If you own Salesforce stock it's time to sue

Leftist CEOs are hijacking publicly owned companies to impose their ideology on we the people.

The latest example is Salesforce.  They provide business software to many companies. They've now declared that if your company sells certain types of legal guns you can't use their software.

That's right the CEO of Salesforce is demanding that all of his customers live as he wants them to live or be forced to spend lots of money to switch to a competitors product.

The problem is that since Salesforce is a publicly owned company the customers he's cutting off, and the profits he's denying to his share holders, aren't his.

One way to perhaps curb this growing tendency of leftist CEOs to commander companies they don't own to further their own personal agenda would be to either sue them or have them indicted for fraud.

By saying they won't serve certain customers for reasons that have nothing to do with either illegal activity or misuse of their product those CEOs are effectively embezzling or defrauding the stock holders.  Every dollar in business lost when a CEO uses the company he runs but doesn't own for personal gain is a dollar stolen from the share holders.

While major investors don't usually care, they're leftists too, so long as the stock doesn't drop too much smaller investors could, by suing or getting the CEOs indicted, put a price tag on CEOs misuse of corporate funds.

If something isn't done the war that the left is waging on we the people will continue with the aid of corporate America.

Democrats are saying that Americans can have no other gods before the government

Modern Democrats are fascists at heart who believe that we the people should be ruled by Democrats not represented by politicians.

Like the God of the Old Testament, but without His justification, they refuse to allow any beliefs that don't conform to what they believe in.

That's why Democrats demand that Christian bakers provide cakes for gay weddings while saying that gay bakers don't have to bake a cake with an inscription they don't like.  It's why California Democrats are demanding that Catholic priests reveal people's confessions to the government while still allowing lawyers to keep their clients secrets.

To Democrats the 1st Amendment only allows freedom of worship; you can go to your holy place on whatever day you like but you need to leave your religious beliefs at home when you go to work or interact with society.

But that's not what the 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

The intent of the Framers is clear there shall be no official government religion, like the Church of England that so many American colonists had fled, but that people could live out the beliefs of their faith.  Until activist dishonest judges and Democrats started waging a war on freedom no one doubted the meaning of the 1st Amendment.

This is why in a vastly Christian country Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc are able to freely live their lives in conformance with their deeply held religious beliefs.

Democrats attacks are mainly directed at Christians although people like Ilhan Omar are revealing the deep seated antisemitism that is held by many Democrat politicians because Christians, due to their numbers, have the power to thwart Democrats lust for power.

Democrats hate religion because it stands between them and total power.  If you doubt that remember that Hillary Clinton stated that religions would have to change their teachings to conform to the morality espoused by Democrats.

At a 2015 Women in the World summit Hillary said:

“deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Only a person inclined to fascist beliefs and one who felt herself to be above we the people would say that people must change their religious beliefs to conform to her personal morality.

Clearly Hillary and the Democrats in general have a God complex; they believe that they are our gods and that we shouldn't put the True God before them.

This is just one more example of how to Democrats tolerance means silencing all voices that disagree with them and diversity means thinking the way Democrats want us to.

Democrats demand Catholic priests reveal people's confession details

The Democrat run California Senate has passed a bill, SB 360, that demands that in certain circumstances Catholic priests break the seal of the confessional in order to supposedly reduce child molestation.

When Catholics go to confession they have to talk about their greatest failures and weaknesses and because of that the Church has made it a mortal sin for a priest to ever share anything he's heard in confession. A priest who breaks the seal of the confessional is automatically excommunicated.

Demanding that a priest go against the 2000 year old teaching of his faith is no different than demanding that a Muslim Iman or an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi eat pork.

What's really interesting is that Democrats agree that if a lawyer knows his client raped a child that lawyer not only doesn't have to tell anyone but Democrats encourage him to do his best, using every legal technicality that leftist judges have introduced, to get the rapist off.

The whole bill won't help because child rapists don't go to confession; it's a situation that simply hasn't happened.

But even if it would help demanding that lawyers rat on their clients would be far more effective yet Democrats want to let lawyers help child rapists get off while forcing Catholic priests to go against their faith.

It's also very important to note that if SB 360 becomes law then a precedent will be established that the government can force people to go against their deeply held religious beliefs if the Democrats don't share those beliefs.

While SB 360 applies to a limited set of circumstances there is nothing to stop the Democrats eventually demanding priests to report whatever Democrats want reported.

This is just one more sign of the war that Democrats are waging against people of faith.

It's easy to stay out of poverty in America

For those that do get stuck in poverty, what can and should be done to help them?

See our video: There Is Only One Way Out of Povertyhttps://t.co/D8GZmu47pv pic.twitter.com/fIuQDEGVRm

— PragerU (@prageru) June 1, 2019

While the left continually works to justify bums living off the hard work of others the reality is that if a person takes ownership of their own life and works hard they can join the middle class irrespective of their race, religion, or ancestry.

The left wants people on welfare because people who depend on the government for their next meal will almost always vote for the party which promises them the most money; ie the Democrat party.

That's why the Green New Deal includes ensuring that people who can work but who don't want to work can have a good lifestyle.

The obvious problem is that most Americans would prefer to not have to work.  What the Democrats want is for the responsible Americans to pay for the lazy and irresponsible Americans.

