by Robyne Clark

Nancy Pelosi Admits She Doesn’t Know

Listen to Nancy Pelosi whine about not knowing.

Nancy is correct.  She doesn’t know.  The truth of the matter is that she is NOT the President.  She is not entitled to know everything that the President knows.

President Trump KNOWS because it is his job to know.  President Trump, freely and unfiltered, shares what he knows directly with the American public through daily briefings.

President Trump honors, respects, and relies on the experts to share what they know. 

President Trump honors, respects, and acknowledges the leadership that HE has put in place to do their jobs.

President Trump gives credit where credit is due, while accepting the vast criticisms from the corrupt main stream media and the Do-Nothing Democrats.

President Trump, through ALL of his actions, demonstrates a great love for America and its citizens. 

President Trump KNOWS that truthfulness, hope, and reassurance of better days ahead are needed much more than panic and dread.

You are correct, Nancy, you don’t know.  You don’t know because rather than listening and collaborating to solve the problem,  you spend your time and America’s resources trying to undermine the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

You WILLINGLY made the choice NOT to KNOW! 

Stop whining.  Stop undermining.  Stop interfering. Stop sabotaging.  Get out of the way and let the people’s President, Donald J. Trump, do HIS job!

In other words, go away little bug!

by Robyne Clark

Isn’t it time that abortion follows the path of slavery?

Think about it…there are so many atrocities in American history, but none come to mind as horrendous as slavery and late-term abortion. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice applies equally to those who oppose and those who support either practice.

In the article, “America’s History of Slavery Began Long Before Jamestown,” by Crystal Ponti, she claims that “enslaved Africans arrived in North America as early as the 1500s,” long before the generally accepted belief that slavery had its beginnings in the Jamestown Colony in 1619. Later in the article, Ponti mentions the series of laws that made up the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 that “stripped away legal rights and legalized the barbaric and dehumanizing nature of slavery.” Slaves were not viewed as people; they were considered property. While the early colonists, along with their co-conspirators, the Spanish, Portuguese, and English, set the stage for what would later become KNOWN as one of the worst crimes against humanity, the slave trade continued and flourished well past the official formation of the United States of America in 1776.

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence specifically states, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, since slaves were property and not men, these Rights did not apply. This belief was held by many, but not all, for the following 158 years until President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He proclaimed, “all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”

The Republican Party fought to end the practice of slavery. Republicans fought to end the time when humans were considered property to be treated in any manner determined by the owners, with no rights or legal recourse.

Abortion perpetuates the same belief that certain types of human life are not really human; rather, they are property.

Abortion has been practiced for hundreds of years world over and was considered acceptable up until “quickening,” which is the term, according to Wikipedia, used to describe the time when a woman starts to feel or perceive fetal movements in the uterus. Wikipedia also presents a quote by British legal scholar William Blackstone in which he explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century, relative to feticide and abortion:

“Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.  For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.  But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. In its ruling, the court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Britannica.com, in an article written by the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, serves as my reference for the quotes that follow.

As explained by Justice Harry A. Blackmun in his writing of the majority opinion, “…the court held… criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

This ruling bears a remarkable similarity to the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705. Essentially, Roe V Wade “stripped away legal rights and legalized the barbaric and dehumanizing nature of ” aborting an unborn baby. The unborn were not viewed as human; rather they were (and are) considered property to be treated or disposed of in any manner determined by the woman , with no rights nor legal recourse.

“The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time and tried to balance a woman’s right of privacy with a state’s interest in regulating abortion. In his opinion, Blackmun noted that only a “compelling state interest” justifies regulations limiting “fundamental rights” such as privacy and the legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.”

The court’s objective was to weigh the interest in the pregnant woman’s health and the potential life of a fetus. Regulation of abortion was determined to be “at approximately the end of the first trimester,” which is about 13-14 weeks to satisfy the state’s compelling interest in the woman’s health and the viability of the fetus to have “meaningful life outside of the mother’s womb.” Throughout all of the challenges to narrow the scope, in a later ruling the court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable.

