It's official; the left is insane

The Huffington Post posted a video in which it describes how leftists are discovering that the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is evil.

Anyone who sees that movie as anything other than a great story of how we should accept people's differences so long as those differences aren't evil will see hatred and badness everywhere.

But that's the modern left.  The only place they don't see hate is when they call for the destruction of Israel or when they ignore the mass shootings of Blacks in Chicago.

The caravan is mostly men who want better jobs

An article on Breitbart quoted an MSNBC reporter who said:

“From what we’ve seen, the majority are actually men, and some of these men have not articulated that need for asylum, instead, they have talked about, you know, going to the United States for a better life and to find work,”

This makes sense in that the people in the caravan have been offered asylum in Mexico but have rejected it.

It's perfectly fine that these young men want to come to America for better jobs. The problem is that America can't make room for everyone and there are 1,300,000 honest Mexicans and hundreds of thousands of honest residents of other central American countries patiently waiting in line to legally enter the US.

Why should we let rock throwing people who are perfectly comfortable breaking our law to enter our country illegally jump the line over the honest people who are waiting to enter legally?

Obama spent 8 years blaming Bush and will now spend 8 years taking credit for Trump

For his entire presidency Obama blamed all problems on his predecessor.

Now apparently he's going to spend four, hopefully eight, years taking credit for all the things Trump has done.

First Obama said that the great economy was due to him.  Of course that flies in the face of the fact that not only did Obama himself say that we weren't going to get back to 4% growth but that the economic boom occurred after Trump was elected.

Now Obama is claiming that the American oil boom is due to him.  That too is highly problematic given that Obama highly restricted oil drilling on Federal land and generally worked to destroy the whole fossil fuel industry.  Now he did allow Americans to export oil but that was offset by his opposition to fracking.

He will get away with this, as he got away with blaming Bush, because the #FakeNews media will repeat his lies as Gospel.

Leftist Anti-Semitism: CNN edition

CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill said that there should be a "free Palestine from the river to the sea" which is the current code for the destruction of the state of Israel since if one removed all of Israel that lies between the river and the sea there would be little left.

He also supported Palestinian terrorism.

This is nothing new for the left wing Hill; last year he said that it was "offensive" for Trump to call on Palestinians to "reject hatred and terrorism".

As an interesting aside if you do a search on "Marc Lamont Hill" and "Israel" the articles on the first page of the Google results are almost all from conservative sites and there are no hits for either the Washington Post or the New York Times.  Apparently when a Black leftist calls for genocide against Jews it's not newsworthy in the eyes of the #FakeNews media.

Hill is defending his comments by saying that there is a need for a democratic state in the area if the Palestinians are to be free. But the state of Israel is democratic and Palestinians in that state are allowed to vote and some are even elected politicians in Israel.

Mueller proves that Trump didn't collude with Russia

The "Big Story" of the day is that Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen admitted to lying to the Senate--odd how all the Democrats who have done that aren't being investigated--by saying that the Trump Russia hotel deal conversations ended in January 2016 even though they really ended in June 2016.

Cohen also said he lied about not talking to Trump about the idea of a trip to Moscow by Cohen but that he didn't actually ever go to Moscow.

While the #FakeNews media will probably pounce on this the reality is that it shows that it's very unlikely that Trump was colluding with Russia.  After all by June 2016 we knew that Trump was going to be the nominee so that he'd be worth the Russians bribing whereas in January 2016 that wasn't the case.

So if the Russians were trying to bribe Trump why would they let a deal which would have made Trump a lot of money fall through?  The obvious answer is that they wouldn't.  Yet they did.

Further the fact that Trump continued to look at a purely American capitalist deal, building a hotel in Russia to make money, is hardly evil. Democrats, who hate people who make rather than take money, think that Trump's desire to make a buck is monstrous but lacking any quid pro quo from Russia--and Mueller hasn't found one--making money is not illegal.

Ask yourself this do you think if Trump had been looking into building a hotel in the Soviet Union during the Cold War would the pro-Soviet Democrats have been bothered?  Remember back then the left was telling us that Gorbachev--the Soviet dictator-- was great and Reagan was the cause of the Cold War.

Also if back in 2016 Trump was contemplating building a hotel in Beijing would Democrats be upset?  Probably not even though the Chinese dictatorship has embarked on an imperialistic plan which includes the colonization of the entire South China Sea.

Finally is there any evidence that Trump has done anything at all to help the Russians since he was elected?

The answer is no as we can see by the following things that Trump has done as President:

1) Trump has called for better relations with Russia starting with Russia behaving better.
2) Trump has demanded that NATO countries increase their defense spending to better deal with Russia
3) Trump has increased US defense spending for, among other reasons, ensuring that we can better deal with Russia
4) The US has repeatedly condemned Russian actions in Syria and the Ukraine
5) Trump ordered an attack on Russia's Syrian ally in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons against civilians--something that Obama refused to do
6) Trump convinced Germany to drop an immensely lucrative deal with Russia in order to avoid further German dependence on Russia
7) Trump has increased sanctions against Russia

Remember how Obama and Hillary "reset" our relationship with Russia in spite of Russia's aggressive actions?  Democrats want you to forget that because if you don't it's unlikely you'll believe that Trump advocating better relations with second largest nuclear power in the world if and only if Russia starts behaving doesn't look bad at all.  In fact it's precisely what Americans want; play nice with nuclear powers so long as those powers aren't doing evil.

Now a smart Democrat might say that Trump has just double crossed the Russians--he colluded with them but now he's not keeping his part of the bargain-- but that's impossible.  If Trump did that the Russians, seeing the Mueller investigation, would have every reason to rat him out.  That they haven't even though Trump is going against Russian interests all the time shows that they don't have an hold over Trump.

What's really revealing is that there is a major Presidential candidate who has gone soft on the Russians and who has gotten a lot of money from Russia; Hillary Clinton.

It's Hillary who pushed for a "reset" in our relations with Russia where we forgot or forgave Russia's attack on Georgia among other crimes.  Yet it's also Hillary's husband who was paid $500,000 by a Russian entity for a short speech.  And it's Hillary who okayed a Russian company getting control over a large portion of American's uranium production shortly after Bill was paid.

The $500,000 is especially interesting given that the supposed Russian interference in our election is based on the Russians spending $6500 on Facebook ads.

Now Democrats say that Russia helped Trump by releasing the emails that showed that the DNC had broken DNC rules to work against Bernie Sanders.  The problem is that there is no evidence of that what so ever.  Even worse let's suppose it's true; the Democrats are condemning Russia for giving the American voters the truth about the corruption in the DNC i.e. the Democrats are condemning Russia for helping the American voters make an informed decision.

On the other hand we know for a fact that Hillary paid for supposed dirt on Trump from anonymous unverified Russian sources and that that "dirt" was used against Trump culminating in the issuance of a FISA warrant to spy on his campaign.

Yet the #FakeNews media is ignoring the proven collusion between Hillary and Russia while endlessly speculating about the possibility that Trump colluded with Russia.

Democrat politician calls for the killing of Republican's family

A Republican, Peter Breen,  in the Illinois state legislature was questioning whether or not the cost of a bill, which would allow higher maximum settlements in certain Illinois court of claims cases, was known.

