Getting Closer To K's Prediction. Livingston Now Mainstream. Gingrich Re Biden. Transgender Unity Candace. OOPS! Lest We Forget.

 

Saturday, the 23rd, I took two friends to visit another friend who collects, repairs and sells beautiful special cars.  My friend's entire family lived in Cuba, the family business was over 100 years old and they fled from Castro to Miami. They know what Communism  is and does to people, particularly the aristocrats. As we finished our tour we discussed what is happening in America and how we are well along the path of what Castro did to a proud people. 

When I got home I went to my desk top and this is what a dear friend had sent me.

 I remember listening to the speech and K banging his shoe on the table.

This is what Saul Alinsky's playbook is all about and what Obama  drew upon to govern. Alinsky was one of O's disciples.

Subject:  Remember Khrushchev's Prediction?  

Scary stuff ... sure sounds like a lot of what's going on these days.  I wonder what USA our grandchildren will "inherit"?  

THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE:  A sobering reminder. It's been almost sixty one years since Russia’s Khrushchev delivered this. Many of you may not remember his quote or even were alive when Mr. Khrushchev   of the Soviet Union made his remarks to President John F. Kennedy. 

Do you remember  September 29, 1959 ?

THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE :

"Your children's children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism. We will not have to fight you; We will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands." "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Remember, socialism leads to Communism. So, how do you create a Socialistic State?

There are 8 levels of control; read the following recipe:

1) Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people.

2) Poverty - Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them.

3) Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.

4) Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government that way you are able to create a police state.

5) Welfare - Take control of every aspect (food, housing, income) of their lives because that will make them fully dependent on the government

6) Education - Take control of what people read and listen to and take control of what children learn in school.

7) Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools because the people need to believe in ONLY the government knowing what is best for the people.

8) Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  Eliminate the middle class. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.

A perfect parallel to the Democrat agenda!!!!!

I remember this very well. He also said "We will bury you".

++++ 

Bob Livingston was once considered radical in his thinking. Now his radical thinking and writing has come to be:

The American republic risks descending into mob rule. There are those among us  who seek rule by disruption when they don't get what they want with rule by law. Their goal is to impose their will on society by intimidation, disorder and even  violence. Agitators and activists take to the streets at the slightest provocation, aided,  abetted and encouraged by news media hungry for inflammatory video to boost  ratings. Demonstrations erupt so often now they have become almost cliché to the  point of diminishing impact, spurring protestors to ever more outrageous acts to  get public attention. It's not just in the streets or in the foyer of the Capitol building. Congress itself  stages sit-ins on Capitol Hill and endlessly take up chamber time by monopolizing  the floor with frivolous, meaningless and futile efforts to derail proceedings not to  their liking. Liberal socialists especially make sophisticated and effective use of social media  and technology to incite, organize and execute mass gatherings. Idealistic young  people are especially adept at these methods and embrace the leftist ideology as a  noble cause, unaware or uncaring of practical realities. The leftist protestors are no longer satisfied with just making their displeasure  known, but increasingly believe rioting in the streets, blocking roads, and burning  neighborhoods is just fine — and the police seem to be allowing it. There's a term  for what's been going on in America. The Greeks made up the word long ago:  Ochlocracy, the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or, the  intimidation of legitimate authorities. It's also called "mobocracy" from the Latin  term mobile vulgus, which translates as "the fickle crowd." Mass protests hold a  time-honored position in American history, going back to the colonists who rebelled against oppression by a far-away king, breaking away to form a new nation. I have great admiration for those original colonists, for their hatred of oppression, for  their independent spirit, for their courage against all odds to stand up to the most  powerful nation in the world at that time in their fight for freedom, earning their  title of "Sons of Liberty." They believed so fervently in the right to speak up against what they perceived to  be misuse of power by any governing body that they incorporated protection for it  in the Constitution of the new nation. The First Amendment declares that  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting  the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or  the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for  a redress of grievances." The violent rabble taking to the streets these days to protest cannot claim to be  heirs to the cherished title of "Sons of Liberty." They wreak mayhem in the name  of freedom of speech yet shout down those who disagree with them. They rail  against oppression yet scream for more government. They demand more freedom  yet call for more socialism. Conservatives and libertarians are losing the battle because political discourse is  drowned out. Dissenting voices within the party have become more strident and  insistent, erupting into the mayhem common to Democrats. The descent of America into mob rule will only get worse as divisive and opposing  political dogmas harden into immoveable concrete ramparts. Is it time for conservatives and libertarians to adopt the mob rule tactics of the  left? Should those who believe in limited government, sound fiscal policy, and  individual freedom take to the streets to oppose leftist goons and establishment  hacks alike? It is certainly tempting to follow Newton's Law and create an equal and opposite  reaction to the forces opposing liberty. But the nature of that reaction should not  be violence in the streets. Mob rule is not the answer to the considerable ills of a  divided nation. To begin with, once a person becomes part of a mob, that person ceases to  function as a thinking, rational being and becomes a mindless organism chanting  passionate simple-minded slogans. People caught up in the fever of a boisterous  mob are no longer individual humans, but are reduced to being soldier ants  controlled by the group-think colony, and group-think is anathema to liberty. There is a place in our system for orderly dissent through mass demonstrations. It  was with good reason that the nation's founders chose to protect the right of  peaceable assembly. But there is no place for lawless abuse of that right. There are effective ways for conservatives to champion the cause of liberty and  reason without burning down the barn. The Tea Party revolt that erupted after  Barack Obama took up residence in the White House created a template that can  be used as a guide for the resurgence of a resistance movement to the advancing  mobs of socialists. The Tea Party, more a generalized movement than an actual organized political  party, grew from grassroots anger over government encroachments on personal  liberties. Tea Party activists demonstrated in the streets — peacefully — and made  their presence known at town hall meetings hosted by political leaders. They  mobilized action to win at the voting booth, getting conservative-minded politicians  elected to municipal, state, and national offices and gaining influence in state and  national legislatures. The Tea Party movement was stolen away by establishment GOP activists, and  never had a single point of focus and tended to be fragmented in its efforts, which  eventually diluted its impact. But the movement established a tactical path that  worked and could work again with new energy behind it. We can expect redoubled assaults on liberty from the liberals, still stinging from  their humiliating loss last November. Rest assured they will not be caught with  their collective pants down again and are even now mobilizing and strategizing  their battle plans for all future elections and legislative confrontations. I believe it is urgent to revive a Neo-Tea Party movement or something by a  different name with the same purpose to restore common sense and respect for  individual liberty to our government and society. The gains made by the original  will fast be eroded by the liberal onslaught if conservatives sit complacent and  uninvolved. Just as the original Tea Party movement swelled spontaneously from grassroots  outrage, so can a revival emerge from the energy of hundreds of thousands of  conservatives across the country who are mad as hell and won't take it anymore.  