Viability of the unborn baby seemed to be the agreed upon point at which to justify regulation. There seems to be wide disagreement as to gestational age or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable. There is, however, a generally accepted point at which a fetus is not viable, which is at any point less that 20 completed weeks of gestation. Statistics have also shown that there is a very low survival rate of births occurring before 24 completed weeks of gestation, with the chance of survival increasing to 80-90% by the 26th week.

If a human fetus (aka unborn baby) reaches the stage of viability, how can anyone argue that abortion at that stage is anything less than homicide, manslaughter or murder. And…not just murder, but a horribly brutal, violent murder of the most innocent and helpless among us. Further, with States now arguing for late term and live birth abortions, how can those States not be complicit in these murders?

To repeat the quote in the Declaration of Independence referred to earlier, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Following the same line of reasoning presented earlier…since an unborn baby is considered the “property” of the woman within whom it resides, these unalienable Rights do not apply. If it has been determined that an unborn baby has a high likelihood of survival, why would we not protect that baby’s first inalienable right… LIFE over the due process stipulation of depriving a woman’s liberty in the fourteenth amendment?

Rather than terminating a pregnancy with the death of the baby being the objective, why can we not establish legislation that protects that baby by requiring either a c-section or an induced labor. There are countless others who are more than willing and capable of providing for that baby.

We have created Safe-haven laws that offer women the option of “dropping off” their newly born babies with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the State without question or legal recourse. We prosecute those who choose to throw their baby in a dumpster, leave them for dead, or outright kill them rather than taking advantage of the Safe-haven laws. Why then, is it okay for a pregnant woman and an abortionist to conscientiously end a viable life?

Once again, the Republican Party fights to end another crime against humanity. Where is the Emancipation Proclamation equivalent for the unborn, but viable, human babies? Isn’t it time to stop defining human life as property?

Isn’t it time that abortion follows the path of slavery?

by Robyne Clark

Bernie Promises Free Preschool: The Hidden Pathway to Socialist Indoctrination

The latest promise from Bernie Sanders to provide FREE preschool for ages 0 to 4 should send shivers throughout every community in America.

Sanders has showered praise regarding Cuba for its literacy program, which incidentally, has also received praise from former President Obama. Sanders promises free college for all. Now that free preschool is added to the mix, it is only a matter of time before he promises to completely overall K -12 education as well. Some of you may be thinking, “so what?” Let’s take a look at someone from the past with eerily similar views.

Adolph Hitler And Education

Citation: C N Trueman “Adolph Hitler And Education” historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 9 Mar 2015. 18 Dec 2019.

Adolph Hitler considered education to be a very important factor in Nazi Germany. When he wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ while serving out a prison sentence at Landsberg, Hitler wrote “whoever has the youth has the future”. In Hitler’s Germany, education would be the key that ensured that he had “the youth” of Germany.

Hitler’s view on education was that it served a sole purpose ‐ to ensure that a child was loyal to the Nazi state to ensure that the Third Reich lasted for 1000 years.

“The ultimate purpose of education was to fashion citizen’s conscious of the glory of country and filled with fanatical devotion to the national cause. National Socialism would furnish the necessary elite for the nation.” (Louis Snyder)

Along comes Bernie Sanders to fill the role of “necessary elite” while touting disdain for America’s current elite.

Even though America clearly proclaimed, “NEVER AGAIN” following the destruction of Nazi Germany, a huge segment of the country is embracing Bernie Sanders as he attempts to lure America down the socialist pathway. The seeds of destruction have already taken root and are growing daily.

College students have been steadily indoctrinated to accept and even promote socialist ideology by faculty who feel that it is their duty to incorporate their ideology into all subject matter. Gone are the days of purely academic instruction.

In our current political climate, teachers in the K-12 schools are promoting social equity and entitlements rather than teaching our youth to strive for excellence and to be accountable for their choices. The “everyone gets a trophy” mentality has weakened the character and stifled, if not outwardly discouraged, individual achievement. Once the government has complete control of the education system, beginning almost immediately after birth, the process of full indoctrination will be established and will be that much more difficult to stop.