In response Democrat Representative Stephanie Kifowit said:

“I would like to make him a broth of Legionella and pump it into the water system of his loved one, so that they can be infected, they can be mistreated, they can sit and suffer by getting aspirin instead of being properly treated and ultimately die."

Now she's trying to spin this as a hypothetical but the quote is pretty clear. 

While it's true that I seriously doubt that Kifowit would actually try and murder Breen's family the idea that a politician would declare that she wanted an opponent's family to die because the opponent had question a bill that she supported is pretty heinous.

Can you imagine if it had been the Republican who had said that about a Democrat?

So next time you hear about how it's Trump's rhetoric that is causing violence remind whomever's saying that that Trump has never wished a Democrat's family would die.

Democrats don't believe Republican women are women

Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith was elected to the Senate yesterday and she's the first woman to be elected to Congress from Mississippi.

Whenever a Democrat woman is the first at something the Democrats and the #FakeNews media can't  say enough about how wonderful and empowering Democrats are for women.

But if a Republican woman makes a first we hear nothing.

Or even worse compare how Democrats and the #FakeNews Media treated Sarah Palin compared to how they treat say Maxine Waters.

Just as Democrats viciously attack Blacks who aren't Democrats--people like Candice Owens, Ben Carson, and Allan Keyes-- they also attack without mercy any woman who dares wander of the Democrats ideological plantation.

Democrats channel their Civil War predecessors

America is built on the idea of universalism; all people no matter what their race, gender, or religion are equally valuable.

Prior to the Civil War Democrats who were defending slavery argued that that wasn't true; that the Founders intended that rights only belonged to white men.  This is eerily similar to the racial identity politics that Democrats are pushing today.

Recently a left wing academic, Jill Lepore, has had the courage to point it out. In an interview she said:

"Making political claims that are based on identity is what white supremacy is. To the degree that we can find that in the early decades of the country, it’s the position taken by, say, John C. Calhoun or Stephen Douglas arguing against Abraham Lincoln. The whole Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1858 comes down to Douglas saying, Our forefathers founded this country for white men and their posterity forever. And Lincoln, following on the writings of black abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and David Walker and Maria Stewart, says, No, that’s just not true! Lincoln read in the founding documents a universal claim of political equality and natural rights, the universality of the sovereignty of the people, not the particularity. Anyone who makes an identity-based claim for a political position has to reckon with the unfortunate fact that Stephen Douglas is their forebear, not Abraham Lincoln or Frederick Douglass."

It's one thing to argue that all people should be treated equally but it's quite another to follow the current left wing approach of demanding special preferential treatment of some people based solely on their race.

We could make an argument that any child forced to attend the failed inner city Chicago public schools should be subject to affirmative action on the basis that if a child who attends a Democrat run inner city school scores say 1300 on the SAT that's really on par with someone who attends a well run suburban school getting a 1500 on the SAT without being racist.

But we can't argue that only Black children, not white Ukzaninian immigrants, who attend those failing schools should get affirmative action without being racists.

Conservatives have always been advocating prosecuting specific discrimination and correcting problems that make it harder for anyone in the US to succeed while Democrats have concentrated on balkanizing the country by pitting different groups against each other often on the basis of race.

It's time to call out the Democrats for their racist policies.

Schumer agrees with Trump but doesn't realize it

Chuck Schumer leader of the Democrats in the Senate tweeted this:

“I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political on Citizens United, Janus, and Shelby. But I am thankful today that he — almost alone among Republicans — stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary.”

He was responding to Trump's statement that there are too many politically partisan judges in the judiciary.  Chief Justice Roberts had declared that in fact there were no dishonest politically biased judges--something that's obviously not true.

What Schumer didn't realize is that by declaring that Roberts was a partisan who decided cases based on politics he, Schumer, was agreeing with Trump and disagreeing with Roberts.

Effectively Schumer let it slip that he, and the other Democrats, know that there are politically biased judges but they're willing to lie about it so long as those judges impose Schumer's agenda on the people.

Every single bit of leftist social doctrine that the American people have been forced to follow--from abortion to redefining marriage--has been imposed on the people by dishonest partisan judges.

The Democrats therefore are very big fans of partisan judges especially since there are no activist judges pushing conservative positions.

But as is the case almost all the time Democrats like Schumer are more than willing to lie through their teeth to conceal the truth from the American people. They only get away with it because the #FakeNews media covers up for them.  There was no major coverage of Schumer's blunder for example.

Climate change debunked

There are two ways to see that Climate Change isn't a big problem using information provided by the people who are saying that it's an existential crisis.

The first way is that the warmists who say we're all going to die unless the US drastically reduces its CO2 emissions strongly endorse the Paris Accords. The problem is that the Paris Accords allow India and China to drastically increase their CO2 emissions.  If the warmists really believed that we're facing an existential crisis they couldn't be enthused about a treaty which ensures that a catastrophe will occur.

However the Paris Accords do ensure that the US will transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries which is the real motivation behind the warmist's fervor.

With the fall of the USSR and the discrediting of the Communist vision the left had to find another lie to justify their desire for unlimited government power and the transfer of wealth from people who earn it to leftists who want it.

They latched on to the green movement.  The left is using the #FakeNews media to lie to the people and convince them that unless the left is given money and power we're all going to die .

But if the threat were real then the left couldn't have been happy with a treaty that allowed dramatic increases in CO2 emissions.  It's obvious therefore that the left doesn't believe that there is a significant threat from mankind's CO2 emissions.

The second way to see that the left is lying about climate change is that if we look at the actual temperatures of the earth they've been flat for around 19 years.  But if the temperatures aren't going up how can the left blame global warming for all the the supposed environmental catastrophe's we've supposedly been enduring?

Clearly the left doesn't believe that CO2 emissions are causing problems when they know that the earth's temperature hasn't been going up.

But the fact that the left continues to lie shows that their real motivation isn't a fear of some sort of climate apocalypse.  Instead they're pitching the Big Lie about "climate change" in order to get power and money.

The third way to see that the left is lying about "climate change" is that they reject approaches that actually do reduce CO2 emissions. Nuclear power for example is ideal in the context of the "climate change" panic yet the left opposes it completely.  If we were facing the end of humanity because of CO2 emissions the left would be endorsing all forms of power that would reduce CO2 emissions.  But they're not.

Also note that the use of natural gas rather than coal can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, which is why the US--unlike the European countries the left always tell us are leading the way--is the world leader in reducing CO2 emissions.

Yet not only does the left attack Trump despite his success at reducing CO2 emissions they oppose fracking and mining for natural gas in general.  Once again if the left actually believed we are facing a crisis they'd be supporting whatever we can do to reduce CO2 emissions.

But the reality is that the left only supports things that increase government power or redistribute American wealth to the left.

Democrats: The party of violence

While Democrat politicians and the #FakeNews media(FNM) are constantly trying to portray Republicans rhetoric as causing violence the reality is that since it's founding by a racist slave owning indigenous people oppressing President Jackson the Democrat party has been the party of violence.

Democrats fought a war to keep slavery legal.

Democrats founded the KKK to use violence to keep Blacks "in their place" and they condoned all sorts of violence against Blacks in the South.

