for that, right?

Let us not forget Congressman Hank Johnson, know primarily for his Guam tipping over, is not calling President to Hitler.


A profound presentation, which he likely didn’t write is lucky we have a First Amendment allowing him to spew lies and hatred. 

Then why do Americans continue to allow it? Guilt? Shame?

A lack of collective self-esteem, perhaps?

There are many reasons why a person would turn a blind eye to racism, although none of those reasons have anything to do with practicing principles.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

Most assuredly this issue points to a complete lack of principles on the part of all Congresspersons, white, black and whatever color they might be.

A lack of courage is the most obvious.None of our Congressional representatives have the courage to point out that racism is racism.

In fact, none in our Judicial system has that kind of courage either, as Black Chambers of Commerce, Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are all still in existence today, while no one, white, black, brown or red has the courage to point out that these are all racist organizations.

And do we even have to say one word about “La Raza,” the most blatantly racist organization of all?

Yet, no one says a word.

There is no Congressional White Caucus.

Nor is there a White Chamber of Commerce or a National Association for the Advancement of White People.

Why not, you might ask?

Because those would be considered “racist” organizations, would they not?

If white people, rather than Hispanics, created a national organization or non-profit called “The Race,” would everyone be okay with that?

Yet Hispanics have done it and mum’s the word.

White people are not allowed to create organizations designed to support themselves in America.

I have to wonder, aside from the obvious (that liberalism is another word for raging co-dependence that has been mislabeled “Political Correctness”), why white, black, Asian or Hispanic Americans allow this racism to continue.

After momentary consideration, I guess I can see why black, Asian and Hispanic folks don’t complain about this racism.

They are the beneficiaries of this kind of blatant racism.

That, of course, points to a plethora of principles being ignored and even trampled on, such as honesty, courage, integrity, truth, love, self-discipline, honor, acceptance, humility, confession — the list of principles being ignored and not practiced is long when it comes to those who quietly allow and support racism in America.

This, of course, is just another example of why America is experiencing such difficulty right now, collectively speaking.

Without the courage to be honest and forthcoming, to talk about the truth, to humble ourselves one to another and admit when we are wrong (any organization which defines itself by race is “racist”), to support each other when our rights are trampled (whites, for example, don’t have the same rights as blacks, Asians and Hispanics when it comes to public or private organizations — whites cannot create a Congressional White Caucus or a White Chamber of Commerce, yet blacks can — fair? No.).

It might not seem like a problem to blacks, Asians and Hispanics yet, at least, even if they can personally admit they see the racism going on, they are clearly as unwilling as white people are to bring it up and point it out.

No, it may not seem like a problem yet, but, as Pastor Martin Niemöller pointed out “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

The U.S. government and apparently we, the people have said nothing about white people’s rights being taken away, rights all other races have, enjoy and exercise openly in identifying themselves and promoting their own race’s causes.

If we allow racism to continue in America — and we do today — we can expect racism to get worse.

It’s that simple.

If we aren’t willing to stand up for one another and level the playing field when it comes to racial discrimination, then let’s stop pretending that all of that fighting over civil rights did anything but turn the victims into the oppressors and the oppressors into victims.

Ask yourself: Would you support a Congressional White Caucus?

Probably not. I wouldn’t.

Then why have you said nothing about the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?

Racists support racism.

Think about that, perhaps…and then think about what a principled individual might say or do about this.

And then say it and do it.

I have no problem with people of any races, as my family is a cornucopia of mixed races. I love them all and I am not concerned with their race, but rather with their character, which defines them as individuals.

I have a problem with racism.

I think you should, too.

We should all have a problem with racism and racist organizations by now.

© Don Cobb



Continue reading

Posted in For White People Only | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Recent disclosures are driving the media crazy

Comments by Jim Campbell

Turns out Senator Diane Feinstein has been involved from the start with the Fusion GPS attacks on Trump. 

Feinstein was also deeply involved in the Dr. Christine Ford attacks on Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco.

This article was written by one of our most frequent commenters, Dave the Differentiator.

My involvement, images and video.


This is the same despicable dowager who had a Chinese spy working in her capital hill office.

Kudos also to the reporters who’ve noticed the senator’s long history of lobbying on behalf of China’s interests.