There has NEVER been a successful example of socialism working as advertised. The claim that “democratic socialism is different than regular socialism” is a ludicrous oxymoron. When Sanders refers to Scandinavian countries as examples of democratic socialist countries, he is INTENTIONALLY misleading his followers. Those countries are CAPITALIST WELFARE COUNTRIES. Capitalism is the driving force, accompanied by high tax rates to pay for the vast social programs.

Wake up Bernie sycophants! Nothing is free. The government has no money. Our taxes pay for ALL of the FREEBIES you are hoping to get. Expecting the “wealthy” to cover all of YOUR expectations for entitlements is not only a sad commentary about your character, but also dangerous to our country as a whole.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are your rights. Why would you voluntarily forfeit your liberty? Rather than worrying about what someone else has (rich or poor), consider what actions you can take to improve your circumstances. Life is not fair or equal…nor should it be.

Individuality leads to innovation and progress that may benefit society as a whole. Socialism destroys innovation and benefits ONLY the NECESSARY ELITE.

The world does not need another necessary elite such as HITLER, CASTRO, or MADURO.

Thus, Mr. Sanders, we don’t want FREE preschool. The cost is America’s liberty.

by Robyne Clark

Do Not Give Me Fish…

Do not give me fish—for if you do, I must refuse.  It is not that I would be ungrateful; rather, I know that by accepting the fish it would give the impression that I would want more.  I know that is your intention.  I know that it would bring you such joy that you cannot publicly or rightfully express.  I know that you would be my master and I, your servant.  I know, without doubt, that is your goal for me and for the masses who find themselves before you.  For only then, can you control me.

Like the others before me, and those who may follow, I have encountered dire circumstances that render me, momentarily, in need in of assistance.  My pride, necessarily, suspended as I think only of my young child.  My child, without food and, nearly, without shelter has brought me crawling to your door.  I plea for you to take my hand and help me rise beyond my circumstance.  Allow me, please, a handful of the grain that I worked so hard to contribute for this purpose.  I vow to take no more, just enough to stem my child’s hunger while I learn to fish.

This simple story demonstrates the struggle between social entitlements and social services.  What those who promote socialism and the expansion of government services do not see, or refuse to acknowledge, is that the services provided encourage dependency through the promised entitlements.  By contrast, those who promote individual accountability strive to provide social services that support self-sufficiency.  It can be enticing to let the government provide for us that which we might better provide for ourselves.  My challenge to you is to give real thought to what we give up from both an individual and a societal perspective.  I need look no further than to my mother’s story to answer my challenge.

My mother, following the divorce between her and my father, often had to work two jobs to support her three children on her own.  Many times food was in short supply, but she always found a way to provide for us.  What about “child support,” you might ask.  Child support means nothing when the father does not pay.  Child support means nothing when your children suffer.  Still, she found a way.  Our church provided the opportunity for her to work a few hours in exchange for boxes of food when the need was the greatest.  The church could have “given” her food without the expectation that she should work for it.  To do so would have been the same as telling her that she was incapable of providing for her children.

My mother did not ask to be placed in the role of single parent.  She had never considered that as even a possibility.  It becomes clear to see that she was ill-prepared for the role.  Still, my mother had a fierceness that would not allow defeat.  She would swallow her pride to take care of her children.  She would ensure that we were fed.  She would ensure that we had a roof over our heads.  The church did her a great service by NOT giving her food.  The church did ME a great service by not giving her food.  What the church did give her was so much more valuable.  The church gave her dignity, hope, and confidence that she would prevail.  The church allowed her the opportunity to provide for her children when her income fell short.  The church taught her to fish.

My mother went on to have a career in the government welfare sector.  She worked in general public assistance, food stamps, and child support—each provided a service of which she had once benefitted.  She understood the need for such social services.  She also came to understand that there were those who abused those services.  Regardless of the circumstances that led them to seek services, there were two types of clients: those who wanted fish and those who wanted to learn to fish.  Because of my mother and the example she set for me, I was determined to learn to fish when I, too, was faced with a situation for which I was ill-prepared. 

