Not separating kids will lead to more children suffering

If all the parents a child has are arrested that child is not allowed to stay with them while they're in jail.

To sane people this makes sense since putting kids in a prison full of criminal adults is not something rational people think sounds good.

This separation occurs on a regular basis for the American children of American parents.

If illegals don't want it to happen to their children all they have to do is go to a border crossing and legally apply for asylum.  But it's clear that the parents in these cases aren't worried about being separated from their kids enough to avoid breaking the law.

What the leftists want is an open border where any family unit that tries to cross can't be detained.

But what would that lead to?  Imagine if you're MS-13 and you want to smuggle in a bunch of mid-20s or older thugs. Wouldn't it make sense to kidnap a kid from some house near the border in Mexico and claim that the kid was yours?  Because if the leftists have their way if you're with a kid, even if you can't show it's your kid, you have to be released immediately into the US.

If leftists get their way on this there will be a booming market in children for rent, lease, and sale near the border to ensure that anyone can waltz into America even if they get caught by the Border Patrol.

But then leftists won't care because they don't really care about the children; if they did they'd have been complaining about this policy when Obama was enforcing it.

The myth of the honest FBI/DOJ man

There are undoubtedly good men and women in the FBI and the DOJ; there just aren't any at the top of either organization.

We were told that Comey was honest and above politics but we know that's a lie.

We were told that Mueller was honest and above politics but we know that's a lie.

We were told that Rosenstein was honest and above politics but we know that's a lie.

We now know that the IG isn't honest either.

Unless first impressions are wrong the IG report seems to be Comey's Clinton email report repackaged.

Both are full of descriptions of criminal acts and/or acts of extreme political bias but both conclude that nothing really bad happened.

Even though procedural norms were violated in favor of Hillary over and over by people who we know loved Hillary and hated Trump the IG tells us that there was no political bias that matters.

It's time to recognize that no senior official in government can be trusted to be working for the people rather than for the elites who now rule us.

Who started the Trade War?

If you listen to the media you probably think that for no good reason Trump is trying to put huge tariff barriers up and is hell bent on wrecking the US economy.

The reality is that Trump is simply responding to a Trade War begun decades ago by countries like Canada and China.

Canada for example has tariffs of nearly 300% on US dairy products to protect their dairy industry. Which is fine so long as fake eyebrow wearing Canadian politicians don't say it's wrong for the US to put a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum from Canada.

Similarly China puts, on average, a 9% tariff, not counting VAT taxes, on products entering China while the US puts an average of less than 2%, and no VAT taxes.

What has been happening is that Americans have been subsidizing foreign companies for decades and Trump is saying that we're not going to continue to do that.  Back when Europe was recovering from their abject failure in WWII and Japan was recovering from the disastrous consequences of its imperialism America helping out made sense.

But it's time for the Europeans to put on their big boy pants and pay their own way.  They don't want to do that since they can't support their massive welfare states without US subsidies.

Think of it this way; you make it possible for the French to take long summer vacations by working hard and buying French goods.  Shouldn't they start paying for their own vacations?

All you need to know about modern "feminism"

You really have to dig hard to find anyone in America today who thinks women are inferior to men or that they should be paid less than men for the same job--well outside of leftist men that is.

Yet the "feminist" movement is a never ending source of vile attacks on men including the soon to be infamous WaPo column entitled "Why Can't We Hate Men?"--which in case you're curious says we should hate men.

In some sense that's not surprising in that modern "feminism" is run by women who hate men or who have been taught to believe that men are the cause of all problems while women are perfect.

But what's really surprising is how modern "feminists" are so eager to advocate things that hurt women.

For example the original feminists recognized abortion for what it is; a way for men to use women as objects without having to worry about being "stuck" with supporting children.  Yet modern "feminists" are not just cool with abortion they extoll it as a positive good.  Even more amazingly they refuse to condemn sex selection abortions even though in almost all cases it's an unborn woman to be who is killed because her mother wants a boy.

Whether you believe in God or evolution or both the reality is that women have been designed to love their babies. Hence it's not surprising when a mother kills her baby there are mental consequences.  And of course we know that having an abortion before having a live birth increases women's chances of getting cancer.

But since abortion is good for men the modern "feminists" embrace it whole heartedly; after all it's much better to be used and thrown away than to be married to a man who will stand with you until you're both old and gray... Not.

Modern "feminists" say that women selling their bodies for cash is great.  Can anyone think of anything more degrading than selling yourself for cash?  Having sex, which should be the most intimate part of ourselves that we only share with someone we love and who loves us, with random drunken, ugly, and uncaring strangers can't be something anyone would like to do. Yet we're told that "sex workers" are really having a wonderful time.  And of course those women's pimps are never mentioned.

Modern "feminists" were really chill with sexual harassment until they thought that they could weaponize it against Trump.  Then they threw a few has beens, but not Bill Clinton, to the wolves and pretended to care.  But given that they are cool with "rough" sex and casual promiscuity it's clear that if Hillary had been elected there would have been no #MeToo moment.

In some sense this isn't really surprising.  After all the key belief of modern "feminism" was that a successful woman was defined by what men thought was important like money and power.

