Category: William L. Gensert

209151.png

Blasey Ford Must Be Acknowledged and Then Dismissed


In a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and an article in the Washington Post, Christine Blasey Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Georgetown Prep classmate Mark Judge of sexually assaulting her.  She claims that this happened somewhere around 1982 when she was 15 years old and consisted of Kavanaugh groping her while holding her down with his hand over her mouth so she couldn’t scream while both 17-year-olds laughed maniacally.  As corroborating evidence of the assault, she provided partial notes from couples’ therapy she attended with her husband in 2012. 

She released only selected portions of her therapist’s notes – what would Democrats call that?  Oh yeah, “cherry-picking,” just as many Democrats have described what Trump is choosing to declassify with respect to the Carter Page FISA Court applications. 

Her therapist’s notes describe an attempted sexual assault, but neither Kavanaugh nor Judge is mentioned.  In addition, her therapist’s notes say there were four boys present “from an elitist boys’ school,” whereas in the Feinstein letter, she claims only two assailants (Kavanaugh and Judge).  Both have categorically denied the allegations, with Judge calling the accusation “absolutely nuts.”

Blasey Ford says the therapist made a mistake in his notes.  Her claim is that a therapist, who by definition and job description must rely heavily on his notes to delineate and document needed therapy, made a mistake.  Yet, though he was incompetent enough to make an error of fact, he was still sufficiently competent to save his notes for six years.

In addition to the discrepancy, also note the term “elitist,” a word that was not commonly used in 1982 to describe a private school, especially by a private school girl.  In the hyper-class-conscious world of 2012, however, it was in broad usage.  To me, this shows that her memory had at least to some extent been adjusted by her later political indoctrination.

The corroborating (at least, to her, her lawyer, and the media) therapist’s notes, apart from being incomplete and listing the wrong number of assailants, also do not mention Kavanaugh, whose name came up only in discussions she had with her husband in 2012.  In the Washington Post article, her husband told the author, “he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.” 

This is another political aspect of her accusation; she sees her alleged assault through the prism of Kavanaugh’s politics and potential Supreme Court nomination. 

In the letter to Feinstein, she calls the get-together a “gathering,” and it has been described elsewhere as a “party.”  This is easy to understand since either one sounds a lot better than saying she went to a house to hang out with four boys to drink and smoke pot.

Her attorney’s later addition of another female to the group should be taken the same way.  It sounds better that she went with another girl than alone to a “party,” “gathering,” or “hangout.”  I would also note that while it’s possible to forget the names of the male attendees, the location of the party, and the year of the hangout, were there another girl present, I would think she not only would remember that girl’s name, but probably would have told her what happened as well.

Another “elitist” classmate, Patrick J. Smyth, had this to say: “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post[.]”  Smyth has also said (in a letter to the Judiciary Committee), “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

She claims that she never told anyone contemporaneously, and for 30 years, she repressed the memory, recovering it only during her 2012 therapy.  Weren’t there a whole bunch of people who went to prison as the result of repressed and recovered memories, only to be later exonerated?  No matter; they can be trusted this time as reason enough to ruin a man’s life, reputation, and career.

Were one to accept her story as true, it would be understandable why she would not tell the authorities or her parents.  It would be embarrassing to admit she went with four boys to hang out, drink, and smoke pot.  In addition, being roughly fondled, however wrongly, probably would not have been considered a sexual assault in 1982.

It is also understandable how she wouldn’t know the location of the house or its owner.  Presumably, she was with people she trusted (or she wouldn’t have gone) and didn’t require it.  At 15 years old, she would have been driven there and probably was not paying attention, perhaps because she was conversing with those in the car.  One would think, though, she would remember those in the car.  But it’s still somewhat believable that she might not remember getting there or where it was.

But…

How did she get home?  According to her story, she had been so traumatized that she claimed in the Feinstein letter she “received medical treatment.”  She provided no evidence of this because hospitals in 1982 presumably didn’t keep records, or perhaps she was referring to her therapy, or merely being hyperbolic.  In any case, after a traumatizing assault, she would surely be terrified and looking to get out of there as soon as possible. 

Who took her home? 

Whoever did take her home would have been her savior and thus at the very least someone she would remember vividly, or at the minimum, his name.  This, to me, is most damning.  Everyone remembers his savior.

As Conrad Black says:

Kavanaugh denies it, no one corroborates it, no illegality is alleged, no subsequent claimants of like behavior have come forward, and scores of women who have known the judge for decades have attested to his irreproachable behavior and character.

From Andrew C. McCarthy:

This has all the hallmarks of a set-up.  If the Democrats had raised the allegation in a timely manner, its weakness would have been palpable, it would have been used for what little it’s worth in examining Kavanagh [sic] during his days of testimony, it would be put to rest as unverifiable, and we’d be on to a confirmation vote.  Instead, we’re on to a delay – precisely the Democrats’ objective.  They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.

Also from McCarthy:

I don’t know if something awful really happened to Ford when she was 15.  None of us will ever know.  Apparently, Ford herself does not know basic facts either, since she cannot tell us where and when the alleged assault happened, and what she did in the aftermath.  Giving her the benefit of the doubt that it happened as she claims it happened, she hasn’t come close to establishing that Brett Kavanaugh, as opposed to some other kid she has forgotten, was her assailant; that is, she has not established that her memory of the assailant can be trusted when she cannot recall other rudimentary details.  We can feel sympathy for her while nevertheless inferring that she does not want to testify because she cannot explain the oddities of her account.  Or we can justifiably suspect that the whole thing is a partisan stunt.

In my opinion, she should have stayed “anonymous.”  We know how much the left likes “anonymous” allegations.

In a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and an article in the Washington Post, Christine Blasey Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Georgetown Prep classmate Mark Judge of sexually assaulting her.  She claims that this happened somewhere around 1982 when she was 15 years old and consisted of Kavanaugh groping her while holding her down with his hand over her mouth so she couldn’t scream while both 17-year-olds laughed maniacally.  As corroborating evidence of the assault, she provided partial notes from couples’ therapy she attended with her husband in 2012. 

She released only selected portions of her therapist’s notes – what would Democrats call that?  Oh yeah, “cherry-picking,” just as many Democrats have described what Trump is choosing to declassify with respect to the Carter Page FISA Court applications. 

Her therapist’s notes describe an attempted sexual assault, but neither Kavanaugh nor Judge is mentioned.  In addition, her therapist’s notes say there were four boys present “from an elitist boys’ school,” whereas in the Feinstein letter, she claims only two assailants (Kavanaugh and Judge).  Both have categorically denied the allegations, with Judge calling the accusation “absolutely nuts.”

Blasey Ford says the therapist made a mistake in his notes.  Her claim is that a therapist, who by definition and job description must rely heavily on his notes to delineate and document needed therapy, made a mistake.  Yet, though he was incompetent enough to make an error of fact, he was still sufficiently competent to save his notes for six years.