Think about it, this is the same Feintein when the Democrats has the U.S. Senate headed up the U.S. Intelligence Committee.

For over ten years she remained clueless.

Another post on the Internet names 35 Key People involved in the Russia Collusion Hoax Who Need to be Investigate.(Source)

One consistent factor working against Disclosure is the resistant of the MSM to ever publish these facts. 
This behavior by the MSM slows down the disclosure and inhibits the truth from getting out into the public forum. 

The so-called News on Television is not really the news any longer.

So, while the Disclosure is taking longer to get out into the open public for people to see and become aware of the facts, the Disclosure is happening slowly and surely to allow the truth to be known by one and all.

So many heads are likely to roll that their may be the need to build more bowling allies.


Continue reading

Posted in Recent disclosures are driving the media crazy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

One of the most classic moments in U.S. presidential debate history

By Jim Campbell

March 17th, 2016

Absolutely Classic Newt!

How long has it been that we have had politicians on the right willing to take it to the street and brawl?

I can’t remember, can you?

Of course we have music for that by the Doobie Brothers

Any wonder why he was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives and engineered the Contract with America?

Think Newt is a has been?

Think again!



After viewing the video below, it will be clear, one would not want to show up in a dark alley with former Speaker of the House Gingrich without a R.P.G.



Just kidding of course, but can you imagine taking him on with any subject in which you did not agree?



A balanced budget amendment. Tax cuts. Welfare reform. Those were just three of the 10 points of the Contract with America, Newt Gingrich’s conservative plan, signed by 300-plus Republican candidates and presented at a press conference just six weeks before the 1994 midterm elections.

It’s unlikely that what is being called for today will likely happen.

The Republicans have become a group of weak lily-livered , spineless weak sisters.




The proposal by Gingrich, then Speaker of the House, has been credited with the “Republican Revolution” that ensued at the polls, with the GOP easily taking control of the U.S. House and Senate, gaining 12 governorships and regaining control in 20 state legislatures.

Republicans had long been in the minority in Congress and the key to the Republican sweep, says Paul Teske, dean of the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado, Denver, was in making the campaigns national.

“The Democrats controlled the House for 40 straight years before 1994, with an interesting coalition of northeast/midwest liberals and southern Democrats, who by today have all become Republicans,” he says, adding that Democrats had held the House for 58 of the prior 62 years and the Senate for 34 of 40 years before 1994.

“So, Republicans were not used to having congressional power.

Their thought was that by nationalizing the election, it could be a way to get power back.”

Devin Nunes Confirms Central “Spygate” Element: Chris Steele Did NOT Write the Dossier…

The one consistent discovery that CTH has been hammering home over a year-and-a-half, is that Chris Steele did not write the dossier.  

The information within the dossier was a collection of old research by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby at Fusion-GPS; in combination with new research, claims and details provided by Nellie Ohr.

Ranking member of the HPSCI Devin Nunes outlined to Sean Hannity he too has come to this conclusion.  [Listen, pay attention to @02:00]

For those readers who believe that Newt Gingrich’s days have come and gone, he will remain involved in politics through his books, essays and speeches.

At 76 years of age this coming June, he has far more political acumen than members of the left who are is age.

New has made the decision to no longer be active in politics and enjoy his wife and daughter.

Unlike his progressive counter parts his in not trapped in their lust for perks and power.

Our 2017/2018 research has always shown the collaborative files of Simpson and Ohr were then laundered by contracting British intelligence analyst Christopher Steele, with some effort of secondary validation, and assembly into a formal intelligence product that could be pushed into the U.S. intelligence community. 

The ‘push‘ included contacts with media, Dept of State, and politicians like John McCain.

H/T for the above piece by The Conservative Treehouse.




Continue reading

Posted in One of the most classic moments in U.S. presidential debate history | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Now? Christopher Steele deposition set to be released today

Comments by Jim Campbell

May 17, 2019

As the nursery rhyme tells us.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty too a great fall, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty back together again.


It’s clear now more than ever that Mueller’s attacks on President Trump, his family and members of his administration were attempts to cover for the bad actor, Hillary Clinton.

It would be nice to see Mueller put in front of a grand jury and legally prosecuted for his actions.

