Here is a list of Opinionated Blogs ordered by Last Commented, posted by members. A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you've learned. Post an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Update your blog on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with others. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about others. Click here to post a blog.
Freedom
The foundation principles for the Declaration of Independence was to address grievances and separate a people from a tyrannical king that under his rule mounted an unsurpassable form of government that harshly treated his subjects and gave no hope of reconciling those conditions to better the relationship between king and subject.
Today we are re-living that same atmosphere of dysfunction and split opinions and beliefs that faced the citizens of the original thirteen with the attacks that are being waged against those who continue to fight for freedoms and those who oppose freedom of individual and individual rights.
If you , as back then, speak or utter words of disagreement against the current self proclaimed king you are labeled a fascist, racist. bigoted hater simply for believing in the freedom granted by the original thirteen. Who BTW risked their very lives and pledged to place themselves in that risk all to bring you a free nation in which you can live. And let's not forget the countless lives lost in that battle as well.
Today we do have a dysfunctional atmosphere and our so called leaders are more interested, as was the kings court, in their views and wants versus what is needed to be done. I urge you to re-read the Declaration of Independence and pay attention to how the words were carefully chosen in that document that started this country on the path to freedom. You will see in those very words the price of freedom and the addresses of concerns that those who wrote back then and compare it to today. Not much difference..
The very same ideology that was against freedom then has been resurrected in today's Progressive party and is being used in the very same manner as it was over 237 years ago. To defeat a people who strive for freedom you must first knock them down and keep them down. The lessor of 2 evils is hardly the right choice to make, but making a choice between freedom and inapt servitude should be your concern with what is happening today and the attacks on our freedom and safety by a ruthless political party that has "self serving" ideas as to how a free people should live.
Cast your vote from pretend freedom or for actual freedom is what you need to do when you step up to the machine and press a button or pull a handle.
Author unknown
Today we are re-living that same atmosphere of dysfunction and split opinions and beliefs that faced the citizens of the original thirteen with the attacks that are being waged against those who continue to fight for freedoms and those who oppose freedom of individual and individual rights.
If you , as back then, speak or utter words of disagreement against the current self proclaimed king you are labeled a fascist, racist. bigoted hater simply for believing in the freedom granted by the original thirteen. Who BTW risked their very lives and pledged to place themselves in that risk all to bring you a free nation in which you can live. And let's not forget the countless lives lost in that battle as well.
Today we do have a dysfunctional atmosphere and our so called leaders are more interested, as was the kings court, in their views and wants versus what is needed to be done. I urge you to re-read the Declaration of Independence and pay attention to how the words were carefully chosen in that document that started this country on the path to freedom. You will see in those very words the price of freedom and the addresses of concerns that those who wrote back then and compare it to today. Not much difference..
The very same ideology that was against freedom then has been resurrected in today's Progressive party and is being used in the very same manner as it was over 237 years ago. To defeat a people who strive for freedom you must first knock them down and keep them down. The lessor of 2 evils is hardly the right choice to make, but making a choice between freedom and inapt servitude should be your concern with what is happening today and the attacks on our freedom and safety by a ruthless political party that has "self serving" ideas as to how a free people should live.
Cast your vote from pretend freedom or for actual freedom is what you need to do when you step up to the machine and press a button or pull a handle.
Author unknown
online today!
Sad To Say But...
one of America’s preferred methods of confronting its adversaries is to ‘wage war by proxy’ against them, that is, to support the war of a group or country against a rival without militarily engaging themselves.
The history of the Cold War is littered with such examples, such as America’s backing of the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, its assistance to Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, or, on a more contemporary note, its failed attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad via local rebels.
Proxy wars allow the US to minimize its own losses by having someone else die for its aims while also procuring geopolitical gain by undermining rival states, at the same time maximizing profits for the military-industrial complex by keeping the arms flowing.
Fact not Fiction.
The history of the Cold War is littered with such examples, such as America’s backing of the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, its assistance to Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, or, on a more contemporary note, its failed attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad via local rebels.
Proxy wars allow the US to minimize its own losses by having someone else die for its aims while also procuring geopolitical gain by undermining rival states, at the same time maximizing profits for the military-industrial complex by keeping the arms flowing.
Fact not Fiction.
Elon Musk sued over buying Twitter stock
Oh no, the world is coming to an end. 