Today, I see a country faced with two ideologies: one that wants to give the people fish and the other that wants to teach them to fish.  For America to remain strong, we need to fish.  We need to stand strong and say, “Do not give me fish—for if you do, I must refuse.”

by Robyne Clark

Agree to Disagree

Like so many others, I am frustrated and disheartened with the turn our great country has taken of late.  Once upon a time people could agree to disagree and walk away from a free exchange of ideas and, more often than not, remain civilized toward one another. 

Perhaps, you too, can remember when corporations, schools, and yes, even religious organizations took up the stance that “diversity” is good.  Teams started to play a bigger role in corporate settings, promoting the idea that team members bring with them their differing cultures, ideologies, personal and professional experience, educational focus, or lack thereof, and a variety of other characteristics and perspectives.  All of these differences were intended to solve problems, innovate, and bring about better results than any one person could accomplish.  Diversity was not based on race.  Diversity was not about making “quotas” to meet affirmative action goals.  It was so much broader in scope and, from my personal experience, yielded amazing results. 

I learned more about myself and how narrow my singular perspective was at the beginning of a team work project relative to what it was at the end of the project.  In college, even though I initially hated working in teams (because I did not want to trust MY grade on the anticipated lack of effort by a team member), our assignments were usually among the best in the class.  I experienced this phenomenon repeatedly until my reluctance disappeared.  Admittedly, there were teams that just did not work.  However, more often than not, the team concept and environment brought out the best in each of us because it was challenging. 

Through each of these team experiences, my ability to view issues, small and large, became less uncomfortable, less emotionally challenging, and much more rewarding.  I found myself actively striving to not only see another’s perspective, but also to really understand the basis of our differing perspectives.  Most importantly, this led me to challenge my own long-held beliefs and biases, and to conscientiously ask open-ended questions to illicit not only a free flow of ideas, but also to broaden my understanding.     

Over the past three and half decades, asking questions became natural.  It was not a conscientious pursuit.  It was just me.  Without noticing it outright, my “catch phrase” became, “Let me ask you a question.”  It is funny because it took several friends, co-workers, and family members to bring it to my attention.  Funny thing is… some of them were saying it in a mocking manner as if it were a flaw.  They were right; I do use that phrase… daily.  I own it with a sense of pride.  It will take a lot more than mocking my “questioning” habit to cause me distress. 

This brings me back to where I started with my current frustration.  I shared these recollections to contrast with what I see today in the workplace, in the schools, in houses of faith, in children’s’ clubs and extracurricular activities and pretty much everywhere I look.  Social media has only exacerbated this shift from embracing diversity in its truest sense.  Today, if someone speaks of diversity, then they must be referring to race, ethnicity, gender preferences, etc., and it must CERTAINLY be aimed toward a person or group of people with disparaging intent.  This, of course, validates the “victim” culture that is so readily embraced nowadays.  Hmmm, should I use the word “nowadays” or change it to a more socially acceptable word.  I wonder how many readers will view such a word as Redneck, Hick, Hillbilly, or some other term that creates a negative stereotype.  Forget it.  I do not care.  Nowadays is a fine word.

 My point is that we no longer encourage or embrace differences.  We are ascribed to a “box” and are expected to stay within it.  Sometimes, we are in boxes within boxes.  If you are White, you are instantly placed in a White Privilege box and, probably a Racist box—or more specifically a White Supremacist-Nationalist-Racist box.  If you are Christian, you get to go into another box.  If you are Black, you get a Victim box, a Reparations box, a Likely-to-be-a Criminal box, and a Cannot-Survive-Without-Welfare box.  Oh, and if you are Muslim, you must absolutely be placed in the Probably-a-Terrorist box.  On and on it goes.  No doubt, someone will blast me for daring to use these “boxes” and throw me into the Destroy-Her box.  I do not know about you, but I am disgusted by these boxes, labels, and stereotypes beyond which we should have evolved.  Where, when, and why did our current state of division get started, or more accurately, get brought back from times of hate and ignorance? 

Since this is my post, I get to give my opinion.  I track it to ever-increasing ideological differences that refuse to tolerate that which disagrees with whichever narrative a person associates.  The media encourages intolerance.   

At the extreme ends of the ideology spectrum, you have the Far-Right wanting no government control and the Far-Left wanting full government control (Fascism, Communism, etc.) ; both of which I view as dangerously nonsensical.  Once upon a time, there really was a middle ground.  That appears to no longer be the case.  In our current two-party political environment, the right side of the spectrum is dumped in the REPUBLICAN box and the left side is dumped in the DEMOCRAT box.  You MUST be in one box or the other and you MUST unquestioningly accept the point of view of that box in its entirety.

Sadly, the argument about other political parties such as the independents, green party, etc. is moot when it comes to actually affecting an election.  So, let us take a brief look at the two sides.

 The Democrat box promotes expanding government, creating and maintaining dependency by perpetuating victimhood, misogyny, and the destruction of nuclear families in exchange for promising wealth redistribution, increased entitlements, and a utopian society that views every person as part of a collective regardless of individual contribution or lack of thereof.  Disagreement is met with viciousness intent on total shame and destruction of the party who dares to question their superior knowledge of what is good for the “people” over whom “they” govern.  Overall, addressing and implementing social issues takes priority over ensuring that the economy can sustain such implementations.  Among the most popular issues supported include: government health care for all; abortion through birth; social security; gay marriage; increasing welfare; removing immigration barriers; legalizing drugs; increasing business regulations; raising taxes (disproportionately targeting the wealthy); and reducing military.

 The Republican box promotes de-regulation, accountability, limiting government, providing opportunities for individual and group success, creating jobs rather than increasing dependency, focusing on the Nation first, then providing assistance outside of the Nation.  They promote freedom of speech and invite respectful debate.  It is okay to disagree and it is okay to actually compromise.  Protecting the rights of the “governed” is paramount.  Overall, addressing and focusing on economic issues make possible the implementation of impactful social issues.  Among the most popular issues supported, include  reducing business regulation and labor laws; lowering taxes; strengthening the military; managing immigration; reducing and restructuring welfare programs and government provided health care; protecting the nuclear family; restricting abortion and gay marriage; and supporting law enforcement.

Of course, these descriptions of the two sides are not exhaustive and are subject to debate…, which is okay.  You have probably figured out in which box I reside.  To ensure that there is no confusion—I am a Conservative Libertarian.  I have been verbally assaulted, mocked, shamed, and disparaged because I am in the Republican box.  This only makes me more determined to fight against the Democrat box’s narrative that people are weak-minded, weak-willed, and need government to think for them and provide for them. 

I believe in being held accountable for my choices and actions.  I am entitled to no more than I have contributed.  I choose the issues and causes that I want to support with MY hard-earned income.  I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth.  I believe that taxes and tax policies have run amuck.  I believe that forcing me or any group of taxpayers to pay for something that another group wants is a misallocation of tax dollars.  I believe that my tax dollars should be spent wisely and that those doing the spending must be held accountable.  I believe that some taxes should be optional contributions rather than being mandated by government.  I believe that corruption should be investigated and, when confirmed, prosecuted.  I believe that “no one is above the law” and, just as importantly, “no one is below the law.”

I do support gay marriage and I support abortion as a last resort, but I do not think that government should be involved in either issue.  I do believe that there is a need for social programs to help our country’s most vulnerable citizens, but I also believe that many of those programs are abused and the vulnerable suffer.  I respect law enforcement, the military, and border control.  I do believe that we have a duty to protect American citizens before non-citizens.  I do not own a gun, but I will protect the right for others to own guns.  I am not racist.  I am not xenophobic.  I am grateful and proud to be an American and will do what I can to protect the rights granted through the Constitution and other founding documents.  I have read the Constitution and encourage others to do so as well.  I believe that elected politicians in the Federal and State governments should have defined term limits and should not have the ability to determine their own salary increases. 

Why do you suppose that I decided to share all of this with you?  I believe that I have the RIGHT to have my beliefs and that you have the RIGHT to have your beliefs.  I share this with you to end as this post began:

“Like so many others, I am frustrated and disheartened with the turn our great country has taken of late.  Once upon a time people could agree to disagree and walk away from a free exchange of ideas and, more often than not, remain civilized toward one another.” 

Let us be the disrupters of the vitriolic hate being spewed across the ideology spectrum.  Let us break free of the boxes that we have been put in and that we have put others in.  Let us break down the hateful stereotype boxes and conscientiously strive to avoid ALL of those boxes in the future.  Together we can save our country by embracing our differences and solving the real problems that affect our fellow citizens.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post.  If you feel compelled to share it with others, then I will take that as a compliment and thank you in advance. 

by Robyne Clark

Do NOT California MY Arizona!

Michael Bloomberg seems to think that California should serve as a model for the rest of the country. I have to wonder if he has actually taken a real close look at California lately with its ever-increasing homeless population, stifling regulations, high taxes, and policies that favor illegal immigrants over American citizens. Has he not noticed that long time residents of California are fleeing to other states to escape the deterioration of what once was one of the most desirable places to live?

As California’s neighbor, many of those fleeing are making Arizona their new home. Why Arizona? I seriously doubt they are coming only because of the proximity factor. No, they are coming to the great State of Arizona because we have better economic policies; because we believe in the rule of law; because we have more affordable housing; because we value our residents; and because we are proud to be American citizens. Arizona cares about the environment, but not to the overwhelming detriment of its citizens. Arizona respects individual rights while legislating policies that promote community rights.

Arizona is a great place to live and work. Period. The problem is that these former Californians are bringing their ideologies with them…the very same ideologies that lead to the demise of California. After spending some time in Arizona and enjoying the freedom from government overreach, they inevitably start pushing overtly liberal policies in an attempt to impose on Arizona the same restrictive behaviors that lead to the same government overreach from which they made their escape. We cannot allow that to happen to Arizona!

Make no mistake, there are plenty of Democrats in Arizona (even before the great California migration). There are, however, significant differences. Arizona Democrats have, until recently, behaved in a more moderate manner than the far left they appear to be devolving toward. Arizona Democrats have demonstrated not only a willingness, but also a track record of working with their Republican counterparts. Sadly, the influx of Californians is exerting greater political influence and the resulting partisan shenanigans are creating strong divides among the citizenry of Arizona.

What can we do to PROTECT our values and way of life?

Start now, somewhere, anywhere, any way…just start.

Speak up. Do not let the Democrats shame you to silence. We have done nothing that warrants shame; yet, their oral and written communications paint us as uncaring, racist, xenophobes if we dare to oppose open borders. DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR NARRATIVE!

Support your local, State and Federal politicians who promote YOUR values. We are the people referenced in the Constitution of the the United States of America. Forget about the politician’s personality and appearance. Research their beliefs and actions. Our government should not be determined by a candidate’s charisma or lack thereof. Dig deeper than your first impression and truly consider who will best represent the Arizona we want.

Share. If this post sparks your interest and compels you to act in some way, please share with others. Arizona is not the only State facing the infiltration of Liberal Leftist ideologues.

Vote. Do not assume that there will be enough “other” like-minded people to secure a win for your candidate, party, or proposition. If you do not want to stand in line, perhaps in inclement weather (including Arizona heat), then sign up for “Early Voting” to have a ballot mailed directly to your home. Mail that ballot. If you do not vote, then you are willingly forfeiting your voice and influence in shaping the political landscape.

Together, we can send a strong message to Michael Bloomberg and all of those just like him that we do not want California to serve as a model for our country. We are better than that!

Thank you for taking the time to read this blog. I am new to the world of blogging and am still learning and stumbling my way through creating a post. Still, this is my way to START, SPEAK, SUPPORT, and SHARE. Your comments are encouraged.

by Robyne Clark

Deplorables Welcome

Thanks for visiting my safe space where I can put my beliefs and opinions into words for like-minded Americans and open-minded Democrats. Oppositional perspectives are encouraged. Please keep comments respectful. It is okay to disagree. It is not okay to spew hatred.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. – Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4.