Screen Shot 2017-02-20 at 9.15.56 AM

By Nancy Thorner – 

Burt Prelutsky describes The Story Of My Life not as a memoir, but as “the saga of one man’s 50-year, often hilarious, journey through a life filled with assorted notables and nut cases, celebrated friends and, yes, even a few famous fiends” that might be of some interest to others. That’s especially true given the many occasions when Burt’s life intersected with the lives of many well-known Hollywood personalities such as Groucho Marx, Oscar Levant, George C. Scott, Jack Webb, Tiny Tim, Ginger Rogers, Bob Hope, Carol Burnett, Jimmy Stewart, and Dick Van Dyke. 

Within the book’s 180 pages with its short, easy-to-read chapters, you will be introduced to many film stars, producers, screen writers, composers, and other famous individuals with ties to Hollywood whose names might only be known to you in passing, or not at all, unless you are a committed movie aficionado. 

But to those of you who have not been dedicated movie goers over many years, that shouldn’t in any way diminish your curiosity or interest in reading Prelutsky’s book. For humor runs throughout all that Mr. Prelutsky writes, adding zest to his fun-filled interview accounts of Hollywood celebrities in which information is revealed that is sure to be tantalizing to readers.

Because of the many interviews conducted by Burt, one would have had to be a cave dweller for years not to recognize and be interested in the off-the-cuff remarks and Burt’s personal observations of Hollywood’s elite. Who hasn’t heard of Dick Van Dyke, Bob Hope, Gene Kelly, Stan Laurel, Burt Reynolds, Ginger Rogers, Mae West, and W. C. Fields?

In Every Life Some Rain Must Fall

Some might be prompted to conclude that Burt must have lived an extraordinary life because of his interactions with so many celebrities that others could only dream of meeting, but would they really wish to change places with Burt, if this were even possible? Burt’s life in Hollywood wasn’t always a bowl of cherries, especially when he turned 50 and discovered that the Hollywood blacklist of the 1950s had been reincarnated as the gray list of the 1990s.

As The Story of My Life makes clear, Burt, despite his obvious talent, has experienced his share of hard times.  One thing he has fortunately avoided is writer’s block, the bugaboo that has afflicted so many others.  Although he concentrates on those occasions when his life intersected the lives of celebrities, he does briefly touch upon his early life, which is essential to understanding what motivated Burt to pursue a writing career in the first place.

Making a Case for Purchasing The Story of My Life

Why should you purchase Burt Prelutsky’s book?  Aside from the humor and insights that permeate the pages of this very delightful book, he is that rarest of birds — an individual who spent decades in Hollywood, and yet managed to survive, his political conservatism intact.

Unlike the usual book of Hollywood nostalgia, Prelutsky didn’t simply interview his subjects.  In many cases, he worked alongside them, befriended them and even dated them.

I don’t want to give too much away, but did you know: 

  • Art Linkletter had been an orphan baby in a small town in Canada when adopted by a minister and his wife from San Diego.
  • George Burns was written off initially by Burt after having to sit through one of his patter songs at a Groucho Marx dinner party.
  • Acclaimed dancers Gene Kelly and Ginger Rodgers wound up crippled in later life, because those beautiful shiny floors they danced on were made of cement.
  • Comedian Jackie Gleason had a very nasty side to him.  Booze was the potion that could turn him from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde in a matter of minutes.
  • Jimmy Steward really was the person we all came to regard as the idealized version of ourselves.
  •  Jack Webb, The-Just-The-Facts-Guy, provided the break for Burt to write for TV, leading to a career that included writing episodes of McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder, as well as a number of award-winning TV movies. 

Ordering your copy of Prelutsky’s The Story of My Life

But there is more to learn about the celebrities listed above, as well as insight into the scores of lives that have touched Prelutsky’s and made his life the hilarious rollercoaster ride you’ll encounter in The Story of My Life, which can be ordered at this website.  

While ordering Prelutsky’s book at Amazon, why not check out seven other outstanding books published by Mr. Prelutsky? All in all, a rather amazing output for someone who didn’t get around to writing his first book until he was 66-years-old!

