In this segment we talk about the North Korea issue and the talks between Kim Jong Un and President Trump, the G7 Summit, the Florida Concealed Carry Scandal and more!

BY FRANK SALVATO 
It is true that in the United States, everyone who qualifies under the requirements of the Constitution has the right to run for office. In fact, the beauty of the American experience is that our nation is governed by her people, not a ruling class, or so it is supposed to be.
 
Currently, we are undergoing a rebellion against a professional class of politicians who have stolen government from the people. Since the beginning of our nation, opportunistic individuals have sought to manipulate the governmental system to both push ideology and enrich themselves.
 
At the national level, we have ideological groups that seek to alter the fabric of our nation; who attempt to circumvent the US Constitution at every turn. Additionally, there are political opportunists who see an avenue to wealth off the hard work of the American people. How else do people enter into office with modest means only to leave office as millionaires?
 
Then, of course – at the local levels of government, we have the “good ol’ boy” networkers. These individuals seek to maintain power in an effort to install a lingering status quo beneficial to their desires; desires that almost always end up lining their pockets and the pockets of their benefactors and cronies, even as they control our daily lives right down to the traffic patterns we have to navigate.
 
After generations of this garbage – from the local levels to national, people are rebelling. This is one reason President Trump came to office; a perceived outsider. It is also why a wave of people unfamiliar with the political world find themselves vying for office.
 
American politics is a rough and tumble game; game being a term of endearment from my perspective. Sadly, if one isn’t experienced in life, well-organized, backed by at least a modest amount of financial backing, and graced with a small army of people who will volunteer their time on behalf of the candidate, there is zero chance of being elected. And those who believe that a political campaign can be won simply through the exploitation of social media are either smoking something legal in Colorado or really haven’t been on social media lately.
 
One of the biggest pitfalls on social media platforms, where the political novice is concerned, is getting caught up in the “disingenuous debate”; getting snared by the “Internet trolls.” By common definition, a “troll” is:
 
“...a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion...”
 
This is a staple of the political operative, especially on Facebook. These people goad the novice into providing them with minutia information easily found on a campaign’s webpage. They do so in an effort to:
 

1. Occupy the novice candidate’s time;
2. Provoke the novice candidate into losing their patience/temper;
3. Drive the novice candidate to contradict themselves on matters of position;
4. Cede the narrative so as to allow the operative (read: opposition) to paint the novice candidate in a less than flattering – and often damaging – light.

 
These trolls also infect the efforts of volunteers who sincerely want to disseminate legitimate information about the candidate. The troll seeks to occupy the volunteers’ time and provoke them into sometimes heated exchanges that can often times reflect poorly on the novice candidate.
 
So, what to do about “disingenuous debater”; the Internet trolls; these political hacks (and this really is what they are)?
 
First, always take the high road. Stay focused on the primary task: disseminating fact-based, legitimate information. It takes two parties to enter into a debate, so don’t take the bait. This sometimes requires a great deal of restraint but not getting lured into a pseudo-debate with someone whose goal is disingenuous; to occupy time, capture the narrative and damage a candidate, is a great payoff for applying that restraint.
 
Then there are the nuclear options, which any candidate and/or campaign – established or otherwise – should only use as a last resort, the actions tempting to reflect directly on the campaign. One can report the “disingenuous debater” (read: political operative) to the forum’s administrators (if this avenue is chosen you have to thoroughly make your case so the administrators are sympathetic to your request and pray the administrator isn’t a troll, too) or you can block the operative, which very well may elicit calls of censorship.
 
The primary task on social media for any novice political candidate is to “identify the trolls.” Make a list of the trolls’ shine a light on them. Make sure each and everyone in your campaign knows who the trolls are and instruct them to offer a common response. This response should be to refer the troll to the webpage for more information and/or to avoid engaging them all together.
 
When a troll is left to the hollow echo of his or her own voice, the other readers of the forum are able to hear the shrill disingenuousness of their words; to see the transparent disingenuousness of their efforts. This, incidentally, leads to their efforts backfiring and painting their political choice with the stain of deception and dishonesty.

BY DARLENE CASELLA
 
National Security Advisor John Bolton is a war-mongering racist Islamophobe who recently appointed conspiracy theorist, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, Fred Fleitz to a top position at the NSC; according to media outlets.
 