In addition to the discrepancy, also note the term “elitist,” a word that was not commonly used in 1982 to describe a private school, especially by a private school girl.  In the hyper-class-conscious world of 2012, however, it was in broad usage.  To me, this shows that her memory had at least to some extent been adjusted by her later political indoctrination.

The corroborating (at least, to her, her lawyer, and the media) therapist’s notes, apart from being incomplete and listing the wrong number of assailants, also do not mention Kavanaugh, whose name came up only in discussions she had with her husband in 2012.  In the Washington Post article, her husband told the author, “he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.” 

This is another political aspect of her accusation; she sees her alleged assault through the prism of Kavanaugh’s politics and potential Supreme Court nomination. 

In the letter to Feinstein, she calls the get-together a “gathering,” and it has been described elsewhere as a “party.”  This is easy to understand since either one sounds a lot better than saying she went to a house to hang out with four boys to drink and smoke pot.

Her attorney’s later addition of another female to the group should be taken the same way.  It sounds better that she went with another girl than alone to a “party,” “gathering,” or “hangout.”  I would also note that while it’s possible to forget the names of the male attendees, the location of the party, and the year of the hangout, were there another girl present, I would think she not only would remember that girl’s name, but probably would have told her what happened as well.

Another “elitist” classmate, Patrick J. Smyth, had this to say: “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post[.]”  Smyth has also said (in a letter to the Judiciary Committee), “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

She claims that she never told anyone contemporaneously, and for 30 years, she repressed the memory, recovering it only during her 2012 therapy.  Weren’t there a whole bunch of people who went to prison as the result of repressed and recovered memories, only to be later exonerated?  No matter; they can be trusted this time as reason enough to ruin a man’s life, reputation, and career.

Were one to accept her story as true, it would be understandable why she would not tell the authorities or her parents.  It would be embarrassing to admit she went with four boys to hang out, drink, and smoke pot.  In addition, being roughly fondled, however wrongly, probably would not have been considered a sexual assault in 1982.

It is also understandable how she wouldn’t know the location of the house or its owner.  Presumably, she was with people she trusted (or she wouldn’t have gone) and didn’t require it.  At 15 years old, she would have been driven there and probably was not paying attention, perhaps because she was conversing with those in the car.  One would think, though, she would remember those in the car.  But it’s still somewhat believable that she might not remember getting there or where it was.

But…

How did she get home?  According to her story, she had been so traumatized that she claimed in the Feinstein letter she “received medical treatment.”  She provided no evidence of this because hospitals in 1982 presumably didn’t keep records, or perhaps she was referring to her therapy, or merely being hyperbolic.  In any case, after a traumatizing assault, she would surely be terrified and looking to get out of there as soon as possible. 

Who took her home? 

Whoever did take her home would have been her savior and thus at the very least someone she would remember vividly, or at the minimum, his name.  This, to me, is most damning.  Everyone remembers his savior.

As Conrad Black says:

Kavanaugh denies it, no one corroborates it, no illegality is alleged, no subsequent claimants of like behavior have come forward, and scores of women who have known the judge for decades have attested to his irreproachable behavior and character.

From Andrew C. McCarthy:

This has all the hallmarks of a set-up.  If the Democrats had raised the allegation in a timely manner, its weakness would have been palpable, it would have been used for what little it’s worth in examining Kavanagh [sic] during his days of testimony, it would be put to rest as unverifiable, and we’d be on to a confirmation vote.  Instead, we’re on to a delay – precisely the Democrats’ objective.  They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.

Also from McCarthy:

I don’t know if something awful really happened to Ford when she was 15.  None of us will ever know.  Apparently, Ford herself does not know basic facts either, since she cannot tell us where and when the alleged assault happened, and what she did in the aftermath.  Giving her the benefit of the doubt that it happened as she claims it happened, she hasn’t come close to establishing that Brett Kavanaugh, as opposed to some other kid she has forgotten, was her assailant; that is, she has not established that her memory of the assailant can be trusted when she cannot recall other rudimentary details.  We can feel sympathy for her while nevertheless inferring that she does not want to testify because she cannot explain the oddities of her account.  Or we can justifiably suspect that the whole thing is a partisan stunt.

In my opinion, she should have stayed “anonymous.”  We know how much the left likes “anonymous” allegations.



Source link

208928.png

Analyzing the Faux Administration Official's Times Op-Ed


Recently, the New York Times published an anonymously written op-ed supposedly authored by “a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.” 

Analyzing the language used by this “senior official” leads me to conclude that something is not quite right with that claim.

In the second paragraph of the piece, the author, who I must remind readers is claimed by the Times to be “a senior official in the Trump administration” (a claim, by the way, the author himself never makes) states, while listing the travails facing our president, “that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.”  He uses the word “his” (that is, “the president’s”) when describing the Republican Party.  Why?  Isn’t he also a Republican?  He is serving in a Republican administration; it would be a realistic assumption that by far most members of Trump’s administration are Republicans.

If he is not a Republican, at least he should be easy enough to find.

He goes on to say “that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”  If he were, as claimed, a “senior official,” wouldn’t he say “many other senior officials,” or “many other top officials”?  And wouldn’t he say “our administration?”  Why phrase it that way only to say in the next paragraph, “I am one of them”?  Why say it afterward when he could have made it clear in his statement?  There’s a disconnect.

“To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left.  We want the administration to succeed.”  He uses “we” and “ours” here, but it refers to the “new resistance,” which he considers himself a part of.

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can.”  The use of “we” here can be read as a claim to be an appointee.  He doesn’t say he is an appointee in the White House or that he is in on the decision-making process or, as claimed by the Times, is a “senior official.”

“Anyone who works with him [Trump] knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.”  He doesn’t say “we who work with him know.”

“[T]he president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives.”  He doesn’t claim to be a conservative; he could just as easily be referring to others who are conservatives.

He says, “Meetings with him [the president] veer off topic and off the rails,” never saying he has ever been to one of these “meetings.”  The same with the president’s “repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.”  He never says he was present when such things have happened.  Yet he says this as if it is a fact, with credibility assigned by his implied presence without saying he was ever present or personally witnessed any of this.

He says, “a top official complained to me recently.”  Were I a “senior official,” I would have said “another top official.”

He talks of “unsung heroes in and around the White House” without claiming to be one, yet pay attention to the use of “around the White House.”  His usage says to me he fits in with the “around” part of this statement. 

“Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media.  But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.”   Notice that he uses “they” when talking about them, not “we.”

“But Americans should know that there are adults in the room.  We fully recognize what is happening.  And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”  Using “we” is including himself as an American.

When talking about Russia, and Trump’s supposed unwillingness to punish the country for its much publicized poisoning attempt in London, he says: “But his national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.”  Again, were I a “senior official,” I would have said “our,” instead of “his.”

