Don't Panic; the Endangered Species Act isn't endangered

You may have heard that Trump is trying to gut the Endangered Species Act(ESA).

If you're not a rabid leftist you probably wondered if this was another bit of media hyperbole aimed at discrediting Trump--sky cloudy, rain falls on children's picnic; Trump to blame.

You're right.

What the Trump administration is investigating is refining the implementation of the ESA to ensure that it better serves Americans.

Among the changes are the idea that getting a species off the endangered list shouldn't be harder than getting it on the list and assessing the financial impact of protecting a species.

Essentially as the ESA is implemented now the left is saying that no amount of human suffering, poverty, or disease is enough to justify the elimination of a species.  For example protecting the snail darter in California costs thousands of jobs, and drives up food prices for millions of people.  Who is most impacted by that?  Poor people.  They are impacted by an absence of jobs and by higher food prices more than the arugula munching left wing mobs in Silicon Valley.

Because to the left everything is about them, and they are generally rich or they're supported by the government--which includes sinecures in academia or government bureaucracies-- , they don't care how they impact the poor--that's why rich leftists rarely give most of their money away to help the poor.

Taking into account the impact on people of preserving a species makes sense. But that's something that leftists generally lack.  For example you've probably seen the outcry about some dentists who shot a lion and some woman who shot a giraffe.  What you don't hear is that without hunters paying big money to go hunting in Africa there would be no protection for lions or giraffes from poachers and the countries where those hunts occur would be a lot poorer.

The radical left acts as though we must either protect every species no matter how insignificant or we must wantonly slaughter species left and right.

Conservatives, being rational, recognize there is a middle ground.  We need to make reasonable efforts to avoid eliminating species but we can't put bugs ahead of people all the time.

That's all that taking into account the fiscal impact of protecting a species means; how much pain does it cause people and is that pain worth it to save the species in question?  Clearly saving lions from extinction is more important than saving some random species of plant. But it's also clear that simply enabling some contractor to make some extra money isn't sufficient reason to exterminate a species.

Hence the sane approach is to weigh the impact on people as one aspect of the equation.  But as usual leftists are quite comfortable saying that people don't matter.

Another change being examined is to make it as easy to take a species off the list as it is to put it on the list.  For example let's say that biologists have determined that if the timber wolf population drops to 300 it should go on the endangered species list and that a healthy population size is 500.  What Trump is considering is saying that once the timber wolf population recovers to 500 or more the wolf is easily removed from the list.  As it stands now even without lawsuits by radical leftists who care more about animals than people it's much harder to remove a species from the list than to add it to the list.

This can have significant economic consequences. For example even though timber wolf populations have rebounded if a farmer sees a wolf attacking one of his herd he can't do anything to stop it. Should he harm the wolf he could see a year in prison and up to a $50,000 fine.  So the farmer just has to stand by and watch thousands of dollars of his money be eaten up by wolves.

One last note; none of the changes that Trump is considering will allow any of the decisions made on "endangered" animals to occur in darkness. If the bureaucrats misuse the new rules, should those rules be implemented, it would be visible to the public.

The amazing media reversal mirror

If Trump succeeds the media always casts the story as though he lost.

If Trump fights for America the media always portrays it as Trump attacking America.

For example let's look at the "Trade War" insanity the mainstream media is currently pitching.

Since WWII the US has allowed our "friends" and our trading partners, mainly China, to put higher tariffs on US products than the US puts on products those countries send to us.

While that may have made sense decades ago the huge transfer of good manufacturing jobs out of the US shows that it is not good now for America.

But when Trump decided to do something about it the media lambasted him for starting a trade war.

Never mind that the average Chinese tariff is 4+ times higher than the average American tariff it was Trump who was the villain to the media not the Chinese.

Hence the media explained to us stupid folk that it was Trump who was starting a trade war and that he was the villain.

But then the EU caved and agreed to work to zero tariffs and to reduce the high tariffs they have on American products and to buy more American stuff.

To sane people that showed that Trump's tactic had worked; there would be no trade war but the EU would lower its tariffs.

But to the media this was an EU victory and the EU should get all the credit.

Given that without Trump's tough talk on trade and his tariffs, which the media said were all his fault, the EU wouldn't have changed anything sane honest people will credit Trump.

But the amazing mirror media instead decided to bash Trump for actually helping America.

The left wing media is the enemy of the people

The first thing to note is that Trump never said that all the press is the enemy of the people; he said that the #FakeNews sources like CNN are the enemy of the people.

The reality is that the left wing bias of the major media has been getting worse and worse over time. As it stands they won't give Trump credit for anything and they will blame him for everything.

For example unlike Obama Trump issued an executive order stopping the children of illegals who try to sneak into the country from being separated from their parents.  Instead of commending Trump the left wing media continues to attack him because he enforces the law.

Further even though Trump has called on the Democrats to work with him to revise the law the Democrats refuse to do so; yet the left wing media doesn't call out the Democrats for caring more about having an issue for the upcoming election than about those children.

The same left wing media that said that Clinton's ongoing infidelity in the White House had no bearing on his ability to be President are saying that affairs Trump had a decade or more ago show that Trump is unsuited for public office.

The Washington Post's new motto is " Democracy dies in darkness".  Yet what Trump is condemning is the left wing media darkening the minds of Americans by telling lies.  Hence if the WaPo really believed its new motto it would be applauding Trump for demanding that the media serve the people by telling them the truth.

Instead the WaPo and the rest of the left wing media says that it's not their lies that are the problem but the fact that Trump points them out that is the problem.

Of course the left has to hide the truth and manufacture lies because if the truth is known no one would vote for the ever more left wing Democrats.

