Democrats violate 1st Amendment and discriminate against Chick-fil-A

Two airports have rejected Chick-fil-A because the restaurant chain has different beliefs than the Democrats.

Chick-fil-A serves everyone and employs everyone; they don't discriminate based on race, sex, perceived gender, etc.

But because the beliefs of the owners of the company and by some of the charitable organizations the company donates to, aren't acceptable to Democrats the chain has been kept out of the Buffalo and San Antonio airports.

This is unconstitutional. The government can't discriminate based on a contractors speech or its association in most circumstances. That's what the Supreme Court has ruled. The only exception is when people are hired to communicate the government's message they must use the money they get to communicate the government's message not their own personal message.

But clearly selling chicken sandwiches is not communicating the government's message and a restaurant is not hired by the airport authority to communicate anything but to keep travelers fed.

Can you imagine if Trump tried to get a restaurant chain whose owners were Muslims who condemned homosexuality banned from all US airports?  Or even if he tried to ban a restaurant because the owners gave money to Antifa? Democrats would be screaming bloody murder and rightfully so.

The reality is that these two rulings are nothing more than direct attacks on the 1st Amendment rights of anyone who doesn't agree with the insanely radical and hedonistic Democrat agenda.

But of course to Democrats the 1st Amendment only protects what they want it to protect. For example it protects the rights of atheist bakers to not bake cakes with certain Bible verses for Christians but it doesn't protect Christian bakers from being forced to supply cakes for gay "weddings".

In fact Democrats are openly declaring that "hate speech", which is generally any speech they don't like, isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.

Modern Democrat politicians are fascists who are very comfortable oppressing anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.

Another dishonest Judge makes Obama a tyrant not a president

We've seen Federal judges declare that one of Trump's executive orders is unconstitutional while admitting that if Hillary were president and had issued the exact same order it would have been constitutional.

We've seen Federal judges declare every exercise of Presidential authority by Trump is unconstitutional.

Now a Federal judge has declared, yet again, that an Obama Executive order can't be overturned by a Trump executive order.

Obama issued an executive order banning oil drilling in certain oceans areas.  Trump issued an executive order changing that.  An Obama appointed judge declared that Obama's a super president who subsequent presidents can't overrule.

The Judge, Sharon Gleason, said:

“The wording of President Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawals indicates that he intended them to extend indefinitely, and therefore be revocable only by an act of Congress,”

Let's extend that logic a bit.  Imagine if Trump issued an executive order allowing drilling anywhere at sea.  Then let's assume that a Joe Biden is elected President after Trump's second term.  Can you imagine any court saying that Joe couldn't overrule Trump's executive order just because Trump clearly intended that the drilling permission should extend indefinitely?

This is just one way that dishonest judges are waging war on we the people.  This ruling is saying that  elections don't mean anything. After all if we the people elect a president who has different policies than his predecessor there's a good chance that we did so because we want those policies changed. But this judge is saying that we the people can't cause government policies to change by electing new representatives.

The fundamental principle of American government is that power flows from the people and that the people exercise their power by electing representatives. But if newly elected representatives can't overrule their predecessors then elections don't enable the people to exercise their authority.

Gleason is making Obama a tyrant whose edicts are untouchable by his lawfully elected successor.

Why the Judeo Christian tradition is critical for America

The key difference between America and the rest of the world when it was founded is that America declared that every human being, not just the rich, had inalienable rights granted by God which were not under the control of the government.

America couldn't be America if our rights were contingent on whatever group is in power supporting those rights.  If Obama could force Catholic nuns to cooperate in abortions or Trump could declare that illegals can be shot on sight because they have no rights we would no longer be living in America because what makes America America is the idea that everyone has certain rights which no political coalition can remove.

The whole Civil Rights movement was based on the belief that it didn't matter that the governments of Southern states held that Blacks didn't have certain rights that white people did; what mattered was that all people had the same basic rights.

Democrats are working hard to drive Christianity and Judaism out of the public square precisely because Democrats hate the idea that there is any constraint on their power over we the people.

Democrats demand that Christian's cooperate in abortions and support gay "weddings" while declaring that gay bakers don't have to bake cakes for Christians.

Democrats believe that they should have complete control over what rights people have and which people have which rights; for example very young people don't have the right to life according to Democrats.

That's why Democrats and the #FakeNews media are constantly attacking Christians; Christians stand for what the Founders stood for, that government's power is limited.

It's time to restore the Founders vision; they viewed religion as essential for America to work as a representative republic.

Given that only 3% of Americans are atheists there is a broad consensus that we all have rights which the government cannot take away from us.  It's time that we make that understood to the neofascists who want to rule we the people rather than represent us.

Ocasio-Cortez defines her truth which isn't real

We're all used to Ocasio-Cortez saying things that are absurd; cow farts will destroy the world.

But she continues to construct her own truth which because she's Hispanic and a woman is automatically given credence by the left which defines truth based on the level of victimhood the speaker has.

Her latest distortion of reality is about the 22nd Amendment.  She claims it was passed to keep FDR from having a 4th term.  The problem is that the 22nd Amendment was started in 1947 years after FDR died.

Now while it's true that dead people often vote Democrat to date the Democrats haven't run anyone who is physically, as opposed to intellectually, dead for office.

But since to Democrats truth is merely something that they construct to enable them to get more power over we the people this egregious error by Ocasio-Cortez will in no way be construed as calling the wisdom of her pronouncements into question by Democrats or the #FakeNews media.

The #FakeNews media is already rewriting Jussie Smollett's history

Just hours after a crooked Illinois DA let Jussie Smollett off the hook for faking a hate crime the #FakeNews media and the Democrats have begun rewriting history.

We know that Jussie faked the alleged hate crime; the Chicago Police Department proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The two Black men who he paid to attack him have confessed and the physical evidence shows that they were the only two men who could have attacked him yet he said his attackers were white.

But once the fix was in not only did Jussie's lawyers talk about suing the police for doing their jobs Jussie declared that he was innocent.  Of course neither he nor his lawyers nor his supporters in the #FakeNews media have actually addressed any of the evidence against him much less explained why he suddenly no longer cares about catching his alleged assailants.

We have Jesse Jackson saying that it's "FakeNews" to be angry about a Black man faking a hate crime which could have led to riots.

We have news stories acting as though the corrupt dropping of all charges against Smollett means that  Smollett is innocent or that we'll never know what really happened.

Of course we do know.  Jussie is in tight with Obama and the rest of the corrupt Chicago machine so the law doesn't apply to him.

But rest assured within a very short time the Democrat base, and anyone else who actually believes the #FakeNews media, will be just as sure that Jussie did nothing wrong as they are that Putin personally voted for Trump in 2016.

The good news is that there are some on the left, not many but a few, who are standing for the truth. Chris Rock excoriated Jussie at the NAACP awards.  Chris, and those other leftists who aren't buying into Jussie's truth, realize that fake hate crimes really hurt Blacks because just like women who falsely claim rape they make everyone question whether real hate crimes and real rapes might not be fake.

Molesting women is ok according to #FakeNews media if you're a Democrat

A Democrat politician, Lucy Flores, has come out with what should be a career crippling story of how Joe Biden sexually harassed her.

She wrote:

"Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”

I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual f$%k? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?” He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience.

By then, as a young Latina in politics, I had gotten used to feeling like an outsider in rooms dominated by white men. But I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before. Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it."

I probably wouldn't agree with Ms. Flores on a single political issue but I do agree that no woman should have to tolerate being touched like that without her consent.  While it's fair to fault her for not immediately pushing away and directing her profanity at Biden then not at her readers now that doesn't mean that what Biden did was ok.  It's not like they'd been working closely together for weeks and he could have mistaken some of her actions as inviting that sort of intimacy; he'd only set eyes on her minutes before. Yet Joe didn't feel that acting as though she was his long time girlfriend was a problem.

Sadly this is far from the first time that Joe has acted with gross impropriety towards women. Even the leftist Vox website has an article listing a few of the many cases where Biden has inappropriately touched women, and girls, in public.

The author of the Vox article is sure that now things are different now and therefore Joe won't continue to get away with his actions.

But that's a clear sign that she, Laura McGann, is a leftists too. Aside from the fact that she says that what Trump's accused of is worse than what Franken was accused of, apparently in the belief that consensual sex is worse than non-consensual touching, she is missing the big picture; Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape and lied under oath in a failed attempt to avoid losing a #MeToo lawsuit brought by an Arkansas state employee who Bill harassed when he was governor and even though impeaching Clinton would have made Al Gore president Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder, including female Democrats like Diane Feinstein, and declared that what Clinton did was irrelevant to his ability to be President.