Democrats supported the violent anti-war movement during the 1960s and 70s and to this day they're big fans of Obama's mentor Bill Ayers who is an unrepentant violent terrorist.

Democrats have supported or not condemned the violence of Antifa.

Democrats were mostly silent when a mob threatened Tucker Carlson's family.

A Democrat, Eric Swalwell, has stated that if the people were to rise up against an unjust government the government could use nuclear weapons against them; can you imagine if a Republican had said that how the FNM would react?

Democrats are disparaging the significance of the caravan "migrants" throwing rocks, and hitting, US Border Patrol agents, many of whom are Hispanic.

In spite of the clear historical record of Democrats using and supporting violence the FNM is working hard to convince the people that it's Republicans who are violent.

For example when a Democrat nearly murdered multiple Republican Congressmen the FNM and Democrats made the story disappear after a few days.  But when they thought they could fool the American people into thinking that Republicans were responsible for the shooting of a Democrat Congresswoman they repeated the story forever including years after the event occured.

Similarly even though while Obama was President the Border Patrol used pepper spray and tear gas many times against people storming the border or even illegals inside the country the FNM is acting as though the recent use of those agents against rock throwing "migrants" is a horrible thing.

While prominent Democrats like Maxine Waters encourage mobs to drive Republicans out of gas stations and restaurants the FNM tells us that it's Trump whose responsible for violence.

For example the FNM tried to blame Trump for the recent attack on a Jewish Synagogue even though the attacker hates Trump and Trump has taken a far stronger stand for Israel than Obama ever did.

Because the Democrats have nearly complete control of the media and the uber liberal leftists who run social media are doing their best to silence conservative voices it's up to you to spread the truth by talking to your friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

Remember the Washington Post has declared that "Democracy dies in darkness" but what the WaPo hasn't said is that that is their mission statement.  The FNM is dedicated to keeping the people in the dark so that they will still vote for Democrats whose policies are designed to help Democrats at the expense of everyone else.

When Obama's Border Patrol used chemicals on illegals storming the border the Left didn't care

Back in November 2013 when as you might recall Obama was President a mob of 100 people tried to storm the border, at the same site as the recent attempt by the way, and because they hurled rocks and other objects at Border Patrol agents they were pepper sprayed and other, unspecified, non-lethal agents were used to protect the agents.

What's odd is that the #FakeNews Media(FNM) didn't get all upset about it. Even Democrats didn't come out and condemn Obama.

This is just one more example of how Democrats care about one and only one thing; what's best for Democrats.

While Democrats love illegals because they're either future or current Democrat voters they don't care about them enough to criticize one of their own, Obama, for spraying illegals with "chemical weapons".

While this recent incident shows that the FNM and the Democrats prioritize illegals over the US citizens, many of them Hispanic, in the Border Patrol the 2013 incident shows that Democrats prioritize themselves over illegals.

#FakeNews Media Big Lies: Trump foreign policy edition

Once Trump won the Republican nomination the #FakeNews Media(FNM) began declaring that he was mentally unfit to conduct foreign policy; that he'd get us embroiled in wars and start using nuclear weapons.

Yet as of now Trump has avoided getting us in wars, unlike both Obama and Bush, and the only one talking about the use of nuclear weapons is Democrat Swalwell from California--though admittedly he was advocating their use against Americans not foreigners so it's technically not a foreign policy position.

What's truly amazing is how the same FNM is attacking Trump for trying to avoid conflicts.

Take Russia for example. Trump has been far harsher on Russia than Obama, remember the infamous "reset"?, providing weapons to Ukraine--something Obama wouldn't do-- and getting Merkel to avoid making Germany even more dependent on Russia while getting NATO to increase their defense spending--something the Russians really hate.  But Trump has also been holding out an olive branch to Putin et al to try and avoid a repeat of the Cold War and in recognition of the fact that the Russians have enough nuclear weapons to seriously damage if not destroy America.

Yet Trump's balanced diplomacy is condemned by the same people who applauded when Obama said that Russia wasn't a threat to the US anymore.

Similarly Trump has made more progress with North Korea--return of US war dead, dramatically improved relations between North and South Korea, first steps towards denuclearization-- than Clinton, Bush, or Obama and he's done so without giving NK huge bribes--remember Clinton gave them a nuclear reactor.

Finally when Syria used chemical weapons against civilians Trump made them pay without ensnaring the US in a major conflict unlike Obama who made a threat and then destroyed US credibility by not following through.

Any unbiased observer would conclude that Trump's foreign policy has been measured and responsible even if they didn't agree with all of his choices.  There has been nothing like the cowboy foreign policy we saw under Obama when we overthrew the government of Libya and then left the country to turn into a terrorist breeding ground.

Yet the FNM continues to spread the Big Lie that Trump is mentally unstable and unfit to conduct foreign policy.

More proof that Democrats love illegals more than citizens

Well the new voice of the Democrat party, rich kid Ocasio-Cortez, has informed us that illegals who want to invade America to get better jobs are just like the millions of Jews that the Nazi's murdered.

She tweeted:

“Asking to be considered a refugee & applying for status isn’t a crime. It wasn’t for Jewish families fleeing Germany. It wasn’t for targeted families fleeing Rwanda. It wasn’t for communities fleeing war-torn Syria. And it isn’t for those fleeing violence in Central America,” 

Even if the "migrants" are fleeing crime in their home countries, crime which isn't worse than what American Blacks face in Democrat run Chicago, that's not even remotely like what the Jews faced in Nazi Germany or even what people faced in Rwanda and Syria.

Apparently either Ms. Ocasio-Cortez doesn't understand what the word genocide means or she's willing to tell any lie to get more future Democrat voters and welfare recipients into our country.

Also Ms Ocasio-Cortez is apparently completely unfamiliar with what she's discussing.  If a "migrant" files for asylum at any of the many locations in Mexico or at any US Border crossing they are not considered to have committed any crime. Only if the "migrant" becomes an illegal by crossing the border without permission is there a crime and even then the illegal can apply for asylum.  Neither Trump nor anyone else has ever said or done anything to indicate that they want to make it a crime to apply for asylum.  

Quick aside given that Cortez is a famous name in European colonialism and the oppression of indigenous peoples how long do you think before this shining star of Democrat socialism unhyphenated her last name?

We know that the "migrants" aren't fleeing crime in their home country because they refused Mexico's offer to settle in Mexico.  What those "migrants" want is American welfare and American jobs.

There's nothing wrong with that but given that there are 1,300,000 honest Mexicans, and hundreds of thousands of honest residents of other Central Americans patiently waiting to legally enter the US, and not throwing rocks at US Border Patrol agents, it's unclear why the dishonest "migrants" who are trying to storm the US border should get to jump to the front of the line.

Democrat Senator Schatz initially tweeted then deleted the following

"Why tear gas? Is this consistent with the Conventions on Chemical Weapons?"

in reference to the Border Patrol's use of tear gas to stop the "migrants" from throwing rocks at them.

Apparently while Senator Schatz has not raised the question of the use of tear gas against American citizens being a potential breach of the Convention on Chemical Weapons he's deeply concerned that rock throwing would be illegals might get all teary eyed.

Even after he corrected that idiocy he still was all hurt over the idea that just because the illegal wanna be's were throwing rocks at US citizens they were subject to actions that sought to protect Americans.