1) If people knew that it was science that human life began at conception they'd be less likely to support the radical any time any reason Democrat abortion platform.

2) If people knew that science says that sex is defined by DNA and that men can't become women they'd be less likely to support the right of men who pretend to be women because they're delusional to use women's restrooms.

3) If people knew there was not a single bit of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia they'd be less likely to vote for the hysteric Democrats who want to impeach Trump.

4) If people knew that global warming...er climate change was scientifically unsubstantiated they'd be less likely to support the Democrats radical climate agenda which would drive millions of Americans into poverty.

Bottom line Trump is right to call out the left wing media which has long since ceased being a free and unbiased source of information and has become nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.

Good Russians vs Bad Russians; the lying left

There's a lot of fury being shown by the left wing media about President Trump possibly having known about his son's meeting with a Russian who supposedly had dirt on Hillary.

As it turned out the Russian had no such dirt and the meeting ended with nothing having happened.

What's really bizarre and an example of the Nazi's Big Lie is how upset the left is about that meeting.

We know for a fact that Hillary paid a British ex spy to compile a dossier full of supposed "dirt" on Trump based entirely on unverified anonymous Russian sources.

Yet the left says that what Hillary did is ok while what Trump didn't do is a monstrous crime.

This is about as fake as #Fakenews can get; Hillary gets unverified dirt on Trump from Russians and the left isn't bothered, Trump Jr. gets no dirt on Hillary from a Russian source and the left is declaring treason.

We know that that dossier was used by the FBI to get a warrant to spy on the Republican Presidential campaign.

Now that's a crime and a scandal but one that the left wing media will never address.

Opposing censorship is censorship? Modern insanity.

Some "conservatives" are attacking real conservatives who want to put an end to Facebook and Twitter selectively censoring conservatives.

Those "conservatives" say that because Twitter and FB are private companies they can do what they like.  While technically true that ignores the fact that in todays world both Twitter and FB are effective monopolies.

We know that FB can tilt elections by selectively notifying people to vote and it's clear that if FB and Twitter deliberately distort their content to convince people that Democrat lies are the truth they can impact how people vote.

At the very least such actions must be viewed as in kind contributions.  At the most we need a very simple law; those sites cannot censor any content that is not criminal.  That way child porn, calls to terrorism, calls to kill Blacks, etc can be removed but expressing viewpoints that the leftist staff of Twitter and FB don't like would not be acceptable.

No sane and honest persons could call such a law censorship since it serves only to open up conversations.

The moral high ground

Whenever a leftist demands to know how you, a Christian, can support Trump because of Trumps personal life you need to ask them how they can support any Democrat given that it's likely that that Democrat supports a woman's right to kill her unborn child if she's a girl because she, the mother, wants a boy.

No one approves of Trump's affairs. But infidelity, while not good, is not remotely on par with actively supporting the mass murder of the unborn.

It's not like Trump is working to make infidelity legal; leftists already did that by creating no fault divorce where the cheated on spouse has no more rights than the cheating spouse.

But Democrats are working to ensure that viable unborn babies and unborn babies who can feel pain are viable candidates for execution.

Democrats really do = Hitler; both stand for the mass murder of innocent people.

Most Americans who do support abortion do so only in cases of rape, threat to the life of the mother and/or only in the first trimester.  They're motivated by misplaced concern for the mothers.

Democrats support abortion for any reason at any point right up till the babies head leaves her mothers womb.  That's evil on a Hitlerarian scale.

Even if we ignore the fact that Trump seems to have settled down since about a decade ago it's the Democrats who declared that cheating by the President is of no importance back when it was their guy doing the cheating.

But Democrats have endorsed far worse; Bill Clinton sexually harassed non-consenting women, something Trump has not been credibly accused of, and publicly attacked those women when they spoke out.  Yet Democrats said that did not have any relevance to Bill's ability to be President.  Heck they even said that when Bill lied under oath to avoid a sexual harassment lawsuit that didn't matter.

So remember on a purely moral basis Trump is a saint compared to the Democrats and his sins are personal not matters of public policy.

We must continue to condemn Trump's past behavior but we must also point out that a former cheater is far less morally problematic than people who demand that taxpayers pay for the mass murder of the unborn.

The Washington Post is a hate group

On todays WaPo a front page story begins with these two paragraphs:

It has been a good summer for the Democratic Socialists of America.

On June 20, members of the organization’s Metro D.C. chapter confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant downtown, chasing her out and making national news.

That's right; according to the WaPo hate group chasing a government official out of a private dinner is a good thing.

The hypocrisy here is staggering.  As I recall back when the Tea Party was protesting at politicians town hall meetings we were told by the left that it was bad yet here the WaPo says that harassing a government official at a private dinner is "good".

Nielsen is not some monster; unlike Obama she doesn't advocate for letting babies born alive after a failed abortion to be left to die.

And we all know that if conservatives did the same thing to say John Brennan the WaPo would not label it good.

It's clear that the WaPo hates anyone related to Trump, including those who voted for him.  Which means that it's also clear that absolutely nothing the WaPo publishes can ever be trusted until it's cooperated from non-hating sources.

If the paper believes that it's ok to harass government employee's in their private lives then it's unlikely that the paper would be bothered about lying about Trump in order to overturn the 2016 election.

Vile haters like the WaPo are unlikely to conform to decent moral standards, like not lying, when the object of their hate is involved. After all what actions can't a leftist, someone who generally subscribes to relative rather than objective morality and who is comfortable with the end justifying the means, support if it leads to what they define as the greater good?