Well, according to liberals when they're feathers get ruffled. Liberals love trying to control people and the narrative on everything. Free speech they try to stiffle if it's a view point that differs from their own. For example, Twiiter.
Yes, I do feel that free speech comes with responsibility, but I also believe that when one has a different view point than others, it should be heard. Given Twitter's track record, they delete comments, and ban people merely for opposing views.
I don't think Elon Musk is a conservative, nor a Republican for that matter, however, he does agree with free speech.
Well, according to liberals when they're feathers get ruffled. Liberals love trying to control people and the narrative on everything. Free speech they try to stiffle if it's a view point that differs from their own. For example, Twiiter. Yes, I do feel that free speech comes with responsibility, but I also believe that when one has a different view point than others, it should be heard. Given Twitter's track record, they delete comments, and ban people merely for opposing views.
I don't think Elon Musk is a conservative, nor a Republican for that matter, however, he does agree with free speech.
online today!
Today's Government
Totalitarianism Definition
Often regarded as the most extreme form of authoritarianism, totalitarianism is generally identified by dictatorial centralized rule dedicated to controlling all public and private aspects of individual life, to the benefit of the state, through coercion, intimidation, and repression. Totalitarian states are typically ruled by autocrats or dictators who demand unquestioned loyalty and control public opinion through propaganda distributed via government-controlled media. An even darker description of living under totalitarianism comes from George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel 1984, when the main character Winston Smith is told by Thought Police interrogator O’Brien, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.”
Soon.
Often regarded as the most extreme form of authoritarianism, totalitarianism is generally identified by dictatorial centralized rule dedicated to controlling all public and private aspects of individual life, to the benefit of the state, through coercion, intimidation, and repression. Totalitarian states are typically ruled by autocrats or dictators who demand unquestioned loyalty and control public opinion through propaganda distributed via government-controlled media. An even darker description of living under totalitarianism comes from George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel 1984, when the main character Winston Smith is told by Thought Police interrogator O’Brien, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.”
Soon.
California wants to regulate your bacon
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Instead of consuming less pork raised in ways it doesn’t like, California has imposed its will on other states.
California defends its law in part by hiding behind the principle of judicial restraint and in part by downplaying the law’s practical effects out of state.
Telling the rest of the country that they can’t eat meat unless California is happy about it is a step too far.
Imagine that a friend of yours wants to lose 10 pounds. You might advise your friend to diet, avoid unhealthy foods, and exercise more. You might even offer some unconventional tips, like sleeping regularly or keeping a daily gratitude journal.
But what if you went to all the stores in your state and told the owners that your friend must not be sold junk food? Or went to all the nearby gyms and told the owners that they must offer a weight-loss program specific to your friend?
Now we’re getting into the realm of the absurd, and rightly so. Your principles and desires, however justified they may seem, do not give you the right to force others to obey your will.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
This scenario is playing out in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which the Supreme Court will hear next term. The case involves a California law, Proposition 12, that regulates the confinement of farm animals, including pigs, and was approved by more than 62% of California voters.
It is all well and good for Californians to decide that their pork must come from pigs raised in a supposedly more humane way. But instead of consuming less pork raised in ways it doesn’t like, California has imposed its will on other states. Because California imports most of its pork from other parts of America, Proposition 12 ends up regulating pork producers across the country. In fact, because the state imports a whopping 99.87% of its pork, the law has more of an impact outside the Golden State than inside.
This is nanny-statism on steroids. It’s as if one of 50 children appointed herself nanny and decided how the other 49 should be allowed to play.
The good news is, there are rules that forbid these sorts of shenanigans.
The Constitution’s commerce clause states that only Congress has the power to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that state laws that attempt to regulate interstate commerce are unconstitutional.
This so-called dormant commerce power has invalidated state regulations many times. In 1945, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona law that limited the size of freight trains because “the practical effect of such regulation is to control beyond the boundaries of the state … ”
In 1970, however, the court complicated this straightforward doctrine by establishing a balancing test stating that if local benefits come from the regulation, then the “incidental consequences” of that regulation may be justified, even if they interfere with interstate commerce.
These twin questions of external effects and compelling state interests are the battle lines along which the two sides in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross are arguing over Proposition 12.
California defends its law in part by hiding behind the principle of judicial restraint and in part by downplaying the law’s practical effects out of state.