Clearly Senator Schatz is more concerned about getting more illegals in the US to do his lawn cheaply and to displace American Blacks from jobs than he is about the safety of US citizens.

Both Cortez and Schatz demonstrate the reality that what matters to Democrats is not whether or not you're an American citizen but whether or not you will help the Democrats get power.

Foreigners who will help the Democrats are protected by Democrats and Americans who don't support Democrats are cast to the wolves by Democrats.  It's really that simple.

#FakeNews Media Big Lie: Mass shootings edition

The #FakeNews media and the Democrats are constantly lying when  they say that America has the world's worst mass shooting record.  In fact research shows that America is 64th in the world in terms of mass shootings per capita.

America is not only much better off than various third world hell holes but it is at least 25% safer than 1st world countries like Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland, and Russia.

Note that the draconian gun control laws in countries like France haven't kept the mass shooting rate per capita below that of America where guns are prevalent.

Just as gun control laws have been shown to not work at reducing crime in the US they have been shown to fail in other countries as well. Yet the Democrats want us to be disarmed and even threaten to use nuclear weapons against us if we were to use our weapons against an oppressive government.  It's clear the motivation of the Democrats is not reducing mass shootings but reducing the ability of the people to defend themselves thereby making them more dependent on the government and unable to defend themselves against tyranny.

Also interesting is that the world rate of mass shootings has grown 291% faster than the rate in the US.  Hence it's not that the US is experiencing an unprecedented growth in mass shootings which should cause us to reconsider the 2nd Amendment.

But the #FakeNews media has to lie in order to support the Democrats call for gun control and gun free zones. The recent shooting at a hospital in Chicago occurred in a gun free zone. Does any sane person actually believe that declaring a location "gun free" is going to stop some lunatic bent on mass murder from bringing a gun to that location?

While the #FakeNews media tried to portray the shooter as a racist by quoting him saying

“Whites don’t kill whites.”

The full quote was:

"The killer said: “Don’t shoot me. I won’t shoot you. Whites don’t shoot whites.” The other white person was pointing a permitted concealed handgun at the killer."

That is the shooter was telling the gun caring honest citizen to not shoot the killer. That completely changes the context of the #FakeNews media quote while concealing the fact that it was an armed citizen was the one who stood in the way of the killers plans.

The reality is that an armed citizenry is better able to end mass shootings than a disarmed one.  While the police are heroic they simply take too long to get to most shootings because the density of police is low.

Democrat racism: Washington Post edition

In a recent article in the Washington Post the rich white Democrats who run the WaPo tell us that it's bad that some Black men voted for the white candidate for governor of Georgia.

"But another group of voters also raised eyebrows for how they voted in the race, in which Abrams fell about 17,000 votes short of forcing a runoff with Kemp.

Black men voted for Kemp at a higher rate than black women, according to exit polling, a data point that drew gasps and rebuke on social media and news commentary."

Imagine for a moment how the left would respond if an article condemned some white men for voting for a Black candidate like Obama.

The article quotes Ted Johnson, a Black man, who says:

“To be a racial conservative means you’re okay with Jim Crow,” he added. “There’s only one party that you can support and be progressive on race, and that’s the Democratic Party.”

What is more racist than saying that any Black who doesn't vote Democrat is a self hating racist who is ok with Jim Crow laws?  What's really amazing is that it was Democrats who passed all the Jim Crow laws and Republicans who eradicated them.

This article is clear proof of how racist Democrats are. Any Black who dares stray from the positions their white "masters" in the Democrat party endorse are declared to be evil.  And as back in the old days Democrats enlist Blacks like Ted Johnson to condemn Blacks who don't toe the Democrat line.

Interestingly the article also condemns white women who didn't vote for the Black female candidate for governor not because her policies were better but because they didn't vote for her because they were racists who don't care about the interests of Black women.

"White female voters in Georgia showed little interest in helping black women fulfill their dream of electing Stacey Abrams as governor, which would have made her the first African American woman to head a state in the nation’s history."

Once again imagine how the left would react, and rightly so, if some conservative source condemned white women for not voting for a white candidate.

It's also important to note that Democrats have no problem favoring white candidates over Blacks if the Black isn't subservient to the white Democrat party line.

In Utah Black Republican Mia Love lost to white male McAdams and there has been no wailing or gnashing of teeth by leftists. Even though Love was ahead on election day and only after days of counting ballots McAdams, like many other Democrat candidates who lost on election day, managed to win.  Apparently voter fraud against Blacks is ok so long as the Black is not a Democrat.

Similarly in Michigan where a Black Republican man lost to a white female Democrat there was no complaint by the WaPo about Blacks in Michigan not voting for a Black candidate.

Democrats like to say that the two parties switched their positions on race in the 1960's but that's an obvious lie since today thousands of Blacks are shot each year in Democrat run Chicago and Democrats do nothing to stop the slaughter.

Climate change as cover for failed Democrat policies

The wacko environmentalist Democrats have dramatically reduced controlled burns in State and Federal forests which has directly led to the increase in major fires in California according to Cal Fire.

But by blaming "climate change" the Democrats, and their stooges in the media, can keep the public in the dark about the massive failure of Democrat policies.

From the every informative wattsupwiththat.com website this plot shows how US temperatures have been flat so that it's impossible for "climate change" to have impacted California fires.

Recent US temperatures, most recent (October 2018) temperature, and dates of the US National Climate Assessments

All of the supposedly dire consequences of "climate change" are based on the temperatures rising hence if they're staying constant, on average,--which even the warmists admit to when they discuss the pause-- there can be no "climate change" consequences.

China implements the Left's dream system

By 2021 China plans to have in place a system whereby every citizen is monitored by the state and if they do things that the state doesn't like they will suffer real consequences.

Each person will be assigned a score based on their actions including things like complaining about government corruption.  If the score is low there will be real consequences.

Already millions of Chinese have been denied the right to take a plane flight because their Social Score is too low.  In the future the punishments for not conforming to the will of the government will include, but not be limited to, slowing down people's internet speed, denying people the ability to own pets, reducing people's access to good schools for children, banning people from certain jobs, and preventing people from staying at certain hotels.

The victims of this horrible fascist system aren't criminals or the like rather they're people like journalist Liu Hu who exposes government corruption.

This is what the left would love to see in America today which is why you don't hear them sounding the alarm and why the left still will side with China over Trump.

Already we've seen cases of students and teachers being thrown out of schools for expressing conservative non-racist, non-violent positions so we know that the intolerance of the left for dissent is real and that they have no compunction about using any and all tools of oppression to silence those who disagree with them.

Hollywood Hedonism Lies: "Transgendered" edition.

If your best friend comes to you and tells you that he's the Emperor Napoleon everyone, even Democrats, agree that pretending he is the ruler of France is not what's best for him.

On the other hand if your best male friend comes to you and tells you that he's really a woman Hollywood tells us that he is in fact a woman and it's a bad thing if we don't support him.

Yet it's more likely that your friend could conquer France and rename himself Napoleon than it is the the can change his DNA and become a woman.

If someone you know suffers from confusion about their sex the loving response it to help them realize that they're wonderful just as they are and that they don't need to risk their health by taking strong drugs and having plastic surgery to become good.