Former British spy Christopher Steele confessed that he used an unverified report submitted to a CNN website, where “random individuals” can post information, for his salacious anti-Trump dossier.


H/T to Earl for the above image

Steele made the awkward revelation during a deposition last year in a case involving Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, who claims his companies Webzilla and XBT Holdings were defamed by Steele after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed.

Russian Tech firm used in hacking of Democrats, McCains’s Associate disseminated Steele dosier unsealed documents show. (Source)



Lindsey Graham who is still a RINO, must understand that his heated outburst in the defense of Judge Kavanaugh does not relieve him of his status. (Source)

Steele was asked during the deposition how he verified allegations about Gubarev’s companies and whether he found “anything of relevance concerning Webzilla,” according to the newly released transcripts of the deposition.

“We did. It was an article I have got here which was posted on July 28, 2009, on something called CNN iReport,” Steele said.



But CNN iReport, which appears to be no longer active — though archives remain accessible online — states that it’s a “user-generated site” and warns that “the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.”

“The stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post.”

— CNN iReport disclaimer 

Even the site’s banner included the slogan “Unedited. Unfiltered. News.”

Former British spy Christopher Steele confessed that he used an unverified report submitted to a CNN website, where “random individuals” can post information, for his salacious anti-Trump dossier.



When asked whether the former British spy understood how the website actually worked, he confessed that “I do not have any particular knowledge of that” and noted he didn’t understand at the time that the site has “no connection to any CNN reporters.”

“Do you understand that CNN iReports are or were nothing more than any random individuals’ assertions on the Internet?” an examiner asked Steele.

He replied: “No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it may has [sic] some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site.”

“No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it may have [sic] some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site.”

— Christopher Steele

According to the archive copy of the iReports site, the website specifically notes that none of the users who submit content can be described as working for CNN.

“Being an user and creating and uploading content to does not mean that you work for CNN, and you should never represent yourself as working for CNN,” the site’s FAQ section read.

The dossier authored by Steele alleged that Gubarev’s companies “used botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘alerting operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership” and that Gubarev himself played a “significant” part in the operation while “under duress” from the Russian security agency FSB.

The latest revelation of using unconfirmed sources put the dossier’s legitimacy further into question, especially since the FBI extensively relied on the dossier in its warrant applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in seeking to surveil Trump aide Carter Page.

Steele and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence, were hired by Glenn Simpson’s U.S. based company, Fusion GPS, to work on the dossier and promote its contents to journalists.

Fusion GPS received $1.8 million via the law firm Perkins Coie, with the money paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and Adam Shaw contributed to this report.



Continue reading

Posted in Why Now? Christopher Steele deposition set to be released today | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Pelosi wants the voting age to be lowered to sixteen

By Jim Campbell

March 17th. 2019

It’s clear from the video below that Nancy Pelosi is in favor of having constituents that are more ignorant that she is to become voters.

I’d put up any sixteen year old, that would be about a tenth grade student, who wasn’t “Indoctrinated,” in a blue state, put a large bet on it and win.



Sixteen year old children have opinions and just like their counterparts on the left, they are rarely based on factual information.

Of course we have music to accompany this piece.

Please click here.

They tend to want “Feel good solutions,” that sound to them great to them as they were designed to do.



Pelosi knows well that with the new official government identification card that will be issued in 2020 to vote, the vast majority of minority voters who tend to vote for the progressives will not come to the DMV to register for one.


Name a government solution put in place by the left to any perceived problem that has been a success.

You can’t HA

It’s difficult if not impossible.

Social Security? A complete failure which prolonged FDR’s not so Great Depression. (Source)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act is a 1933 law that separated investment banking from retail banking.

The largest banks no longer focus on providing consumers with affordable loans and financial products. Instead, they prefer to line the pockets of their shareholders.

For example, savings from the most recent tax cut were expected to be passed along to consumers and their employees.

But, according to a recent study, these same big banks are planning to boost shareholder dividends and other payouts by more than $28 billion through mid-2019 instead.

How is this consumer friendly?

With GDP growth reaching north of 4 percent and the housing market recovering along with strong employment numbers, the economy is humming.

But the 2008 financial crisis looms large for Americans who had their personal savings wiped out, homes foreclosed upon and pink slips handed to them.