He claims that within the Cabinet, there was discussion of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president.  “But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.  So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until – one way or another – it’s over.”  This is the closest he comes to power: using “we” can be interpreted to say he is a member of the Cabinet or an assistant to a Cabinet member.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example – a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.  Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

In both instances where he uses “we,” he is talking about “we the people.”

This is not written by a “senior administration official.”  The person who wrote this is not in on the decision-making process and doesn’t serve in the White House.  He may be a Cabinet official or an appointee at the most. 

I wouldn’t be surprised to find he is something like the third assistant to the secretary of the Regional Administration Committee for Religious Community Outreach.

Recently, the New York Times published an anonymously written op-ed supposedly authored by “a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.” 

Analyzing the language used by this “senior official” leads me to conclude that something is not quite right with that claim.

In the second paragraph of the piece, the author, who I must remind readers is claimed by the Times to be “a senior official in the Trump administration” (a claim, by the way, the author himself never makes) states, while listing the travails facing our president, “that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.”  He uses the word “his” (that is, “the president’s”) when describing the Republican Party.  Why?  Isn’t he also a Republican?  He is serving in a Republican administration; it would be a realistic assumption that by far most members of Trump’s administration are Republicans.

If he is not a Republican, at least he should be easy enough to find.

He goes on to say “that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”  If he were, as claimed, a “senior official,” wouldn’t he say “many other senior officials,” or “many other top officials”?  And wouldn’t he say “our administration?”  Why phrase it that way only to say in the next paragraph, “I am one of them”?  Why say it afterward when he could have made it clear in his statement?  There’s a disconnect.

“To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left.  We want the administration to succeed.”  He uses “we” and “ours” here, but it refers to the “new resistance,” which he considers himself a part of.

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can.”  The use of “we” here can be read as a claim to be an appointee.  He doesn’t say he is an appointee in the White House or that he is in on the decision-making process or, as claimed by the Times, is a “senior official.”

“Anyone who works with him [Trump] knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.”  He doesn’t say “we who work with him know.”

“[T]he president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives.”  He doesn’t claim to be a conservative; he could just as easily be referring to others who are conservatives.

He says, “Meetings with him [the president] veer off topic and off the rails,” never saying he has ever been to one of these “meetings.”  The same with the president’s “repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.”  He never says he was present when such things have happened.  Yet he says this as if it is a fact, with credibility assigned by his implied presence without saying he was ever present or personally witnessed any of this.

He says, “a top official complained to me recently.”  Were I a “senior official,” I would have said “another top official.”

He talks of “unsung heroes in and around the White House” without claiming to be one, yet pay attention to the use of “around the White House.”  His usage says to me he fits in with the “around” part of this statement. 

“Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media.  But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.”   Notice that he uses “they” when talking about them, not “we.”

“But Americans should know that there are adults in the room.  We fully recognize what is happening.  And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”  Using “we” is including himself as an American.

When talking about Russia, and Trump’s supposed unwillingness to punish the country for its much publicized poisoning attempt in London, he says: “But his national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.”  Again, were I a “senior official,” I would have said “our,” instead of “his.”

He claims that within the Cabinet, there was discussion of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president.  “But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.  So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until – one way or another – it’s over.”  This is the closest he comes to power: using “we” can be interpreted to say he is a member of the Cabinet or an assistant to a Cabinet member.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example – a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.  Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

In both instances where he uses “we,” he is talking about “we the people.”

This is not written by a “senior administration official.”  The person who wrote this is not in on the decision-making process and doesn’t serve in the White House.  He may be a Cabinet official or an appointee at the most. 

I wouldn’t be surprised to find he is something like the third assistant to the secretary of the Regional Administration Committee for Religious Community Outreach.



Source link

This Is War, and There Will Be Blood


In seeking and executing a warrant to search the offices and home of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, leftists have abandoned all pretense that they are not prosecuting civil war against Americans who disagree with them.  They have decided that we represent an existential threat to the America they envision would exist under their tutelage.  They won’t let us mind our own business, raise our children, protect our families, be productive citizens, and be left alone.  That won’t do – they have plans for us.  They want this war, and they will force this fight upon us.

In the scheme of things, America is a young country.  Yet its brief history is replete with people who underestimated Americans.  Progressives are in the process of doing that today.  It is a mistake that will cost them dearly.

To succeed in fundamentally transforming the United States of America, the left must accomplish two things:

  • Impeach President Donald Trump.
  • Disarm Americans.

The left, in a national fit of pique, refuses to accept the fact that a majority of the country rejects its “new America,” as personified by its hero and god, Barack Obama.  He started the transmogrification, which leftists had planned to extend and codify during the reign of Hillary Clinton.  Then Donald Trump came along, and their plan fell apart, hence the necessity for the usurpation of the nation’s constitution and the will of the people.

They tried to kill his candidacy with the Steele dossier.  This flagrantly false and stupendously salacious piece of opposition research was paid for (breaking campaign finance law to do so) by Hillary Clinton’s minions and used (also illegally) by Obama administration apparatchiks to inveigle surveillance warrants from the FISA court to inaugurate continuous surveillance on a low-level Trump campaign official. 

Going forward, for the progressive left, the purpose of the dossier, which reads like bad fiction, was to cripple the nascent Trump presidency.

It wasn’t sufficient, however, leading to the machinations of James Comey, the 6’8″ Hillary Clinton “mini-me,” in illegally leaking government documents in order to engineer the appointment of his good friend and mentor as special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation into Russian election interference and, of course, lengthen his 15 minutes to lucratively monetize his story for the book deal.  Do you notice how leftists, despite being anti-capitalist, always seem to find a way to make money (see Hill and Bill and America’s uranium)?  The Mueller probe was later expanded in ex post facto fashion to include criminal investigation into tertiary figures: Manafort, Gates, van der Zwaan, et al.

The search of Cohen’s law offices and home under the aegis of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, using a warrant attained through information provided by the Mueller investigation, merely demonstrates how progressives will be constrained by neither the law nor probity in their pursuit of what they want – and what they want is the thorough abrogation of this presidency. 

Certainly, there will be privileged attorney-client documents involving the president swept up in the search.  To protect the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege, the FBI is appointing a “taint team” to decide what is protected and what is not.  Yet Alan Dershowitz is correct in saying that the mere seizing of privileged communications probably wrecks any criminal prosecution that might arise.

But then this entire charade, the Steele dossier, Mueller, the search of Cohen’s office and the seizure of privileged material, as well as every other flight of fancy employed by the Democrats and their media lapdogs, has never been about criminal charges.  It’s about impeachment, and you don’t need a crime to impeach.  You need only the impression of wrongdoing.