Such propaganda made headlines - The Wall Street Journal “Jewish and Muslim groups object to the appointment of Fleitz; Newsweek “Anti Muslim, Anti Iran claims” by Fleitz; “Calls are mounting for the ouster of Fleitz newly named” New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer headlined “Bolton Installs Anti-Muslim Wingnut.”
 
Fabrications caused National Review’s Rich Lowry to write “Fred Fleitz Is Not a Neo-Nazi” calling media claims preposterous. Zionist Organization of America President, Morton Klein, slammed “Fleitz is a strong supporter of Israel who understands the Islamic Republic of Iran’s threats.”
 
Many believe former Obama Administration people are instrumental in the slander. Ties exist between them and coordinators of the smear campaigns such as the

• Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR – representing the faith of Islam for American Muslims. Roots in terrorist groups HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood date back to 1994.

 

• Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC - propaganda dispenser using lists of ‘hate groups’ to smear reputations. It lists David Horowitz and Dennis Prager as haters.

 

•  Anti Defamation League – (ADL fighting anti Semitism. Detractors claim ADL manipulates by applying anti-Semitic (or Islamophobic) to whatever they oppose. Current leader Jonathan Greenblatt was in the Obama Administration).

 
Fred Fleitz was a CIA analyst. His book “Obamabomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Fraud” provides in depth analysis of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
 
Truth seekers should call out lies. Silence allows falsehoods them to appear as facts. Abduction of truth by the left is contemptible.
 
Darlene Casella was before retirement an English teacher, a stockbroker, and owner/president of a small corporation. She can be reached here.

​The SEAL Team VI member who capped Osama bin Laden has come out and explained that people should not walk up to him and wish him a “Happy Memorial Day.” In truth, he is absolutely correct. Memorial Day is not Veteran’s Day. It is a somber day that should consume up with thought and reverence for those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedoms.
 
Because these types of holidays have been co-opted by commercialism – who wouldn’t want to buy a new mattress of a new car because, well, we just have to have a Memorial Day Sales, the meaning of the day has been destroyed. Memorial Day has become the timetable benchmark for the beginning of summer and is marked by cook-outs, get-togethers, and vacations. These “happy” and self-serving events – minus those executed with reverence for those who have fallen – betray the meaning of the day.
 
Memorial Day is reserved (or at least it is supposed to be) for the remembrance of those who have died on the fields of battle in the service to our country. It is not about the red of the barbeque sauce, it is about the red of the blood that poured from the bodies of patriots fallen in the defense of our freedoms and the liberations of the oppressed.
 
On Veteran’s Day, which happens to mark the unofficial end of summer (and which has been commercialized beyond my comfort zone as well), it is correct to walk up and thank a Veteran for his or her service to our nation. But on Memorial Day it is appropriate to reflect on the sacrifices made by those who have died in our service and the families who have been directly affected by their deaths.
 
Memorial Day is about reverence and reflection; appreciation and humility, not light-hearted celebration and commercialism. Thankfully, I live in a military community where the gatherings today will be centered on that reverence. I truly wish everyone could experience the respect and thoughtful behavior I will be engaging in today. Maybe if we all experienced such reverence we would take our military and our country for granted, such as we do.

Voting in a Constitutional Republic may be the only voice the people have in the selection of leaders and lawmakers. You can write your congressman after his election, but chances are you will get a canned response with an electronically signed form letter. Your letter may be read and tallied in an informal poll, but there is no assurance you will be heard, that is until the next election. Unfortunately, we do not elect saints to office and there are many who will gain and retain their offices by any means necessary. The temptation to rig elections becomes even more pronounced when the entire agenda of a political ideology is at stake. What the people really want is of little consequence to a driven elitist of any political party.

Daily revelations indicate our government operates more like a crime syndicate in a Banana Republic. Eliminating corruption and restoring the rule of law can only be achieved if we eliminate electoral fraud so we can elect leaders and lawmakers genuinely dedicated to reform. Finding such people will be hard enough and electing them in a rigged system will be even more difficult. But electoral fraud isn’t just about fraudulent voters; it includes government control of the political parties themselves. But first things first.