Trump's successes are never mentioned

We're told by the leftist media that Trump was fooled by NK because NK is not ending it's nuclear program.

We're not told that NK is dismantling key elements of it's long range missile program.

It's not surprising since the media is silent on Trump's massive success on turning around the Obama economy, slow growth forever.

Essentially by being silent on Trump's successes and spreading lies, like Russian collusion, the media is trying to make a fake reality to confuse the voters.  It's propaganda that the "free" press is spewing these days not news.

We can't be pacifists in the culture wars

Conservatives tend to be Christians and as such we believe we should forgive those who have done wrong but have repented. Though in fairness even the non-Christian conservatives tend to be forgiving.

Applying that to the case of James Gunn who posted a lot of very evil tweets about raping children a number of years ago but who claims to have changed it would seem that we should forgive and forget.

However in a society where one mildly racist tweet by Barr results in her losing her job and where Trump is excoriated over consensual infidelities that occurred a decade ago it's not obvious that forgive and forget is what is best.

If we allow every conservative who ever makes a mistake and repents to be banished from public life but forgive every leftist we basically are being unjust to the conservatives.  If we are to forgive then all who repent must be forgiven.

Trump is being attacked because of his offensive, albeit consensual, infidelities that occurred a decade or more ago. At the same time the people who told us that Bill Clinton's nonconsensual sexual harassment was irrelevant in the past are now only mildly chastising him.

Milo made a very inappropriate comment about sex with teenage boys which he immediately apologized for.  None the less he was banished.  Given the severity of his offense his banishment was probably good for society.  But then why should we allow someone else who made comments about sex with 3 year olds continue to be accepted just because he said he's sorry?  While both are amazingly reprehensible talking about sex with 3 year olds shows a far more warped person than talking about sex with 16 year olds.

Ask yourself this; if a Catholic priest had tweeted what Gunn tweeted and then years later said he was sorry would the same leftists who are demanding we forgive Gunn forgive the priest and say that he should be allowed to continue his life with no long term impacts?  Clearly, and correctly, they wouldn't.

While we must personally forgive those who sin and repent we are not required to let them go on as if they hadn't sinned.  It's not hating rapists to say that we don't think that they should be able to avoid jail time just because they say sorry.  Similarly few people object to requiring sex offenders to register.

It's easy to see what the standard of the left is.  People who make sinful choices like sexual infidelity or seemingly supporting molesting children are to be condemned if they don't support  the left's agenda but forgiven if they do.  There are occasional exceptions, such as Weinstein, but those are only tactical moves where the left sacrifices a person in order to attack Trump.

Essentially the left has declared that any offense they don't like is cause for immediate banishment from polite society while any person that they like can be excused from that punishment.

That's an intolerable situation.

Everyone has to be held to the same standard.

So if Barr can be destroyed because of one late night tweet even though she apologized then Gunn should also be punished for many far more horrible tweets even though he apologized.

Or if Gunn can be forgiven then Barr should be forgiven too.  This is the system that Christ calls us to.

While each case has to be examined individually it's not Christian to accept a system where what matters most is not the sin or the repentance but the political ideology of the offender.

In some sense it's like a spy exchange.  If we forgive some leftist then the left must forgive a conservative, assuming both are truly repentant.

If we continue to allow the left's standard to stand then it will encourage them to be even more evil because they know all they need to do is say sorry and they will be forgiven while simultaneously refusing to forgive conservatives who truly repent.

In a sense it's like the Bible story about the servant who owed his master a huge amount of money. The master showed mercy but then the man turned around and showed no mercy to someone who owed him money. Upon hearing of this the master revoked his mercy and punished the evil man.

Our Christian instinct is to be merciful to leftists but when those leftists turn around and show no mercy to conservatives we are no longer required to treat them better than they treat others.

It's a sad situation we are in but it's not of our choosing.  Conservatives have always been willing to forgive leftists who truly repent. For example in 1992 the Clintons went on 60 Minutes and admitted that Bill had cheated but that he'd repented.  As a result conservatives said we wouldn't vote for him because of his policies but that we wouldn't hold his past, supposedly repented of, transgressions against him.

Similarly today if we can be convinced that Gunn is truly repentant--and remember that the left has viciously attacked the Catholic Church because some Bishops believed psychiatrists who said that gay priests who were attracted to teenage boys had been cured-- then we should forgive him; so long as the left behaves the same way to conservatives.

We are in a war for the soul of America.  If we allow leftist evil to go unpunished we aren't doing the right thing. Why we are to forgive those who hurt us we are not required to let those who hurt others go unpunished.

Why the FBI released the FISA warrant on Saturday night

Because it's full of really bad news.

First it shows that the FBI vouched for the truthfulness of the Steele dossier when they had not in fact verified it.

Second is shows that they did not tell the judge that the DNC funded Steele.

Third it ignored standard procedure.  When a cop has a Confidential Informant(CI) who has dug up information in order for the court to trust the data the prosecutor has to show that the CI is trustworthy.  It doesn't matter how trustworthy the cop is;  he can't vouch for the CI.  The CI has to be identified and reason for their trustworthiness has to be shown. But in the FISA warrant the FBI used the "trustworthiness" of Steele because the Russian sources he used were never identified.  Hence if this were a regular criminal case the fact that the Russian sources were unidentified and they weren't even speaking of events they had direct knowledge of, they were all talking about things other people supposedly told them, there is no way a wiretap warrant would have been issued.