History has a knack for repeating itself.

That’s why it is time for lawmakers to consider ensuring banks’ past misdeeds are not normalized or accepted as status quo.

Investment banks organized the initial sales of stocks, called an initial public offering.

They facilitated mergers and acquisitions.

Many of them operated their own hedge funds.

Retail banks took deposits, managed checking accounts, and made loans.

The U.S. Postal Service: Major claim to fame, delivering junk mail and continually raising the rates of postage stamps.

Yes they just raised the rates an additional 2 cents/per one ounce envelope.

The Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is not federal, it was created by political gangsters and covered in the book, the Creature of Jekyll Island   


I central banking system that didn’t charge interest but only the expenses for doing business would be potentially workable.

Remember back to Biblical times, Jesus through the money changers out of the temple. (Source)



He did so for good reason, people brought gold and silver coins with them only to have the coins clipped for a very small amount of their face value.



Continue reading

Posted in Pelosi wants the voting age to be lowered to sixteen | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Combat Obscura the film the United States Marine Corps didn’t want shown.

Comment by Jim Campbell

March 15th, 2019

Former Marine Miles Lagoze hopes his film “Combat Obscura” will alter the “sanitized and sanctified view of the military” many Americans hold by showing them his view of what combat is actually like.



Apparently our military brass has learned nothing about other groups who tried to conduct and impose their will on think, Russias failure.

He documented his groups mission and will have the full length movie out later this year.

For their part the Marine Corps Brass can’t do anything to him because he has long since been discharged, revealed nothing that was secret, just the day-to-day hum drum terror of fighting in a war.

‘Stop looking at these kids as heroes,’ says veteran who made documentary featuring wartime footage of Marines.



Stars and Stripes


March 16, 2019

KABUL, Afghanistan — Former Marine Miles Lagoze hopes his film “Combat Obscura” will alter the “sanitized and sanctified view of the military” many Americans hold by showing them his view of what combat is actually like.

“It’s important because if you worship the military too much, you lose track of why we’re actually at war and the underlying issues that are causing it,” Lagoze told Stars and Stripes during a phone interview before the film’s release on Friday.

The documentary — a patchwork of scenes showing Marines smoking marijuana while on patrol in Afghanistan, defecating outside the homes of locals, swearing at children and talking lightly of killing innocent people — goes far to challenge the ubiquitous label of “hero” frequently bestowed on American servicemembers.

The cultural insensitivity on display may also give viewers the feeling that they’re getting an explanation, or at least part of one, as to why America’s longest war — now in its 18th year — hasn’t been won.

Footage used in the film was taken by Lagoze, then a lance corporal, and other combat cameramen during a deployment to Helmand province with the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment between 2011 and 2012.

Lagoze’s job as a combat cameraman was to shoot and edit video of Marines at war. After being approved by the military, the footage was distributed to private news networks and the American Forces Network.

A video Lagoze shot of a November 2011 attack on Patrol Base Georgetown in Helmand’s Kajaki Sofla was picked up by CNN that winter and billed it as a “rare, firsthand glimpse into a battle with the Taliban” and an “unfiltered look” at the war.

The video shows a platoon taking indirect fire, 30 mm grenades and sniper fire. They’re still beating back the attackers when they have to coordinate a medical evacuation for a wounded comrade.

The 5-minute video, one of several of his the Pentagon publicly shared on its own websites, earned Lagoze a first place prize for combat documentary in the 2011 Visual Information Awards Program run by the military’s public affairs school.

But the hour long “Combat Obscura” includes footage the Marine Corps never approved for release.

“We filmed what they wanted, but then we kept shooting,” text at the beginning of the film reads.

Its website calls it the “documentary the Corps does not want you to see.”

Initial threats of legal action by the Marine Corps against Lagoze for using footage apparently shot on government equipment substantiate that claim.

Previously, Lagoze has said he hadn’t considered making the material into a full-length documentary until after he enrolled in film school at Columbia University and realized what he had.

Working with the Knight First Amendment Institute at the school, he pushed back against the military’s threats, a Columbia University statement said.


After a preliminary inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service, military officials have decided not to pursue litigation against Lagoze or any of those depicted in the film “at this time,” said Marine spokesman Maj. Brian Block in an emailed statement.