Before I forget, in Sixty Seven Conservatives You Should Meet Before You Die, published in 2012, among those interviewed by Burt were Kellyanne Conway and Tucker Carlson.

Subscribing to Weekly Doses of Burt’s Humorous Political Commentary

Burt Prelutsky started writing humorous political commentary in 2001. For years, Burt’s commentaries were carried by Breitbart, WorldnetDaily, the Patriot Post and Bernard and on his own website.  But, as he came to realize, even maintaining a website costs money.  So, as of Sept., 2015, he began a subscription service.

Presently, Burt writes 3-4 commentaries every week that are generously leavened with humor.  As he says, “If you take politics too seriously, you’ll soon go mad.”  Anyone who might be interested in reading the man Bernard Goldberg refers to as the modern Mark Twain can contact him at for guidelines to subscribing.

To whet your appetite, consider these two samples:

By Nancy Thorner – 

There are enemies, foreign and domestic, to our United States Constitution.  Some want to make our Constitution more globalist-friendly, some want to dilute the Second Amendment, and some want to eliminate the Electoral College.  Some simply want to become important by rewriting our Constitution.  

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced on February 6th that she would like to change the Electoral College requirement in the Constitution. Without that, no non-incumbent Republican candidate would have won the presidency in the last quarter century. Without the Electoral College, money alone would dictate the outcome in presidential elections.

Suspect Funding in Pushing “Convention of States”

Why have billionaires been pouring millions into pushing a project deceptively named the “Convention of States,” which seeks an Article V convention that could rewrite our entire U.S. Constitution?  These hidden donors may be connected with George Soros or with the Koch brothers, who are not socially conservative.  Regardless of who the financial backers are, they secretly think they will rewrite our Constitution and they are spending millions to do so.

Big funders of the “Convention of States” must certainly be cognizant that Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress either 1) Proposes amendments or 2) calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.  

The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection. 

Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V, for such conventions are extremely dangerous.

Might there be a reason why George Soros is pushing for a “Convention of States”?  Could it be because George Soros, and Marxist law professors all over the country, want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.

Attempt to call for Article V rejected in Cleveland by Rep. National Platform

Last July in Cleveland, the Republican national platform committee resoundingly rejected an attempt to include a call for an Article V convention into the platform.  Justice Antonin Scalia, in his final year before he passed away, explained at a public event in May 2015 that it was a “horrible idea” to hold an Article V convention to change the Constitution. Other conservative leaders throughout history, from Phyllis Schlafly to James Madison, have emphatically rejected this bad idea.

Yet Article V proposals are presently being considered in state legislatures, even Republican ones, where bill are being advanced seeking to launch a new constitutional convention that would undoubtedly be dominated by the liberal media, by Democrats, and by Republicans who have earned the title of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  Most likely the big money behind the Article V project is with pro-immigration advocates and those who reject American-sovereignty, which could end border security.  The first thing liberals would do in an Article V Convention is attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and further insert a right to taxpayer-funded abortion into the Constitution.

Fortunately, only eight states have enacted the Convention of States out of the 34 required to force a constitutional convention, some using different language different from others.  They are:  Alaska HJR 22, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana SJR 14, Louisiana HCR 52, Oklahoma, and Tennessee SJR 67.  Each of these eight states should rescind its call.   A recent example is the rescission by Delaware of all of its prior resolutions for a Con Con.  Some efforts at rescission 2017 occurred in New Hampshire and New Mexico.
Seventeen states are being targeted in 2017 by promoters of a constitutional convention (also known as “Con Con” or “Convention of States”).  They are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas (Constitution requires a 2/3’s super–majority vote), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota,Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

As of Feb. 17, 2017, there have been five wins and no losses.  Victories have been in Arkansas (Defeated by a 13-17 vote on Senate floor on 1/30/17); South Dakota (Despite COS having three paid lobbyists in 2016, S.D. voted against a COS in a  28-40 House Vote on 2/13/17); Virginia (Convention of States lobbied its Legislature on January 16 — called “Lee and Jackson Day” in Virginia — but the measure lost.); in Wyoming (COS Failed 18-42 on 1/30/17); and in Montana, with its victory on Feb. 17, 2017.

What is the Truth and who has the power to do what?

Our Constitution is not the problem!  An Article V convention to change our Constitution cannot be limited as part of an application for one, such as inserting a Balanced Budget Amendment. The text of the Constitution expressly states that only Congress may “call” a constitutional convention.  It would not be a “convention of states”, but instead it would be convened  (called) under the direction of power-brokers in Washington, D.C.
It is prudent to remember that the original Constitutional Convention had three essential conditions that do not exist today: 1) secrecy from the media, 2) participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and 3) George Washington presiding.  Today, instead of men of the caliber of Benjamin Franklin, we would have liberals like Barney Frank rewriting our Constitution.

Also of great concern, is that big liberal states like California and New York would have greater power at an Article V convention than most conservative states would.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court has required the “one man, one vote” rule since 1964; therefore, in calling a convention, the House of Representatives would also require voting based on population.

What are some of the myths that convention proponents are telling State Legislators?  
  • States can bypass Congress in the amendment process.
  • Congress will play only a ministerial role in setting the time and place of the convention.
  • State make the rules for a convention, by custom, when there is no custom.
  • State voting power will be “one state, one vote.”
  • A “Convention of States” is an “Amendments” convention, not a “constitutional convention”, so the Constitution is not at risk.
  • An Article V convention can be “limited” to a topic or set of topics.
  • State Legislatures can control their delegates.
  • The ratification process ensures no bad amendments will be passed.
Why a Convention of the States and a Balanced Budget Amendment is No Solution

Adding amendments to the Constitution, which is not being enforced is no solution, as no new amendments of a conservative nature would be enforced either. Should a Balanced Budget Amendment pass the convention and be ratified by the states, it will do nothing but give the big-spenders cover to raise taxes to conform to the BBA in the constitution.

The convention would neither be a ‘We the People’ convention, but instead a convention of state appointed legislators messing with our original constitution.

Instead, the focus should be on supporting Trump in his efforts to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C., which should dispel the notion that it’s necessary to tinker with our Constitution.  What could Mark Levin be thinking with his push for a Con Con?

To be rejected are the tactics of the Left that are being employed to try to pass a “Convention of States” by using secret donors and hidden agendas.  We should not allow the “bait-and-switch” tactics to prevail by pretending that an Article V Convention would result in changes in our Constitution that are pleasing. It might result in a Constitution more to the liking of those who are pushing for a Con Con, but not for those Americans who would have to live under it!  
Other Con Con articles by Nancy Thorner:



image from

By Nancy Thorner –

An Editorial in “New York Sun” on February 8, 2017, had this to say about the Gorsuch gaffe:

Talk about disheartening. That’s the word President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is using to describe President Trump’s remarks in respect of the riders of the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The president is upset at their politicking over his order to tighten up on immigration. Is the president’s pique so disheartening? Not to us. What’s so disheartening is to see such a promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm. (Bold type added)

The commentary goes on to muse that Judge Gorsuch’s complaint to President Trump to Senator Richard Blumenthal, whose authenticity was documented by other senators, “was a gaffe that will be seen as a failure to keep himself disentangled from political questions.”

As expressed in the “The New York Sun” commentary:

What in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking? President Trump, in remarks to police chiefs, expressed his exasperation with the 9th Circuit’s pettifogging. The president was right and Trumansesque in the bluntness with which he made clear his views of the judges’ shenanigans. Judge Gorsuch then fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about the behavior of the president who nominated him.

Might it be wise to be very skeptical about Judge Gorsuch’s conservatism, considering that graduates from elitist schools all seem to be very agreeable and “nice” to the Left?  Might Judge Gorsuch be like another Roberts if confirmed?, even though Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative Republican radio talk show hosts continue to unconditionally support Judge Gorsuch and summarily dismiss his remarks. Could it be that national syndicated radio hosts like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity are often pro-Establishment in their own way?  All three hosts named are supportive of convening a “Convention of States” (ConCon), which could result in a runaway Convention by those who wish to alter our Constitution

Expressed by Lou Dobbs for Gorsuch to withdraw nomination

Consider what Lou Dobbs, a well-respected host of a weekday TV business show on Fox News Business, had to say on Thursday, January 9, 2017.  Having here before been very complimentary about candidate Judge Gorsuch, Dobbs called for Gorsuch to withdraw his nomination.  In Dobb’s own words:  “Not only did Gorsuch break an ethics rule when he spoke about a political matter, but he spoke so loosely in front of his mortal, ideological enemy, that is, one senator, Richard Blumenthal.

Dobbs indicated that candidate Judge Gorsuch had shown a lack of honor, and if Gorsuch has honor he should withdraw his name out of just the pure disrespect he has shown to our President and also his lack of grace.  Dobbs concluded by saying it wasn’t smart for Gorsuch to comment as he did, as one having degrees from Harvard and Oxford.

Pat Buchanan links Gorsuch’s remarks to how Gorsuch perceives Judicial Supremacy 

Pat Buchanan’s commentary published on January 8, 2017, Trump must break judicial power, strongly advocates that “a clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.”  Patrick J. Buchanan was a founder and editor of The American Conservative.  Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books. His latest book is “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

As Pat Buchanan sets forth in his commentary:

“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said? A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.  Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of

Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

The Judge Gorsuch issue at hand is not as much about his loyalty to President Trump, as it is about his comment that demonstrates his support of judicial supremacy.

A pro-life nominee never would have embarrassed Trump as Gorsuch has done.  Pro-lifers recognize that the federal judiciary overreaches in its authority, as it did inRoe v. Wade with terrible consequences.  Pro-life judges understand that the federal judiciary is supposed to be the “least dangerous” branch, subject to checks-and-balances and criticism by the other branches.

Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady would not have caused this fiasco.  Neither would have the other pro-life candidates, who are better qualified than Gorsuch anyway.  Gorsuch has never served in a legislature, federal or state, and his entire career is devoted to believing in judicial supremacy and stare decisis, including Roe v. Wade.  No thanks.

The Federalist Society makes millions of dollars by promoting and defending the federal judiciary.  The Federalist Society blocks pro-life judges from being nominated, and instead pushes judges like David Souter and Gorsuch who hide their pro-choice views.

George W. Bush properly withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers.  It seems like Trump was talked into nominating a judge who is not pro-life.  It is a complete fiasco now.  Donald Trump should do as President George W. Bush did and withdraw his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch and move on.  Otherwise the future gets only worse from here.

Other articles written by Nancy Thorner about Judge Neil Gorsuch:

Friday, January 6, 2017

posted: 2/3/2017 1:00 AM

Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?

A Jan. 16 front-page Daily Herald story reported that NASA and NOAA declared jointly that 2016 was the hottest year on record.
In actuality, climate change propagandists talk about the “hottest year” to distract us from the fact that their computer models are wrong by projecting a much warmer planet than real-world observations. The world simply failed to warm as they expected. Additionally, computer data is regularly adjusted by scientists playing fast and loose to assist in spinning the tale that Al Gore advanced in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Absent confirmation of the predictions made by Al Gore and other global warming propagandists, another narrative is called for. These facts are stubborn things to refute:
• Satellite measurements show the Earth has not experienced any significant warming since 1998
• Computer models project warming that has not occurred
• 1998 and 2015-2016 were times of naturally occurring El Niños
• If 2016 was “the warmest” year, it was so by insignificant hundredths of a degree
• The margin of error is actually a far larger one-tenth of a degree
• Temperature data adjustments by NASA and NOAA are highly suspect and not supported by satellites
• Ice, by the way, expanded in the South at the same time it retracted in the North, neither a “warming” event.
MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, said of the “hottest year” claims: “The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn’t done much of anything.”
Nancy J. Thorner
Lake Bluff
Add a comment…
posted: 2/3/2017 1:00 AM

Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?

A Jan. 16 front-page Daily Herald story reported that NASA and NOAA declared jointly that 2016 was the hottest year on record.
In actuality, climate change propagandists talk about the “hottest year” to distract us from the fact that their computer models are wrong by projecting a much warmer planet than real-world observations. The world simply failed to warm as they expected. Additionally, computer data is regularly adjusted by scientists playing fast and loose to assist in spinning the tale that Al Gore advanced in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Absent confirmation of the predictions made by Al Gore and other global warming propagandists, another narrative is called for. These facts are stubborn things to refute:
• Satellite measurements show the Earth has not experienced any significant warming since 1998
• Computer models project warming that has not occurred
• 1998 and 2015-2016 were times of naturally occurring El Niños
• If 2016 was “the warmest” year, it was so by insignificant hundredths of a degree
• The margin of error is actually a far larger one-tenth of a degree
• Temperature data adjustments by NASA and NOAA are highly suspect and not supported by satellites
• Ice, by the way, expanded in the South at the same time it retracted in the North, neither a “warming” event.
MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, said of the “hottest year” claims: “The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn’t done much of anything.”
Nancy J. Thorner
Lake Bluff
Add a comment…

IMG_6100 (1)

By Nancy Thorner –  

The late conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly left a great legacy and much work to be done. That work was the topic of discussion at this year’s Gathering of Eagles as the attendees planned for the upcoming year.

Representatives of many of organizations Phyllis founded, including her many Eagle Forum chapters, RNC for Life and America’s Future met together at Gathering of Eagles in St. Louis, MO January 26 – 28. The conference was held one block away from the Phyllis Schlafly Center in Clayton, MO, which was dedicated on Friday, January 27. 

The weekend included panel discussions on “Pro-Life Matters”; “How to Reach the Next Generation”; “Education and Abstinence”; “What DC can do for you?”; a visit to Phyllis’ home where she wrote, read, and went about her daily life; and a dedication of the Phyllis Schlafly Center with Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft. Phyllis’ life was celebrated with expressions of love which included fond remembrances by many who had been inspired and mentored by her.

What you should know about Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly was a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, until her death on September 9, 20l7.  Phyllis was likewise a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972 through her founding of Eagle Forum, which was successful in its fight to stop radical feminists’ ultimate goal, the Equal Rights Amendment.

Phyllis Schlafly founded Eagle Forum in 1972 and named it after reading the Biblical passage Isaiah 40:31:  “But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be  faint.”

At a Trump rally in St. Louis, MO on March 11, 2016 Phyllis Schlafly, in keeping with her 1964 book,  A Choice Not An Echo, accordingly endorsed candidate Donald Trump.  Phyllis wrote a final book before her death six months later in collaboration with Ed Martin and Brett M. Decker, The Conservative Case for Trump.

As fate would have it, Phyllis Schlafly passed away on September 5, 2016, the day before the release of her book.  Candidate Trump attended her funeral mass at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016.

Celebrating Life! Dinner: Janet Porter Promotes Heartbeat Bill

One of several noteworthy events at this year’s Gathering of Eagles was the Celebrating Life! Dinner which featured Janet Porter.  Janet (Folger) Porter is the President and Founder of Faith2Action, the nation’s largest network of pro-family groups. Its mission is to win the cultural war for life, liberty, and the family.  She also hosts a 60-second daily radio commentary which airs in 200 markets, including the American Family Radio and the Bott radio network, contributes to WorldNetDaily.

Ms. Porter initiated the nation’s first Heartbeat Bill in Ohio on Feb. 2011 to legally protect unborn babies with detectable heartbeats.  This effort inspired Arkansas and North Dakota to pass Heartbeat Laws–now the most protective pro-life laws in the nation.  

While Janet Porter and Rep. Steven King were both attending the funeral of Phyllis Schlafly in St. Louis in September, 2016, Porter persuaded Rep. King to act by initiating a federal Heartbeat Bill. 

“I gave him a packet and Rep. King agreed to introduce a federal Heartbeat Bill, which would protect every baby whose heartbeat can be detected. Ninety to 95 percent of the abortions will be ended with that bill.” 

Janet Porter gave this certain and consistent marker:  It is with 96 – 97% certainty that a child will survive until a live birth when a heartbeat is heard.

Congressman King introduces Federal Heartbeat Bill

Republican Congressman Steve King, who represents the 4th District of Iowa, followed through with his promise to Janet Porter on January 12, 2017,  by releasing the following Press Release statement upon introducing “The Heartbeat Bill” that would require physicians to detect the heartbeat and prohibit the abortion of a baby with a beating heart: (HR 490, the “Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017”).   

This bill is modeled off similar legislation proposed in Ohio at the end of last year. Ohio governor John Kasich ultimately vetoed the state’s so-called Heartbeat Bill (which he said he feared might not be constitutional) in favor of a 20-week abortion ban.

Even the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that “the point at which an unborn child possesses a detectable heartbeat” is a “more consistent and certain marker than viability”—where the court allows legal protection.

H.R. 490 is now in the Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Steve King needs co-sponsors.  

Randy Hultgren as a co-sponsor (R-District 14)

Illinois Congressman Randy Hultgren participated in the 2017 March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday 27, 2017. Rep. Hultgren, having participated in the Washington D.C. event which celebrates life, should volunteer to become a co-sponsor of Rep. King’s bill. 

Get behind and help create a grassroots swell for Rep. King’s Heartbeat Bill – Federal HR 490. Contact Randy Hultgren and your own representative and encourage them to support the bill.

To contact Randy Hultgren:  Washington, D.C. office (202) 225-2976.  Campton Hills District Office:  (630) 584-2734 

Remember this slogan: “Heart my Heart, Save my Life”

Subsequent articles will cover other memorable events at the Gathering of Eagle, as well as one that will inform readers about the personal side of conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, observed from a field trip to her home and through others Eagles in attendance, some who knew Phyllis for 50 years.

image from

By Nancy Thorner – 

A nation that doesn’t force foreigners to pay for the necessities of government (infrastructure, justice, and defense) is simply committing economic and cultural suicide. “Free trade” Europe outsourced its defense to the U.S.  In turn, we outsourced our defense to CHINA. Never has the security of the U.S. been so compromised with a fascist dictatorship able to wreck us economically and militarily at their will. Short of nuclear war, there really is little we can do to prevent the Chinese and their allies from seizing the rest of Asia. Even Europe seems to have a better chance of stopping Russia and the Muslims without nukes than we do with CHINA.

For this reason the Trump administration is trying to rebuild industries upon which our national defense rests. As to the reason the Trump administration is diminishing our defense commitments to Europe and the Middle East, it is because of Islam loving, undemocratic EU that China has an easy target. It is also the reason Trump chose Ted Mallochto represent the US in the European Union.

EU-despising Ted Malloch is not about to hide President Trump’s dislike for the EU. President Trump just doesn’t like the EU: “He doesn’t like an organization that is supranational, that is unelected where the bureaucrats run amok and that is not frankly a proper democracy.”

This nation obviously can’t depend on Canada for help.  According to anarticle published on January 18 by Ezra Levant, Justin Trudeau hates Donald Trump.  Trudeau’s whole team does — his MPs, his cabinet ministers, his campaign staff. They know they shouldn’t say so publicly, but they just can’t help themselves.

Neither can this nation depend on Mexico, who is an open enemy of the United States.  76,000 illegal Mexicans are incarcerated in our Federal prisons; never mind those in state prisons. American taxpayers paid approximately $1.87 billion to house imprisoned illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2014, and almost all of that financial burden was shouldered by the states.  Mexican drug gangs run amok in the U.S. and threaten to turn this nation into a narco-state as exists in today’s Mexico.
Furthermore, Muslim terror organizations have bases in the Mexican border.  But most of all, it is considered politically incorrect to acknowledge that Mexican illegals, like Muslim “refugees”, are a net minus to our society after welfare and legal system/prison payments This article is important to review.  It highlights surprising facts about IMMIGRATION ISSUES.
Cracking down on visas is legal 
With good reason Trump is doing something that supposedly has never been done before when the truth is quite different, cracking down on visas from Muslim countries where the threat of terrorism is high.  Having recently celebrated the 44 year anniversary weekend of Roe. v. Wade, we have the usual liberal judges legislating from the bench even though the law is quite clear that what Trump is doing with Muslim visas is quite legal.
Moreover, Trump is actually enforcing an Obama directive as to the seven countries he selected to be singled out.
“President Trump is carrying out an executive action in support of the US Customs and Border Protection Act of 2015, which relates to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. President Trump did not select seven countries – the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries.”
Of course, none of these facts will darken the pages of the New York Times, etc.  Steven Bannon is right to call the media the major opposition party to Trump.  According the emails released by Wikileaks, 95 journalists openly consorted with the Clinton campaign against Trump. If anything, the post-election has been worse.
The problem for the Democrats and their media enablers is that the American people are sick of all these visa holders that end up in sham marriages or stay on illegally. This is a view that no amount of media bleating and staged for the camera protests can change because everyone can see the effect illegal immigration has our country and the consequences of any big group of Muslims anywhere in the world outside a few oil sheikdoms.  We are a long way from when an American president could say “Islam means peace” and have any sort of credibility.
Democrat Party without leadership dubbed hysterical
Beyond simply reality, voters can see with their own eyes where they live or on the Internet that the Democrat Party, as an opposition party, is virtually without leadership or the ability to oppose Trump without hysterical, across the board attacks that are backfiring.  Consider whatSenator Liz Warren of Massachusetts is experiencing as she aspires to lead the Democratic Party. The Bernie people rightly feel that Elizabeth Warren betrayed them by not running against Hillary and then by not endorsing Sanders. It is doubtful whether Senator Warren, as the Democratic candidate, would have any chance to be elected president in 2020.   She will most likely be fortunate to get by her own Senate reelection in 2018.
What is so unusual is that the maneuvering for 2020 is going on so early. Does somebody have a hidden agenda for DNC chairman?  Keith Ellison, as the leading contender to chair the Democratic National Committee, is from the same state as Amy Klobuchar, first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in Minnesota’s history, who also aspires to lead the party. As to another woman Democrats could possibly promote as a presidential candidate in 2020, Democrats see Jeanne Shaheen as a possibility.
If is thought that if Democrats don’t run a “minority” — women are victims, despite being 52% of the voters — how else can they win?  In looking at the extraordinary thin bench of Democrats who are presently in the Senate and also serve as governors, the best hope Democrats may have for 2020 is that someone emerges from the 2018 elections among the following14 states listed with vulnerable Republican governors.
  1. Arizona (Republican Governor Ducey)
  2. Florida (Term limited Republican Governor Scott)
  3. Illinois (Republican Governor Rauner)
  4. Maine (Term Limited Republican LePage)
  5. Maryland (Republican Governor Hogan)
  6. Massachusetts (Republican Governor Baker)
  7. Michigan (Term Limited Republican Governor Snyder)
  8. Nevada (Term Limited Republican Governor Sandoval)
  9. New Hampshire (Republican Governor Sununu)
  10. New Mexico (Republican Governor Martinez)
  11. Ohio (Term Limited Republican Governor Kasich)
  12. Vermont (Republican Governor Scott)
  13. Wisconsin (Republican Governor Walker)
  14. New Jersey (Term Limited Governor Christie)
 Democrat and Republican game plan for 2020
The game plan of Democrats is simple:  win about half the vulnerable Republican governor seats while holding their net Senate losses to a minimum by picking up potentially vulnerable Republican seats in Nevada and Arizona.  If they do so, it would be a huge blow to the reelection chances of Trump and for holding on to a Republican Senate with 22 Republican incumbent seats up in 2020.  However, a new Governor would not have the usual ultra-liberal track record of all the rest of the current Democrat Senators and Governors.  He/she could pretend to be “fresh” and “moderate” like Bill Clinton did in 1992.
The Republican game plan is the opposite:  pick up half a dozen or so of the 13-15 vulnerable Democrat Senate seats and hold gubernatorial losses to a minimum by picking up potentially vulnerable Democrat seats in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, including the “Independent” governor of Alaska, a Democrat in all but name.
At this point, the Republican game plan, with Trump’s popularity improving and their money and image advantage, appears more plausible. But the Dems do have an ace in the hole in Yellen and the Democrats at the Fed.  Volcker squeezed Reagan with money policies so tight they almost destroyed Mexico and other countries in 1982.  Although Reagan did back off from his more “extreme policies” by raising taxes in 1982, which prompted Volcker to finally loosen monetary policy, Volcker’s action was not in time for the 1982 elections.
| Permalink