Read more:
Instead of consuming less pork raised in ways it doesn’t like, California has imposed its will on other states.
California defends its law in part by hiding behind the principle of judicial restraint and in part by downplaying the law’s practical effects out of state.
Telling the rest of the country that they can’t eat meat unless California is happy about it is a step too far.
Imagine that a friend of yours wants to lose 10 pounds. You might advise your friend to diet, avoid unhealthy foods, and exercise more. You might even offer some unconventional tips, like sleeping regularly or keeping a daily gratitude journal.
But what if you went to all the stores in your state and told the owners that your friend must not be sold junk food? Or went to all the nearby gyms and told the owners that they must offer a weight-loss program specific to your friend?
Now we’re getting into the realm of the absurd, and rightly so. Your principles and desires, however justified they may seem, do not give you the right to force others to obey your will.
Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
This scenario is playing out in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which the Supreme Court will hear next term. The case involves a California law, Proposition 12, that regulates the confinement of farm animals, including pigs, and was approved by more than 62% of California voters.
It is all well and good for Californians to decide that their pork must come from pigs raised in a supposedly more humane way. But instead of consuming less pork raised in ways it doesn’t like, California has imposed its will on other states. Because California imports most of its pork from other parts of America, Proposition 12 ends up regulating pork producers across the country. In fact, because the state imports a whopping 99.87% of its pork, the law has more of an impact outside the Golden State than inside.
This is nanny-statism on steroids. It’s as if one of 50 children appointed herself nanny and decided how the other 49 should be allowed to play.
The good news is, there are rules that forbid these sorts of shenanigans.
The Constitution’s commerce clause states that only Congress has the power to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that state laws that attempt to regulate interstate commerce are unconstitutional.
This so-called dormant commerce power has invalidated state regulations many times. In 1945, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona law that limited the size of freight trains because “the practical effect of such regulation is to control beyond the boundaries of the state … ”
In 1970, however, the court complicated this straightforward doctrine by establishing a balancing test stating that if local benefits come from the regulation, then the “incidental consequences” of that regulation may be justified, even if they interfere with interstate commerce.
These twin questions of external effects and compelling state interests are the battle lines along which the two sides in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross are arguing over Proposition 12.
California defends its law in part by hiding behind the principle of judicial restraint and in part by downplaying the law’s practical effects out of state.
Read more:
11 Times Joe Biden Was Involved in Family’s Corrupt Business Dealings
President Joe Biden has brazenly claimed over and over again to have no knowledge of his family’s corrupt business dealings for which his son Hunter is under investigation by the FBI for tax fraud, money laundering, and the violation of lobbying laws.
The White House has also insisted Biden never spoke to Hunter about his intertwined business dealings, though evidence of the Biden family business suggests otherwise.
One:
In 2013, Hunter traveled to China with his father aboard Air Force Two. Before the trip ended, Hunter introduced Joe Biden to his Chinese business partner. Just ten days later, China issued Hunter’s firm a business license and the firm won a contract worth $1 billion.
Two:
In 2014, photos show Joe Biden meeting with Hunter’s Mexican business associates, billionaire Miguel Alemán Velasco and his son Miguel Aleman Magnani, in the vice president’s office.
Three:
In 2014, a photo shows Joe Biden golfing with his son Hunter and Devon Archer, Hunter’s fellow board member for Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Archer is now in prison for fraud.
Four:
In 2015, Hunter brought Joe Biden to dinner with his business associates from Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Joe Biden was vice president at the time.
Five:
The day after Joe Biden dined with Hunter’s foreign business partners, one of them emailed Hunter his thanks for the “opportunity to meet your father.”
Six:
In 2016, Joe Biden brought Hunter aboard Air Force Two to Mexico, where Hunter met with his business associates from Mexico City. On the trip, Jeff Cooper, who ran a large litigation firm, SimmonsCooper, was also involved in the business meeting.
Seven:
In 2017, Joe Biden wrote a college recommendation letter for a child of Hunter’s Chinese business partner, Jonathan Li, with whom Joe Biden met in China.
Eight:
In 2017, Hunter described Joe Biden as one of his “new office mates,” though the White House denies it. But Hunter had a key made for his new office mate.
Nine:
In 2017, Tony Bobulinski, Hunter’s former business partner, twice met with Joe Biden to discuss a business deal with China. “I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden,” he said.