Note how amazingly misogynistic it is to declare that a man can become a woman as though being a woman is nothing more than a mental attitude.  Even more bizarre is how Hollywood can declare that a man, who hasn't even had surgery yet, can be woman of the year or how the statement "not all women have vaginas" can be taken seriously.  What is more degrading to women than declaring that a man can be a better woman than all the real women in America?

Taking a stand against the Hollywood fantasy about the "transgendered" can save lives.

The average American has 4.6% chance of attempting suicide while the "transgendered" have a 41% chance of attempting suicide according to a transgendered friendly study.  Interestingly gays/bisexuals have a rate of 10-20% which would indicate problems with the Hollywood view of the wonderfulness of the gay lifestyle but that's grist for another post.

The high suicide rate is to be expected when one realizes that people who think they're the wrong sex clearly have some sort of serious mental problem as well as issues in their lives that need addressing.
Given that hacking themselves with drugs and plastic surgery to resemble something they're not doesn't actually address those underlying issues it's hardly surprising that after having endured all that  and then discovering that what was bothering them hasn't been fixed or gone away they will be more likely to try and kill themselves.

That Hollywood doesn't care about that is just another example of how Hollywood uses people who are damaged to advance its hedonistic agenda. If Hollywood wanted to push casual sex and the objectification of people they could do so without encouraging people who suffer from confusion about their sex to do things that will hurt themselves.  Yet that's not what Hollywood does.

By portraying the "transgendered" as being sane Hollywood encourages us to hurt the "transgendered" by enabling their delusions in order to further the Hollywood fantasy that we can make of ourselves whatever we want to be simply by wishing it to be so.

Because Hollywood by and large rejects God it's natural that they have begun to assume that they can transform themselves into whatever they want overcoming biological reality by sheer force of will.  But in a fight between human will and reality reality always wins with generally seriously adverse consequences for the human.

We need to love those who are confused about their sex and help them see that they are wonderful as they are. We need to find out what the root cause of their delusion is and address it so that they can avoid the problems associated with pretending to be something they're not.

When you love someone you don't enable whatever they want, that's why we constantly tell those we love who smoke to stop, but rather you help them find truth and clarity when they're confused about just who they really are.

The OK form of corruption; when Hillary does it

The left has no real problem with corruption; in fact they welcome it.  Harry Reid made a lot of money for example while being a public "servant" with a relatively low salary but the left didn't care.

But the case of Hillary Clinton is even more interesting.  Prior to losing the 2016 election the Clinton foundation took in $337,985,726 in a year but after she lost the election, and had no influence to sell, the foundation took in only $56,823,465.

It's hard to understand why that would happen if the contributors to her "charity" were motivated solely by love for their fellow human being because what her "charity" was doing didn't change one bit.

Given that even the Deep State couldn't ignore the obvious problems, the DOJ, FBI, and IRS are all investigating her "charity", it tells us a lot that this is not a regular story being covered by the #FakeNews media.

This is an example of why Trump is right to say that the #FakeNews media is the enemy of the people. By lying to the people by omission, not mentioning scandals involving left wing candidates, those leftist reporters are deliberately trying to fool the American people.

If reporters are trying to fool the people then they are the enemy of the people.

The New York thought police; forcing you to choose between the your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights

In New York Democrats looking to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights if they exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

A new bill says that the police can evaluate whether or not a person can have a gun based on "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation".

Notice nothing in that list is criminal.  A member of the Nation of Islam saying that whites are inferior is doing nothing illegal yet if this new law passes in New York he could be denied his 2nd Amendment rights.

Who are we kidding right? Since according to the left minorities can't be racists while the Nation of Islam member will be able to get a gun leftists in the police will be able to deny a gun to someone who said something the left has declared to be racist, like inner city Blacks should be allowed school choice, while groups favored by the left will be able to advocate violence without consequences.

And just who is going to define what "biased" language is?  Clearly people on the left would consider anything a conservative says as biased while people on the right would think the same of leftists. The difference is that a conservative sherif wouldn't be dishonest and act as though just because leftists are biased they're all likely to be violent whereas a leftist police officer would feel comfortable assuming all conservatives are likely to be violent.

What the left is doing is simple; they can't get the votes to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and it would be too much work for them anyway, so they're trying to make it effectively impossible to prevent people from owning guns.

This law is even more insidious though because it would allow leftists and minorities to protect themselves but not conservatives and/or white people.

This is in line with leftist thinking where every left wing mass murdering nut is representative of all conservatives but when a left wing Black political commentator shoots a white teenager who was trespassing with an unregistered gun the left sees only goodness.

Have no doubt the left is on a crusade to take away our guns because the left wants us helpless in the face of government oppression because the left plans to use the government to oppress us by ignoring the Constitution.

What Justice Roberts gets wrong

Chief Justice Roberts has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the reality of the American judiciary.

In response to comments by Trump about the 9th circuit court Roberts said:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

“That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

 In a world in which Justice Ginsburg came out and attacked Trump before the election and where Federal judges have ruled that if Hillary had issued the exact same executive order that Trump did it would be legal but because Trump wrote it it isn't legal to act as though all judges are not biased is insane.

It behooves us to note how Roberts has borrowed the Democrat tactic of dishonestly overgeneralizing Trump's comments.

When Trump said that some illegals are criminals the #FakeNews media said that Trump said that all illegals are criminals.

When Trump said that people from some countries should be temporarily banned from entering the US because those countries couldn't be trusted to verify the identity of people the #FakeNews media said that Trump was banning all Muslims from entering the US even though the ban applied to everyone from those countries no matter what their faith and it didn't apply to 84% of the worlds Muslims.

Similarly Trump only attacked the 9th circuit not every Federal judge but Roberts response implies that Trump was attacking all judges.  Either that or Roberts is claiming that there are no dishonest judges at all which is clearly absurd.

While it may be true that most judges are honest the reality is that judges Obama and Clinton appointed tend to be dishonest adherents of the "living Constitution" theory which says that judges can "update" the Constitution without following the prescribed process.  That's how courts have enforced the Democrat agenda that couldn't be passed through the legislature.

There is no right to privacy, much less abortion, in the Constitution. That was made up by dishonest judges who were not in fact "doing their level best to do equal right". Rather they were using their position to impose on the country their own personal beliefs bypassing the Constitutionally defined process.

In one sense Roberts is right in that there are not Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton judges. There are just honest judges--ones who only interpret the law--and dishonest judges--those who think they can make laws.

No matter who appoints a judge if that judge believes that they have the right, and the responsibility, to create laws that the people's representatives won't vote for they are tyrants and traitors.

While Republicans and conservatives want an independent judiciary the Democrats do not.  The whole fight over Kavanaugh was about the Democrats losing their power to make up laws through judicial fiat.

Honest judges have never imposed on the country rules that conservatives couldn't get through Congress but dishonest judges, like the "notorious RBG", have imposed the left's vision on America time and time again.

One of the most egregious cases was the ruling that redefined marriage.  The Constitution explicitly says that all powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States.  The Constitution does not mention marriage.  Hence the Supreme Court has no authority to define marriage; note that this also means that if a State were to redefine marriage the Supreme Court would have no authority to overturn that law.