The States register voters and it is up to the states to set requirements within the boundaries established by the Constitution. There is no reason why a person should not be required to demonstrate that they meet constitutional and State requirements to vote at the time of registration. There is no reason a person should not prove their identity, that they are who they say they are. There is no reason the states cannot issue appropriate photographic or bio metric based identification cards and maintain a registry to root out frauds and duplicates. After all, it is “voter registration.”

People opposing the reduction of voter fraud have and will oppose any measures to reduce voter fraud, often giving absurd reasons why phantom voters (or dead ones) should be allowed to exist. While absentee ballots make a good deal of sense and can be policed to a reasonable extent, absentee registration makes no sense and is allowed more to create phony voters than accommodate invalids.

Government has no business in party politics. If people don’t like how a party does things, they can leave and join another party. No where in our Constitution is there any sanction for government involvement in any political party, or recognition of a two-party system. The political parties should set the rules for their primaries, the qualifications of primary voters and bear the cost of conducting a primary election if that is their chosen method of nomination, not the government. If the people don’t like it, again, they can leave and join or create another party.

Voter fraud and government manipulation of politics is the greatest threat to our liberty. The Left is trying to bring about the day we have one man (even if most are phony), one vote, one time and will do anything to bring that about. It is fraud most foul.

BY TONY RUBOLOTTA
​After the Boston Marathon bombing, the Constitution was essentially suspended as a militarized police force conducted house to house searches for ONE MAN! American citizens were forced out of their homes at gun point. Pundits have argued that search warrants were not required and if they were, it would make no difference as courts would issue warrants without hesitation. Imagine the level of Constitutional violations if TWO MEN were being sought.

The right to travel freely is the right to travel without impediment, particularly without being subject to unreasonable searches during that travel. The Constitutional protection against such searches and seizures has been suspended at airports. In the insane pursuit of “equality”, everyone is treated as a terrorist suspect, subject to intensive, intrusive searches and seizure of property at the whim of the state (TSA). Profiling, that is a common sense approach to identifying potential terrorist based of observed patterns of behavior, race and religion are cast aside. Yet the same bureaucratic mindset that devises such rules posts signs in airport, train stations and bus terminals telling us we should be aware of our surroundings and report suspicious activity. In other words, we should profile and then be subjected to personal criticism depending upon the mood of the official receiving our information.

Gun free zones are places where the government has ruled the Constitution does not apply. Criminals could care less about these Constitutional issues and are only concerned about making a statement or their survival, or both. If an individual wishes to make his private property a “gun free zone”, that is his right as long as there is no law or condition compelling an individual to visit that property and thus be forced to surrender a right.

People with malevolent intentions have made schools their stage and can do so with relative safety. The response by government, that is politicians both Left (establishment Republican) and far Left (Democrat), is to make schools secure by providing armed government employees, warrant less searches and prison-like security measures. Some bureaucrats go even further so that any behavior they deem “inappropriate” is subject to punishment.

All of these measures are quite reasonable for a nation that makes up its morality on the fly in a godless environment where right and wrong are the province of majority votes and not unchanging truth. Two of our Founders recognized this and offered these gems of wisdom which have been ignored to our detriment and for which we now pay the price:

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams

​BY FRANK SALVATO
With the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in Israel – and with the continuing struggle between the Sunni and Shiite Islamists for dominance not only in the region but in the dogma, blood is sure to be spilled. So too will the propaganda machines whir and churn?
 
Since the official ceremonies to open the new US embassy in Jerusalem, 37 Palestinians have been killed in protests. These are protests that have taken place in Gaza, not Jerusalem. Hamas and many suspect Hezbollah are encouraging and coordinating these protests; protests that goad innocents into doing the bidding of the violently ideological.
 
The move of the US embassy to Jerusalem was guaranteed to spark unrest in the Middle East. Islamists and non-Islamists have been battling for the Holy Land since the advent of Islam; since the age of the Crusades, which were actions to retake Jerusalem from interloper Islamists. Jerusalem was – and is – a battle between Christianity and Islam; a battle between a religion based on forgiveness and a dogma based on conquest and totalitarian control.
 
Ayman al Zawahiri, the head of al Qaeda, has called for all Islamists to wage aggressive war against Israel and the West following the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
 
This event, for the moment, stalls the confrontation between the Sunni (Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite (Iran) for dominance in the region and within the dogma. Iran is making great inroads in Iraq, what with the lead of Moqtada al Sadr in the political polls. Al Sadr is a puppet mullah to the Iranian mullahs. Should al Sadr win it will practically erase any and all political freedoms established by the US and coalition forces in the Iraq War.
 