Ten:
After Tony Bobulinski met with Joe Biden, brother Jim Biden, and Hunter to discuss their deal in China, Bobulinski messaged Jim, telling him to “thank Joe for his time.”
Eleven:
In 2019, Hunter revealed in texts the Biden family’s payout vehicle. The detailed mechanism indicates a collection of 50 percent of familial salaries for 30 years.
“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years,” Hunter described in texts to his daughter. “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop , I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
The reported texts do not reveal when the 30 years began or ended and whether Joe Biden is still a part of the payment scheme as president.
Read the full story for details:
The White House has also insisted Biden never spoke to Hunter about his intertwined business dealings, though evidence of the Biden family business suggests otherwise.
One:
In 2013, Hunter traveled to China with his father aboard Air Force Two. Before the trip ended, Hunter introduced Joe Biden to his Chinese business partner. Just ten days later, China issued Hunter’s firm a business license and the firm won a contract worth $1 billion.
Two:
In 2014, photos show Joe Biden meeting with Hunter’s Mexican business associates, billionaire Miguel Alemán Velasco and his son Miguel Aleman Magnani, in the vice president’s office.
Three:
In 2014, a photo shows Joe Biden golfing with his son Hunter and Devon Archer, Hunter’s fellow board member for Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Archer is now in prison for fraud.
Four:
In 2015, Hunter brought Joe Biden to dinner with his business associates from Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan. Joe Biden was vice president at the time.
Five:
The day after Joe Biden dined with Hunter’s foreign business partners, one of them emailed Hunter his thanks for the “opportunity to meet your father.”
Six:
In 2016, Joe Biden brought Hunter aboard Air Force Two to Mexico, where Hunter met with his business associates from Mexico City. On the trip, Jeff Cooper, who ran a large litigation firm, SimmonsCooper, was also involved in the business meeting.
Seven:
In 2017, Joe Biden wrote a college recommendation letter for a child of Hunter’s Chinese business partner, Jonathan Li, with whom Joe Biden met in China.
Eight:
In 2017, Hunter described Joe Biden as one of his “new office mates,” though the White House denies it. But Hunter had a key made for his new office mate.
Nine:
In 2017, Tony Bobulinski, Hunter’s former business partner, twice met with Joe Biden to discuss a business deal with China. “I directly dealt with the Biden family, including Joe Biden,” he said.
Ten:
After Tony Bobulinski met with Joe Biden, brother Jim Biden, and Hunter to discuss their deal in China, Bobulinski messaged Jim, telling him to “thank Joe for his time.”
Eleven:
In 2019, Hunter revealed in texts the Biden family’s payout vehicle. The detailed mechanism indicates a collection of 50 percent of familial salaries for 30 years.
“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years,” Hunter described in texts to his daughter. “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop , I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
The reported texts do not reveal when the 30 years began or ended and whether Joe Biden is still a part of the payment scheme as president.
Read the full story for details:
online today!
Why war exists
History tells us in grim details about wars.
It's brutal, vicious and costly. So why do we, humans keep going into this deadly and menacing venture?
Is it because it's easier to kill each other than building peace?
Ah but then, without war, how can these deadly weapons be used?
How can population be in check?
How can the powerful acquire new territories?
Note: this blog isn't about politics, it's simply an analysis as to why war had been in existence for as long as humanity has.
Propaganda or not, war is real.
It's brutal, vicious and costly. So why do we, humans keep going into this deadly and menacing venture?
Is it because it's easier to kill each other than building peace?
Ah but then, without war, how can these deadly weapons be used?
How can population be in check?
How can the powerful acquire new territories?
Note: this blog isn't about politics, it's simply an analysis as to why war had been in existence for as long as humanity has.
Propaganda or not, war is real.
20% of American population will be here illegally by the end of Biden’s term: Dan Patrick
Apr. 10, 2022 - Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick weighs in on the consequences of the border crisis.
Watch:
Watch:
A Blog is a journal you may enter about your life, your thoughts, interesting experiences, or lessons you have learned. It's your own page on Connecting Singles that you can update on a regular basis, or just whenever you have something to say. You can write about an opinion, impart words of wisdom, or talk about something interesting in your day. Creating a blog is a good way to share something of yourself with Connecting Singles members. Reading blogs is a good way to learn more about members you have met here. Please be sure to read the blog rules before posting.
Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »