They don’t say it the same way as me, because they are far more articulate and eloquent, but boy howdy have Carlson and Peterson come to the same conclusion.
Four years ago, you heard me say it loud, “Stop Pretending and Live Your Best Life.” The first time I realized this was the best and truest hope for our restoration was after holding years of empirical, undeniable research in my hands and finding nothing but willfully blind, isolated and siloed deaf ears in DC. What Tucker Carlson describes below is the disconnect between the people and those who hold power.
In this joint discussion about the future and possibility within this year 2024, both Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson take the first part of that framework, “stop pretending”, and turn the phrase into “speak truth.” Yes, yes, yes, THIS. When I have been asked for the past several years about what needs to be done, what can we do, my answer to every voice, influential and comfortably invisible alike, has been ‘STOP PRETENDING’ – just stop pretending. WATCH:
Stop pretending the gaslighting narrative is real. Just stop pretending. Stop ignoring the lies, and start confronting the liars directly. Look at the other voice, regardless of who they are, stare boldly directly into their eyes and speak the truth of the thing. Just stop pretending. If we all stop pretending, the narrative engineers will find no one to purchase their bulls**t anymore. At the same time, speak the truest thing as loudly as you can to confront those who use pretense as a shield to retain comfort and influence.
EXAMPLE: Mary McCord sits at the epicenter of every single Lawfare machination deployed against President Trump. This is a demonstrably true and factual reality. Yet, how many allied voices do we see publicly making her known and as a consequence uncomfortable? No one. Why? Why isn’t every person of influence talking about the true thing? Why hide behind “they” and “them” or some bland, undefined, esoteric blame-casting toward an irrelevant institution. We may not know the name of every person, but we know the name of the one single thread that unites all of the effort, Mary McCord. Why is it so hard for allies to factually identify her and the corrupt behavior she is engaged in?
I no longer stare at the absence with a side eye of suspicion, I now glare knowingly and angrily at the face behind the willful omission. “You know, and I know you know,” is what that stare represents. None of those popular and influential allies on our side can ever answer the question about their silence. None of them can. Why?
The second aspect, “living your best life”, is a natural outcome of living the truth of the thing without apology.
Fearless adherence to the undeniable truth, and a ferocious rejection of the demanded obtuse labeling like, “disinformation, misinformation or malinformation.” Horsepucky on that nonsense, there’s true and not true; that’s it. Full effen’ stop.
Living your best life is living in the truest place physically, emotionally and spiritually. A faithful adherence to the purest truth, the gospel of faith. Fellowship strengthens this critical bonding and reminds us we are not alone.
No manipulative construct can stop you from living your best life; the choice is always yours even if it means you do not participate. Not pretending is an expression of strength; it is the one single action that everyone can participate in with individual purpose and intensity. We cannot pretend and simultaneously live our best life. We can only live our best life if we stop pretending.
We are not fleas looking into a furnace. We are an assembly of unique and strong individuals with the ability to choose, act, express freewill – and/or ultimately, we can choose to be acted upon. There are more of us than them!
There are many conservative ushers, many paid for their job in the business theater of politics who would prefer we do not question our seating assignment – let alone challenge the scripted performance we are told to watch on the stage. Understanding this facet is going to become increasingly important, as the specific people who control the mechanisms of power become ever more exposed.
A comment by Gemstone aligns with a current communication question I am seeking to solve. I also remind myself that when I find difficulty in solution, you guys – the smartest and most aware group of our nation – always have exceptional insight that can help me. Here’s the comment:
…”Sundance, When I attempt to inform the not so informed around me with the information that I read every morning on your pages I receive looks of “no way”, “seriously”, and “why is this the first time that I am hearing about this corruption”. I don’t know how people can be so ill informed. Well, we know as it is easier for Americans to keep this corruption at arm’s length until if finally slaps them upside the head.”… [link]
My questions:
♦ What is the average knowledge of the scale of government corruption within your network (family, friends, community)?
♦ Has their perception, perhaps as well as your own, become more awakened in the past few years? Why?
♦ What communication tools do you think are needed, or would be of value, in order for more people to understand what you are aware of?
Trust me when I say this discussion, while extremely important now, is going to become even more important in the next several months.
I am distinctly aware, perhaps uniquely aware of the information control actions that will take place in 2024.
They will be very intense and very targeted.
In 2020, they locked down voters to create the mechanism of control (ballots). In 2024, I can already see the control approach looming; they will lock down voices. Very specific voices.
If you are a regular reader of this site, you are generally a person who engages in intellectual discussion on daily events and more than likely a root cause thinker. Meaning, you are able to grasp events at their actual cause and not at their highly discussed outcome or consequence.
The challenge is getting those who understand the big picture dynamics to stop being comfortable and sticking their heads in the sand about “motive”. Most people are still clinging to beliefs around a principle of ‘rule of law’ that applies to national leadership writ large. We need to change that thinking quickly – or we will be left explaining ‘what happened’ far too late.
There is also a major issue with conservative “ushers” guiding the audience into a state of tactical numbness. A willful blindness within part of the American electorate, a chosen refusal to acknowledge the implications of the unAmerican and unconstititional actions we are seeing on a daily basis.
It can no longer be presumed to be a matter of, “I can’t see what’s happening”, because a whole lot of normal Americans really are clean and articulate. “I can’t see it”, just doesn’t cut it.
It’s more along the lines of, “I see what’s happening, but it’s scary and complicated and confusing, and if I admit that I see it, I will become responsible in a way that I am not if I keep pretending; I can’t see it or hear it, or maybe I don’t understand it.”
Why don’t we dare say what is so? Are we a bit afraid that if we give up the willful blindness we will perhaps start screaming and not be able to stop? Do we think we have so little courage? Do we really believe that we have no resources to bring to the battle – or nothing more to contribute to the turning of the battle?
There are patriots who some might say resemble one of those slightly mad orchestra conductors who keep yelling, “More trumpet! More TRUMPET!” Many of you are such slightly mad orchestra leaders. Do not be alarmed by some of the strange looks you are getting these days.
My questions:
♦ What is the average knowledge of government corruption within your network (family, friends, community)?
♦ Has their perception, perhaps as well as your own, become more awakened in the past several years?
♦ What communication tools do you think are needed, or would be of value, in order for more people to understand what you are aware of?
Trust me when I say this discussion, while extremely important now, is going to become even more important in the next several months.
The leftist-media claim a 5-year sentence was harsh. However, in terms of the violations of privacy and law the sentence was a mere slap on the wrist.
Charles Littlejohn (38) previously pleaded guilty to stealing and leaking the tax returns of Donald Trump and approximately 2,000 other high-profile people. The tax returns were given to The New York Times and ProPublica, who published the contents of 152 individual tax returns.
Charles Littlejohn (right) and his attorney.
WASHINGTON – A former IRS consultant was sentenced to five years in prison for leaking former President Donald Trump’s tax returns as well as the filings of thousands of other wealthy people to the news media.
A district court judge on Monday agreed with the Justice Department that Charles Littlejohn, 38, deserved the maximum statutory sentence for what she called “egregious” crimes.
Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden nominee to the bench, focused on Littlejohn’s decision to release Trump’s filings, which Reyes called “an attack on our constitutional democracy.”
“When you target the sitting president of the United States, you’re targeting the office and when you’re targeting the office of the president of the United States, you’re targeting democracy — you’re targeting our constitutional system of government.”
Noting that Trump was under no legal obligation to release his filings and likening the case to the Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol, Reyes said: “It cannot be open season on our elected officials — it just can’t.”
Littlejohn also separately gave tax data on thousands of wealthy people to ProPublica, which published a string of stories showing the strategies some use to reduce or erase their tax bills, including Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and George Soros.
ProPublica spokeswoman Alexis Stephens said: “Whistleblowers are often the lifeblood of investigative journalism” and “they deserve protection not prosecution.”
Altogether, at least 152 people had their private information published in the media. (read more)
In his own words, Senator James Lankford says if President Trump was president today the border crisis would not exist, because the existing law would be enforced. Simultaneous to this, the same Senator Lankford says the new law he proposes will create significant border enforcement.
If the executive branch can ignore the current border enforcement law (they can and do), what makes Lankford believe new legislation will not be ignored by the same executive branch (they will)? This non-pretending reality frames the essential point: the element of “enforcement” is not within the legislative branch, so the entire effort is a moot exercise. WATCH:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by Oklahoma Republican James Lankford. He’s in Oklahoma City this morning. Good morning to you, sir, it has taken you two months to get this bipartisan deal. Do you have the support of your fellow Republicans to actually vote this through?
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD: Well, actually, I wish it would have taken only two months. It’s taken about four months to be able to go through this, we started in October. Everyone’s looking to be able to read the bill at this point. That’s the key aspect, we’re working on the final aspects of it to try to be able to get it out. So everyone can get a chance to read it. Right now, they’re all functioning off of internet rumors of what’s in the bill, and many of them are false. So people want to be able to just see it, read it and go through it. And to be able to see the dramatic change that this really makes and how we handle our immigration system, and how we work to be able to secure our border completely. That’s been the simple request of Americans, whether you’re Republican, Democrat, or independent, people just want a secure border, where we have legal immigration, but we’re not promoting illegal immigration. And that’s what we’ve seen in the last three years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you don’t have a vote count yet?
SEN. LANKFORD: Do not have a vote count yet on this because everybody’s got to be able to read it to be able to go through. But I do feel very positive about it because even the initial feedback has been good.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you just heard the details laid out there by our immigration correspondent, how do you balance the shutdown power that would be in these new authorities versus the right to claim asylum?
SEN. LANKFORD: Yeah, this is similar to what we had to under Title 42, during the pandemic time period, where we reach a crisis point to say we can’t actually operate. So we don’t have that authority. Right now, as the United States, we’ve reached crisis points. For instance, when we got four or 5,000 people crossing the border, we can no longer process those individuals. So right now, the Biden administration is just releasing them into the country. That’s what’s driving the mayors in Denver, in Chicago, in New York City and other places around the country crazy to say, when the border gets crowded, you just release them to our cities, and it causes all the chaos in these cities. This is a new authority to say, when we can no longer detain and deport, when we can’t process the people and actually make a decision right there at the border, then we’ll actually turn those folks back around to Mexico and say, “We can no longer do this.” That gives the authority to the United States into law enforcement, rather than the authority, just the criminal cartels. Right now. The cartels can just rush our border, they’ll get through as many people as they want to be able to get through. We can not have criminal organizations running our southern border, we have to be able to run our southern border.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So parole authority has been a sticking point for Republicans throughout. I know the administration has used it in a novel way to resettle 1 million people. So how are you changing that authority?
SEN. LANKFORD: Yeah, humanitarian parole is still- is still an issue for us. But it’s been an authority that every President has had to have basic humanitarian parole, but as you mentioned, this administration has used humanitarian parole in a way no other administration has. They’ve said, if you’ll just tell us in advance that you’re coming, come to a port of entry, the first day you get here, we’ll hand you a work permit, and we’ll release you into the country under parole. Well, that’s actually attracting more people, of course, people from around the world are going to want an American work permit to show up. So instead of deterring immigration, they’re literally incentivizing illegal immigration,. They’re handing people a parole and a work permit day one. That has to stop, we can’t just have a system where we have that. In between the ports of entries, when it gets crowded, they’ll just release them under a parole authority there. And they’re just released in the country. We don’t know if they qualify for asylum. We don’t know where they are. By the hundreds of thousands people are just being released in the country. And we have no tracking on them at all. That has to stop. This is a national security issue for us. May I remind you that we’ve had 50 people come across our border that we’ve interdicted, that are on the terror watch list. Just in the past four months, we’ve had tens of thousands of people that came across our border that were identified as a national security risk. Those individuals should not just be waived into the country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board called this the best chance in years to fix asylum law and parole loophole. But Donald Trump, who is the front runner to be your party’s nominee in 2024 is telling Republicans not to support this. Here’s what he said last night in Las Vegas.
(SOUND ON TAPE)
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: A lot of the senators are trying to say respectfully they’re blaming going to me– I said that’s okay. Please blame it on me, please, because they were getting ready to pass a very bad bill. And I’ll tell you what a bad bill is– I’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.
(END SOUND ON TAPE)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Can you get this passed without Donald Trump’s approval?
SEN. LANKFORD: Well, I’m looking forward to President Trump having the opportunity to be able to read it like everybody else. There’s a lot of misinformation out there right now that I hear this comment that it waives in 5,000 people, it hands out work permits that- all those things are not true. There’s just a lot of internet rumors that are running around on this right now. We’re looking forward to getting the information out and I can say, there is no question no matter what your political persuasion is, we would not have had the immigration crisis we’re experiencing right now, if President Trump would have been president the last three years. There’s no way we would have had 8 million people illegally cross our border, because he would enforce those different authorities and would have made sure that we actually secure a border. But even while he was president, he was specifically asking Congress to change the standard on asylum to be able to tighten up, to be able to give them additional funds for deportation. All of those things are in this bill. So if he were to be president, this would be new authorities that he had actually asked for when he was president before.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. And I just- you just said that he has not read this bill. He doesn’t essentially know what he’s talking about. So this deal–
Sen. Lankford: — Well, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying there’s just a lot of rumors that are out there about the bill. And I want to make sure everyone has a chance to be able to read it before they make a final judgment.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So the deal you just said would give any future president and the current one new authorities. So on the trail, Trump has vowed to block legal immigrants based on their beliefs to end birthright citizenship, to carry out mass deportations, and he has not ruled out separating kids from their parents. Would you trust Donald Trump with these new authorities?
SEN. LANKFORD: I would actually because these are not only new authorities that had been asked for by multiple presidents, whether it be President Trump, President Obama, President Bush before that, this is a basic thing that we have to have for our national security. When we talk about asylum, right now you cross the border, and you literally say, I have fear in my country, and you’re released into the United States and await a 10-year hearing. No one thinks that actually makes sense to have a 10-year backlog for just saying the magic words. I have fear in my country. We don’t really know if they qualify for asylum. We don’t know their criminal record. We don’t know anything else about it. That absolutely has to change. That’s been an issue for a very long time that changes this in law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we will have to see where we are on the vote count. But I want to ask you, back in 2022, Donald Trump endorsed your reelection. And in that endorsement, he said, “James Lankford is strong on the border.” Has anything changed with your thoughts about endorsing Donald Trump for president?
SEN. LANKFORD: No, it hasn’t at all. Obviously, he’s been very engaged, as I’ve mentioned already on it, none of the things that are happening in the last three years in the border would have happened if Donald Trump was actually president. He knows I’ve been very passionate about the border. This is an issue I’ve worked on for a very long time. He and I worked together when he was in the White House on some of his border policies. And when he did his big proposal, that was a legislative proposal, because again, President Trump proposed new laws and new issues on this, because we know that we have gaps in the system. So if you want to be able to secure the border, you can have President Trump to be able to come in to actually secure the border, because he’s going to focus in on that. But if he comes in and is elected by the American people to come this November, he’s going to want these additional authorities in this because it will help every president from here on out.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, but you’re not endorsing him?
SEN. LANKFORD: I actually haven’t endorsed anyone on it. But he’d be a much better president than what we’re dealing with right now, definitely on national security.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Before I let you go, I want to get your reaction to the news that he was ordered to pay $83 million to a person that a jury found he defamed after a separate jury found that he had sexually assaulted her. Does it give you any pause about him returning to office?
SEN. LANKFORD: It doesn’t. Obviously, these are legal cases. I don’t want to jump in the middle of a legal case. It’s been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and had been dropped or had been kicked out of the courts on it. This one’s actually went through. He’s already said he’s going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions and let the American people make their decisions. We got states like Colorado that are trying to be able to block the people of Colorado from being able to choose who they vote for. Let the American people decide this in November.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Supreme Court might decide on that one. We will have to leave it there for today, James Lankford. We will be focusing on what progress you were able to make. We’ll be back in just one minute.
Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), James Lankford (R-OK), and Chris Murphy (D-CT) have reportedly put the finishing touches on their “bipartisan border deal” that will be tied together with other Senate priorities to permit billions more in funding for Ukraine.
Keep in mind the billions for Ukraine is the goal here; the “border security deal” is the mechanism to deflect attention and give the customary UniParty illusion of justification.
There’s no reason to pretend this is anything of substance; even a cursory review of the media narrative shows just how insufferable this nonsense really is.
First, the motive….
WASHINGTON – […] Linking money for Ukraine to the border, one of the most politically charged issues in Congress, was viewed as a gamble by Senate leadership but necessary to satisfy conservatives in the Republican-led House.
Next up… just how stupid they think we are…
[…] The expulsion powers granted to the president are similar to Title 42, the authority former President Donald Trump relied upon to turn away immigrants during the COVID-19 health crisis and that President Joe Biden ended last year. The new powers come with a penalty for repeat offenders, barring immigrants caught attempting to cross the border twice from entering for a year.
The expulsion powers in the new legislation are the same as the currently existing expulsion powers that are not enforced. And, if the illegal alien gets caught twice coming across, they have to wait a year for their third or next attempt.
But wait, it gets better.
The entire effort to “secure” the border, an exercise in actually just doing what they can already do but pretend they cannot, is only triggered if the total number of border crossers exceeds a certain threshold.
[…] If crossings exceed 5,000 daily per week or 8,500 in a single day, the authority would be triggered automatically, with the Department of Homeland Security forced to turn away immigrants with limited exceptions. (MORE)
Even in the expressed justification they admit DHS would be “forced to turn away immigrants.” Or, put in non-pretending terms, they would be forced to do something they can already do – but choose not to. And they swear to do the thing then, that they can do now, but pretend they cannot do – or something.
.
We The People are in an abusive relationship with our government, and at this point the gaslighting is ridiculous.
The White House released the following statement:
“Today, America’s heart is heavy. Last night, three U.S. service members were killed—and many wounded—during an unmanned aerial drone attack on our forces stationed in northeast Jordan near the Syria border. While we are still gathering the facts of this attack, we know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq.” (LINK)
A few more details are starting to emerge including the number of “many wounded.” According to recent media reports 25 were wounded along with the 3 killed.
Yahoo – “Biden said the United States “will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing.”
There was no immediate reaction from Jordan, a kingdom bordering Iraq, Israel, the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
U.S. troops long have used Jordan as a basing point, and the attack took place in northeast Jordan near the Syrian border. U.S. Central Command said 25 service members were injured the attack in addition to the three killed.
Some 3,000 American troops typically are stationed in Jordan.
Jordanian state television quoted Muhannad Mubaidin, a government spokesman, as insisting the attack happened outside of the kingdom across the border in Syria. The conflicting information could not be immediately reconciled.” (more)
I guess we are not supposed to remember this earlier announcement from three months ago:
Apparently, there are drones capable of outwitting the THAAD defense system, or something.
President Donald J. Trump was accused of withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine in order to force compliance with his requests. This was the exact claim of those who attempted to impeach President Trump in 2019; this was their originating justification.
Today, NBC is reporting that Joe Biden is looking at what military aid can be withheld from Israel in order to force compliance with their requests. I doubt the insufferable dolts in the media can see the ridiculous hypocrisy in this story.
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is discussing using weaponry sales to Israel as leverage to convince the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to heed long-standing U.S. calls to scale back its military assault in the Gaza Strip, according to three current U.S. officials and one former U.S. official.
At the direction of the White House, the Pentagon has been reviewing what weaponry Israel has requested that could be used as leverage, said the sources. They said no decisions have been made.
The sources said Israeli officials continue to ask the administration for more weapons, including large aerial bombs, ammunition and air defenses.
After weeks of private administration requests produced fewer results than the White House wants, the sources said, the U.S. is considering slowing or pausing the deliveries in the hope that doing so will prod the Israelis to take action. (MORE)
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 