Real feminists extoll the things that make women unique; their ability to have, love, and raise children.  Long after the world has forgotten what jobs men held and what they did the children that women raise will be impacting the world.  That's not to say that men don't share in raising children, at least the men who don't treat women as objects to be used but as people to be loved, but that the woman's role is unique, important, and should be celebrated.  That doesn't mean that women shouldn't be able to take on any job but it means that simply doing the same job a man has done in the past doesn't make a woman's life better.

Modern "feminists" say we should grade the quality of women's lives by how much money they make and how successful they are.  Stay at home mom's are not even tolerated; they are condemned by the same women who declare that promiscuity is great but then hate the men who take up their offer of free consequenceless sex and leave them to either abortion or single motherhood.

From the get go modern "feminism" has been a con run by the evil men who don't really love women to make it easier to have casual irresponsible sex.  The big give away was that Hugh Hefner, a guy who made his money by convincing young women to pose nude, was always a big fan of the modern version of "feminism".

All of modern "feminism" is a huge con to make women easier for men to exploit.  It's time for women to wake up and acknowledge that they've been conned, that happiness never arises from hating anyone, that men aren't all bad or the cause of all evil and that women aren't all perfect.

Life is messy but the world in which men are held accountable and sex requires a ring is a world that is much closer to perfection for women than our modern world. We can fight against women being unfairly discriminated against without having to demand that women accept the priorities defined by what the "feminists" call our patriarchal society.

New Democrats same as the old Democrats

When confronted with the fact that the founder of the Democrat party was a slave owner, that the Democrat party fought the civil war to maintain slavery, that the Democrat party founded the KKK, that the Democrat party passed the Jim Crow laws, and that it was the Democrat party fought school integration modern Democrats amazingly declare that that has nothing to do with them; that the Republicans are really that party.

Of course there is no evidence that the two parties switched positions but then truth has never been an obstacle to Democrats.

But it's easy to see who the modern Democrats really are.  When asked they'll extoll the virtues of FDR.

But FDR is the man who put Japanese Americans into prison camps during WWII because they were Japanese.

Similarly modern Democrats extolled Democrat Senator Byrd a former KKK recruiter.  Now unlike FDR Byrd supposedly apologized for his racism but can you imagine how the modern Democrats would react if a Republican had been a KKK recruiter but apologized?

No wait you don't have to.  Republican Senator Thurmond was a racist who'd apologized. At his retirement dinner Senator Lott made a joke about how it might have been better if Thurmond had won his bid for the presidency in the 1940s.  The modern Democrats were enraged and Lott had to resign as Senate Majority leader.

Byrd and FDR tell us that the new Democrats are the same as the old Democrats; they don't give a hoot about racism except as a weapon they can use against anyone who they don't agree with.

If you doubt that check out how modern Democrats talk to and about Justice Thomas, Ben Carson, and Candice Owens.  No Republican could ever talk about any Black the way the white Democrats talk about people of color who don't toe the white Democrat party line.

More proof Democrats hate people

If the continual push by Democrats to kill off Third World brown babies by abortion and their unremitting support for abortion for any reason at any time during a pregnancy wasn't evidence enough of Democrats loathing for people we now have new proof; California Democrats want to force people to cut their water use by more than 50%.

That's right as of today average water use in CA is about 109 gallons/day/person.  Under laws signed by Democrat Governor Brown Californians are going to have to reduce that to 50 gallons/day/person.

As of now the Water Districts have no way to limit the usage of individuals other than by increasing the cost of water; which means the rich won't be impacted and if the price gets too high the rich can always ship in water from out of state as they did in the last drought. I'm sure that exceptions will eventually be made for those on welfare and illegals.  So only the middle class will suffer.

The reality is that the job of government is to provide clean water to the population not demand that the population live off what the government deigns to give them.

California as more than enough water for everyone if they bothered to collect it and save it.  No new water storage facility has been built in CA since the 1970s.  That's why Arizona did far better in our last drought than CA did; Arizona actually did what it needed to for its people.

Instead of creating more water storage CA Democrats are going to make Californians suffer  to please the ecofreak CA Democrat base who think people are a problem not a blessing.

Building new water storage facilities won't destroy the Earth but because the Democrats who run CA care more about obscure fish than people most Californians will have to give up their lawns, cut back on showers, and not use the bathroom so much.

The Truth about what Democrats care about

Democrats are desperately trying to explain why the explosion of jobs under Trump is bad.

This tells us that Democrats don't really care about people having jobs since if they did they'd be arguing that they could do an even better job than Trump.  But we know that they all agreed with Obama when he said that jobs were just not going to come back so it's unlikely that their objective is full employment.

The reason is obvious. A key component of the Democrat base is people who live on welfare.  If you depend on the government for your next meal you're going to vote for the party which promises to keep the money flowing not the party that wants you to get a job.

Additionally leftists generally don't give their own money to help the poor but they make themselves feel good because they support politicians who will tax others to help the poor. But if there are fewer people without jobs leftists can't feel as good about themselves by increasing taxes on others.

One last thing remember how Democrats told us that the economy was great under Obama even when Black unemployment was nearly twice that of White unemployment?  Given that does it surprise you that Democrats aren't excited about the sudden decrease in Black unemployment?