Yet the Supreme Court overthrew the votes of 51,000,000 Americans and imposed the radical left's definition of marriage on the entire country.

Interestingly the very fact that Roberts would rebuke the president is a political act.  If the judges are strictly neutral interpreters of the law as Roberts claims they shouldn't be going out attacking the President. It's the job of elected representatives to defend the judges not the job of "neutral" judges.

Further Justice Roberts didn't speak out against Obama when Obama attacked and threatened the Supreme Court on issues ranging from the Court's defense of the right of the people to contribute to political campaigns to Obamacare.

Hence it's hard to view these latest comments as not politically motivated.  If Obama can threaten and intimidate the Supreme Court about Obamacare without Justice Roberts making a comment it's unclear why Roberts should respond so forcefully against Trump's valid concerns about political bias on the 9th circuit court.

On the other hand given that Roberts is the man who declared that what Obamacare called fees are really taxes thereby allowing Obamacare to stand it's not insane for us to wonder just how unbiased he is.

What an honest judge should have done with Obamacare is declare that according to the Constitution the Congress can't mandate fees on Americans if Americans choose to not do something-- Roberts in fact said so-- so that for Obamacare to stand the law would have to be amended to change fees to taxes.  But Roberts knew that with a Republican Congress--elected by the people to get rid of Obamacare--an amended Obamacare would never pass.  So instead of requiring the Congress to make  Obamacare Constitutional Roberts did it for them thereby nullifying the Republican election victories and imposing on the people a law they'd clearly rejected.

The fact that Roberts doesn't have a problem with what he did is strong evidence that the judiciary is not neutral or fair but rather ordered towards enforcing a leftist agenda on the people.

That's why his attack on Trump is so bothersome and dangerous.  As he claims to be defending a "neutral" judiciary he is in fact defending a highly partisan judiciary.

What's there to be Thankful for?

First and foremost we should be thankful that God loves each and everyone of us and chose to create us despite the fact that by doing so He knew that He would have to die on the Cross for us.

Thanksgiving is all about thanking God because all good things in our lives are from Him.  The people we love and who love us, the material blessings, our freedoms, everything in our lives which we treasure is from Him.

We often forget that and while our ingratitude doesn't hurt God, who is always perfectly happy, it hurts us because it keeps us from the truth, that God is the central good in our lives, and that means we can't be free as God intends us to be for, as the motto of Cal Tech says, the truth shall set us free.

While there are undoubtedly those who will read this whose worldly life is not great today they can take solace in that God only allows their suffering to draw out greater good and He is always at our side ready to accompany us through this valley of tears.

Since this is a political blog it seems germane to enumerate some of our worldly blessings in the wake of the 2018 election so that we can cast off the doom and gloom and embrace God's love.

We should be thankful that Hillary isn't President and Trump is.

We should be thankful that we now have 5 honest judges on the Supreme Court.

We should be thankful that the Republican still control the Senate.

We should be thankful that at least some of the Democrat attempts at stealing elections were defeated.

We should be thankful that despite the best efforts of the Democrats we still have freedom of religion.

We should be thankful that despite the best efforts of the Democrats we still have free speech.

We should be thankful that despite the efforts of Democrats to keep Blacks locked in poverty many, like Ben Carson and Candice Owens, have managed to be all they can be.

We should be thankful that our tax rates have gone down.

We should be thankful that global warming isn't real and that we're not facing an apocalypse.

We should be thankful that despite Democrat environmental radicalism we've taken reasonable steps to secure the environment.

We should be thankful that despite the Democrats war on cheap energy the poor in America haven't been forced to pay insane amounts for energy; except in California where the Democrats have created highly regressive taxes on gasoline.

We should be thankful that despite decades of Democrat lies most Americans either oppose abortion entirely or only want it legal in a limited set circumstances

We should be thankful for all the babies that pro-life groups have rescued.

We should be thankful that Americans are so charitable; Catholics alone in America give $30,000,000,000 of their own money to charities each year.

We should be thankful that our nation has been spared any major terrorist attacks this year.

We should be thankful that the casualty count in the war on terror has been amazingly low.

We should be thankful that despite Democrat mockery of those in the military there are still many Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect our country.

We should be thankful for all the first responders--police, firefighters, etc--who put their lives on the line to protect and serve us every day.

We should be thankful that most Americans condemn the use of violence to silence speech they don't like.

We should be thankful that we are still free to defend ourselves when the police just can't get there in time.

We should be thankful that the economy is doing well and that so many people have jobs.

We should be thankful that despite Democrat lies the vast majority of Americans aren't racist.

We should be thankful that the likely Democrat voter fraud in this election has woken us up so we can combat it in the next election.

We should be thankful that the people are learning that they can't trust the #FakeNews media.

We should be thankful that despite the media's heated rhetoric and lies most Americans want to try and get along with each other.

We should be thankful that the vast majority of the poor in America are rather well off with 64% of them having either satellite or cable TV.

We should be thankful that people tend to vote Democrat not because they agree with what Democrats are selling but because they've been lied to; Democrats run as moderates and govern as fanatics.

We should be thankful that the Supreme Court usually overrules the insane politically motivated rulings of lower courts.

We should be thankful that we have a President who doesn't want to rule the same way that the Communist dictators rule China.

We should be thankful that Trump is taking action to end the job drain which allowed the unfair trade practices of other countries to steal American jobs.

We should be thankful that Trump has managed to start effective negotiations with North Korea without having to give them billions of dollars and a nuclear reactor.

We should be thankful that around the world people are waking up and rejecting the global tyranny of the unelected elites and demanding the right to define what laws they have to follow.

We should be thankful that we have enough to eat and a place to sleep and so we should give to charities that help those who don't have those.

We should be thankful that the Republican Senate will be able to continue appointing honest judges.

We should be thankful that Mueller didn't announce some fake indictments right before the election.

We should be thankful that the House managed to get out the truth about the Deep State and the Democrat lies in the last 2 years.

We should be thankful that elections are still mostly free.

The truth is that despite the evil that the Democrat politicians and the lying propagandists in the #FakeNews media are trying to force on the American people we're actually doing well compared to most of the world.

We need to recommit ourselves to prayer because the war we wage is not just against imprudent economic policies, like higher tax rates, but against the forces of evil, using drugs to turn little boys into little girls and the mass murder of the unborn,  and we can only hope to win with His help.

We should thank God today, and every day, for all the good that is in our lives and we should ask Him constantly to aid us so that we continue to be free and able to serve Him.

On a personal note I'd like to thank all of you who read my ramblings and which each and everyone of you a healthy, happy, holy Thanksgiving!

God Bless!

Hollywood Hedonism Lies: Shacking up edition.

Hollywood has been spreading #FakeNews about hedonism for ages.  Movies and TV constantly portray a casual sex lifestyle as being great and deride marriage as an oppressive institution.

One of the aspects of the Big Lie that Hollywood is foisting on America is that if a guy asks a woman to live with him that's a great thing that the woman should be happy about.

The problem is that living together is just a way for a man to get what he wants without having to actually commit to the woman.

Sex is a much riskier business for women not just because STDs can render them unable to ever have children but because they, unlike men, can get pregnant.  Even if they choose to eliminate their unborn daughter with extreme prejudice an abortion is a significant medical procedure with unpleasant side effects not to mention the psychological trauma that arises from a woman going against what 4,000,000,000 years of evolution have made her into.