Impeachment is a political process for removing the president.  All that is required is a majority in the House of Representatives to vote for the articles of impeachment to start proceedings, and Congress gets to define what is meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Many predict that in the upcoming November elections, the Democrats will win a congressional majority, and impeachment will proceed accordingly.

Therefore, since all privileged information is worthless to prosecutors, whatever is scooped up in the search that can in any way be deemed unflattering to Trump will be leaked instead.  Since the documents will never publicly be released, leaked information can be portrayed as whatever they want it to be.  The material gathered will provide additional avenues of investigation as well.  While any evidence is probably also not usable in a criminal prosecution, it can be leaked to help build the impression of illegal action.  It doesn’t matter that it will be next to impossible to get two thirds of the Senate to vote for impeachment; by the time the dust has settled, the Trump presidency will be ruined – if Americans allow it. 

The signs are there that Americans are going to fight this.  There is a real possibility of blood in the streets.  Regular Americans are tired of the Democrat elite telling them what they must accept.

Leftists feel that they are right: America shouldn’t have a choice.  In effect, people should not be allowed to vote for anyone leftists do not approve of, and they certainly do not approve of Donald Trump.  And since they are on the side of what is right and just, anything they do, no matter how illegal, how immoral, how outwardly and obviously unfair and biased, is justified because the arc of history bends toward justice…or some such nonsense.

Everything they do is geared to unseat this president and nullify the rule of law, but before they can do this, they must disarm and demoralize the part of this nation that disagrees with them, the millions who do not believe they are racists, or clingers, or selfish because they want to protect their jobs and their families – those who believe that the Second Amendment affords them that right.

Make no mistake: the left, as embodied by the coastal elites; Hollywood; the media; and of course the king of them all, Barack Obama, he of the “bitter clingers,” “you didn’t build that,” and “at some point you’ve made enough money,” is prosecuting war against the very idea of America and the Americans who staunchly believe in it.

One can’t help but wonder at the stupidity of the left.  It’s likely true that were there no guns in America, there would be fewer gun deaths.  Yet fully mobilizing the armed forces, the National Guard, and all law enforcement in America and going door to door to seize every weapon extant in the nation today would not rid the nation of guns. 

There are an estimated 300 million firearms existing in America today.  And I wager that that figure is low.  I would also wager that most armed citizenry would be loath to voluntarily give up their guns – as well as being even more resistant to giving them up under duress.

So there you have it: the left wants to wage war against the most heavily armed populace ever to exist on this planet, and as weapons, leftists are going to use rhetoric and clever metaphors, mellifluously delivered, à la Barry the brilliant.  When Charlton Heston said, “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands,” it wasn’t a threat; it was a promise.

It strains credulity that they are using every trick in the book, from opposition research in the form of the Steele dossier to Sally Yates, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page, and probably Barack Obama himself, conspiring to sabotage the candidacy and later the presidency of Donald Trump, and they think there will not be a fight from a well armed populace?

This will not end well, and the blood will be on their hands.

In seeking and executing a warrant to search the offices and home of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, leftists have abandoned all pretense that they are not prosecuting civil war against Americans who disagree with them.  They have decided that we represent an existential threat to the America they envision would exist under their tutelage.  They won’t let us mind our own business, raise our children, protect our families, be productive citizens, and be left alone.  That won’t do – they have plans for us.  They want this war, and they will force this fight upon us.

In the scheme of things, America is a young country.  Yet its brief history is replete with people who underestimated Americans.  Progressives are in the process of doing that today.  It is a mistake that will cost them dearly.

To succeed in fundamentally transforming the United States of America, the left must accomplish two things:

  • Impeach President Donald Trump.
  • Disarm Americans.

The left, in a national fit of pique, refuses to accept the fact that a majority of the country rejects its “new America,” as personified by its hero and god, Barack Obama.  He started the transmogrification, which leftists had planned to extend and codify during the reign of Hillary Clinton.  Then Donald Trump came along, and their plan fell apart, hence the necessity for the usurpation of the nation’s constitution and the will of the people.

They tried to kill his candidacy with the Steele dossier.  This flagrantly false and stupendously salacious piece of opposition research was paid for (breaking campaign finance law to do so) by Hillary Clinton’s minions and used (also illegally) by Obama administration apparatchiks to inveigle surveillance warrants from the FISA court to inaugurate continuous surveillance on a low-level Trump campaign official. 

Going forward, for the progressive left, the purpose of the dossier, which reads like bad fiction, was to cripple the nascent Trump presidency.

It wasn’t sufficient, however, leading to the machinations of James Comey, the 6’8″ Hillary Clinton “mini-me,” in illegally leaking government documents in order to engineer the appointment of his good friend and mentor as special counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation into Russian election interference and, of course, lengthen his 15 minutes to lucratively monetize his story for the book deal.  Do you notice how leftists, despite being anti-capitalist, always seem to find a way to make money (see Hill and Bill and America’s uranium)?  The Mueller probe was later expanded in ex post facto fashion to include criminal investigation into tertiary figures: Manafort, Gates, van der Zwaan, et al.

The search of Cohen’s law offices and home under the aegis of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, using a warrant attained through information provided by the Mueller investigation, merely demonstrates how progressives will be constrained by neither the law nor probity in their pursuit of what they want – and what they want is the thorough abrogation of this presidency. 

Certainly, there will be privileged attorney-client documents involving the president swept up in the search.  To protect the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege, the FBI is appointing a “taint team” to decide what is protected and what is not.  Yet Alan Dershowitz is correct in saying that the mere seizing of privileged communications probably wrecks any criminal prosecution that might arise.

But then this entire charade, the Steele dossier, Mueller, the search of Cohen’s office and the seizure of privileged material, as well as every other flight of fancy employed by the Democrats and their media lapdogs, has never been about criminal charges.  It’s about impeachment, and you don’t need a crime to impeach.  You need only the impression of wrongdoing.

Impeachment is a political process for removing the president.  All that is required is a majority in the House of Representatives to vote for the articles of impeachment to start proceedings, and Congress gets to define what is meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Many predict that in the upcoming November elections, the Democrats will win a congressional majority, and impeachment will proceed accordingly.

Therefore, since all privileged information is worthless to prosecutors, whatever is scooped up in the search that can in any way be deemed unflattering to Trump will be leaked instead.  Since the documents will never publicly be released, leaked information can be portrayed as whatever they want it to be.  The material gathered will provide additional avenues of investigation as well.  While any evidence is probably also not usable in a criminal prosecution, it can be leaked to help build the impression of illegal action.  It doesn’t matter that it will be next to impossible to get two thirds of the Senate to vote for impeachment; by the time the dust has settled, the Trump presidency will be ruined – if Americans allow it. 

The signs are there that Americans are going to fight this.  There is a real possibility of blood in the streets.  Regular Americans are tired of the Democrat elite telling them what they must accept.