The one rule that almost all Democrats follow is that nothing can stand between them and power over we the people.  The only reason the Democrats took action against Al Franken was because they knew he'd be replaced by an ultra leftists Democrat and that by sacrificing him they'd win Jeff Sessions Senate seat.

Just as we're already hearing that Jussie was framed the #FakeNews media is working hard to bury the Biden story.

Now if it tuns out that some other Democrat looks more likely to beat Trump than Biden that will change in a flash if it's necessary to drive Biden out of the race but until then Democrats and the #FakeNews media will stand behind any Democrat no matter what they're guilty of; that's why Democrat Bob Menendez was on trial for corruption for weeks but none of the three networks  mentioned it once on their nightly news shows.

Rahm Emanuel has got it backwards; Obama caused Smollett not Trump

The Democrat Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel has declared that it's Trump's fault that gay Black left wing Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime against himself.

Rahm's "reasoning" is that Trump has created a climate of hate so Jussie felt safe in faking a hate crime.

The problem is that it's Democrats like Rahm who are creating the climate of hate; it's Democrats who kept peddling the "hands up don't shoot" lie Trayvon was an innocent child who was shot by a white Hispanic--interestingly Obama who is half white/half Black was never called a white Black.

In the same comment where he condemns Trump for creating a climate of hate Rahm said:

“Look, I’ve always said from day one, this is a Trump-free zone, the city of Chicago, and I mean it,”

Now that's a prime example of Democrat hate; can you imagine if say the mayor of Chicago had said that Chicago was an "Obama-free zone" how he would have been condemned for hatred?

The reality is that Jussie thought he could get away with it for a number of reasons all of which were valid.

1) He's Black and gay and the #FakeNews media would never think that he had done anything wrong--and the fawning media coverage even after it was clear he was lying proves he was right about that.

2) He's connected to the Obama's and so it was unlikely that even if he was found out that he'd be punished in any way--and he was proven right.

3) He's been consistently lied to by Democrats and the #FakeNews media about hate crimes against Blacks being common that he assumed that no one would question his story--fortunately not all Chicago cops are crooked so he was proven wrong on this assumption.

But all of those reasons are due to Democrats not Trump.  Trump doesn't preach hate towards Blacks; Democrats preach that Trump preaches hate toward Blacks.

Cops aren't going around targeting Blacks in general but Democrats are preaching that every cop, white/Black/Hispanic, are looking for any excuse to shoot Blacks.

In an America where people think it's ok to allow only Black reporters into a news event it's clear that our problem isn't some war on Blacks by whites.

The real problem is that Democrats are working hard to convince Blacks that the only thing between them and death is a friendly, usually white, Democrat.  

Jussie's crime is the fault not of Trump but of Rahm, Obama, Hillary, and the entire rest of the Democrat party who've been peddling lies about white racism in order to keep Blacks afraid and voting Democratic.

Democrats use the "we have secret knowledge" lie about Trump/collusion

For the last two years Democrats like Harry Reid, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Ron Wyden, Mark Warner, and John Brennan have been telling us that they had access to secret information which proved that Trump had conspired with Putin to steal the 2016 election.

We now know that they were all lying.  There was no secret smoking gun; there couldn't be because the Democrats self proclaimed champion has said that Trump didn't collude with Russia.

After spending $30 million, employing 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents, after more subpoenas and searches than anyone could imagine Mueller whose antipathy to Trump is palpable concluded that there was no collusion.

That's why we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that all those Democrats were lying.  If they had any information that even remotely linked Trump to collusion they would have provided it to their champion; Mueller. But they didn't.

Hence either it's a fact that they lied or it's a fact that they deliberately withheld critical intelligence about the President being a traitor from Mueller.  If it's the latter though that would mean that the stars of the Democrat party are colluding with Trump.  Now that's a Trilateralist level conspiracy theory!

That's why decent people know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Democrats who are still saying they have double super secret information that proves that Trump did collude, like Schiff and Swalwell, are lying through their teeth.

For two years Democrats have been lying to we the people in an attempt to nullify the 2016 election.

Of course it's not just the Democrats; the #FakeNews media has been lying too.  There have been many "news stories" that claimed that Trump was about to be perp walked out of the White House which all fizzled long before Mueller sank the Democrats hopes.

This is a great opportunity to drive home the message that the Democrats and the #FakeNews media will lie about anything if by lying they increase their power over we the people.  That's why Global Warming...err Climate Change reporting can't be trusted.  The entire Green New Deal is nothing more than a massive transfer of power from we the people to the Democrat politicians and Democrat government bureaucrats and Democrats are trying to sell that to America by lying about the climate.

If the Democrats and the #FakeNews media will tell us that Trump is a Russian agent when they know it's not true it's clear that there's nothing they won't lie about if lying benefits them.

The SPLC declared that Antifa wasn't a hate group but that FAIR was

The SPLC explained in it's FAQ that it doesn't cover left wing ideologically motivated hate because that's not the sort of hate they care about.

Well now it turns out that the SPLC mislead people who donated to it, discriminated against women, and discriminated against minorities.

This wouldn't really matter except the #FakeNews media and the internet giants use the SPLC to define which groups are hate groups and which aren't.

The SPLC said Antifa, which advocates violence against people who disagree with their politics, isn't a hate group but groups that oppose redefining marriage which point out things gays don't want to talk about, like how gay "marriages" are rarely monogamous, are hate groups.

The basic rule seems to be that left wing groups are rarely if ever classified as hate groups while right wing groups are often categorized as hate groups.

Given the amazing hypocrisy of the left--Trump's consensual affairs mean he can't be President but Clinton's being accuse of rape doesn't have any bearing on his suitability to be President--it's not surprising that the SPLC's lily white leadership talked the talk of the modern left but didn't walk the walk.

Based on the facts Obama was Putin's stooge not Trump

Let's look at how Obama treated Putin:

1) Obama "reset" our relationship with Russia even though Russia continued to hold pieces of the country of Georgia that they had taken by force.

2) Obama let a Russian company get control of 20% of US Uranium reserves.

3) Obama canceled a missile defense system for Europe which was designed to prevent Iran from being able to blackmail the EU because Putin didn't like it.

4) Obama was caught telling a senior Russian official to tell Putin that after the election he, Obama, would be able to be more accommodating of what Putin wanted.

5) Obama refused to sell lethal aid to the Ukraine to fight off the Russian invasion.

6) Obama set up a deal with Iran, a Russian client in the Middle East, so that Iran would be able to develop nuclear weapons once Obama was out of office.

7) When the Russian client running Syria used chemical weapons against civilians Obama did nothing despite having proclaimed that to be a red line.  Instead he turned the problem over to the Russians who we now know allowed their client to retain some chemical weapons.

Now let's look at how Trump has treated Putin:

1) Got Germany to cancel a massive natural gas deal with Russia which cost Putin billions.

2) Got NATO to significantly increase defense spending.

3) Increased sanctions on Iran to get them to stop nuclear weapon development.

4) Bombed the Russian client's air base in Syria in response to the Syrian government using chemical weapons against civilians.

5) Significantly increased US defense spending.

6) Provided lethal aid to Ukraine to help them fight off the Russian invasion.

7) Has told Russia to get their troops out of Venezuela.

8) Has increased sanctions on Russian entities.

The only thing that Trump has done that's positive vis a vis Putin is verbally complementing him. Which is what you do when you're negotiating with a narcissist like Putin.

As non-Democrats say actions speak louder than words and it's clear that Obama's foreign policy was far more in line with what Putin wanted that Trump's has been.

Send in SWAT to ensure that a child gets medical care in a country where abortion is legal

Democrats in America today tell us that abortion is a good thing up to and during delivery and even beyond.

Which is saying that a child is the parents property, just like slaves used to be property, and as such the parents can choose to kill the child up to shortly after birth when somehow magically the clump of cell becomes a person with rights.

Democrats applaud sending cops into a home to seize a child whose parents weren't giving the child the healthcare the child needed.  Now that's not a bad thing; the child was running a 105deg fever and the parents had ignored a physicians recommendation to take the child to the ER.

But if those same parents had chosen to kill that same child just 24 months earlier those same Democrats would have said it was the parents constitutional right.

This is one of the many inherent contradictions in the position of those who declare that a mom should have the right to kill her unborn daughter.

Science tells us that a child's biological identity is defined when their DNA is formed at the moment of conception. After that human life is a continuum.

Science, the Bible, and Science Fiction

A common attack on Christianity put forth by atheists is that the Bible can't be true because it's scientifically inaccurate.

First note that Scripture actually doesn't talk about science very much because the purpose of the Bible is to teach us about God and morality.

For example Scripture never says that the sun orbits the earth; that's something that people added in.  That God stopped the sun moving in the sky is compatible with Him stopping earths rotation if the earth orbits the sun or stopping the sun if the sun orbits the earth.