From a purely evolutionary perspective it's clear that men who stand by pregnant women were better mates since a pregnant woman on her own was less likely to survive. Hence evolution, or God, has made women people who want a committed spouse.  On the other hand men can send their genes to the future by simply impregnating as many woman as possible and hoping that some of their children are born.

Hence there is tension between men's acceptance of casual sex because they invest little in sex and women's desire for committed relationships because they risk a much larger commitment due to pregnancies.

Historically marriage was seen as a great advance in women's rights because it meant that her spouse had committed to her for life, for better or for worse, and part of that would be standing by her if she became pregnant. That's why Christianity condemned divorce; women tend to be the losers if men can dump their wives when they stop looking good.

Yet couples who live together haven't made any commitment and many women have learned that shacking up doesn't provide them with security if they should happen to become pregnant.

Studies have shown that living together before marriage more than doubles the chances that the couple will eventually divorce which means that living together as a stepping stone to marriage is a bad idea, though of course in the Hollywood Big Lie that's never mentioned.

Basically the portrayal of shacking up as a great thing is advocating for men at the expense of women and that's true of almost all of the Big Lies about hedonism that Hollywood is peddling.

In real life women constantly bemoan men's unwillingness to commit but in movies and TV women are shown being ecstatic about a man agree to have sex with them but unwilling to actually commit to them.

The Hollywood Big Lie is shaped by men like Weinstein or the show runner on NCIS: New Orleans who project their lusts as being good for society.  You don't find many good faithful family men, or women, who have stuck with one spouse through thick and thin deciding what message Hollywood will be trying to sell the American people.

Some very smart person once said that evil can only be made to look good in fiction.  That's because in fiction the adverse side effects and the long term problems associated with evil can be ignored.  Hollywood is using that to lie to you about what life should be like; don't fall for it.

The Female Genital Mutilation ruling is not what you think

A Reagan appointed Federal judge threw out charges against against a Doctor who is accused of mutilating girls so that they couldn't enjoy sex when they were older.

There is a quite understandable outcry from people who condemn the barbarous practice, common in some cultures, of removing or damaging female genitalia, called Female Genital Mutilation(FGM).  The intent is to prevent women from enjoying sex and as such is clearly something evil.

However the judge's ruling wasn't that people have a right to mutilate young girls only that because the practice is small and isolated in the US the Federal government can't make it illegal.  The judge specifically stated that the states can make FGM illegal.  Unfortunately in this case the state of Michigan, where the horrible acts occurred, didn't pass an anti-FGM law until after the events of the current case occurred.

Hence the judge did not rule that adults have the right to mutilate little girls.

Not being a lawyer, and hence prone to logic and common sense, it seems to me that FGM is a clear cut example of child abuse and easily prosecutable as such so it's unclear to me why the fact that the Federal government can't declare it to be illegal is a issue at all.

Also the judges reasoning is a bit odd in that we have the Federal government regulating pretty much every aspect of our lives so why FGM should be exempt is unclear.

However anytime a judge puts a limit on Federal power we should be happy for the simple reason that America's problem is not a lack of government but an excess of it.

The two things you should remember as you think about this case are that the judge didn't say that one has a right to mutilate small girls and that any limitation on Federal power is good.

Going forward we need to ask why FGM isn't classified as child abuse?  After all purposely hurting a child in order to reduce her functionality without that procedure providing any positive health result is obviously child abuse.  Given that parents have been sent to prison for not taking their sick child to the doctor for religious reasons it's unclear how deliberately hurting one's child under the guise of a cultural or religious belief can be legal.

Another Democrat smear campaign

The Republican candidate for Senate in Mississippi, Cindy Hyde-Smith, made a joke about sitting in the front row for a public hanging and now the left-wing smear machine is going into overdrive trying to convert that into something sinister.

The first part of the lie is that Cindy talked about lynching.  The quote attributed to her, without context by the way, is:

"If he invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row,"

Either the Popular Information staff is unaware that public hangings as the result of valid legal proceedings were part of American life for a very long time or they're deliberately lying to conflate the illegal lynching of people, often Blacks, with a fully legal application of the death penalty.

Cindy's comment was in response to the host of the event saying that he was glad she'd come to the event.  The intent of her response was to say that she was such a fan of his that no matter what he invited her to, even a public hanging, she would intend. She could have equally well said that if he'd invited her to an alligator wrestling match she'd sit in the front row. There was no racial intent and Cindy wasn't talking about a lynching.

That makes perfect sense and has absolutely no racial connotations especially when we remember that she's a Republican; a member of the party that has fought Democrat racism since the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln.

The second part of the lie is the implication that it was Republicans who were going around lynching Blacks in Mississippi. If Republicans never lynched anyone why would anyone think that Cindy was really talking about a lynching not a legal public execution?  While it's natural for Democrats to assume a public hanging was a lynching because it was Democrats who were doing all the lynching it's not natural for a Republican like Cindy to confuse a public hanging with a lynching for the simple reason that Republicans have no history of lynching Blacks.

Unsurprisingly the left wing rhetoric about the dark history of Mississippi fails to mention the fact that that dark history was entirely the result of Democrats.

The third part of the lie is to assume that Cindy is lying when she says it was a joke and that there was no racial intent. When Democrats say outrageous things the media always accepts their correction and apology.  For example, just recently Democrat Eric Swalwell from California stated that if the American people would revolt against their government they'd lose because the government would use nuclear weapons on them. When he said he was just joking all criticism of him by the media stopped.  But in this case even though Cindy has clearly stated that she wasn't talking about lynchings and that she wasn't being serious the media attack continues.

What's interesting is that the same Democrats who are attacking Cindy over this are silent about the real racist policies of the Democrat party that are hurting and killing Blacks today.

For example for years thousands of Blacks have been shot in Chicago each year but the Democrats who run "Chiraq" have done nothing to end the slaughter. Does anyone seriously think that if 4000 whites were being shot each year in Chicago the same would be true?

Debra Messing is one of the Hollywood elites who have attackedCindy on this issue.  What's interesting is that she supports abortion and has said nothing to indicate that she's concerned about the fact that the leading causeof death for Black Americans is abortion or that Black women are 3 times as likelyto abort their child than are white women.

It's possible to imagine a non-racist saying that abortion is great but that we need to do something about its disparate impact on Blacks but it's harder to envision someone who isn't racist being silent about what Jesse Jackson called genocideagainst Blacks.

Finally recently elected Democrats have said directly racist things and the media has been silent.  Ilhan Omar has made viciously racist comments about Jews and Keith Ellison was a member of the Nation of Islam a group identified by the SPLC as aracistorganization yet their public racism doesn't appear to bother the same Democrats who are going ballistic about Cindy's joke.

This is just another case of the #FakeNews media making up a lie and repeating it incessantly in order to discredit a Republican.

Every time the playbook is the same; find an innocuous statement by a Republican, ignore context and the simple meaning of words to declare some horrendous meaning, ignore all clarifications by the victim, and repeat until people believe the lie.

Democracy won't last long in America if Democrats like Keith Ellison can beat up women and belong to racist organizations but have their offenses covered up by the media while Republicans like Cindy can't make a joke without being lied about by the #FakeNews media.