Leftists feel that they are right: America shouldn’t have a choice.  In effect, people should not be allowed to vote for anyone leftists do not approve of, and they certainly do not approve of Donald Trump.  And since they are on the side of what is right and just, anything they do, no matter how illegal, how immoral, how outwardly and obviously unfair and biased, is justified because the arc of history bends toward justice…or some such nonsense.

Everything they do is geared to unseat this president and nullify the rule of law, but before they can do this, they must disarm and demoralize the part of this nation that disagrees with them, the millions who do not believe they are racists, or clingers, or selfish because they want to protect their jobs and their families – those who believe that the Second Amendment affords them that right.

Make no mistake: the left, as embodied by the coastal elites; Hollywood; the media; and of course the king of them all, Barack Obama, he of the “bitter clingers,” “you didn’t build that,” and “at some point you’ve made enough money,” is prosecuting war against the very idea of America and the Americans who staunchly believe in it.

One can’t help but wonder at the stupidity of the left.  It’s likely true that were there no guns in America, there would be fewer gun deaths.  Yet fully mobilizing the armed forces, the National Guard, and all law enforcement in America and going door to door to seize every weapon extant in the nation today would not rid the nation of guns. 

There are an estimated 300 million firearms existing in America today.  And I wager that that figure is low.  I would also wager that most armed citizenry would be loath to voluntarily give up their guns – as well as being even more resistant to giving them up under duress.

So there you have it: the left wants to wage war against the most heavily armed populace ever to exist on this planet, and as weapons, leftists are going to use rhetoric and clever metaphors, mellifluously delivered, à la Barry the brilliant.  When Charlton Heston said, “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands,” it wasn’t a threat; it was a promise.

It strains credulity that they are using every trick in the book, from opposition research in the form of the Steele dossier to Sally Yates, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page, and probably Barack Obama himself, conspiring to sabotage the candidacy and later the presidency of Donald Trump, and they think there will not be a fight from a well armed populace?

This will not end well, and the blood will be on their hands.



Source link

Confirmed: Trump Is, Indeed, a Very Stable Genius


By now, everyone has heard about President Donald Trump’s tweet countering accusations made by the Wolff in sheep’s clothing, who wrote a book detailing the supposed Shakespearian machinations that Wolff asserts are consuming the Trump White House.  In his tweet, President Trump claimed he is, in fact, a “very stable genius.”

Throughout the media world, this made journalists’ heads explode.  Dilbert creator Scott Adams points out the genius of this move by reminding people that liberals will forever mock Trump for it and that it is not a bad thing for Trump to have his name and “genius” associated with each other in perpetuity.

I recently wrote that it was genius when Trump called Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” at a White House ceremony.  Had he merely mentioned her false claim of American Indian ancestry in order to procure a job at Harvard University, the media would have made sure no one heard about it.  He set a trap, and in a futile effort to destroy him, the media took the bait.

Trump calling her “Pocahontas” and the media publicizing it made millions of people aware of what Warren had done – potential 2020 voters who would have never learned that little embarrassing tidbit from the shady past of the one who persists.  (Or is she the one who resists?  It’s so confusing.)  

Donald Trump is a master of controlling the conversation.  Every time people think of Warren now, they will think of her lying to get a job, and every time someone mentions Wolff’s book, people are now going to associate Donald Trump with “very stable genius.”

With this president, unlike any Republican for decades, the swamp and the media no longer control the conversation.  They are bystanders, and this makes them so mad that they scream and search endlessly for that one thing Trump will say that will be the bridge too far, the thing they can use to dethrone him.  They want this so much that they will jump on everything he says – playing his game instead of forcing him to play theirs.

Take the infamous tweet he made about his nuclear button being bigger than little Rocket Man’s nuclear button.  People were appalled.  It was going to start a war; it was unpresidential; it was a disaster, they said.  You could almost hear liberal heads pop. 

Kim Jong-un is an isolated leader who had gotten used to stealing Obama’s lunch money every day.  (Why do you think Obama’s so thin?)  It was all so predictable with Barry, but he is terrified of Donald Trump, a volatile hothead.  He knows that attacking America would signal the end of his regime and his life.  The Chinese have already said they won’t come to his defense if he starts a war.  (Note: They never did that when Barry was in charge.)  So what does Kim have?  Threats worked well against Barry, but everything worked well against Barry, whose brilliant idea on North Korea was a policy of “strategic patience” – you know, a seven-course meal of “do nothing and leave it for the next guy,” only with a clever, pithy name because Barry never tired of showing poor deplorables how smart he was.  “Do nothing” was, incidentally, his idea about almost everything, unless it was something where he could pretend to be an emperor ruling with his pen and phone.

If you watched the news this past week, there was Kim taking a meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, and there was the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, thanking Trump for helping to make it happen.  Wow: I guess his confrontational approach might actually bring results after all.

Let’s look at ISIS, Obama’s bastard Middle Eastern child.  Maybe he should have called them “the Snows” instead of “Daesh,” an appellation he used instead of “ISIS.”  It is an acronym for the Arabic phrase “al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham.”  Everything Barry did had to have a little sham to it. 

Obama said it would be a long fight comprising years of costly sacrifice in the form of American blood and treasure.  You see, he had strict rules of engagement, dictating that American forces were not allowed to shoot first or return fire if there was a possibility of civilians around.  It was the first war in history where one side wasn’t allowed to shoot first and sometimes couldn’t even shoot back.  I wonder how many American lives were sacrificed for that.  Keep in mind that this is the guy they told us is a “genius.” 

Once Trump threw away those ROEs, and changed Obama’s policy of “defeat and allow retreat” to “defeat and pursue to the death,” it took less than a year for Trump to wipe the floor with ISIS. 

Liberals and the media will not admit it, but I think it’s clear with both Lil’ Kim and ISIS that Trump has been successful.

They say the president has the bully pulpit, and until now, that has meant getting his message out by making speeches and giving interviews.  Yet the narrative has always been controlled by the left.  The last Republican president able to dictate the conversation was Ronald Reagan, and even the “great communicator” was only partially successful.

Well, Donald Trump has been one hundred percent successful.  When he tweets or says something off the cuff, it drives leftists crazy to the point where they will bang their heads against the wall repeatedly until they draw blood in the hope of convincing the public how unsuited and ignorant our president is.

There is a subtle genius to what Trump does and says.  If you allow yourself to step back and see the big picture, Trump is extremely effective.

Ask Steve Bannon how effective he is.  Bannon was presented to us by the media as the man whose hand controlled Trump the puppet, much as Cheney supposedly controlled Bush.  How did that work out for him?  First, he lost his job in the White House.  In anger, he gave the Wolff in the henhouse many delectable quotes.  For a few weeks, he was even contemplating running for higher office.  That’s all gone today.  Forever labeled “Sloppy Steve,” he lost benefactors and then his job at Breitbart.  Now (with apologies to Yeats), there is no country for that old man.  He is nothing more than “a tattered coat upon a stick.”