Similarly the Bible never says how old the earth is; the infamous 6000 year age is based on the musings of an Anglican Bishop.

In fact back in the 4th century AD St. Augustine put forth the position that the Catholic Church has always held; if science says this or that about some physical phenomena in the Bible then we are to interpret scripture in light of that physical truth not misuse scripture to attack science.

But the real point is that since the purpose of Scripture is to teach us about spiritual realities being scientifically accurate is irrelevant.

Interestingly the exact same thing is true about science fiction.  Isaac Asimov pointed out that science fiction is a great vehicle for discussing the human condition. For example hundreds, if not thousands, of science fiction stories were written in the 1950s and 1960s which condemned racism and segregation without ever mentioning Black people.

The ability of those science fiction stories to preach that all people are of value no matter how they look was in no way harmed by the fact that those same stories had many scientific inaccuracies.

Not only did those stories have the equivalent of talking snakes, something atheists cite to "prove" that Scripture can't be correct, but they had faster than light travel and time travel. Yet despite those inaccuracies they were able to convey their message.

At this point atheists will argue that Scripture claims to be true while science fiction says it's fiction. The argument that I'm making however is that God had no reason to demand that the people He inspired to write Scripture write only scientifically valid things in order for Him to achieve His objective of teaching us how we are to live if we want to be truly happy.

God didn't dictate the Bible; He inspired the writers.  That they used phrasing that could be scientifically inaccurate was irrelevant to His purpose and hence He didn't prevent the authors from writing it.

But what about the "impossible" things that are in Scripture.  Well there are several answers.

First not everything in Scripture is literal; for example the Catholic Church has never stated that the Biblical flood was literally true.

Second nothing is impossible for an all powerful God by definition. For example in a few hundred years we will probably be able to make a talking snake using genetic engineering so to say that an all powerful God couldn't do what we will be likely able to do in the future is kinda silly.

Third if God exists and defined the laws of nature then it's obvious that He could do things that appeared to contradict those laws just like the person who programs a video game can put in cheat codes and enable his character to do things that regular players who didn't write the code can't do.

None of this proves that the Bible is in fact the inerrant word of God but it does show that attempting to "prove" that the Bible isn't inspired by God because it's not a scientific textbook are invalid.

This post is different from most of my posts so please if you like it let me know by leaving a comment and if you dislike it and don't want more posts like this please leave a comment.

An Abortion Contradiction

A female legislator in Georgia got up to oppose the fetal heart beat bill which would ban abortions once the "clump of cells" had a working heart.

She started out listing all the suffering she'd gone through during her 9 miscarriages.  She talked about who heart wrenching it was when she lost those 9 "potential" lives.  She had even named one of them.

Her story was so sad and everyone wanted to comfort her over her loss.

But then she said that we shouldn't limit women's ability to kill their unborn daughters.

The contradiction is obvious. She had just shown us amazing proof that the unborn aren't clumps of cells or somehow not human and then she said that despite that it was wrong to keep a mother from killing her unborn baby.

Science tells us that the life of a new unique human being begins not at birth but at conception.  No one ever asks a women how her potential baby is doing or if her fetus is ok.  Everyone asks the mom how her baby is doing and what sex her baby is.

To say that a mother should be able to kill her unborn baby for any reason at any time during a pregnancy requires that we believe one of two things; either the unborn child isn't human or that it's ok to kill an innocent human being because they're not wanted.

The first option requires us to reject science and common sense and the second requires us to reject any form of human morality.

That's why the abortion industry is so comfortable lying about the true nature of the unborn; very few women are so monstrous as to feel comfortable with killing an innocent human being for selfish reasons.  Given that only 1% of abortions are due to rape, according to a Planned Parenthood related think tank, and less than 1% of abortions occur because a Dr. told the mother that she had to kill her baby to live if women knew what they were really doing there would be far fewer abortions which would hurt abortionists profits.

An interesting and sad take on what that female legislator was saying is that the babies she lost, the babies she loved, were of value only because she loved them. That if she hadn't wanted them then they would have had no value, no rights.

But that logic is precisely the logic used by the Nazi's to justify the Holocaust and slave owners to justify killing slaves; human beings only have rights if society or other persons value them.

That's in direct opposition to the American position which is that every human being has intrinsic inalienable rights granted by God.

Now it's very unlikely that that Georgia legislator actually believes that the value of human life is contingent on that person being wanted. Rather she'd been lied to her entire life about just what the unborn are and she's never really confronted the inherent contradiction between the horrible pain she felt when she lost her unborn children and her saying that it should be legal to intentionally kill unborn children who were just like those she lost differing only in that their mothers didn't want them.

It's also unlikely that she's realized that if the unborn have no intrinsic rights, if they're not persons under the law, then killing them isn't murder.  Which means that if a mugger had attacked her and caused her to miscarry one of those unborn children who she loved so much to die he couldn't be charged with murder; unless of course one wants to argue that because she wanted her child it had rights but if she didn't love that child it would have no rights.

Russian interference in 2016 was a drop; Democrat interference was an ocean

Mueller has concluded that Russia did try and interfere in the 2016 election.  However their actions were tiny and insignificant.

The most significant action, if it was in fact done by Russia which we can't know for sure since the DNC wouldn't allow the FBI to examine their computers, was the release of the DNC emails which showed that the DNC had violated its own rules to favor Hillary over Bernie.

What's interesting about that is that Democrats are saying that revealing their own malfeasance to we the people was interfering with the election. That is the Democrats are saying that telling the truth to voters is election interference.

Historically honest people have agreed that the more truth that the voters have the better an election is. Hence the voters finding out about how the DNC had cheated Bernie should be considered a good thing not election interference.

In a better world investigative journalists would have revealed the scandal but with the vast majority of the media rooting for Democrats that didn't happen. We should be thanking the Russians, if they were the ones who did it, for revealing the truth.

Interestingly the same Democrats who were all enthused about Dan Rather lying about Bush's military record were also enthused about Russians lying about Trump; in the Steele dossier which Mueller has debunked.

Apparently Democrats are enthused about interfering in elections; where interference is defined as lying to the voters.

Other than revealing the duplicity of the DNC the only Russian interference that anyone can point to is some tiny ad buys which were an infinitesimal fraction of the dollars spent by legitimate sources.

On the other hand we know that Democrats interfered in the 2016 election in major ways.  They're on record as trying to convince the members of the electoral college to change their votes for example. They've also been waging a war against the election results based on lies about Trump colluding with Russia; a charge they continue to repeat even after their self proclaimed savior, Mueller, has declared that there was no collusion.

Then of course there's the on-going Democrat war on any attempt to end voter fraud.  We know that Democrats are the party of voter fraud--Democrat run Chicago is famous for it's voter fraud--so it's not surprising that they do everything they can to ensure that people can vote illegally.

For example disgraces Democrat Senator Al Franken won his seat because more than 1000 convicted felons were "mistakenly" allowed to vote.

Democrat interference also has a key foreign component. The whole collusion lie was based on unverified rumors from Russians.  While we now know that Trump didn't collude we do know that the agony that the Democrats have put the country through, which had a major impact on the 2018, election was based entirely on disinformation from Russia.

Similarly while it's probably true that 3,000,000 illegals didn't vote illegally a study has indicated that hundreds of thousands of illegals, who are foreign nationals, did vote illegally.  The fact that Democrats are giving drivers licenses to illegals and are pushing for automatic voter registration for anyone getting a drivers license without any check on their citizenship, it's the honor system, is clear proof that the Democrats are enabling foreign nationals to illegally interfere, i.e. vote, in our elections.

Even if you refuse to believe that the same illegals who would break our immigration laws to get more money wouldn't be willing to violate our voting laws to get more money we know for a fact that the Democrats used illegals to harvest ballots in California.

If Russia spending a few thousand dollars on ad buys is election interference how is hundreds or thousands of illegals providing in kind help to Democrats, including harvesting ballots, not foreign election interference?

Why Democrats want to limit campaign contributions

Democrats have been waging a war against corporate campaign contributions for years. They've also been advocating government funded campaigns to "level the playing field".

They are doing so because they know that in any "fair" situation they will have a huge advantage; the fact that the entire #FakeNews media is nothing more than free advertising for Democrat positions.

Tucker Carlson did us all a service by watching CNN in the aftermath of the Mueller decision.  He found that , in his words:

"CNN is really a super PAC, colluding with the Democratic Party on the news you hear"

His argument is simple right after the Mueller report was released which said that everything that the Democrats and their #FakeNews buddies had been saying for two years was wrong Nancy Pelosi announced that the Democrats had always been about healthcare.  As if by magic the entire coverage on CNN switched from saying that it was "obvious" that Trump had colluded with Russia to endorsing the Democrat's healthcare plan and condemning the Republican plan.

