Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Dick Morris had a story about this back in early October. The matter had been taken up by SCOTUS, and it involves the Voting Rights Act. It seems that the Dems have relied upon this for 20 seats or more, as it figured in the racial gerrymandering of districts.
The matter had been taken up in early October, but not decided yet. Something happened just recently that may be an indication of where SCOTUS will go with this, if they haven't done that already.
It may have something to do with the recent decision in a lower court to halt the redistricting in Texas on the grounds of racial discrimination. But SCOTUS reversed that.
So the thinking is that since SCOTUS did that with regard to Texas' redistricting, that the writing is on the wall about how this decision will go down.
Maybe it has already been handed down, and the Dems are screwed.
But I'm not sure just yet.
Here's what I was looking for in order to go with Morris' link. Big victories in SCOTUS.
Lanny Griffith did the morning rush-hour traffic report on KLOL Houston back in the day... KLOL FM did rock 'n roll in those days, now it is a different format. Oh, well.
You can find anything on the web, or so it seems. A bit of nostagia here...
Rut roh! Looks like I have to take it down again. Under construction! Sorry abou that...
12/5/25:
On the left column under the "Navigation Pages", there's a link to a certain "Design Page". If you click on it now, it will display a forbidden link. Fear not! The Design Page is being re-worked. (I have it locked down while under construction.) I'll update when it can be seen again (I hope). That is all.
12/4/25
12/5/25: Note: There's no longer any reason to have it private, so the design page can be seen again.
They collaborated pretty well with this rockified shuffle tune from Grand Funk's first album. The album was called "On Time". I don't know if it is still on time, but it is about time that patriots start taking a stand in defense of this here country.
If we don't do something soon, there won't be anything left to save. The commies have whittled it down to ZERO.
This is a very good analysis. Little wonder that a clear-headed individual would constitute such a threat to the leftists of the 0bama regime, that they felt like they had to take him out with some Lawfare.
Same goes with Trump or any other patriot. The threat is out there and in your face. They're not hiding it anymore. So, the boil-a-frog scenario has reached its climax. Either the frog jumps out, thereby saving itself, or the frog get boiled to death. The metaphor describes our freedoms, ya'll.
These people claim to be about Democracy and Rule of Law, but that is not the case. If they were, they wouldn't have gone after Flynn this way, nor Trump. Nor would they have cooked up a phony J6th Insurrection narrative, nor all the other phony narratives that they've cooked up.
Time for the patriots to rise up in defense of our liberties. The time is growing short.
I see a color revolution brewing. So does Flynn. Should YOU?
https://t.co/goWD06oVSG ---Comment: Yeah, the only thing that surprised me so far, is how slowly it is unfolding. I thought that these commies would move faster than this. But I take no comfort in that. Patriots need to pick it up a notch or two. Polls are going down--bad.
When somebody starts to bellow out threats, the intention must be to instill fear. So, are all of us supposed to be afraid now? I should hope not.
We have a Constitution, to which all "public servants" must give their allegiance. Just because she got her position doesn't not make her some kind of person who is above the rest, and can lord it over the rest of us. This isn't the old World. It is a government that is intended to be grass-roots. That is to say, "WE THE PEOPLE" are in charge of this government, not the self-absorbed, self-important apparatchiks in Washington D.C.
DC is full of these top-down kind of folks, who want to tell the rest of us what we must do. They want to tell what we can say, where you can, or cannot go, what we can do with our own property, and so on and so forth. That is not what our founding documents say, including the Constitution, which this overbearing and arrogant woman has also given her oath to. Nobody has died and made her royalty.
There's a saying, "if you don't use it, you will lose it." Illhan Omar and their ilk are more interested in ending the American experiment than in preserving anything that they are pleased to call a "democracy". She and her ilk do not respect the law, neither in the letter, nor the spirit. Otherwise, she would not take this kind of tone. If, on the other hand, we have become a people that can be bullied into submission, which is what Islam means, then we shall certainly lose what freedom we have, and perhaps a good deal more than that.
A little explanation for the title. If you're wondering what the word "magilla" means, the word is in one of Sinatra's flicks. Maybe it was one of his favorite words. It's meaning isn't exactly clear, but it could mean something like "world".
Of course, there was the fight between Ali v. Foreman, or was it Frazier? It was one of Ali's fights, and that is what Ali called it.