I will close with this.  In his book, the boy who cried “Wolff” presented Donald Trump as a semi-literate eleven-year-old boy, paranoid, delusional, and more than just a little unbalanced – so much so, in fact, that the Wolff maintains that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to depose him as president in what would be a bloodless (they should think again about that) coup.

The first thing Trump did was the “very stable genius” tweet.  Then he held a successful televised bipartisan and bicameral meeting on immigration.  Trump sat between Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer, two vocal supporters of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  Just as a successful CEO would do, he went around the room asking those from each party for ideas.  He then vowed to sign any legislation presented to him. 

As a means to an end, he dangled the return of “earmarks,” whereby, in order to get a congressman’s vote, money would be allocated for some project in that congressman’s district.  Earmarks are wrong – but as a strategy to get bipartisan support, they are effective.  It’s surprising how inexpensive it is to buy a politician, and wouldn’t it be better to waste a few million dollars in a Democrat’s district or state and get his vote for a Republican bill than have the bill fail?  Maybe promising a Democrat something can get his vote to end chain migration, or to end the visa lottery, or build a wall. 

It’s called negotiating, and earmarks at least give Republicans something to negotiate with.

Besides, Obama spent a billion dollars on his vacations, parties, and golf outings.  Are we now going to worry about a few billion dollars out of our serial multi-trillion-dollar budgets?

In any case, Trump looked every bit the statesman, CEO, and president.

In many ways, the man really is a very stable genius.

By now, everyone has heard about President Donald Trump’s tweet countering accusations made by the Wolff in sheep’s clothing, who wrote a book detailing the supposed Shakespearian machinations that Wolff asserts are consuming the Trump White House.  In his tweet, President Trump claimed he is, in fact, a “very stable genius.”

Throughout the media world, this made journalists’ heads explode.  Dilbert creator Scott Adams points out the genius of this move by reminding people that liberals will forever mock Trump for it and that it is not a bad thing for Trump to have his name and “genius” associated with each other in perpetuity.

I recently wrote that it was genius when Trump called Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas” at a White House ceremony.  Had he merely mentioned her false claim of American Indian ancestry in order to procure a job at Harvard University, the media would have made sure no one heard about it.  He set a trap, and in a futile effort to destroy him, the media took the bait.

Trump calling her “Pocahontas” and the media publicizing it made millions of people aware of what Warren had done – potential 2020 voters who would have never learned that little embarrassing tidbit from the shady past of the one who persists.  (Or is she the one who resists?  It’s so confusing.)  

Donald Trump is a master of controlling the conversation.  Every time people think of Warren now, they will think of her lying to get a job, and every time someone mentions Wolff’s book, people are now going to associate Donald Trump with “very stable genius.”

With this president, unlike any Republican for decades, the swamp and the media no longer control the conversation.  They are bystanders, and this makes them so mad that they scream and search endlessly for that one thing Trump will say that will be the bridge too far, the thing they can use to dethrone him.  They want this so much that they will jump on everything he says – playing his game instead of forcing him to play theirs.

Take the infamous tweet he made about his nuclear button being bigger than little Rocket Man’s nuclear button.  People were appalled.  It was going to start a war; it was unpresidential; it was a disaster, they said.  You could almost hear liberal heads pop. 

Kim Jong-un is an isolated leader who had gotten used to stealing Obama’s lunch money every day.  (Why do you think Obama’s so thin?)  It was all so predictable with Barry, but he is terrified of Donald Trump, a volatile hothead.  He knows that attacking America would signal the end of his regime and his life.  The Chinese have already said they won’t come to his defense if he starts a war.  (Note: They never did that when Barry was in charge.)  So what does Kim have?  Threats worked well against Barry, but everything worked well against Barry, whose brilliant idea on North Korea was a policy of “strategic patience” – you know, a seven-course meal of “do nothing and leave it for the next guy,” only with a clever, pithy name because Barry never tired of showing poor deplorables how smart he was.  “Do nothing” was, incidentally, his idea about almost everything, unless it was something where he could pretend to be an emperor ruling with his pen and phone.

If you watched the news this past week, there was Kim taking a meeting with his counterpart in South Korea, and there was the South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, thanking Trump for helping to make it happen.  Wow: I guess his confrontational approach might actually bring results after all.

Let’s look at ISIS, Obama’s bastard Middle Eastern child.  Maybe he should have called them “the Snows” instead of “Daesh,” an appellation he used instead of “ISIS.”  It is an acronym for the Arabic phrase “al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham.”  Everything Barry did had to have a little sham to it. 

Obama said it would be a long fight comprising years of costly sacrifice in the form of American blood and treasure.  You see, he had strict rules of engagement, dictating that American forces were not allowed to shoot first or return fire if there was a possibility of civilians around.  It was the first war in history where one side wasn’t allowed to shoot first and sometimes couldn’t even shoot back.  I wonder how many American lives were sacrificed for that.  Keep in mind that this is the guy they told us is a “genius.” 

Once Trump threw away those ROEs, and changed Obama’s policy of “defeat and allow retreat” to “defeat and pursue to the death,” it took less than a year for Trump to wipe the floor with ISIS. 

Liberals and the media will not admit it, but I think it’s clear with both Lil’ Kim and ISIS that Trump has been successful.

They say the president has the bully pulpit, and until now, that has meant getting his message out by making speeches and giving interviews.  Yet the narrative has always been controlled by the left.  The last Republican president able to dictate the conversation was Ronald Reagan, and even the “great communicator” was only partially successful.

Well, Donald Trump has been one hundred percent successful.  When he tweets or says something off the cuff, it drives leftists crazy to the point where they will bang their heads against the wall repeatedly until they draw blood in the hope of convincing the public how unsuited and ignorant our president is.

There is a subtle genius to what Trump does and says.  If you allow yourself to step back and see the big picture, Trump is extremely effective.

Ask Steve Bannon how effective he is.  Bannon was presented to us by the media as the man whose hand controlled Trump the puppet, much as Cheney supposedly controlled Bush.  How did that work out for him?  First, he lost his job in the White House.  In anger, he gave the Wolff in the henhouse many delectable quotes.  For a few weeks, he was even contemplating running for higher office.  That’s all gone today.  Forever labeled “Sloppy Steve,” he lost benefactors and then his job at Breitbart.  Now (with apologies to Yeats), there is no country for that old man.  He is nothing more than “a tattered coat upon a stick.”

I will close with this.  In his book, the boy who cried “Wolff” presented Donald Trump as a semi-literate eleven-year-old boy, paranoid, delusional, and more than just a little unbalanced – so much so, in fact, that the Wolff maintains that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to depose him as president in what would be a bloodless (they should think again about that) coup.