If CNN were a super PAC which wasn't supposed to coordinate with a candidate CNN's act would have been prima facia evidence of a violation of campaign finance laws.  But because CNN is supposedly part of the free press being hyper partisan is ok.

This illuminates a key problem with campaign financing; if a company provides free jet rides for a politician it likes it has to register those as campaign contributions.  However if a media company provides hour long infomercials for a candidate those are not considered campaign donations.

So long as the media is effectively neutral, that is there as many right wing partisans as there are left wing partisans, the current system will work.  However the in the world we live in the number of left wing partisan news outlets far outnumber the number of right wing outlets.

As an aside Fox News is not a right wing outlet the way the WaPo, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS are left wing outlets.  Fox has major shows hosted by people who hate Trump and who say so.  While I'm not an expert on the detailed content of the #FakeNews media I'm not aware of anyone in the #FakeNews media who is the equivalent of antiTrumpers Shepard Smith or Judge Napolitano; i.e. someone who constantly attacks leftists while endorsing conservatives.

When Joe Scarborourgh is held up as a "conservative" voice in the #FakeNews media it's pretty clear that FoxNews is far more balanced than any of the #FakeNews media outlets.

As a result we have a problem.  Conservatives agree that we can't trust the government to police the free press and enforce ideological diversity.  On the other hand we need to do something to break up the near monopoly that the #FakeNews media has in order to keep them from propagandizing the American people with lies.

While it's true that the best answer to the #FakeNews media propaganda and lies is more speech the reality is that economic factors, including the cost of starting a new network or newspaper, will make it nearly impossible to break the near monopoly that the #FakeNews media has.

I don't know what the answer is but I do know that in every country where propagandists determine what the people know freedom doesn't exist.

There will be a lot more alleged hate crimes but most of America won't believe them.

Americans now know that if people who are Black or gay or both can fake a hate crime and get tons of publicity and no adverse consequences if their deception is discovered thanks to the corrupt Chicago "justice" system and Jussie Smollett.

As a result lots of people will be incentivized to fake hate crimes since there is no downside if they're caught.

Since the intent of the Democrats is to create racial hatred by pretending Blacks are frequently targeted by whites that is a wonderful thing for Democrats.

The problem, from their perspective, is that Americans with an ounce of common sense will now be far more likely to assume the hate crimes are faked for the simple reason that we the people recognize  that when people know there is no downside to lying they are more likely to lie to advance whatever cause they believe in.

The bad news from the perspective of good people is that if real hate crimes occur they too will be doubted.

The left denies the truth; Jussie Smollett and Mueller edition

The left and the #FakeNews media told us for two years that Mueller was perfect in every way.  Yet now when he concluded that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia by Trump the left says that just ain't so.

Instead they claim that they have secret evidence.  Out of curiosity what human being with a functioning brain would believe that these rabid Democrats who have been calling for Trump's impeachment since before he was sworn into office wouldn't have shared damning evidence about Trump with Mueller?

What we're witnessing is the modern descendants of the Nazi's and Communists are rewriting history and demanding that their will force reality to conform to what they want.

The same people who think that a man can will himself into being a woman are saying that they can will Trump into having collaborated with Russia.

The same is occurring in the Jussie Smollett case. There is irrefutable evidence that he hired two of his buddies to fake a hate crime.  Yet we hear the left telling us that Jussie is innocent just because he was able to escape the consequences of his crime because the justice system in Chicago is corrupt.

We know that Jussie is lying because he's not talking about getting the white guys who supposedly attacked him nor is he mad at his two friends who, according to Jussie, lied to the cops about him.

Like their communist role models modern Democrats believe the Truth is whatever they want it to be.

Socialists stick together; Russian troops in Venezuela edition

Democrats are being silent about Cuban and Russian troops who are in Venezuela propping up the socialist dictator.

The Cuban and Russian fascists are using the playbook that has enabled the dictator of Syria, Assad, to crush the popular revolt that resulted from the Arab Spring. It's taken years and hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians but bolstered by Iran and Russia the butcher of Aleppo will probably be able to hang on.

In Venezuela the people are starving and the Democrats are adamant that the US shouldn't intervene but those same Democrats are silent about the fact that Russia is sending troops that the Maduro, the dictator, personal guards are all Cubans.

It appears that the Democrats, who are now championing socialism, are more loyal to their fellow socialists in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia than they are to either America or the starving people of Venezuela.

But then that's the ugly truth about socialism.  It's not about economic equality it's about stealing the wealth of working men and women and giving it to the elites.

Swalwell still says that Trump is a Russian agent

Mueller be damned Democrat Eric Swalwell knows in his gut that Trump is a Russian spy.

That's where Democrats are today. After 2 years of telling us that Mueller was only slightly worse than Jesus Himself they are now acting as though Mueller never happened.

Swalwell asks what part of the Steele dossier has been disproved?

Well all of it that relates to collusion because Mueller was very familiar with the Steele dossier and he, Mueller, said there was no evidence of collusion.  Hence Mueller has examined the Steele dossier and found it wanting.

Which isn't surprising. Steele himself, in court and under oath, has declared that the dossier contains only unverified material.

Essentially Swalwell is taking a fascist stance on the law; people are guilty until proven innocent.  So even though even the most rapid Democrats in the FBI weren't able to confirm anything related to collusion in the Steele dossier and even though Mueller, "I only hire lawyers who contributed to Hillary's campaign, has declared that there is no there there in the dossier Swalwell thinks the fact that it must be true because Hillary paid for it.

After the legal equivalent of the FDA has pronounced what the Democrats have been trying to sell is snake oil they are still telling you it will cure all your ills; impeach Trump for being a Russian spy and there will be a joint in every humidor and arugula in every salad.

Democrats are fascists who will lie unashamedly to get power over we the people.

Swalwell is a monster in the same line as Goebbels and Beria; he will do and say anything to get power.

It's time to throw people like him out and replace them with people who actually care about we the people.

Democrats refuse to support Green New Deal

Democrats in the Senate went on record as being unwilling to vote for the same policies that they're currently campaigning for President on.

Why?

Well because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to convince their base that they will in fact turn America into a socialist cow killing hell hole if they are elected but they know that they will never be elected if the American people find out just how radically antiAmerican dream they are.

Hence they want to make it easy for the #FakeNews media to lie about what Democrats will really do if they're elected.  Being on record in a vote on the Senate floor as supporting taxing working Americans to ensure that people who could work but who don't want to can live comfortable lives would give Republicans proof that the #FakeNews media is lying and that would be bad for Democrats.

Jussie Smollett agent provocateur

Jussie Smollett didn't get to walk away a free man because he was innocent.  The DA who let him off said he wasn't being exonerated.

Jussie Smollett didn't get let off the hook because he's a famous left wing Black gay man who is above the law; though Tucker Carlson is correct that to Democrats Jussie is above the law.

Jussie Smollett is free because he was working for the Democrat party spreading the Big Lie that all white Americans, except for Democrats, hate Black people and are constantly killing them for no reason other than racist hatred.

It's true that Jussie isn't getting a paycheck from the DNC but by faking a hate crime and claiming that white Trump supporters viciously attacked him Jussie is helping Democrats convince Black people that the real racists in America are Republicans when in fact the only truly racist Americans, other than a tiny number of KKK types, are Democrats.

While Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel says that letting Jussie off is horrible he's done nothing to reduce the mass shootings of Blacks in his city.  If Democrats weren't racists they'd have done something about all the crime in Black neighborhoods in Democrat run cities.  We all know that if 3000 white people had been shot in Chicago last year Rahm would have done something that actually protected Chicago citizens but because the victims are mostly poor Black people Democrats like Rahm just don't care.

The fact that the gangs who are doing all the killing also make sure that Black people go to the polls each election and vote Democrat is also a strong incentive for Democrats to do nothing to stop the mass shootings. If the cost of Democrats winning reelection in perpetuity is a few thousand Blacks being shot Democrats have demonstrated their willingness to pay that price.

But it's not just in Democrats lack of concern about Black lives that shows how racist modern Democrats are. Democrats pounce on any racial disparity, where the percentage of Blacks in any group--say police officers--isn't exactly proportionate to the percentage of Blacks in the general population, as an obvious sign of racism.  Yet those same Democrats ignore the biggest racial disparity of all; Black women are 3 times as likely to abort their babies as white women.  Maybe that's because, as one Democrat put it on the floor of the house, it's cheaper to abort babies than to pay welfare for them if they live.  Of course when rich white people, like that Democrat on the House floor, talk about welfare they're not thinking of the white people on welfare.

The overt hatred of Blacks by the Democrats, the party that fought the Civil War to keep slavery legal, is a big problem for the Democrats because they count on essentially all Blacks voting Democrat in order to win elections.

That's why people like Jussie who fake hate crimes, and there are a lot of them, are so critical to the Democrats whose only concern is gaining more power for themselves.

Fake hate crimes covered 24/7 by the #FakeNews media until they're proven to be fake after which the #FakeNews media says we can never know what really happened are a key element in Democrats convincing Blacks that the only thing between Blacks and mass murder are Democrats.

By keeping America ignorant of the truth and by peddling lies, like Jussie being attacked by white Trump supporters, the #FakeNews media propaganda machine keeps poorly educated Blacks--who are poorly educated because Democrats like Rahm are perfectly comfortable with inner city schools being horrible--thinking that without Democrats to protect them their lives would be even worse.

But Democrats are starting to run scared because despite all they do to ensure that Blacks are poorly educated and live in dangerous neighborhoods more and more Blacks are starting to realize that their voting for Democrats, and their parents voting for Democrats, and their grandparents voting for Democrats hasn't improved the situation of Blacks in America one bit; according to Democrats themselves.  Trump's approval numbers among Blacks are reaching levels that are unheard of in the last 60 years.

Democrats are therefore looking to step up their game and do anything and everything they can to convince Blacks that despite all the facts that are out there, such as that if a cop stops someone and that person doesn't try to fight or flee it's more likely the cop will shoot the person if they're white, the only way that Blacks have any hope of living through the night is to vote Democrat.

The problem is that there are very few real white on Black hate crimes in America and when they do occur Republicans are the first to condemn them.  That means that the Democrats have to depend on people like Jussie to fake hate crimes, that's why long after Black Democrat Attorney General said that "hands up don't shoot" was a complete lie the #FakeNews media acted as though it were true.

The Democrat's need Blacks who will lie to further the narrative that keeps Democrats in power and they will not lose a valuable asset in the war on Black people simply because he's caught in the act of faking hate.

Jussie Smollett is a modern Democrat storm trooper on the front line of the Democrats war on truth and freedom.  Hence there is no way they would allow him to be punished for doing the critical job of inciting race hatred and keeping Blacks in a state of fear.

Why Trump can't be guilty of collusion

To understand why Trump can't be guilty of obstructing justice let's first define what justice is.

Justice is ensuring that the guilty are punished and the innocent are exonerated.  Hence if an innocent person is the victim of a witch hunt any steps they take to end their persecution aren't obstructing justice; in fact those actions are in the service of justice.

For example let’s say that a cabal of Republicans in the government had managed to get a special prosecutor appointed to investigate Obama for drug dealing based on an unverified report found on a neoNazi website.

Let's further assume that the special prosecutor was forcing Obama and everyone he knew, including his children, to run up massive legal bills and that many of Obama's friends, who were completely innocent of drug dealing, were forced to choose between bankruptcy or pleading guilty to process crimes while others were convicted of crimes that were only prosecuted so that the special prosecutor could induce them to lie about Obama.

In that situation if Obama had fired the special prosecutor and the cabal of dishonest FBI/DOJ personal who were running the witch hunt he wouldn't be obstructing justice; on the contrary by shutting down a vicious politically motivated attack on innocent people Obama would have been pursuing justice.

Hence even if Trump had obstructed the Mueller investigation, which we'll see below he didn't, it wouldn't have been obstruction of justice since we now all know that Trump was innocent.

While Trump knew from the beginning that he didn't collude with Russia the rest of us now know that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt for several reasons.

First we know that Trump is innocent because Mueller has said so.  Which should be definitive either because we realize that Mueller was heading a witch hunt with a clear intent to condemn the President if at all possible or because the President's enemies have been telling us that Mueller is both insanely competent and entirely honest for the last two years.  In either case there is no way that he could have declared Trump to be completely innocent of collusion if Trump wasn't in fact innocent.

Second we now know that the only "evidence" of collusion was the fake Steele dossier which was based entirely on anonymous Russian sources which were probably being controlledby Putin.  Given that Mueller knew from the get go the provenance of the dossier it's clear that a sincere desire to find the truth wasn't what was motivating Mueller.

Finally it's a matter of public record that Hillary did in fact collude with Russia.  She has admitted to paying a foreign national to pay Russian sources for unverified rumors about Trump.  Given that those sources supposedly had access to key information and that the Brit who was asking the questions was a spy who was known to the Kremlin the likelihood that Putin's secret police were unaware of what was going on is very low. Which in turn means that there's a very good chance that Putin, a big fan of maskirovka--deception--, ensured that Hillary was fed what he wanted her to know. 

Yet as far as we can tell Mueller, whose mandate wasn't to impeach Trump but to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election didn't investigate Hillary's actions at all.

Given that even Mueller now declares that Trump was innocent and the clear indications that the entire investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt leads us to the obvious conclusion that nothing Trump did, or was accused of doing, could be obstruction of justice because ending a witch hunt aimed at an innocent party is fulfilling justice not obstructing it.

The reason that many on the left are confused about this is more than their belief that anything--including witch hunts--is justified so long as it gets Democrats more power.  Instead the redefinition of the legal system's objective which leftists have been working on for decades has led to confusion about just what justice is.

If you talk to one of many, if not most lawyers, you'll find that they believe that the objective of the legal system isn't justice--convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent; instead the purpose of the legal system is to follow the rules.

The reason for this transition is to allow criminal lawyers to sleep well at night after a hard day’s work ensuring that child molesters and murders aren't convicted for their crimes.  If the purpose of the law is to follow the rules then using a technicality, like a clerk accidentally putting the wrong date on a search warrant, to ensure that a serial killer walks free is a perfectly fine thing to do. On the other hand if the purpose of the law is to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent then using any trick in the book to get the guilty off would actually be obstructing justice.

You'll hear lawyers tell us that everyone deserves a good defense to justify their doing everything they can to ensure that their clients, the ones who pay them,  can avoid justice.  The reality is that the innocent deserve a good defense which includes those cases where the evidence isn't open and shut. But when there's clear physical evidence of a client’s guilt trying to have that evidence excluded based on a technicality is obstructing justice.

But even if we ignore all that it's clear that Trump didn't obstruct justice. 

Examining what Trump actually did it's clear that he didn't even obstruct in the sense that the left uses the word obstruct.

For example when Trump fired Comey he did so not in order to squelch any investigation but because Comey was lying, by omission, to the media. Comey had told Trump that Trump wasn't under investigation.  Yet even as the media kept telling the American people that Trump was under investigation and that Trump was lying about what Comey had told him Comey remained silent. No President has to keep such a disloyal and politically biased subordinate around. Even worse for the Democrat's case is that leading Democrats had been calling for Comey to be fired; it was only after they decided that impeaching Trump and furthering the false collusion narrative were valuable for them did they suddenly become Comey supporters.

When Trump asked Comey if he couldn't go easy on Flynn he clearly wasn't ordering Comey as Comey admitted when questioned under oath.  If a President can't ask for leniency for an American military hero while being willing to accept no as an answer we're living in a very sad place.  After all if Obama's Attorney General can dismiss chargesagainst Black Panther thugs who stood outside polling places with weapons and told people to vote for Obama without facing obstruction of justice charges then clearly merely asking Comey, who had just recently extended an amazing amount of leniency towards Hillary, for leniency can't be obstruction.

Finally Trump pronouncing the truth, that the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, isn't obstruction of justice unless we wish to define innocent people declaring their innocence to be an obstruction of justice.

Given the utter collapse of the fake collusion narrative Democrats are going to be clutching to the obstruction narrative like Titanic survivors clung to the lifeboats they were in.  Hence it's important for us to understand that innocent people defending themselves against trumped up charges, whether it be Blacks in the Democrat run South in the 1960s or President Trump today, aren't obstructing justice; in fact they're pursuing it.

Scientists are people too; they'll lie to advance their own interests

I've got a Ph.D. in Physics and I spent a little time working in academia on basic research.  What I learned is that scientists are just as capable of being schmucks as anyone else.

That's why when leftists act as though scientists who espouse causes that the left supports, like Global Warming...err Climate Change, are incapable of error and always honest I can't help but shake my head.

Like most people most scientists are honest and when their research doesn't depend on political support they're unlikely to lie. But when saying certain things, like we're all going to die unless the government gets massively bigger right now, means tons of money for them they like, everyone else, can give in to temptation.

A recent example is Duke University having to pay $112 million for research fraud. In order to keep the Federal Grants flowing a scientist falsified data that was submitted to the Federal government. The person in question lied so as to enhance his economic situation.

We saw this during the nuclear winter debacle too.  Scientists knew that the whole idea of a very limited nuclear strike exterminating life on the planet was insane but said nothing because Carl Sagan was using that claim to keep President Reagan from defending America from a Russian first strike and leftists scientists wanted America left undefended.

That's why science is about reproducible experiments not the personal authority of scientists.

A comparison of "justice" in America

A few semirich people paid bribes to get their kids into college. They face up to 20 years in prison, $250k in fines, and 3 1/2 years of court supervision.

Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime which could have led to riots and lied to the police about it. The Democrat State Attorney general has just dropped all charges against him.

We can argue about how horrible bribing your way into college is but it's pretty clear that faking a hate crime will dramatically reduce the chances that people will believe in real hate crimes. Especially since we now know that if you're Black you can fake a hate crime and not worry about any punishment.

We also know that if a rich white Republican had staged a hate crime attack by Blacks on him that the charges wouldn't have been dropped.

This is just one more example that in the minds of Democrats there are two standards of justice; one for Democrats and one for everyone else.

The dual legal standard; it's ok to fake hate crimes if you're Black

We have clear and unequivocal evidence that Jussie Smollett deliberately stages a fake racist and antigay attack on himself with the intent of smearing Trump supporters and increasing his paycheck.

Yet the Democrat prosecutor in Chicago has dropped all charges against him.

The Black Chicago police Superintendent,  Johnson, is furious because State Attorney Kim Foxx decided to drop all charges against Smollett.  We know that Foxx is in the tank for Smollett because she previously tried to get the Chicago police to turn the case over to the FBI; something that the Chicago police union want's her investigated for.

Can you imagine if some white person faked a racist attack on himself by Blacks and lied to the police about it what would happen if the charges were dropped?

It's clear that in Democrat run Chicago not only do Blacks who shoot other Blacks get a pass so do rich Blacks who lie to the police and hurt all the victims of real hate crimes.

Democrats are literally insane

Insanity has many definitions but basically insane people believe in things that aren't part of reality; whether it be vast conspiracies of people who are out to get them or seeing people who don't exist insane people live in an alternate reality.

Which is a good definition of modern Democrats.  In the Democrat's insane world:

1) Trump colluded with Russia
2) Trump obstructed justice
3) Socialism will work the next time
4) Men can become women by wishing it to be so
5) Unborn babies aren't human
6) Russia was no threat until it supported Trump
7) All their political opponents are racist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, deplorables
8) Ilhan Omar isn't an antisemite but anyone who condemns Islamic terrorism is an Islamaphobe

But like all insane people Democrats cling to their delusions no matter how many facts they are presented with. They merely reject any information that doesn't conform to their delusions.

That's why it's nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation with many Democrats; they are quite literally living in an alternative universe.

Why are Democrats upset that the President isn't a Russian stooge?

Real Americans are glad that their President isn't under the thumb of the Russians.  But Democrats are despondent.

If we discovered that Obama wasn't colluding with the Iranians so that they could get the atom bomb conservatives would be very happy.

Yet now that we know that Trump didn't collude with Russia Democrats are sad.

The reality is that all Democrats care about is power.  They are sorry that Trump isn't a traitor because  if he were a traitor then that would help the Democrats nullify the 2016 election and get more power.

The Big Obstruction Lie

Now that Mueller has cleared Trump on collusion Democrats and their stooges in the #FakeNews media are saying that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump on obstruction.

The first problem with that is that that's not how our justice system works.  Trump doesn't need to prove he's innocent; rather in America people are innocent until proven guilty.

The way an honest prosecutor works is that he investigates the evidence and if he believes that the evidence is sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed he will indict and then prosecute the alleged offender.

However if he doesn't find sufficient evidence he simply drops the matter. He does not impugn the person he was investigating by effectively declaring that that person was guilty but he, the prosecutor, just can't prove it.

Now Mueller has shown extreme antiTrump bias throughout this proceeding from hiring almost all Democrat partisans as his lawyers to allowing leak after leak which implied that Trump was guilty.

Hence we have no reason to believe that if Mueller thought he had anything like a viable case against Trump for obstruction he would have either charged him or said so.  But that's not what he did. Rather he basically said "I don't believe I could convince a jury but hint hint wink wink nudge nudge that doesn't mean he's innocent.".

That way he's not in danger of being charged with lying but he throws his Democrat buddies a bone.

But just what has Trump done that Democrats are saying might be obstruction?

Well the first thing they point to is that Trump fired Comey.  But if we take a stroll down memory lane we see that's absurd for a number of reasons.

First Trump had a perfectly good reason to fire Comey; Comey was attacking Trump.  Comey had told Trump that he, Trump, wasn't under investigation.  But when Trump told the world that Comey refused to confirm it. In fact in spite of lots of #FakeNews stories which basically called Trump a liar Comey remained silent.

He did so for purely partisan political reasons.  After all if Trump wasn't under investigation it would be the duty of the head of the FBI to contradict rumors that were saying he was under investigation.  When put under oath Comey admitted that Trump was telling the truth.

The point is that no president should have to tolerate a subordinate who was actively working against him for partisan reasons.  Hence Trump had a very good reason to fire Comey completely unrelated to any attempt to obstruct justice.

Also obstruction requires criminal intent.  Now that we all know that Trump didn't collude with Russia we also know that Trump would have no interest in obstructing an investigation into nonexistent collusion and hence no criminal intent.

Finally note that Hillary and other Democrats had been calling for Comey to be fired because of his handling of the investigation into her illegal use of a private email server for government business.  So if Trump was obstructing justice then so were all those Democrats.

Another example that Democrats use is Trump's threatening to fire Mueller.  But once again since Trump knew he was innocent he had nothing to fear from an honest investigation by Mueller and hence couldn't have criminal intent.  Even more importantly Trump didn't fire Mueller.  To say that a President can't speak out when he's being unfairly maligned by an illegal investigation is absurd.

We know that Bill Clinton was guilty of lying under oath and was guilty. Yet Democrats viciously attacked the special prosecutor who was investigating him. If Trump verbally expressing disdain for Mueller's ham fisted and baseless investigation is obstruction then every Democrat politician is guilty of obstructing Ken Starr.

Then there's the Flynn case. Flynn is an American hero. He was ambushed by the FBI; what he thought was a friendly meeting was in fact an interrogation.  But we now know that the FBI agents who interrogated him didn't think he'd lied.

While it's true that Flynn plead guilty that happened only after the government basically bankrupted him by using the deep pockets of the Federal government to force Flynn to spend most of his savings on lawyers.

Now Trump asked Comey if he could go easy on Flynn since the only crime that Flynn was accused of was lying to the FBI, what he supposedly lied about was not in fact a crime.

First thing to note is Trump asked; Trump didn't tell.

Second thing to note is that Comey basically said no and Trump didn't force the matter in any way.

Third thing to note is that Comey had let Hillary off the hook for committing real crimes so he had a reputation for leniency.

If an American President can't suggest leniency for a man who has served his country in the military nearly his whole life and who was a hero then we're in a sad state.

The reality is simple we have every reason to believe that if Mueller had enough evidence to convince a jury that Trump had obstructed justice he would have said so.  But he didn't

And in America people don't have to be exonerated when they haven't been accused of a crime; by not indicting Trump for obstruction Mueller was avoiding accusing him of a crime.

That Democrats want Trump to be guilty doesn't mean that Trump has to prove his innocence; that's what fascist states do.  Rather without evidence that he did commit a crime it's up to the Democrat to acknowledge that he doesn't need exoneration.

Democrats use Soviet style justice

In America when the police get evidence of a crime they investigate it.

In the Soviet Union the government investigated anyone it didn't like until if found, or manufactured, a crime they committed.

The basic injustice and tyrannical nature of the Soviet approach is obvious; the "justice" system is used to attack enemies of the state while the agents of the state are able to ignore the law safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted for their crimes.

Along with embracing socialism, rejecting the 1st and 2nd Amendments, modern Democrats are also using Soviet style justice.

The hyper partisan New York State attorney general has declared that they will investigate every aspect of Trump's life.  They have no evidence of any crime but they have a burning desire to undo the 2016 election and punish Trump for having the audacity to win against one of America's ruling class.

How many Democrat politicians could survive if instead of following the American model of justice Republicans used the Soviet one?  Does anyone think that a no holds barred investigation by multiple authorities of the Clintons would come up empty?  Heck Ocasio-Cortez has only been in office a few months and we already have evidence of financial shenanigans in her campaign, not to mention her failure to pay her taxes.

It's time to call a halt to these illegal activities by Democrats.  If they have evidence that Trump has committed some crime by all means investigate him but it's unAmerican to simply pick a political opponent and turn the full power of the state with it's limitless resources against him.

New Zealand has a Chief Censor; maybe they're not a great place to emulate

I was shocked to learn that New Zealand has a Chief Censor.

Now to the extent that he, the current Chief Censor is David Shanks, keeps hard core porn out of circulation he's doing a good job.  After all until dishonest judges redefined it our First Amendment protected political speech not porn. Arguing that porn should be legal is protected by the First Amendment for example but displaying porn is not contrary to the dishonest Supreme Court ruling.

However the Chief Censor has actually declared that it's illegal for New Zealanders to read the mass murder's manifesto.  That's bad because if they can't read it New Zealanders will be easily fooled when the media says that the attacker was conservative when in fact his manifesto declares that he's an eco activist and that the country with the ideology closest to his is Communist China.

In any case the same lack of Constitutional rights that allowed New Zealand to declare most guns suddenly illegal is why they have a Chief Censor.

A tentative apology to Mueller

There was every reason to believe that Mueller was a deep state hack who would accuse Trump of criminal activity even in the absences of evidence--sort of a anti-matter Comey who excused Hillary of crimes in the face of overwhelming evidence.

He hired hard core Democrat supporting lawyers and had staff which openly hated Trump.

He viciously pursued process crimes against innocent people like General Flynn.

His office leaked like a sieve always saying that they'd found this or that evil thing that Trump had done.

But his final report has only one bad section, the one about obstruction where even though there was no evidence for it he refused to make the obvious conclusion, and it does say that there was no collusion.

So perhaps Mueller isn't the monster that his previous record would indicate; he had a tendency to hound innocent people he'd decided were guilty.

In the extremely unlikely case that Robert Mueller ever reads anything I write I'd like to let him know that while his conduct of his investigation was clearly biased I was wrong to assume he'd just condemn Trump no matter what the facts said.

What Mueller really said before the #FakeNews media spins it

1) No evidence of collusion by Trump or his associates

2) No basis for obstruction by Trump or his associates

3) No new indictments

Which means that the Democrats and the #FakeNews media have been lying to we the people for nearly three years for the sole purpose of nullifying our votes in the 2016 election.

Like all fascists Democrats only believe in elections when they win. The bizarre nattering of Democrats about Trump not leaving office if he loses in 2020 is nothing more than them projecting their own fascist roots on others.

Hence making up a collusion story and lying to we the people about it for years is something Democrats view as perfectly acceptable since they believed it would get them more power over we the people.

It's going to be interesting to see how suddenly Mueller is turned into a sold out hack by the very same Democrats and #FakeNews liars who have been telling us since he was appointed that he was only slightly inferior to Jesus Himself.

Democrats believe that their will to power can define reality so that they actually think that because Mueller has failed them he has instantly become a monster.

The day of the living dead lie; Mueller conspired with Trump and Trump colluded with Russia

Robert Mueller, who Democrats have been telling us for nearly 3 years is a veritable saint as well as the best prosecutor who has ever graced mankind with his presence, has released his final report which states that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 elections.

This essentially lays bare the fact that the entire #FakeNews media has been lying to we the people since 2016. All the frenzied claims that Trump had colluded with Russia and cheated Hillary out of her rightful victory we now know were wrong.

So of course Democrats and the #FakeNews media are going to admit they were wrong and apologize.

No.

Instead we're seeing the birth of the undead lie; a lie that has been proven to be a lie but which will be treated as though it's the truth by Democrats and the #FakeNews media.

Already Democrats are declaring that we need as many more years of investigation as it takes to prove that Trump colluded despite Mueller not finding any evidence after having spent millions employing 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents whose primary mission was to indict Trump.

The report says no collusion but Democrats are already saying that there was collusion we just don't know to what degree.

To keep the undead lie going Democrats have to declare that Mueller is corrupt or inept in direct contradiction to what they were all saying a week ago when they thought that Mueller would condemn Trump.

After all if Mueller is the super hero that Democrats have been portraying him to be and he didn't find any evidence of collusion then that would mean that Democrats have been totally, utterly wrong.

But the one thing Democrats can't stand is the truth. That's why they deny science and say that human life doesn't begin at conception, that a man can become a woman just by wishing, that cow farts are going to destroy the world, that illegals benefit our country, and that the government is better at running our lives than we are.

Truth is to Democrats what a garlic sundae on a sunny day in church garden is to a vampire.

Be sure to ask your friends who listen to the #FakeNews media what they think of the Democrats quest after the great white whale...err collusion.

Planned Parenthood lies to women

A woman went to a PP facility in Knoxville Tennessee after discovering she was pregnant.

They did a pre-abortion ultrasound, the only type of ultrasound PP usually provides, and the technician asked if the mother wanted to know the details.

The mother asked if there was a heartbeat and was told that at ages 7-8 weeks "there was cardiac activity but it was too early to call it a heartbeat".  Now that's a out and out lie since unbiased sources such as the Endowment for Human Development and Parents.com say that the heart begins beating at around 3 weeks after conception.

The technician also either missed that the woman was pregnant with twins or lied about that too.

Why would PP lie?  Because abortion is PP's big money business.  According to the new head of PP it's PP's core mission.

But when a mother knows her daughters heart is already beating she's less likely to abort. Similarly most women are less enthused about aborting two babies than one.  Hence the things that PP told this mother were precisely what you'd expect if PP's primary motivation is to make more money.

Of course those on the left say that PP doesn't make money; it's a non-profit. But that's a big lie.  While PP can't technically make a profit--though it does take in more money each year than it spends--the more money PP makes the more money it can dole out to its employees; especially the senior managers.  So while PP has no shareholders to answer to all of its employees are incentivized to maximize the amount of money PP makes so that they can get paid more.  And PP uses that; that's why awards are given out to people who increase a "clinics" abortion tally over the previous years tally.

Ilhan Omar has closed door fundraisers with terrorist related groups

The Democrat who says that Jews "hypnotize" the world and that one can't be a loyal American and not want Israel to be destroyed, Ilhan Omar, has been holding closed door fundraisers with groups that have been associated with radical Islamic terrorism.

In Florida she was a speaker at a private event hosted by Islamic Relief; a charity organization that is reputedly associated with terrorist organizations.  Congress has investigated Islamic Relief for efforts to provide assistance to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood--both violent Islamic terrorist organizations.  It's important to note that just as Muslims use Mosques as armories Muslims use some "charities" to fund jihad.

Then tomorrow she will attend what appears to be a closed door fundraiser sponsored by CAIR.  CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror finance trial of another "charity".

Given her public vicious antisemitic comments one can only imagine what she will say in a closed session with Muslims who support terrorism.

The really scary thing is that Omar has so much support in the Democrat party that she avoided any punishment for her Jew hating comments and she turned a condemnation of antisemitism into a condemnation of every form of hate that Democrats don't like.

It's fine to oppose Israeli policies but when people like Omar and Tlaib spread libels about Jews in general and support groups that call for the destruction of Israel that's something that our fathers Democrats would have condemned.

Leftists continue to normalize child molestation

Even as the Left spreads the Big Lie that Catholic priests are the only child molesters in America, which isn't remotely true, they defend celebrity child molesters.

Roman Polanski has been convicted of raping a 13 year old girl and yet the folks in Hollywood keep calling for him to be let off without prison time.

Woody Allen has been credibly charged with molesting his virtual step daughter when she was 8 yet Hollywood continues to lionize him.

Richard Dawkins, a famous atheists, has said that "mild" pedophilia is not that bad.

The latest example of this is Barbara Streisand's defense of Michael Jackson's sick behavior.  She said of Jackson:

“His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has," Streisand told The Times. “You can say ‘molested,' but those children, as you heard say [grown-up Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”

No Catholic would say that about the victims of some priest even though 80% of them were teenage boys not little kids.  Yet Streisand is basically excusing child molestation.

Bizarrely Streisand goes on to say:

“I feel bad for the children,” she said. “I feel bad for him. I blame, I guess, the parents, who would allow their children to sleep with him. Why would Michael need these little children dressed like him and in the shoes and the dancing and the hats?”

But if it was no big deal then why feel sorry for them? It appears that Streisand is saying that while what Jackson did was wrong it's ok because he's a great guy otherwise and he's not at fault.

Which is still nothing less than defending child molestation.

Something no Catholic would do.

Like Nazi's and slave owners Democrats dehumanize those they hate

The Nazi's used to call Jews parasites in order to dehumanize them and rationalize the mass murder of Jews.

Democrat Ocasio-Cortez--she who was recently incensed because she incorrectly claimed that Fox News anchors were calling her Cortez instead of Ocasio-Cortez-- recently compared President Trump to a parasite.

Can you imagine if Trump compared Ocasio-Cortez or Ilhan Omar to parasites what the media would say?  Yet the casual dehumanizing of Republicans by Democrats, remember that Democrat Ilhan Omar said that Trump isn't human, is considered to be witty by the #FakeNews media.

Democrats use lawfare to wage war against America

The term lawfare means to use the legal system as a way to wage war against others.

It's been the fundamental tool used by Democrats to destroy America.  The Democrats originally resorted to lawfare because they couldn't get their unconsititutional agenda implemented through the political process because we the people didn't support it.

The huge changes imposed on America including legalizing abortion for any reason at any time in pregnancy--which overturned the laws of all 50 states--, redefining marriage--and overturning the votes of 50,000,000 Americans--, establishing openly racist policies, legalizing the sexual exploitation of individuals, and decriminalizing libel were all the products of lawfare.

In those cases dishonest Supreme Court judges invoked a "living" Constitution to justify their war on the democratic process.  According to Democrats the Constitution is not a settled document but rather whatever dishonest judges wish it to be.

Recently Democrats have extended their lawfare into new regimes.  We see this when whenever Trump tries to do something some random dishonest Federal judge says he can't do it. It's unclear if the epitome of this was when a court ruled that if Hillary had issued the exact same executive order that Trump did it would be legal but because Trump wrote it it was illegal or when a judge ruled that Trump couldn't overturn an Obama executive order--thereby making Obama a super president whose rulings live on forever.

Lawfare works for Democrats because a large portion of the judges in America are dishonest; they believe that they have the power to make laws rather than merely interpret them.  That's why it's critical that Trump replace as many judges as is possible.

The whole Mueller investigation was an example of lawfare. There was no evidence of any crime yet a witch hunt with no constraints was initiated with the sole purpose of nullifying the 2016 election.

In America we don't investigate people just because we don't like them.  Democrats themselves would go into a hissy fit, and rightly so, if a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate Ocasio-Cortez just because she's advocating horrible policies in hopes of finding some crime she may have committed.

But because modern Democrat politicians and their rabid base, as opposed to the majority of people who vote for Democrats, are all tyrants at heart they are perfectly comfortable with short circuiting the democratic process and using dishonest judges to impose their will on we the people.

What do Democrats stand for?

Here are some of the positions that the Democrats as a group, especially the Presidential candidates, seem to be supporting today.

1) Infanticide:  Democrats have rejected a law which would require appropriate medical care for babies who are born alive.

2) Abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth: Democrats have pushed bills that allow an abortion do be done while a woman is in labor.

3) Making it legal for strangers to kill unborn babies: The new New York state abortion law that Democrat Cuomo celebrated says that the unborn have no rights and hence if a mugger or a disgruntled father attacks a pregnant woman and kills her unborn daughter it is not murder; the only crime is assaulting the mother. This is a real issue; already one man who did just that has had the charges against him for killing the unborn child dropped.

4) Eliminating air travel: As part of the "Green New Deal" Democrats want to make us take 20+ hour train trips across the country.

5) Energy scarcity: Democrats want to get rid of all fossil fuel but the problem is that solar and wind not only are much more expensive they often don't work at anywhere near full capacity.  Now nuclear or hydroelectric power don't have those problems but Democrats reject them. Without nuclear, hydro, or back up fossil fuels people will be going without power during Minnesota nights.

6) Unlimited illegal immigration: Democrats are all for open borders; anyone who can sneak into the US should get welfare for life.  One Democrat is even calling for illegals to get Social Security benefits.

7) Condoning the mass shooting of Blacks in Democrat run cities:  Each year thousands of Blacks are shot in Democrat run cites like Chicago but the Democrats say and do nothing to fix the problem; instead they're working on reducing  the time criminals spend in jail.

8) Exporting US jobs:  Democrats oppose the US taking action to end unfair trade practices that let US companies increase their profits by shipping jobs overseas where labor is cheap.

9) Income security for those who are unwilling to work:  Democrats want hard working Americans to pay to ensure that bums who could work but don't want to live comfortable lives.

10) Reparations for Slavery:  Democrat's want to tax the descendants of the men who fought in the Union army to end slavery to give money to Blacks who have no slave blood; they came to America long after slavery was abolished.

11) Kill all the cows:  Democrats tell us that cow farts are destroying our planet.  Well cows, being herbivores, will fart so the only solution is to kill all of them.

12) Make us all vegans: Democrats are openly talking about using the power of government to get Americans to eat less meat.  Like to see where the Constitution says the government has the power to do that.

13) Force Christians to provide services to gay "weddings":  Democrats only support freedom of worship--for now--not our right to exercise our religion.

14) Graphic sex ed for grade schoolers: We see this in California where the Democrats are mandating graphic sex ed for kids as young as kindergarteners.

15) Allowing men to use the women's bathroom: Not just men who have been diagnosed by a psychiatrist as being transgendered; any man who says he's really a woman.

16) Destroying women's sports: By demanding that men who are pretending to be women but have the full biological advantage in terms of larger hearts etc be allowed to compete in women's events Democrats are ensuring that real women will be unlikely to win any athletic competition in the future.

17) Supporting voter fraud: Democrats are for giving drivers licenses to illegals and automatically registering everyone who gets a drivers license without requiring any proof of citizenship.

18) Higher taxes: Even ignoring the massive tax increases on the middle class that would be require to fund the "Green New Deal" Democrats have promised to repeal the Trump tax cuts which reduced taxes for the vast majority of Americans.

19) Censorship: Democrats have declared that "hate" speech--ie any speech they don't like--isn't protected by the 1st Amendment.  They also fully support Twitter, Facebook, etc censoring conservative voices.

20) Taking American's guns:  Democrats are all for doing anything they can to disarm the American people. In California the Democrats have passed laws that make it impossible to buy any handgun that is newly manufactured.

21) Using the Supreme Court to impose Democrat policy on us: For decades Democrats have managed to use dishonest Supreme Court judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to legislate from the bench.  Now they're talking about packing the Supreme Court in order to continue that bit of tyranny.

22) Eliminating the Electoral College: Thereby ensuring that a few big cities have all the power over who gets elected president and the folks in fly over country won't even need to vote since their votes won't count.

This is just a small sample of the insane policies being pushed by Democrats all of which are designed to empower them and steal our freedoms.

Late term abortions aren't due to babies doomed to die anyway

A study by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute found that the reasons for late term abortions were pretty much the same as those provided for first trimester abortions.

Ron Fitzsimmons the Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers said that late term abortions are usually performed on healthy mothers and healthy fetuses--unborn babies to us civilized folk.

Yet the current head of Planned Parenthood and the #FakeNews media keep peddling the lie that late term abortions are all about saving the mothers life or "terminating" a baby which will die anyway.

If you're pro-choice ask yourself this question why do the pro-choice fanatics defend every abortion including sex selection ones where an unborn baby girl is killed because her parents want a boy? Why do pro-choicer support killing a baby who survived an abortion attempt and is born alive?

Why the fanaticism?  Why not just restrict abortion to the first trimester and for the hard cases?  The answer is that the moment the pro-choice movement admits the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings they suddenly become monsters like the Nazis because they support the killing of innocent human beings.

Investigations forever

The out of control baseless Mueller investigation which was triggered by illegal leaks by an angry former FBI director has finally ended.

But proving their dishonest Democrats are saying that if Mueller didn't find Trump guilty of something then they must conduct more investigations.

Clearly this whole process has been a dishonest "investigate until we find something" instead of a "we have evidence which we need to follow".

In America we don't investigate people until we have some evidence they've committed a crime.  At least that used to be the case.  In tyrannies the rulers decide who they want to be guilty and then they investigate until they can find, or make up, something.

But that's the Democrats for you.  Back in the Reagan years one Democrat said that because there was no evidence of Reagan having done anything wrong it made it essential to investigate him.

The real college admission scandal

Some tiny number of rich but not insanely rich parents bribed their kids way into college and the #FakeNews media is having a hissy fit.

Sure the #FakeNews media think that bribery is bad, except when Democrats bribe voters with we the people's money, but discrimination on a non-cash basis is something the #FakeNews media extolls.

Every year thousands of Asian and European Americans are discriminated against solely because of their race by colleges looking for "diversity"; not diversity of thought but diversity of skin color.

The daughter of two rich Black medical doctors who just moved to the US from France will be given special treatment when applying to college while the European American son of a single mom in Appalachia and the hard working daughter of a family which fled Communist China will be discriminated against.

What's interesting is that in California if you're an illegal you aren't discriminated against in admittance to California state colleges.  Which means that since there are a limited number of spaces, since the State subsidizes tuition for California residents, legal taxpaying US citizens are denied entrance while non-taxpaying illegals are admitted.

The chances of any of the roughly 2 million kids applying to college being denied entrance into the college of their choice due to the bribery scandal is pretty much 0.  On the other hand the chances are high that Asian and European Americans are turned down by the college of their choice just because their skins aren't the right color.

Yet not only doesn't the #FakeNews media get upset about this they in fact extoll it as a good.  Republicans agree with the Rev Martin Luther King Jr. that we should judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin but the modern Left agrees with racists like Democrat George Wallace who believed what matters is the color of a person's skin not the content of her character.