Fourth the FISA warrant cites news articles as sources.  One article we now know was based on Steele talking to the reporter who wrote it and hence can't be an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier. The other was even worse. It was an article from the Washington Post which claimed that Trump has weakened the GOP platform position on the Ukraine.  Yet the reality is that Trump strengthened the position.  So the FBI used as "evidence" an incorrect story published by the highly partisan Washington Post to turn the full power of the US intelligence community against the Trump campaign.

Fifth the document mentions that Carter Page had been approached by Russians in the past but it does not appear to mention that Page cooperated with the government to help the government arrest those agents.  It hardly makes sense that someone who cooperated in catching Russian spies a few years ago would suddenly decide to work with the Russians so it would probably be the sort of thing that the FBI wouldn't want the judge to know about.  Of course the information can be somewhere in the redacted text but why?  It's public knowledge that Page worked with the government against the Russians so there should be no reason to redact that.

Basically even with much of the document redacted it's clear that the FBI was playing fast and loose with the facts in order to get a FISA warrant to spy on someone related to the Trump campaign.

If the FBI wasn't trying to get Trump they would have warned him about the people associated with his campaign the FBI was interested in so Trump could have either stopped having his people talk to them or help the FBI catch them, as Page had helped the FBI previously. By not contacting Trump the FBI made it pretty clear that he was their target.

We're looking at something much worse than Watergate. The difference is that when Watergate happened the Republicans refused to back Nixon whereas now the Democrats are backing the FBI/DOJ deep state.

Brennan is untrustworthy

As former CIA director Brennan goes around accusing Trump of crimes and demanding Trump be impeached it's a good idea to remember just who Brennan is.

In 1976 Brennan voted for the Communist party candidate for President.  That's right Brennan wasn't bothered by the fact that Communists had murdered around 100,000,000 people or that the Soviet Union was oppressing Eastern Europe.

The use of tanks to crush freedom in Hungary and Czechoslovakia didn't bother Brennan.

Brennan was all for massive surveillance of American citizens.

All in all Brennan has shown an affinity for totalitarianism and the idea that the government rules the people rather than the government being the servant of the people.

Perhaps that's why Brennan is making all these unhinged attacks on Trump; when you're a fascist elections only count when your candidate wins.  In Brennan's mind it might be that since Trump was not the pick of our ruling elites anything that can get rid of Trump is morally licit. Or perhaps Brennan is just bothered by the idea of a non-Beltway Bubble person having power.

Whatever the case it's important to realize that Brennan isn't an unbiased source; that he has an agenda which doesn't put the American people first.

John Brennan says that the Intelligence Community(IC) is full of traitors

John Brennan, head of the CIA and a man who voted for the Communist party candidate for President in 1976, has said that the IC may shift to withholding vital intelligence information from Trump in order to protect that information.

He's also called for the impeachment of Trump and declared that Trump's actions at Helsinki are high crimes and misdemeanors.

If he's right then he's saying that the IC is full of traitors who would withhold critical information from a President because that President criticized them.  Their job is to give the President, whether they like him or not, the information they have so his decisions can be the best possible.  If they're not going to do that they should simply be fired because they're working to hurt the US by denying the President information based on their own political or personal biases.

Can you imagine if the folks who hand out welfare checks said they'd stop doing so because they thought the President was to liberal how the left would scream?  Yet here Brennan is saying that the first loyalty of the IC isn't to the country but to the political opinions of those who work in the IC.

Brennan's call for the IC to boycott the President also shows that Brennan believes that the IC is not full of public servants but rather of co-equals if not superiors to the elected President who can decide to what extent they will do their jobs based on their personal political views about the President.

When Ronald Reagan was shot he asked the surgeon if he was a Democrat. The surgeon replied that today we're all Republicans.  An attitude that is the exact opposite of what Brennan says IC employees should have.

The purpose of the IC is to inform US policy and to protect the US.  If that information is withheld from the President then effectively members of the IC are asking to be paid for not doing their job.

Remember that it was on Brennan's watch that the Russians supposedly successfully hacked the DNC server.  It was his failure to spot and deal with the problem that is at the root of this whole Russian collusion mess. Yet now he's saying that Trump isn't to be trusted because Trump doesn't do what Brennan wants Trump to do.

Apparently what Brennan doesn't realize is that he lives in a representative republic not a banana republic.  The people elected Trump and Brennan isn't some dissatisfied colonel who can declare that the government will ignore the election and do what it wants.

While Brennan has absolutely no evidence that Trump is untrustworthy Brennan is fully comfortable with saying that the civil "servants" who make up the IC have not only the right but the obligation to decide what the President can and can't know.

Clearly to Brennan and any like minded people in the IC power doesn't flow from the people but from the ruling elites in the Federal bureaucracy.

Which means Brennan and they are traitors who reject our form of government.

Perhaps that's not surprising coming from a man, Brennan, who during the height of the cold war and after Russia had brutally suppressed freedom in Hungary and who knew that the Soviet Union had murdered 60,000,000 innocent people still voted for the Communist party candidate for the US Presidency.

One can be sure that Brennan wouldn't demand that the IC deny that communist information back then and we can't be sure that he'd demand it now.

How to tell Mueller isn't serious about the Russian hackers

If Mueller really wanted to try Russian hackers in court the last thing he'd do is to announce that he'd indicted them.

Instead he would have gotten sealed indictments and then tried to lure them out of Russia on some pretense or other to a country where they could be arrested. Even better if Mueller were really serious about the threat these hackers pose to American elections he'd have lured them to a country where they could be kidnapped and brought to the US for trial.

It's not uncommon to hear on the evening news how this sort of thing plays out with other sorts of crimes.  The media will announce the sudden arrest of a whole slew of defendants who had all been indicted in secret.  The mass arrests only work if the defendants don't know they've been indicted because that means that they don't have time to flee the country or go into hiding.