Donald Trump tapped into that seething cauldron of energy to win the election  (to what end remains to be seen). The revival, I believe, starts with you and me. We must individually on our own  take the initiative to carry the banner of conservative resistance against the  socialist cancer. Here are some things we can do to aid the resistance. • Communicate. Prepare with like-minded folks in your area. Write letters to the  editor supporting your positions. Make use of social media's political discussion  groups. • Start local. Attend town halls, city council meetings, school board and PTA  meetings, and any public forums where conservative ideas should be made known.  Beware that bureaucrats and those who profit off of the welfare state will try and  shout you down. • Gather intel. Pay close attention to what anarchists are saying, writing, and  doing. It is more comfortable to socialize and commune only with those who think  the same as you, but that does not inform us of the inner workings of the enemy  mind. Without rancor, converse with liberals to understand how they think, why  they think that way, and what they intend to do about it. In the military, they call  this gathering intelligence. • Protest. Take to the streets with a libertarian or conservative message, but do  not allow the passions of the moment to blind you to rule of law. • By all means, vote if you want your candidate chosen. Despite objections  from the mobs, we still choose our leaders in the voting booth, not with a torch in  the streets. A distinguishing quality of a true grassroots movement is that it arises of its own  volition from the collective will of many individuals that reaches critical mass and  coalesces into a force to be reckoned with. That means it begins with individual  effort from you and from me and becomes a legitimate power when there are  enough of us taking action to make the power felt where it counts. Yours for the truth, And:   Biden: Words vs. Actions by Newt Gingrich As I have watched the elite liberal media gush over the inauguration of President Joe Biden,  I have waited for at least someone to analyze the fascinating difference between President  Biden’s inaugural speech and his inaugural actions. First, I thought the speech was incredibly well-given. The speech promised unity, togetherness,  and finding common ground – it was a speech of classic American bipartisanship and civic  goodwill. He promised to reach out to everyone, work with everyone, and be an American  president, rather than a Democratic, partisan president. It strongly reminded me of President Barack Obama’s first inaugural address. And, in fact, I  had about the same takeaway for Biden’s speech as I did for Obama’s: If he leads the way  he’s speaking – and acts as he says he will – he will split the Republican party and have a  large, American governing majority for his entire presidency. Of course, President Obama didn’t do this. He quickly went to the left, and promptly lost his  majorities in the House and Senate. Based on President Biden’s first days, it seems he is  following the same Obama playbook. Hours after giving his excellent inaugural speech, President Biden went to the White House  and signed 17 executive orders – including more than a dozen which totally contradict his  pledge of bipartisanship, unity, and finding common ground. Instead, he began the process of tearing down everything President Donald Trump did –  erasing everything he achieved – no matter how it benefited Americans or how many  Americans supported it. We can start with immigration – over which the country has long been deeply split. President  Biden immediately withdrew President Trump’s emergency declaration which was funding the  wall and additional security at the Southern border. He did this at a time when – right now –  there are 6,000 to 8,000 people in a caravan in Honduras heading to the United States with the  intention of entering. Now, Democrats and the elite liberal media hate the idea of the border  wall. But 77 percent of Republicans support it, according to a 2019 poll by Rasmussen Reports  for the American Road & Transportation Builders Association and American Public  Transportation Association. Where is the bipartisanship? President Biden canceled his predecessor’s order to exclude people in the country illegally  from the state-by-state tallies for determining the number of congressional and Electoral  College seats. I have not found a poll on this specific question, but a July 2019 Hill-HarrisX poll  found 55 percent of Americans supported adding a citizenship status question to the US  Census – an issue still being heard by courts. President Biden also withdrew President Trump’s orders which made it easier for law  enforcement to deport people who were in the country illegally – including people who had  broken laws unrelated to their immigration status. According to Pew Research, in November  2019, “The public is more closely divided on the importance of increasing deportations of  unauthorized immigrants, with 54% saying this is a very or somewhat important goal and 45%  saying it is not too or not at all important.” Again, where is the common ground – or even the discussion? In another example, President Biden said the US – with zero stated conditions – would rejoin  the World Health Organization, which continues to be beholden to communist China and  continues to lie about the origins of COVID-19 on the Chinese Communist Party’s behalf.  According to Pew Research in November, 2020, 86 percent of Democrats trust the WHO, while only 27 percent believe the organization is reliable. Nevertheless, no conversation,  consideration, or compromise from the Biden administration. America will take the left path. President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris agreement on climate change was, of course,  inevitable. Along partisan lines, 57 percent of Republicans oppose this, according to a  November 2020 YouGov poll. Ironically, the Paris agreement has been more than met by the  US. Because we’ve moved toward natural gas and away from coal, our carbon emissions are  drastically lower than even before we joined the agreement under President Obama. No other  country in the world has reduced its environmental impact as deeply as the United States. Now, this only matters if you care about reality more than symbolism. President Biden also cancel the Keystone XL pipeline to move oil from Canada to the US. This  was totally divisive. It was also a critical piece of President Trump’s plan to keep the US energy  independent, but the left didn’t like the idea of the pipeline, so it’s out. To quickly name