With the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the Sunni and Shiite (Saudi Arabia and Iran) have an opportunity for hudna (a cessation of hostilities) in order to fight a common foe, Israel, for the age-old struggle of control of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. It is guaranteed that Israel will react firmly and decisively, and the Trump Administration will have Israel’s back, something that wasn’t happening under the Obama Administration.
 
Events in Israel and the Middle East should be watched very carefully. With all the players in place and with everyone having the ability to wage extremely large campaigns of war, a global conflict is not far from becoming a reality.
 
God help us all.

BY TONY RUBOLOTTA
​As quickly as social media was set ablaze by the classless behavior and display of the so-called "Teacher of the Year", Mandy Manning toward President Trump, it was extinguished just as quickly as an apparent backlash started to develop. Manning must have thought herself very clever to accept the award from Trump while wearing explicitly and deliberately provocative political badges and remaining silent in a photo-op. Manning no doubt fulfilled the expectations of the Leftist elite who selected her to receive the award. So what lesson was learned by watching this "Teacher of the Year"?

First, before that question can be answered, we should understand how "Teacher of the Year" is selected. Do a web search for "how is teacher of the year selected" and it will produce an abundance of hits mostly describing a very similar process under the control of educators using highly subjective criteria in numerous school districts and states. In some jurisdictions, the criteria is completely arbitrary but the process is headed by a professional educator, that is selection of the selection committee is usually at the discretion of the superintendent of schools. While no doubt some very good teachers do receive appropriate recognition in this process, the odds heavily favor the more radical liberals, not because of teaching ability and quality, but because of politics. Manning's decision to use the award ceremony as a political platform certainly fits the selection criteria and must have pleased her electors.

As the quality of American education crashes to new lows, it is no small wonder that the people responsible for the decline, primarily teachers' unions and their political consorts, would nominate like minded individuals that excel at the indoctrination of young minds. Certainly high on the list of noteworthy teachers would be those who are outspoken politically in public and on the Left.

I couldn't find any in depth articles about what Manning actually does except this excerpt from USA Today: "'She uses experiential projects like map-making to help her students process trauma, celebrate their home countries and culture, and learn about their new community,' the [Council of Chief States School Officers] said." Let that sink in. If it sounds like a mishmash of gobbledygook, it usually is. Note the buzzwords; "experiential", "process", "trauma", "celebrate", "culture" and "community". No mention of her students success learning English or adapting to their new homeland as she helps them "celebrate their home countries and culture". Apparently, what becomes of her students is not important enough to consider and report. All her students need do is like her.

Back to the original question: What lesson do young people learn from Mandy Manning's behavior? Manning is an ill-mannered, disrespectful lout that took advantage of the President's decency to score some political points. That is how she came across and will be remembered as her stunt backfired from most comments I have read in social media. Of course, her students will be told she stood up to Trump and showed him a thing or two. I can't say I'm surprised that "Teacher of the Year" would sink to the depths of the Oscars, but it has and that is the way the Left operates.

BY REBECCA HARPER
The college landscape of today is a dismal glimpse into the nation’s future. Cry closets, safe spaces, coping animals, canceled classes and cry-ins alone show us the kinds of adults that higher education is shaping for the future.
 
Struggle and hardship, offense and hurt feelings are not new concepts to the human psyche. Why have we never needed these special coddling measures before?
 
Today’s young culture is different – and not in a good way. Young people are increasingly sensitive, adopting the carefully manicured victimhood mentality groomed into them by the leftist-dominated media, and public school systems. As public school teacher protests and activism are increasing, for instance, reading and math proficiency among fourth-grade students is a mere 40 percent, and only 33 percent among eighth-graders.
 
The trend of failure is maintained by colleges and universities. A study found that 45 percent of college students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” in their first two years, and 40 percent “didn’t learn anything at all over all four years.” Compared to a similar study conducted several decades earlier, today’s students reported a 50 percent decline in study time, and more than double time spent on recreational activities.
 