That Mueller didn't even bother to follow the standard procedure for this sort of case shows he really doesn't care.

What's even more frightening though is that it's not unlikely that if Mueller managed to get these Russians into court he couldn't prove that they're guilty.

Remember Mueller's previous indictments of Russians?  When one of the Russian entities hired American lawyers and demanded a speedy trial Mueller said he couldn't actually try the Russians.  Further when the defendants asked for the evidence that Mueller had against them, a standard part of any criminal case, Mueller produced terabytes of social media content most of it in Russian.

Given that the average American jury isn't fluent in Russian that meant that Mueller hadn't even gotten ready for a case against the people he indicted.  Not to mention the fact that it's unlikely that his crack team of Hillary donors are all fluent in Russian so that it's unlikely that the lawyers Mueller would use to try the case could read the "evidence" that they would be using in court to prove the Russians guilt.

The fact that these most recent indictments were released right before Trump met Putin tells us that the purpose wasn't to defend US elections but to hurt Trump.  If Mueller had an ounce of patriotism in him he'd have told the President the indictments were coming but either made them public long before the summit or some time after the summit. Instead he basically tried to shape US foreign policy by implicitly saying "Look the Russians are evil don't do anything to normalize relations with them even though they have enough nukes to destroy America."

Mueller is once again demonstrating that he's not really interested in protecting the integrity of the American electoral process but in trying to get rid of a President he doesn't like.

The Large Magellanic Cloud; only visible in the Southern Hemisphere

Add caption

Is Trump channelling Kissinger?

While Nixon was reviled by the right for it his rapprochement with Communist China helped the US eventually defeat the Soviet Union.

Could Trump be trying to ally with Russia to counterbalance growing Chinese imperialism?

While Russia's imperialism is relatively modest China is moving to take over the entire South China Sea and potentially convert all of Asia into a modern version of Eastern Europe.

Trump knows that Putin knows that China has had its eyes on the Russian far east for a very long time.

Trump also knows that the European countries won't lift a hand to deal with Chinese imperialism, with the exception of Britain.  The countries near China's expansion--Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia--lack the economic and military power necessary to resist Chinese advances. But if Russia reduced technical transfers to China and caused the Chinese to worry about threats to the north it might serve as a counterbalance to Chinese near term imperialism.

Given that an immense amount of international trade flows through the South China Sea it's not in the best interests of the US to allow China to turn it into their version of Lake Michigan.  Given that a military conflict is highly undesirable getting Russia, and perhaps India, on our side could serve to pause Chinese expansionism.

This is precisely the sort of non-aggressive move that leftists say that they like but because they view Russia as more useful as a fall guy to blame for their failure in the 2016 election leftists are willing to hurt the US in order to attack Trump.

It's a lie; Trump did not say that the Russians didn't meddle in the election

Here's what he said:

Here’s what really happened. First Trump said:

During today's meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.

I felt this was a message best delivered in person. I spent a great deal of time talking about it and President Putin may very well want to address it and very strongly, because he feels very strongly about it and he has an interesting idea.

Trump later followed up with:

I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer. 

He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok?


Because the media was distorting what he’d said Trump clarified his position with a subsequent tweet:
As I said today and many times before, “I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along! #HELSINKI2018

Socialism vs Capitalism

Capitalism says that people are the best judges of how to spend their own times and resources.

Socialism says that the government elites are the best judges of how people should spend their time and resources.

Capitalism assumes people are competent functioning adults.

Socialism assumes that most people are incapable of running their own lives; only the elite are smart enough to decide how people should live.

Capitalism assumes that people are responsible enough to manage their own affairs.

Socialism assumes that the vast majority of people are irresponsible and must be controlled by the elites.

In the real world capitalism produces wealth, longer lifespans, and better health.

In the real world socialism produces poverty, income inequality, poor health, and shorter lifespans for the vast majority while providing amazing wealth to the elites.

With "friends" like Trump Putin sure doesn't need enemies.

The left keeps telling us that Trump is under Putin's control.  If so why is Trump working hard to stop Germany from sending billions of dollars to Russia?  Why is he demanding that European countries increase their defense spending?

Does anyone think that Putin wants less money and a stronger Europe?

For an example of real control look to Obama who was caught in a hot mic moment telling a top Russian official to tell Putin that after the election he, Obama, would have more flexibility in dealing with Russia.

Left shoots self in foot by declaring it's all Obama's fault

With the indictment of a bunch of Russians by Mueller the left is declaring that the Russians did successfully interfere in the US election.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the "interference" consisted of letting the voters know how the DNC broke its own rules to discriminate against a "Democratic Socialist", i.e. Bernie, what the left apparently didn't realize is that Obama was the President when this "interference" occurred.

That's right.  The Russians hacked the DNC, but failed in their attempt to hack the RNC, on Obama's watch. Obama controlled, and was responsible for, the entire power of the US government.  Trump had absolutely no ability to know about or thwart Russian hacking.  Hence the left declaring that the Russians were successful is the left declaring that Obama failed.

If the left says that Trump won because of Russia revealing DNC bias then the only people they can blame are the DNC for their poor cyber security and Obama for the government's failure to protect the election.

Remember the new indictments show absolutely no evidence of collusion between Trump and/or his campaign and the Russians.  Hence there is still no evidence for Trump colluding but there is now unambiguous evidence, according to the left, that Obama failed.

Strzok; the face of the deep state

It was clear from Strzok's testimony that he did not feel afraid of or beholden to the Congress which means he didn't feel afraid of or beholden to the American people either.