“The potentially criminal activity captured … is inexcusable and selfish and endangered the security of the Marines in that unit,” Block said.

“Unfortunately, the statute of limitations for pursuing disciplinary action has passed.”

That activity includes Marines apparently smoking pot in several scenes, including one in which a Marine appears to be rolling a joint in front of Afghan children and his colleague jokes about marrying an underage girl.

“You join the Marine Corps, you think the Marine Corps is like a bunch of perfect people, you know, that don’t do anything bad,” another Marine says in a different scene after smoking.

“But the Marine Corps is full of the most [obscenity] individuals I’ve ever met. Just like me, you know?”

The speaker is the only person in the film who asked to have his face blurred, according to Lagoze, who said most of the men in the movie were happy for the public to see what their combat experience was actually like.

“I think … veterans of this war are at a point where we’re sick of the hero worshiping and the sugar coating of the experience and a lot of us are sick of people saying, ‘thank you for your service,’ without actually getting in a real conversion about what we did and what happened,” Lagoze said.

Distributed by Oscilloscope Laboratories, the film is being released in a few theaters and became available to buy or rent on iTunes on Friday.

While images of Marines smoking marijuana and swearing will be seen as a blemish by some on the branch’s image, other scenes in the film are more disturbing and consequential.


In a still from ”Combat Obscura,” a film that uses footage shot in Afghanistan by a Marine, two marines help a fellow service member wounded in a firefight in Helmand province sometime during their 2011 to 2012 deployment.

“I don’t care right now about their customs or their courtesies,” a Marine says in one part of the film before his men interrupt a religious service at a rural compound.

After detaining the men there for what appears to be several hours, it’s revealed the “high-value individuals” being sought are not there.

In another scene, a patrol arrives to examine the body of a suspected Taliban fighter who has been shot dead.

“Just like a deer,” one Marine says of the corpse as others talk to the lifeless body.

The group quickly realizes the man was an unarmed shopkeeper.

The Marines discuss covering up the killing as the man’s body is shown being wrapped in a carpet, with one saying, “This is no good for people to see.”

Due to a lack of narration giving context to the raw footage, it’s often unclear exactly what is happening during the seemingly arbitrary assortment of scenes.

But as the film progresses, a sense of the troops’ insensitivity and hubris becomes palpable.

The Marines in the film appear unsuited to the counterinsurgency strategy that U.S. commanders were pursuing at the time, focused on winning the trust of the Afghans.

“The behavior and actions depicted in this film do not live up to the high standards we expect of our Marines and do not represent the experience or attitudes of the vast majority of Marines who deploy and served with honor and distinction in Afghanistan,” said Block, the spokesman.

Lagoze admitted that “there are many different types of guys in the military,” but that his film is an accurate experience of his deployment to Afghanistan as a 21-year-old, seven years ago.

“I thought it was important to document as much as I could,” Lagoze said.

“It was important to the guys who I was filming that I was capturing as much of the reality as possible.”


Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments
Vermont Loon Watch

Poking irrational & emotional political posits with a sharp stick

Gds44's Blog

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," warned Thomas Jefferson.

Jim Campbell's

""If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand."~Nobel Laureate in Economics~Milton Friedman Ph.D

Fellowship Of The Minds

“The greatest charity one can do to another is to lead him to the truth.” -St. Thomas Aquinas


It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you

Grumpy Opinions --

Conservative News and Opinions with an Edge.

Prepper 365

Preparing for an uncertain future and sharing our journey with you

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

The Goomba Gazette


Confederacy of Drones

Using humor to shoot down the political hypocrisy of mindless drones.


Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog

Dedicated to Supporting & Defending the 2nd Amendment

Trigger Reset

A Magazine Loaded with High Caliber Truth

The Blog Of Monte Cristo

A Blog with a Good Heart but a Sketchy Reputation and a Bit of a Pirate Streak

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Give Me Liberty

Conservative Views and News.

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

Roberts Thoughts 2

I share my thoughts,Political views things I find around the web and on occasion been known to express my religious views

Hepsy's Kuleana

I was born in a country grounded in Christian principles. Not sure what kind of country this is, anymore. The Change is caustic.