Democrats war on women: NCAA track edition

CeCe Tefler just won the woman's 400 meter hurdles national title.  Normally that wouldn't be a big deal except that CeCe is a man who is pretending to be a woman.

Science tells us that our sex is determined not by our will but by our DNA.  CeCe is, according to science, a man and an ok but not great runner having finished 390th in the same event for men in 2017.

But by going against settled science and declaring himself to be a woman he managed to win the woman's championship by an amazingly large margin of 2 seconds--out of a 57 second long race.  that sort of win is rare in modern track because there are so many highly competent men and women competing.

What this shows is that science is right when it declares that men are more athletic than women.  Men have bigger hearts--even though women tend to care more-- stronger muscles etc. Everyone knows this. Good male athletes can beat the very best female athletes at anything that requires physical strength.

By allowing men to compete against women the Democrats are ensuring that women will no longer have a league of their own; they will be playing second fiddle to men who pretend to be women.

This is in keeping with the Democrats clearly misogynistic support of the whole transgendered movement. What is more demeaning of women than saying that a man can become a woman simply by having some plastic surgery and willing himself to be a woman?  That position says that there is nothing unique about being a woman, or about being a man for that matter, which goes against all of our experience.

That women can't outrun men doesn't mean that women are inferior any more than the fact that men can't give birth means men are inferior.

The Democrats effort to deny women to compete with other women is nothing less than an attack on women.

While the Democrats say they're pro-women because they support the right of women to kill their unborn babies so that the men who use and then discard women won't have to worry about child care payments the reality is that Democrats are pro-hedonism and that requires them to support transgenderism as well as abortion even though neither really helps women.

#FakeNews media "reporters" friends with Antifa fascists

Eoin Lenihan has been suspended on Twitter after leftists fake reported him.

The left hates him because he just published a study that showed that at least 15 #FakeNews "reporters" are friends with the violent Antifa movement--which is really a fascist movement like Hitler's Brown Shirts--and who write articles that support, condone, and excuse Antifa's violent anti-free speech actions.

To anyone who follows the news this is unsurprising.  Imagine for a moment how the media would react if a group of white nationalists used violence to keep left wing speakers from giving talks on college campuses.  There would be non-stop coverage and condemnation from all parts of the media. Which would be good because in America using violence to shutdown speech you don't like is, or was, anathema.

But when Antifa uses violence to prevent conservative speakers from speaking, violence that cost--in one case-- UC Berkeley-- resulted in $100,000 in damage, the media is either silent or somewhat supportive.

It's clear that Democrat politicians who certainly haven't made much effort to condemn Antifa violence are comfortable using Antifa as Hitler used the Brown Shirts to silence opponents.  Hence it's not surprising that reporters who have decided that the 1st Amendment applies to them but not to people whose ideologies they don't like have become friends with Antifa.

The problem from the left's perspective is the perennial leftist problem; they can't let we the people know what they're really doing. Few voters, no matter what their political leaning, are enthuse about the use of violence to silence political debate.

Hence the Twitter mob designed to censor the truth about just why major media outlets report so supportively about a bunch of left wing thugs who are eager to use violence to silence voices the left doesn't want voters to hear.

Mueller corrects; the left ignores

Mueller is treading a very thin line; he's doing everything he can to imply that Trump is guilty of evil deeds while not actually lying and saying that Trump has done anything wrong.

It's a tough job given that his report admits that there was no collusion and refuses to say that there was any obstruction.

Mueller's line is that he didn't decide if there was obstruction.  Given that making that decision was his job he can get away with saying that only because the #FakeNews media cover for him.

In real life the way things are supposed to work is a prosecutor investigates a crime he has some evidence occurred; a body is found lying on a street.  After he gets all the evidence he then decides if there is evidence to show a crime has been committed; was the body stabbed or did they die of typhus?  If a crime was committed then the prosecutor indicts the perpetrator.  If the prosecutor can't find evidence of a crime he walks away saying nothing.

That's because in America you're innocent until proven guilty.  But Mueller has flipped that.  He's saying that since he couldn't prove a negative--Trump didn't do anything--then Trump must be guilty.

Given the complete lack of any form of honesty on the part of the #FakeNews media and Democrat politicians they're gladly going along with this inversion of the American judicial process. Their treachery is transparent given that they are also the ones who fight to ensure that rapists, drug dealers, and murderers are set free due to legal technicalities precisely because even those fiends are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If one reads the Mueller report in light of traditional American justice then it's clear that Mueller did come to a conclusion on obstruction; he couldn't find any evidence of it.  Hence he should have said so rather than declare that Trump is guilty until proven innocent.

In his recent speech Mueller tried to toe the same thin line but as with his report he created the impression among leftists that if it were allowed under DOJ policy to indict a sitting President he, Mueller, would have indicted Trump for obstruction.

But we have to credit Mueller with having a tiny shred of honesty, or perhaps a fear of being indicted or sued by Trump, because after his recent speech he issued the following clarification--something that the left hasn't taken to heart:

"The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements."

But even as Mueller denied what the left got out of his speech he still was acting as though he didn't clear Trump by admitting that there wasn't any evidence he could cite that showed that Trump had in fact obstructed justice.

For anyone else in America a prosecutor saying that he couldn't find any evidence to indict would mean that that person was off the hook but not so for the left and Trump.  

In the minds of the left Trump has no right to be President because to the left elections are nothing more than shams to cover the ascension to power of our rightful rulers.