In doing so Strzok became the poster boy for the reality of the deep state.  He's the first deep state operative to fail to abide by the rules, pretend you're a civil servant in public but act as though you're part of a ruling elite otherwise, and as such he's giving us proof that the FBI is corrupt at the top.

When even CNN abandon's a leftist, and they abandoned Strzok by saying that it was clear he was biased,  it's clear that the person has violated the rule of the left; don't get caught.

True the media is still saying that it's credible that he somehow has the superhuman power to separate a profound dislike of Trump and his belief that Trump should never have been president from his strenuous efforts to clear Hillary but they've let him know that he's expendable.

The media will try to establish their credibility by saying that they agree with the obvious, Strzok is immensely biased, but simultaneously protect the left by declaring that his bias never impacted his work.

Amazingly they'll do so at precisely the same time as they will be declaring that Kavanaugh will not be able to separate his personal beliefs from his work.

This will probably help America in November because the deep state has taken off its mask sooner than it should have.

Whatever collusion is Mueller's not finding it

Pause for a moment and ask yourself the following question; "Is telling the American people truthful information about something a political party did that was wrong interfering in an election?"

Another way to think about it is telling the American voters the truth interfering in an election?

Because that's the sin that leftists are accusing Trump of.  While there is absolutely no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to release the DNC emails--which showed that the DNC had violated their own rules and biased the nomination process for Hillary-- there is complete agreement that the emails are facts; the DNC did work against Bernie.

To see the oddity of this reasoning suppose the British government released emails showing that Trump had colluded with Russia. Would any of the foaming at the mouth leftists be upset?  Of course not because having the truth is always good no matter where it comes from.

Even worse the left is all enthused that foreign nationals being paid by Hillary released lies about Trump; the Steele dossier.

What we're seeing is another example of the left's double standards.  If truth that is damaging to the left is released it's "election interference" if lies about Trump are released, the Steele dossier, that's good.

Strzok doesn't pass the smell test

In his testimony to Congress FBI agent Strzok claimed that he was not biased against Trump and that none of his text messages indicated he was biased.

This is hogwash given that in one of the texts he says that Trump supporters have a certain smell.

Accusing people of being odiferous and/or unwashed is an age old way of disparaging them.  Yet according to Strzok that wasn't what he meant.

Can you imagine what would happen if someone talked about Jews or Blacks having a special smell? People would declare that person to be a hating bigot and they'd be right.  Yet Strzok thinks that American's will believe his claim that his comments don't show any bias.  Which gives us an idea of what Strzok thinks of the American people.

Of course he also said that he couldn't answer questions about an on-going investigation when asked by a Republican but when asked by a Democrat he suddenly could answer.

Strzok is the face of the deep state which thinks its above the law, above patriotism, above fairness, above the rest of us who smell different.

The good news is that it's likely that America isn't ready for our would be masters to be so candid about not having to follow the same rules the rest of us do.  Strzok's clear contempt for the American people and the Congress is not going to play well with folks in fly over country.

The Left's ever changing goal posts

For a few years the Democrat politicians and their media cronies have been constantly attacking the rich; supposedly the top 1% but in reality anyone who isn't on welfare.

But now they're attacking Trump's choice for the Supreme Court because he's not wealthy.

So to the Democrat establishment rich was evil, unless it's a Nazi collaborator like Sorros, but now it's being poorer than the rich lawyers on the Supreme Court that's evil.

We've all seen the video of Schumer and Obama calling for strong borders but that flip at least took a few years.  Here we're seeing Democrat/Media complex move the goalposts in literally a couple of days.

We all know however that the real point is that anyone who stands between Democrat politicians and their ability to control how much soda we drink and what type of straws we use is the enemy and anyone, no matter how evil, who helps Democrat politicians control our lives is good.

Leftists eschew personal responsibility

While the "horror" of separating children from their criminal parents has receded from the leftist angst machine due to the new squirrel, the Supreme Court, its useful to recognize that we're seeing the Left's complete rejection of personal responsibility on display.

No parent who legally applied for asylum was ever separated from their children.  Only those who tried to sneak into the US and then applied for asylum, i.e. those who committed a crime, have temporarily lost custody of their children.

Given that there are 9 sites in Mexico,  as well as every Point of Entry on the boarder, where "refugees", can apply for asylum it's clear that parents who choose to avoid legally applying for asylum, because they're really just looking for more money not actually fleeing for their lives in most cases, are the ones responsible if they're separated from their children.

Yet the Left declares that it's Trump's fault that illegals choose to break the law in order to improve their economic situation.  Apparently illegals are somehow better in the minds of leftists than the 1,300,000 honest Mexicans who are waiting in line to enter the US legally; or the large number of honest citizens of other Central American countries who are also waiting patiently to enter the US legally.

But declaring that people don't have any responsibility for their actions, except of course conservatives, is a fundamental belief of leftists.  People have consensual sex and instead of having to accept responsibility for the child they brought into the world the left says that they can kill their child for example.

Or all the people who use drugs and/or drop out of school; according to the left they should enjoy the same quality of life as people who work hard and don't do drugs.

The sad thing is that the more that the left tries to normalize personal irresponsibility the more personal irresponsibility there will be.  And the people who suffer most are the ones who aren't responsible.

Leftists say that judicial activism is following the Constitution

On Twitter a leftist basically said that it's conservative judicial activism when the judges reach a conclusion he doesn't like.

For example he cited the Hobby Lobby case where the Court ruled that the First Amendment gives us the right to exercise our faith was an example of conservative judicial activism on par with the Courts "discovery" of an unfettered right for a woman to murder her unborn daughter.

But the truth is that to leftists the Court has been a group of tyrants who controlled society and that's something they like.  Only so long as the Court's edicts advance the leftist cause.

Given that the entire leftists edifice is at risk if the Court returns to it's true role of interpreting, as opposed to creating, the law it's not surprising that leftists will say anything in order to avoid having America return to being a representative republic rather than a banana republic.

Democrats extoll judicial tyranny

Check out my article on American Thinker about how the Democrats are openly embracing tyrannical judges.

Democrats tacitly admit they're tyrants

It's very clear that Democrats, the politicians not all the people who vote for them, hate democracy.  Democrats don't believe that power is from the people; rather Democrats believe that the elites, which in the minds of Democrats is made up of solely Democrats, should rule the rest of us.

We can see this in the Democrats refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election.

We can see it in the Democrats enthusiasm for the administrative state where unelected, unaccountable, unfireable bureaucrats can create thousands of pages of rules and regulations which average Americans have to follow.

But we see it most clearly in the panic that Democrats are experiencing over the idea that Trump will be nominating someone to the Supreme Court who will decide cases based on what the law says rather than what they think the law should say.

The New York Times editors wrote the following:

This call to arms may sound overly dramatic. It’s not. As hyperpartisanship, gridlock and a general abdication of responsibility have rendered Congress increasingly dysfunctional, the judiciary is taking an ever-greater hand in policy areas ranging from immigration to guns to ballot access to worker rights.

Trump derangement has finally caused Democrats to admit that they favor a tyranny in which 5 rich, mostly white, mostly male, lawyers define policy for the people.

Netflix is streaming child porn

A movie on Netflix shows a very young girl, under 10 years old, masturbating.

The director of the movie admits that that is what is being shown but he argues that it's ok because the little girl didn't know what she was doing.

The reality is that the movie contains child porn and that there is absolutely no justification for the scene in the movie and there is no reason for Netflix to keep the movie available.

As of now Netflix has apparently not commented on the matter.

It's time to end your Netflix subscription.

Wide field view centered on NGC6164

Leftists hate women and minorities

You're probably saying whaaaat?  We all "know" that leftists are big fans of women and minorities.

Well that's sort of true; so long as women and minorities mind their place leftists are uber fond of them, or at least of their votes.

However if a woman says that being a mother is better than being a sex object all of a sudden the leftists attack her and declare her to not really be a woman.  None of that "special place in Hell" for women who don't help women if the woman not being helped doesn't want to kill her unborn child.

Similarly if you see what leftists say about Blacks who don't toe the leftist line on all issues-- think people like Candice Owens, Justice Thomas, and Ben Carson-- you would not be in the least bit surprised that it was Democrats who founded the KKK.

The reality is that the only thing leftists are fans of is getting leftists the power to control our lives down to whether or not we can use plastic bags and plastic straws and how much soda we can drink.

If you toe that leftist line you can get away with pretty much anything; just ask Bill Clinton.

True being good fascists leftists have no loyalty so if a line toeing leftist, like a famous producer, is more valuable sacrificed as a pawn to attack Trump then he will be sacrificed.

But by and large leftists will tolerate pretty much anything so long as the person in question is working to ensure the leftists have the power to control America.

Anyone who crosses the leftists is going to be libeled, slandered, and treated horribly. They're going to prevent that person from using restaurants or putting gas in their car. They don't care if the offender is a woman or a minority because the left cares nothing for those groups other than as tools they can use to further their own agenda.

If a conservative talked to Blacks the way leftist politicians and media personalities talk to Justice Thomas or Candice Owens the media would be crying racism till the end of time.  But the reality is that the left doesn't care about racism other than as a tool to further their own agenda.

If leftists really loved women they wouldn't be supporting the rapists in MS-13 or in support of a woman's right to keep her man happy by killing their baby that he doesn't want.

If leftists really loved Blacks they wouldn't be doing nothing in the leftists run cities where thousands of Blacks are shot each year.  It's a certainty that if 3000+ whites were shot each year in Chicago the leftists who run the place would be doing far more than they are now.

If leftists really loved Asians they wouldn't be supporting colleges discriminating against Asian students.

If leftists really loved Hispanics they'd be working with Trump to fix immigration rather than doing nothing so that they have an election issue.

Bottom Line:  The new leftists are the same as the old Democrats; racist fascists.

How illegals vote without voting

Democrats are furious that the next census is going to ask people about their immigration status.

What many people don't realize is that currently the US uses the entire population, including illegals, to define the Congressional map. Hence in places with lots of illegals like California the votes of citizens are amplified by the number of illegals in the area.

If a Congressional district has say 100 voters and no illegals it takes 51 voters to elect someone from that district.  However is a district has 100 voters and 20 of them are illegals then only 41 voters are needed to elect someone to Congress. Which means that the votes of people in that second district are worth 5/4 more than the votes of the voters in the first district.

For example if the US used only legal residents as the basis for allocating seats in the House California would lose 6 seats.

This is similar to another Democrat innovation where slaves were counted as partially human when determining congressional representation.

Happy 4th of July!

God has blessed us by letting us live in the most amazing country on Earth.  We should constantly thank Him for our blessings.

While America isn't perfect Americans are constantly striving to improve.  We've gone from legalized slavery to a society that had no problem electing a Black President for example.

Americans are generally very good people and we need to stand up to the leftist lies which deny that.

This is the closest I have to fireworks photos:

Why Leftists mourn the 4th of July

If you think about it the Fourth of July should be a day of mourning for leftists.

America is and always has been racist, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, and xenophobic in the eyes of  leftists.

Leftists are much more enthused about the socialistic, open borders, gay friendly, England than they are about the US.

After all our country was founded on the principle that power resides in the people but leftists believe that power resides in the elites and in the judges.

Everyone in America back then was cis-gendered. Leftists say that knowing your gender is crazy talk.

It was an evil patriarchy where men committed to their wives and supported their children. But leftists want a sexually promiscuous society where people are objectified and love is just another word for sex.

Early Americans  believed in freedom of speech, including hate speech which leftist condemn.

Early Americans condemned abortion because they foolishly thought that babies are human.

Early Americans believe in self reliance and that individuals in need should be helped by society not by the government. Whereas leftists want to make as many people dependent on the government

Early Americans believed in a small central government that intruded on few aspects of day to day life. Leftists want government to control every aspect of our lives down to how much soda we drink.

Early Americans didn't think that unelected bureaucrats should be able to issue thousands and thousands of pages of regulations that citizens were obliged to follow. Leftists believe that the government is the source of all knowledge about how we are to live.

Early Americans believed in God and believed that He had a significant place in our government; just not any one specific Christian denomination. Leftists who don't hate God believe that He should be kept in the closet.

Early Americans believed in property rights and the right of workers to keep their wages. Whereas Leftists believe that is yours is theirs.

When early Americans were charitable it was with their own money and time; they didn't pass laws forcing others to give their money and time.

Early Americans believed that the Constitution was a legal document not some living thing and that laws were to be passed by the Congress not the Supreme Court.

Early Americans believed that everyone should have the right to have as many weapons as they wanted but leftists think we should all be disarmed.

Early Americans thought that the First Amendment protected all political speech but they didn't think it protected pornography. Whereas leftists believe that the 1st Amendment protects pornography but not political speech.

Early Americans thought that people should have the right to exercise their religion while leftists say we only have the right to worship.

Early Americans didn't believe that average folk should be heavily taxed to support a massive government that does little for them whereas leftists think that we have no money and that it's charitable of the them to let us keep some of what we earn.

All in all there's pretty much nothing about the America founded on the Constitution that leftists like.

No wait there is one thing. Slavery was legal in parts of early America. And that depended on believing that human rights come from the government and that some human beings, blacks in this case, aren't persons with rights.  That's the exact same reasoning that leftists use to justify abortion.

The Democrats new view on Dogmatic Supreme Court Decisions

Since the 1940s the Supreme Court has been overturning the traditional understanding of the Constitution through a series of rulings that broke with what everyone who lived from the time the Constitution was written until the recent past believed the Constitution said.

From legalizing pornography, declaring abortion to be a Constitutional right, redefining marriage, and declaring fees to be taxes the Court empowered by the leftists concept of the "living" Constitution felt absolutely no need to be consistent with previous court rulings.

But now that leftists fear they may lose their majority on the court they're suddenly demanding that new Justices view all previous court rulings, well at least the ones they like, as written in stone and handed down by God Himself.  Well actually not the later because leftists in general don't care much for God and feel free to "fix" some of the things He taught which are no longer in style.

Roe v. Wade overturned the laws of all 50 states and broke with more than 100 years of judicial precedent but we were told that that was fine.  However if the Supreme Court were to restrict or overturn Roe v. Wade leftists are saying that it would be tyranny.

The reality is that leftists have never been able to impose their agenda on America through the actions of Congress and have had to depend on 5 rich mostly white mostly male lawyers to force American's into the leftists Gulag 2.0.

As such they face the huge problem that if suddenly 5 judges believe that the role of the Court is to interpret law not to make it the entire leftist agenda could come crumbling down.

If leftists had been able to convince the people that their agenda was good they wouldn't be facing this problem.  But since leftism is about fascist power not about the people having power it's natural that leftists gravitated to the most tyrannical option possible.

So now they're adopting the old Communist policy "What is mine is mine, what is yours is open to negotiation."

Rulings that leftists like can't ever be overturned; apparently with respect to those rulings the "living" Constitution has died.  But rulings they don't like, such as Citizens United, can and must be overturned.

Interestingly the leftist approach leaves us with a zombie Constitution, living and dead at the same time.

Let your friends know that the reality is that just as the activist dishonest judges of the last 50 years could overturn the decisions of their predecessors so too can new judges overturn the decisions of those activist judges and return us to a country where the rule of law, and not the tyrannical whims of 5 unelected rich lawyers, is in charge.

There are no conservative judges

see my article on American Thinker
click here

It's the Left that has been "Weaponizing" the 1st Amendment

Leftists have finally admitted that they don't believe in free speech and that they object to the First Amendment.

When a Supreme Court justice says that not compelling people to support speech they don't support is  "weaponizing" the First Amendment we know that they're really saying what we've known all along to be true; Leftists don't believe in free speech for all only free speech for leftists.

The First Amendment is great in the minds of leftists when it allows the NYT to lie about Sarah Palin or ensuring that pornography is freely available.  But they believe that any speech that they don't support, such as pro-life voices, aren't protected.

Effectively since the 1960's it has been leftists who've "weaponized" the First Amendment by extending it to things it was never intended to cover such as pornography, slander, and libel.

Simultaneously they've worked hard to remove the rights of anyone who disagrees with them. For example the same leftists who said that it was a First Amendment right to protest in front of military recruitment centers said there was no right for pro-lifers to protest in front of abortion mills.

But now that the Supreme Court has actually started to uphold the First Amendment as it was intended by the Framers leftists are openly calling for the end to free speech for anyone they disagree with.

We need to unite to block this vicious attack on freedom in America. If leftists win and they and only they can express their beliefs we will be living in a fascist tyranny.