The first thing Trump did was the “very stable genius” tweet.  Then he held a successful televised bipartisan and bicameral meeting on immigration.  Trump sat between Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer, two vocal supporters of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  Just as a successful CEO would do, he went around the room asking those from each party for ideas.  He then vowed to sign any legislation presented to him. 

As a means to an end, he dangled the return of “earmarks,” whereby, in order to get a congressman’s vote, money would be allocated for some project in that congressman’s district.  Earmarks are wrong – but as a strategy to get bipartisan support, they are effective.  It’s surprising how inexpensive it is to buy a politician, and wouldn’t it be better to waste a few million dollars in a Democrat’s district or state and get his vote for a Republican bill than have the bill fail?  Maybe promising a Democrat something can get his vote to end chain migration, or to end the visa lottery, or build a wall. 

It’s called negotiating, and earmarks at least give Republicans something to negotiate with.

Besides, Obama spent a billion dollars on his vacations, parties, and golf outings.  Are we now going to worry about a few billion dollars out of our serial multi-trillion-dollar budgets?

In any case, Trump looked every bit the statesman, CEO, and president.

In many ways, the man really is a very stable genius.



Source link

There Is Nothing More Despicable Than a Democrat


On a normal day, Democrats will endlessly lecture you in the most condescending fashion, making liberal use of the preface, “You see.” Because, of course, you don’t see, you are a nonbeliever, a “denier,” and therefore a deplorable, barely deserving of their passing glance, much less their particular attention. And that’s after they’ve lost both houses of Congress and the presidency. Now with the Moore mauling in Alabama and their plot to force Trump’s resignation, they are not nearly as nice.  

After sacrificing two of their pawns, the now onanistic Bill Clinton and the truly deplorable Al Franken, an oleaginous blob of despicability — he of the “I’m not sorry, I don’t remember it, and I will resign… maybe, at a later date, and ‘GFY America,’ apology” — they now believe they can unseat the president on sexual harassment charges (the same ones they tried to destroy him with just before the presidential election). Hey, it worked on Moore, so they’ll give it one more try.

The Democrats never stop. Moore was low-hanging fruit. He was something of a character, which made him the Democrats’ candidate of choice, which was why during the primary they didn’t produce the three middle-aged girls, still crying about dates they had when they were teenagers, because if you’re going to hold onto a gripe, you should hold onto it for four decades. They didn’t want Luther Strange, probably because he wasn’t as strange as Moore and they didn’t have anything quite so good on him.

Look at the first accusations; three girls, two of which were past the age of consent and only there to lend credence to the third one who claimed that Moore undressed her when she was fourteen years old. Then, for the icing on the cake, there was the fourth girl, bawling her eyes out holding her high school yearbook, with what she admitted had a forged (she claimed partially forged) notation from Moore — all, presented by Gloria Allred, a person emblematic of typical Democrat amorality.

The Democrats are relentless, they come at you from all angles, they never stop, and they have absolutely no rules. For them, at least, anything goes — lie, cheat, steal, and defame, it doesn’t matter as long as they win. Yet in the world the Democrats and the media have created, the Republicans have plenty of rules, and if they don’t abide by each one, the media tries to make it a scandal.

It doesn’t help that there are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who are just too pure to get down and dirty. Many Republicans would rather lose with dignity than win, but people who voted for Trump want to win. America wants to win. Republicans, all Republicans need to learn how to fight like the Democrats, or the nation is lost.

So far, the Democrats are one and one — and it would have worked against Trump if their candidate didn’t have more negatives than Satan; at least he reigns in hell, Hillary merely wanted to create hell on earth and maybe unload the remaining 80% of our uranium in the process.

They’ve been coming at Trump ever since he won the nomination. Hillary threw everything she had at him, even having her lawyers, Perkins Coie, pay (breaking campaign laws to do so) almost $10 million for the ignominious Trump dossier. “Opposition research,” that even James Comey called “salacious and unverified.” Then Obama apparatchiks in the FBI and the Justice Department used the dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

Ask yourself why that isn’t a bigger story. Don’t bother, it’s because the media has become an arm of the Democratic Party.

The one thing she thought would work, however, the coup de grâce, the “Accusers,” didn’t have the impact the Democrats assumed they would have. The electorate ignored them.

After Trump won, they opened with the “Russians stole the election” meme and that was the reason they gave for members of the Electoral College not to do their constitutional duty to vote for Trump and instead vote for Hillary.

At the same time, they wanted recounts — it almost worked for Gore in 2000. “We keep counting until I win!” And it did work for “hands-on” Al Franken when they actually did count until he won in 2008.

Stealing elections is allowable for Democrats.

Interregnum, it was the 25th Amendment — Trump was just too crazy to be president. Then it was the emoluments clause — that’s particularly rich since no one would have gotten richer than Hillary had she become president — look at the hundreds of millions she made as Secretary of State.

Then it was “collusion.” The fact that anyone would believe that the Russians would prefer a volatile hothead like Donald Trump to a Hillary Clinton they had already bought and paid for with the Uranium One deal strains the limits of possibility.

In unison with “collusion” we had, the “We need a special prosecutor,” outcry — which they got, courtesy of Comey the chameleon, who absolved Hillary of all crimes,with respect to her illegal private server and the mishandling of classified information, even though he was not a prosecutor and even though she was demonstrably guilty.

Then with the firing of Comey, it was, “obstruction of justice.” Now it’s just an outright case for impeachment being built by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose dream team of Hillary donors and Democrat moles have more scandals and conflicts of interest than even Hillary had.

I won’t get into how Huma Abedin (infamous for her husband, Anthony Weiner who ran in the 2013 New York City mayoral erection) and Cheryl Mills can lie to the FBI and go unpunished while an American hero, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, has to cop a plea to keep Mueller from bankrupting his family and going after his son. 

Now the Democrats have a new “Hillary,” Kirsten Gillibrand. You have to give her credit — she saw an opening and she took it. She was the first to say Bill Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago (what a brave stand, something that didn’t occur to her for the ten years she has steadfastly supported him or when she took Clinton money and campaigned with Bill by her side). Then she was the first to call for Franken’s resignation. Now she is the first to call for Trump’s resignation, just after the re-release of the 2016 “Accusers.”

If it doesn’t work, so be it. She has a Plan B, and it involves 2020.

It’s all a calculation on her part. She knew she would make the perfect candidate. She’s a Democrat and a woman, and younger than Fauxcahontas, Elizabeth Warren. Now especially, with the moral high ground after her very, very brave stance against a long-retired rapist and a man no one likes. It’s just too bad she’s not a minority, cripple, or transvestite, then she’d be a sure winner in 2020.

Still, if that doesn’t work, look for them to find something else to unseat Trump. They will not rest because they are convinced the presidency belongs to them and elections mean nothing — unless of course, they win, then they mean everything. In fact, if it were up to the Democrats there would be no elections — the people are just too stupid to realize that the Democrats deserve to rule the world.

