Home

One of the most contentious issues of modern American politics is that of the right to bear arms, or as it is both constitutionally and popularly referred to as the Second amendment. The issue has created a chasm between those arguing for stricter laws and regulation, called gun control, and those opposed to most of said attempts, referred to as gun rights. And while this debate has been occurring since the 1800’s, the earliest recorded legislation to push for gun control was done in 1813 by the Kentucky state legislature, which banned people from carrying concealed weapons in the state, it has only increased in intensity and scrutiny since the first nationally passed gun control bill, the 1934 National Firearms Act, which places a tax on both the manufacturing and transfer of firearms.

Are you the kind of person who could watch hours upon hours of legislative proceedings or read legal brief upon legal brief? That is what I call entertainment. While I watched the 25+ hours of the senate impeachment trial, I laughed, shouted, grunted and was completely shocked by some of the things I witnessed. I could go on and on about the senate impeachment trial of Former President Donald J. Trump which took place over the last week, but I want to focus on a few main points and facts.

Currently there is a little over $1.5 trillion worth of student debt owed to the federal government. $123.14 billion of that is private loans which leaves almost 93% of federal student debt remaining. There are several variations of this potential policy that have been presented, some of which include partial and others complete debt forgiveness. The practical and fiscal impact varies depending upon the numerical nuances of the currently hypothetical policy, but it appears the notion of debt forgiveness is not a feasible nor fair proposal.

In High School I was the only girl willing to run the two-mile race. Girls and boys ran together, but they were scored separately. I was a very slow albeit determined athlete. I’ll save you the stories of my personal athletic journey, only to say I had the opportunity to compete because despite being the last runner to finish, I scored first place being the only female in the race.

Eight years ago, it was not a controversial thing to suggest that when voting for the President of The United States of America, you must meet just four simple qualifications: -Be alive -Be a citizen of the United States of America -Be the age of 18 years, or older -Present valid identification (i.e. Driver’s License, Passport, State ID, etc). Recently it seems as though you cannot even suggest these four qualifications without being called inhumane, racist, bigoted, uncompassionate, or something much worse. Why is this so controversial now? Where are we headed as a country, if we allow dead people, non-US citizens, children and anyone else who would like to, vote in our elections? Who has the power to create legislation on how elections are conducted and how are the violators of those legislative rules punished?

You may be asking yourself why the SCOTUS decided not to hear any of the cases docketed that involved election fraud and/or election procedure violations during the 2020 general election. There could be a hundred reasons, but remembering the devil we are dealing with may help you come to your own conclusion. Thinking back to August of 2020 you may remember a tragic shooting that took place just days after the U.S. District Federal Judge, Esther Salas, was assigned a case involving the investigation of Deutsche Bank - which could potentially reveal all clients of Jeffery Epstein. Judge Salas1 was in her home’s basement when she heard gunshots coming from upstairs. When she reached the top of the stairs, she realized that her husband and son had both been shot by a male dressed as a FedEx delivery man.

“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.” -Amendment I, The U.S. Constitution. Despite the first amendment’s protection of free speech, it seems daily we learn of another entity or person who has been banned by one or many of the big tech platforms. Judging from the current cancel culture, no one, including the president of the United States, is safe from the wrath of the big tech overlords who appear to be competing for who can silence, cancel and censor the most entities and voices.

Prominent Defamation Lawyer L. Lin Wood has represented, with great success, some of the highest profile names falsely attacked by the mainstream media in the last 30 years. Nick Sandmann (1) and Richard Jewell (2) being two of the most notable successes. L. Lin Wood is now being painted by that same mainstream media that unwarrantedly attacked his clients, as a conspiracy theorist simply for taking evidence presented to him, and filing legal cases challenging the validity of the 2020 US Presidential Election, that is being questioned by millions of Americans due to said evidence that Wood possesses.

One of Joe Biden’s promises to his constituents while running for presidency in 2020, was that he was going to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 for all US employed workers. On January 22, 2021, President Joe Biden signed an EO1 to “Protect the Federal Workplace” in which he states that “The Director of OPM (Office of Personnel Management) shall provide a report to the President with recommendations to promote a $15/hour minimum wage for Federal employees.”

While sources for an actual death count for the conflict are scarce and conflicting, one estimate runs to nearly seventeen million. Sadly, as is often the case with communist regimes, the CCP conducted a number of purges that have taken the lives millions, one of which the bloodiest was the Great Leap Forward and is described in the book Tombstone as being responsible for the death of a reported thirty-six million Chinese people. But the truly terrifying thing to consider is that no one historian, government or private agency, has been able to pin down a specific number.