a few more, President Biden ended President Trump’s travel ban on majority  Muslim countries which lacked appropriate security. (Note: It was never a “Muslim ban” as the  left asserted. Seven countries do not represent the entire Muslim world.) Further, why in the  midst of a pandemic, would you lift any travel bans from unstable nations? As a final example from the longer list (which I go into in more detail on my podcast) President  rescinding the 1776 commission goes to the heart of the argument over our nation’s identity. It  is has become near-theology for the left to believe that America cannot be exceptional, and  that people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson must not be considered serious  contributors to our history. The left believes every American should ascribe to The New York  Times’ 1619 Project, which reframes all of American history around slavery and discredits  virtually every person who had a hand in writing the US Constitution, the Declaration of  Independence, or winning the American Revolution. Now, none of this should be construed as a wish or desire that President Biden fail as our chief  executive. Unless you are irrational, every American should want the American president to  succeed. If the President doesn’t succeed, America gets in trouble. This should be taken as a challenge to President Biden to make sure his actions match his  words. So far, I see him talking about unity and calling for all of us to work together, but I’m curious  about who he thinks “us” really is. Finally: Biden touches more wet paint signs. You do not heal by being divisive After Inaugural Rhetoric on Unity,  Biden Signs Divisive Transgender  Executive Order By Ryan T. Anderson In his inaugural address, President Joe Biden stressed he wants to be the president of all Americans—left and right—and bring healing and unity to the nation. Actions speak louder than words. And on his very first day in office, Biden signed a radically divisive executive order mandating the transgender agenda. Here’s what it says: “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” “People should be able to access health care and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.” And here’s what it means: Boys who identify as girls must be allowed to compete in the girls’ athletic competitions, men who identify as women must be allowed in women-only spaces, health care plans must pay for gender transition procedures, and doctors and hospitals must perform them. Sounds unifying, right? In reality, it spells the end of girls and women’s sports as we know them. And, of course, no child should be told the lie that they’re “trapped in the wrong body,” and adults should not pump them full of puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones. With this executive order, the so-called transgender moment has arrived at the White House. If you want to prepare yourself to effectively respond, you’ll want to read my book “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.” The Biden executive order cites Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County as justification for this radically divisive transgender policy. But although the simplistic logic of the Gorsuch opinion in Bostock suggests some pretty bad outcomes, we can—and should—resist Gorsuch’s simplistic logic. Here’s how Gorsuch summarizes his own test: “If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the em­ployee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the em­ployer—a statutory violation has occurred.” Now change the word “employer” to teacher, principal, coach, doctor, health care plan, or homeless shelter, and change the word “employee” to student, athlete, patient, or housing guest. “If the coach relies on the athlete’s sex—if changing the athlete’s sex would yield a different choice … .” “If the homeless shelter relies on the guest’s sex—if changing the guest’s sex would yield a different choice … .” The outcomes don’t look very good. Privacy and safety at a shelter, equality on an athletic field, and good medicine are at stake for everyone. We can—and should—defend commonsense policies that take seriously the bodily differences that provide valid bases in some areas of life (locker and shower rooms, athletics, women’s shelters, health care) for treating males and females differently (yet still equally). An unstated, frequently unexplored aspect of any “discrimination” claim is that two instances be “comparable,” that the two employees, or athletes, or patients, or shelter guests be “similarly situated.” Perhaps in the employment context Gorsuch couldn’t see this, but health, education, and housing provide starker instances. Start with health. Consider a case where a patient accuses a doctor or hospital or health care plan of “discrimination” because they won’t perform or offer or pay for breast removal as part of a “gender transition” procedure. The first thing to note is that Gorsuch’s test—“if changing the patient’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the doctor”—doesn’t apply. Change the patient’s sex and there are no breasts to remove. Indeed, as I point out in “When Harry Became Sally,” recognizing differences between the sexes is increasingly regarded as vitally important for good medical practice, because scientists have found that male and female bodies tend to be susceptible to certain diseases in different ways, to differing degrees, and that they respond to treatments differently. These differences do not have to do with how people choose to “identify.” They have to do with what men and women are: males or females of the human species. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences published a report in 2001 titled “Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?” The executive summary answered the question in the affirmative, saying that the explosive growth of biological information “has made it increasingly apparent that many normal physiological functions—and, in many cases, pathological functions—are influenced either directly or indirectly by sex-based differences in biology.” Because genetics and physiology are among the influences on an individual’s health, the “incidence and severity of diseases vary between the sexes.” Far from its being discrimination to “rely on a patient’s sex,” it is a requirement of good medicine, which is sex-specific to the male or female body of the patient. But that’s not all. Suppose the argument is that the doctor/hospital/insurer covers double mastectomies in the case of cancer, but not in the case of gender dysphoria. For a discrimination claim to be successful, you’d have to argue that a patient with cancerous breast tissue is comparable, similarly situated to a patient with healthy breast tissue. Perhaps some physicians will argue that the non-cancerous breasts are in fact unhealthy because they are the cause of the gender dysphoria. That will only further highlight that what we really have here is a disagreement about the diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria. And policies—like the Trump administration’s regulation on Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act—are entirely defensible for refusing to treat a disagreement on medical care as if it were discrimination based on identity. Something similar is true for the Trump policies on Title IX and school sports. For an argument about discrimination to succeed, you’d have to say that an athlete with male muscle mass, bone structure, and lung capacity (to take just a few specifics) is comparable, similarly situated to an athlete with female muscle mass, bone structure, and lung capacity. If you can recognize that these are not in fact comparable, similarly situated individuals, then it’s hard to make a claim that “discrimination” in the pejorative sense has occurred. Yes, we’ve treated males and females differently—we have an NBA and a WNBA—but that is precisely in order to treat them equally. Equality—fairness—in athletic competition frequently requires taking the bodily differences between males and females seriously. By comparison, it never requires taking skin color into account. Thankfully, the days of racially segregated sports are over. Our skin color makes no difference to what we do on the athletic field. Nor does it make a difference in the bathroom, locker room, or shelter. That’s why bans on racial discrimination did away with separate facilities for black and white. But bans on sex discrimination did not do away with separate facilities for male and female—a reality that Gorsuch’s simplistic test for discrimination fails to account for. The reason? A person with male genitalia is not comparable, not similarly situated to a person with female genitalia when it comes to an emergency shelter or locker room. As a result, this aspect of the Trump administration’s Housing and Urban Development rule on sex-based housing is eminently defensible. Biden is now in the process of undoing these Trump-era administrative actions. Thus, we’ll need litigation and legislation not solely on religious liberty, but on the substantive issues at stake: privacy and safety in single-sex facilities, equality and fairness in single-sex sports, and good medicine based on the realities of our biological makeup as male or female human beings. Through litigation and legislation, we need to make it clear that it’s lawful to act on the convictions that we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other, that no institution has to let males compete against females in sports, that no institution has to allow males into women-only locker rooms and shelters, that no physician has to engage in so-called gender-affirming care. Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. ++++++++++++++++ Written by Candace Owens Now that the FBI has announced publicly that the “insurgency “at the U.S. Capitol was a  pre-planned attack, ALL MEMBERS of CONGRESS,(all Democrats & some Republicans),  that took part In that sham of an impeachment yesterday owe President Trump & his family,  75 million Patriotic supporters and really all of America a MASSIVE APOLOGY! All of the millions of vengeful, disgusting members of the Media and Social Media who took  their lead from Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats and stood before the world and  LIED about the events of that day should be really ashamed! It is now known that the Capitol Police had prior knowledge of this planned attack, provided  to them by the FBI in the days leading up to the Jan.6 event. Capitol Police then  appropriately notified the Congressional Sgt-at-Arms, (who reports directly to Pelosi), and at  that time Capitol Police also requested NG presence. In fact, CP asked Pelosi and Mayor  Bowser numerous times to call up NG for support and were turned down. Why? Reportedly,  Pelosi, the DC Mayor, Schumer and others thought the “OPTICS WOULD BE BAD”???? Pelosi and others apparently knew in advance of the “attack” and it appears that this  “insurgence” and the tragic events that followed were used by Pelosi & others as just one  more last-ditch attempt by DC Democrats to damage President Trump’s name & legacy! We now know the reason Pelosi rushed forward with that phony impeachment, before the  facts had time to come out! The members of Congress who stood and said the most vile things imaginable, in a public  hearing, about our President showed the world just what despicable human beings some  Americans can be. It was irresponsible of them to rush to judgement based on events that  apparently were engineered/used by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress in an  attempt to ruin an honest, decent American’s life. I hope they pay a serious price, including  removal from office. Democrats in America have become very dangerous people and the  hate they harbor for those they consider to be “weak” is like nothing I’ve ever seen before.  Their lust for power is just beyond comprehension. Fortunately for Americans, though, the Democrats’ underhanded tactics have once again  been unable to get the better of Donald J. Trump. Again, in this the final week of his  successful term, he comes out the winner yet again! For more than four years, Pelosi, Schumer and the DC Democrats have tried time and time  again to “get” Donald Trump and bring him down He has been forced to endure  Investigations that went on for months & months, (costing untold millions in taxpayer dollars), two impeachments based on fabricated “evidence” along with unrelenting lies and other  “charges”, yet he maintains his dignity, holds his head up high, and continues go out every  day and do the job he was elected to do. There has never been a finer President than  Donald J. Trump. Thank you, Sir, for restoring Greatness to America!♥️ +++++++ We are really a blessed nation.  The media helped get rid of a president who they told us   could do nothing right and now the media has helped replace him with a president they tell  us can do no wrong. OOPS! Biden Gets Caught LYING About Pandemic Here's what he said… ++++++ Lest we forget what an elegant First Lady we had. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++