Grades have inflated, and college grade point averages have increased, all while proficiency and responsibility have declined. More students are graduating, but is that real success when they’re overwhelmingly unprepared for the real world?
 
It appears that college students are more prepared to be devoted Democrat voters above anything else. It’s not as though they’re prepared for anything else after absorbing anti-American curriculum emphasizing gender studies, diversity and inclusiveness, and white privilege.
 
College students are taught how to break down and blame others for any negativity experienced in their life. Hurt feelings? It’s someone else’s hate speech. Didn’t get a job? It’s discrimination. Didn’t get rich with a liberal arts degree? Systemic oppression.
 
Instead of learning how to deal with the difficult feelings, to be stronger and more capable individuals ready to cope with hardships, they’re sheltered – and totally unprepared for the real world.
 
There are no safe spaces to avoid responsibility and reality of adulthood. American institutions cannot function properly if key members are incapable of handling tough situations. Life-altering professionals such as law enforcement or healthcare don’t get to pause for a cry break when someone’s life is in their hands.
 
These students we see protesting free speech, screaming at the sky, or rallying against Constitutional rights with sheer ignorance, will one day become our future leaders.
 
Yes, among these sensitive and unprepared young adults, lies future members of federal and state governments, Congress, and even the Presidency.
 
Who among the students of today’s colleges will be able to face foreign affairs – or the threat of war – without the pressures causing them to run away from their problems? Will a cry closet become a future president’s coping mechanism in the Oval Office?

BY BRIAN CHERRY
If you were raised on Star Wars films and didn’t get your first kiss until long after you were old enough to drink, then your familiar with the phrase “It’s a trap!” This is what Admiral Ackbar bellowed while the rebels were attacking the second Death Star. Princess Leia and company got tricked into a fight that left the entire fleet of good guys open to the evil doer’s big guns. Only divine intervention from the force saved the day and the galaxy.
 
Ackbar yelling, “It’s a Trap”, should be the ringtone for every Republican candidate as they go into the summer campaign season. It will remind them what happens when their opponent wants to stop discussing issues and talk about race. Here is how the trap works.

Your Democrat opponent will assign a position to you on race issues. They will then argue against the position THEY have allocated to you. Historically, the Republican candidate will immediately surrender to the premise and spend the rest of the campaign arguing that they are not a racist. “Nuh uh” is never an effective debate position.
 
The conversation has now been effectively steered away from the great economy, jobs numbers, tax cuts, and all the successes of the Trump administration. Republicans step into this trap almost every time. It’s as predictable as Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake and getting a handle to the face. Instead of trying to prove they aren’t racists, Republican’s should reject the premise and remind everyone who the real racists are.  
 
Democrat’s run most urban cities, where their minority voter base live in relative poverty. It seems as if the Democrat slave owners who ran the south simply moved African Americans from the plantations to the projects. Instead of producing cotton, they’re now expected to produce votes. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone either. Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, hatched this plan several decades ago.
 
In the LBJ biography, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream the former President outlines the Democrat strategy for African Americans. In a conversation with Senator Richard Russell he says, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”
 
LBJ, as the leader of the Democrat party, expected a big return on the “little something” he would give to African Americans. In the book Inside the White House, author Ronald Kessler reports Johnson expectations. In a conversation aboard Air Force One LBJ stated that “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for 200 years.” Fifty years later its self-evident that the strategy is still in play. Modern liberal policies provide poor minorities with just enough to get by, but not quite enough to grow beyond public assistance. Today they still give them “just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” Anyone with a Where’s Waldo level of observation skills can spot the real racists in the room.
 
African Americans are treated as property of the Democrat party. If anyone tries to escape the plantation, liberal personalities in the broadcast media along with trolls on social media will viciously attack and silence that person for being uppity enough to think outside the party’s box. YouTube personalities Diamond and Silk, journalist Candace Owens and rapper Kanye West are examples of the lynching reserved for those who speak out of turn.
 
Instead of stepping into the “racist” trap, Republican politicians can jujitsu this issue to show that the beating heart of American racism is blue in color. Then use the “race” argument to pivot to the economy and how minorities are doing far better under Trump’s policies then under “America’s first Black President” (Clinton), or even Obama. This puts Democrats in the uncomfy explaining how low African American unemployment is somehow a bad thing.
 
It’s always fun watching bad people squirming in their own trap.