So this was a verbal brawl of the most intense kind. A real barn-burner. I'd a loved to have seen it. This video just narrates it from a personal view, and assuming it is an accurate portrayal of events as they unfolded, it must have been a real sight to see.
Eastwood tells Behar off, and vice versa. Who won the cage match? I think Eastwood did. But that is the impression I got from this video. Again, the portrayal has to be accurate for that assessment to hold up. It might not, you know. The caption shown isn't in the video. Click bait, maybe.
Ted Nugent plans to blast “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang” on amplifiers in Dearborn at 2 AM to counter Muslim prayer calls. You gotta love Ted --Amboy Dukes strikes again! https://t.co/giAdNdJKX7
You can pretty much disregard the narrative coming from the legacy media. That disregard should be standard operating procedure (SOP). As for the FBI, and Dan Bongino; I trust him, mostly. Sundance is suspicious of the FBI, but Bongino said that very thing himself many times on his show.
It's possible that Bongino and Patel can be fooled into a phony situation. It is also possible that they put together a team of competent FBI agents who worked the case, and have a good case.
In other words, I'm not as suspicious as Sundance, but I'm willing to wait and see.
As for DC, it's beyond repair. The area is infested with poltical operatives who would love to discredit this case. The chance for a conviction in DC may be quite low. His grand mommy is all over this saying that her son is innocent as a dove. Well, what else is she going to say????
But the sympathy factor will kick in BIG TIME, and the jury will be composed of people who vote Democrat 90%+ of the time. They'll vote to acquit probably, or will at best, it'll be a hung jury. No, a trial MIGHT be okay if you got a spot light on the political machinations of a corrupt DC octopus that is strangling the entire country. THEN the country can decide to continue to be strangled, or get itself free POLITICALLY.
The politics of this trial won't be avoidable. Hang on to your seats, because this will be a rough ride.
One of the things that really bugs me is this problem with people who insist upon misunderstanding things.
But that is just one of my pet peeves. That reminds me of the time when I was taking a driver safety course, and the instructor asked the class one-by-one, "What is your pet-peeve?". I hadn't thought of it before, so I had a problem answering that question. However, upon further reflection, I think it must be universal thing to have pet-peeves or one kind or another.
Since I like to think of myself as someone who attempts to understand things, I often make the mistake of assuming everyone is that way. But that is not the case. It may be the exception.
Which brings me to the point-of-view with respect to how Trump's opponents treat him.
I don't support Trump out of some feeling that he is some sort of savior person. I don't belong to a "cult". But there are people who insist that anyone who supports Trump is part of some sort of "cult".
I think these people are the ones who are at fault. You can disagree with a person and not hate them. Indeed, hating somebody just because they disagree with you, is in my opinion unjust. Anybody can be wrong. Trump can be wrong, but that doesn't make him a bad person. Just because he disagrees with you, or you with him, doesn't make him bad. Not by itself. It's what you do about that fact that is good or bad.
That's what understanding things is about. You don't have to agree with a person, but you can try to understand their point-of-view. I think in doing so, you can remove a lot of the hostility from the situation.
Besides, the other guy could be right!
If you mistreat another person just because of a disagreement, what does that make you? I say it makes you an unjust person.
Misunderstanding others and using it as a reason for killing them, or wishing them dead, is evil.
That's why I have a big problem with Trump's critics. They have no respect for others. You don't have to agree, you can disagree, and still believe what you wish. After all, you're opponent could be right!
It's tragic that there's so many people who are willing to do damage to others just because of a disagreement. But if that disagreement is serious enough, drastic measures may be necessary. Let's give examples, like gun-control. If somebody disagrees with you so drastically that they want to kill you, then having a weapon handy may be necessary. Therefore, gun-control takes your ability to defend yourself away from you. I note that some liberals like gun-control all of a sudden. If they cannot make you agree with them, then they feel threatened. But why?
Yes, misunderstandings are the norm--not the exception. Just sayin'. Try not to have a cow over it. Pretty please.
So, what do you think of this??? I think the guy is a nazi alright, and a good many other things, but calling him that wasn't exactly prudent. The result was murder...
What bugs me is that people will misunderstand, and appear to me to deliberately misunderstand--- what I just wrote. Or is it just my perception? The same goes about Trump... But I sympathize with the guy, because I think he's truly trying to help. The critics are proven wrong again and again, but that doesn't stop them. Something else is going on, then.
Drastic measures may be necessary. Try not to misunderstand that, ok? But I'm not holding my breath...