The Democrat protection racket.

The amazingly rich 1%ers in Hollywood are calling for a boycott on Georgia because those stupid people didn't elect a Democrat for governor.

Basically the obscenely rich Democrats are telling the working class people of Georgia that they will pay if they don't do what their betters in Hollywood tell them to do.

While this is the antithesis of what America is about, after all what happened to tolerance?, it is the go to strategy of the left today; if you don't do what we tell you do to there will be consequences that hurt your children.

Democrats believe that your money is their money

We all know that Democrat politicians think that every penny of our money that they don't take is money they let us keep; i.e. all our money is theirs but because they're "generous" they let us keep some of it.

But lately we've been seeing that Democrat CEO's of publicly traded companies think the companies money is their personal property not the property of their shareholders.

The CEO of Starbucks told people who disagree with his radical view on marriage to stop patronizing Starbucks.  In a sane world the shareholders would have booted him in an instant; who wants a CEO who drives away customers because they don't agree with his politics?  But since major institutional investors are also run by leftists he suffered no consequences.

The Dick's Sporting Goods chain suffered significant sales losses after they decided to stop selling guns that their management didn't like.  That hurt their shareholders by driving down their stock prices due to significantly lower sales but the management doesn't care because they don't believe that the shareholders actually own the company.  Rather the company belongs to the management team and they can do what they wish with it.

Facebook apparently fired a highly competent employee solely because he secretly gave money to a Trump supporting organization.  Because that's highly illegal it's not unlikely that the story that says that resulted in Facebook having to give that employee millions of shareholder dollars in compensation is true.  Wasting company money in order to enforce ideological "purity" in what is supposedly an unbiased organization is another example of leftists who run a company for the owners, i.e. the shareholders, acting as though the shareholders money is their money.

The reality is that the modern Democrat party is a party of fascists who believe that they have the right to seize what is yours because they are smarter and better than you and therefore they will use what is your better than you will.

That you lose money because their political drive down the stock values of their companies is right in their eyes because advancing their political agenda is right and your right to a well run company doesn't exist.  After all they know they're better than you and your complaints about being cheated out of your own money are a sign that you aren't "woke".

The reality is that every vote for any Democrat is a vote for them to take whatever of yours that they like either through higher taxes, which Democrats announced was a key priority earlier this year, or by imposing onerous regulations designed to further Democrat causes.

Democrats are sooooo lucky!

An article in the American Spectator points out how lucky the Democrats are.  Multiple Republican House candidates in California who were winners on election day oddly became losers as more and more ballots were counted.

What's strange is that one would expect that after the vast majority of ballots are counted the odds of the remaining having a significantly different distribution is low.  Yet in every case that's what happened and after over a week of counting the Republicans lost and the Democrats won.

When you're playing poker if your opponent gets a royal flush you just say oh well. But if they get multiple royal flushes all in a row and all with the same dealer you're going to start wondering if the fix is in.

Of course this may be due to other issues; like the California Secretary of State telling people to mark that they were residents of California not US citizens on their absentee ballots or the growing number of illegals in California.

But given the Democrat party's historic use of good old fashioned voter fraud it's time that we begin wondering if it was the Democrats, not the Russians, who stole this election.

The New York Times doesn't think the American dream includes freedom

They NYT has an interactive online feature in which it declares "The American Dream is Alive. In China.".

They make the claim that economic advancement is easier there.

Apparently to the fascists at the NYT freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom from government controlling every aspect of our lives aren't part of the "American Dream".  Rather all American's care about is money.

While in China everyone is constantly monitored by the government and the communist dictators who run the country are in the process of implementing a Social Credit System whereby the government will monitor every aspect of everyone's life and give them a rating; that rating will be used to reward or punish people based on how well they serve their masters.

Already millions of train and plane rides have been blocked because the people trying to travel didn't have a high enough Social Credit score.

But the NYT isn't bothered by that just as it wasn't bothered by China's forced abortion policy where women were forced to kill their unborn babies against their will.  Apparently choice is only for rich white Americans in the minds of the people who run the NYT.

It's very revealing that the NYT doesn't think that the American dream involves people choosing what to do but only making money.

What's truly sickening is that if Democrats tried to implement such a system here the NYT would probably applaud it.

McRaven, McCain and the respect owed to veterans

When they were younger the Democrats who today are castigating Trump for not being nicer to McRaven were spitting on US soldiers returning from Vietnam. John Kerry was calling his fellow soldiers murderous monsters.

Yet now those same Democrats are all upset that Trump dared critique McRaven.  All Trump said was that it would have been better if McRaven had gotten bin Laden sooner.

Now Trump was wrong in that McRaven wasn't responsible for finding bin Laden since that was the job for the intelligence community.  However there are grounds to wonder why bin Laden wasn't captured instead of killed in order to get valuable intelligence from him.  Perhaps it was unsafe for the SEAL team to capture him or perhaps there wasn't a viable egress plan for a live captive but none the less it's a legitimate question to ask.

In any case it's not like Trump said, as Democrats have, that all veterans are monsters and baby killers as many Democrats have.

The reason for the Democrat's faux outrage is of course that McRaven is a left wing Democrat who is either very stupid or deliberately lying about Trump.

McRaven said that Trump declaring that the #FakeNews media who lie to Americans every single day is "...perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.".  Either McRaven is acting as though he's unaware that Trump isn't talking about all reporters or he's honestly unaware of what Trump is really saying.

Further when we know that the IRS targeted the political opponents of President Obama, that Al Franken was elected through voter fraud, and that the entire power of the US intelligence community was used to spy on Trump's campaign in service of the Democrat party using a fake dossier based on anonymous Russian sources paid for by Hillary Clinton an honest, or intelligent, man wouldn't declare that Trumps bluster, which is not backed up by the sort of censorship that Democrats love to direct at conservatives, is the greatest threat to our Democracy.

Perhaps the real censorship of FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube et al is something that McRaven isn't aware of. Or perhaps he doesn't know that Democrats want to amend the 1st Amendment.  Or that Democrats have been trying to censor Rush Limbaugh and all conservative talk radio for decades.  But the simple truth is that the idea that criticizing the lying #FakeNews media is an attack on press freedom is just another Democrat Big Lie and by repeating it McRaven is showing his true colors aren't in support of robust free speech but rather in support of speech that supports Democrats.

Hence it's clear that while McRaven may have served honorably--I'm not familiar with the details of his record but I do know that promotion in the military under Obama was biased for people who were in tune with the left's views--he's now a political figure who is attacking Trump and defending the propaganda wing of the Democrat party; i.e. the #FakeNews media.

McRaven and McCain remind us that while we owe respect and gratitude for those who have served in the military military service per se doesn't make one an expert on politics.  Just ask Harry Truman about General McArthur.

So while we should thank people like McCain and McRaven for their service we have absolutely no reason to treat them with kid gloves when they enter the political fray.  Unless of course we know they're suffering from PTSD or some other ailment in which case we should treat them just like we treat any other sick person.

In any case the whole McRaven incident is an interesting example of how the party which is most often associated with hatred for the military is suddenly all a flutter over Trump saying it would have been better if McRaven had done a better job.