Now tell me, is there anything more despicable than a Democrat?

On a normal day, Democrats will endlessly lecture you in the most condescending fashion, making liberal use of the preface, “You see.” Because, of course, you don’t see, you are a nonbeliever, a “denier,” and therefore a deplorable, barely deserving of their passing glance, much less their particular attention. And that’s after they’ve lost both houses of Congress and the presidency. Now with the Moore mauling in Alabama and their plot to force Trump’s resignation, they are not nearly as nice.  

After sacrificing two of their pawns, the now onanistic Bill Clinton and the truly deplorable Al Franken, an oleaginous blob of despicability — he of the “I’m not sorry, I don’t remember it, and I will resign… maybe, at a later date, and ‘GFY America,’ apology” — they now believe they can unseat the president on sexual harassment charges (the same ones they tried to destroy him with just before the presidential election). Hey, it worked on Moore, so they’ll give it one more try.

The Democrats never stop. Moore was low-hanging fruit. He was something of a character, which made him the Democrats’ candidate of choice, which was why during the primary they didn’t produce the three middle-aged girls, still crying about dates they had when they were teenagers, because if you’re going to hold onto a gripe, you should hold onto it for four decades. They didn’t want Luther Strange, probably because he wasn’t as strange as Moore and they didn’t have anything quite so good on him.

Look at the first accusations; three girls, two of which were past the age of consent and only there to lend credence to the third one who claimed that Moore undressed her when she was fourteen years old. Then, for the icing on the cake, there was the fourth girl, bawling her eyes out holding her high school yearbook, with what she admitted had a forged (she claimed partially forged) notation from Moore — all, presented by Gloria Allred, a person emblematic of typical Democrat amorality.

The Democrats are relentless, they come at you from all angles, they never stop, and they have absolutely no rules. For them, at least, anything goes — lie, cheat, steal, and defame, it doesn’t matter as long as they win. Yet in the world the Democrats and the media have created, the Republicans have plenty of rules, and if they don’t abide by each one, the media tries to make it a scandal.

It doesn’t help that there are a lot of Republicans and conservatives who are just too pure to get down and dirty. Many Republicans would rather lose with dignity than win, but people who voted for Trump want to win. America wants to win. Republicans, all Republicans need to learn how to fight like the Democrats, or the nation is lost.

So far, the Democrats are one and one — and it would have worked against Trump if their candidate didn’t have more negatives than Satan; at least he reigns in hell, Hillary merely wanted to create hell on earth and maybe unload the remaining 80% of our uranium in the process.

They’ve been coming at Trump ever since he won the nomination. Hillary threw everything she had at him, even having her lawyers, Perkins Coie, pay (breaking campaign laws to do so) almost $10 million for the ignominious Trump dossier. “Opposition research,” that even James Comey called “salacious and unverified.” Then Obama apparatchiks in the FBI and the Justice Department used the dossier to get FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

Ask yourself why that isn’t a bigger story. Don’t bother, it’s because the media has become an arm of the Democratic Party.

The one thing she thought would work, however, the coup de grâce, the “Accusers,” didn’t have the impact the Democrats assumed they would have. The electorate ignored them.

After Trump won, they opened with the “Russians stole the election” meme and that was the reason they gave for members of the Electoral College not to do their constitutional duty to vote for Trump and instead vote for Hillary.

At the same time, they wanted recounts — it almost worked for Gore in 2000. “We keep counting until I win!” And it did work for “hands-on” Al Franken when they actually did count until he won in 2008.

Stealing elections is allowable for Democrats.

Interregnum, it was the 25th Amendment — Trump was just too crazy to be president. Then it was the emoluments clause — that’s particularly rich since no one would have gotten richer than Hillary had she become president — look at the hundreds of millions she made as Secretary of State.

Then it was “collusion.” The fact that anyone would believe that the Russians would prefer a volatile hothead like Donald Trump to a Hillary Clinton they had already bought and paid for with the Uranium One deal strains the limits of possibility.

In unison with “collusion” we had, the “We need a special prosecutor,” outcry — which they got, courtesy of Comey the chameleon, who absolved Hillary of all crimes,with respect to her illegal private server and the mishandling of classified information, even though he was not a prosecutor and even though she was demonstrably guilty.

Then with the firing of Comey, it was, “obstruction of justice.” Now it’s just an outright case for impeachment being built by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose dream team of Hillary donors and Democrat moles have more scandals and conflicts of interest than even Hillary had.

I won’t get into how Huma Abedin (infamous for her husband, Anthony Weiner who ran in the 2013 New York City mayoral erection) and Cheryl Mills can lie to the FBI and go unpunished while an American hero, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, has to cop a plea to keep Mueller from bankrupting his family and going after his son. 

Now the Democrats have a new “Hillary,” Kirsten Gillibrand. You have to give her credit — she saw an opening and she took it. She was the first to say Bill Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago (what a brave stand, something that didn’t occur to her for the ten years she has steadfastly supported him or when she took Clinton money and campaigned with Bill by her side). Then she was the first to call for Franken’s resignation. Now she is the first to call for Trump’s resignation, just after the re-release of the 2016 “Accusers.”

If it doesn’t work, so be it. She has a Plan B, and it involves 2020.

It’s all a calculation on her part. She knew she would make the perfect candidate. She’s a Democrat and a woman, and younger than Fauxcahontas, Elizabeth Warren. Now especially, with the moral high ground after her very, very brave stance against a long-retired rapist and a man no one likes. It’s just too bad she’s not a minority, cripple, or transvestite, then she’d be a sure winner in 2020.

Still, if that doesn’t work, look for them to find something else to unseat Trump. They will not rest because they are convinced the presidency belongs to them and elections mean nothing — unless of course, they win, then they mean everything. In fact, if it were up to the Democrats there would be no elections — the people are just too stupid to realize that the Democrats deserve to rule the world.

Now tell me, is there anything more despicable than a Democrat?



Source link

For Dems, Every Crisis Is an Opportunity


To the bitter, common man, deplorably clinging to his guns and religion, it is unseemly the way progressives strive to let no crisis or catastrophe go to waste.

Let’s start with Barry and his merry band of minions and sycophants.

We should all remember “Fast and Furious” — not the movie, the scandal. Though perhaps it is presumptuous to use that term, because, apart from Sharyl Attkisson, then of CBS News, much of the media studiously ignored this first of many Obama administration scandals. Here’s a short refresher. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s mini-me, and our esteemed “my people” attorney general, through the aegis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed, and in some instances impelled, straw buyers to purchase firearms with the purpose of smuggling them across the border into Mexico so they could be used by drug cartels and various other nefarious cliques in the commission of crimes. This was done to create sufficient evidence to prove the nation needed more robust gun control measures. For what it was, it was successful because their little gem of a plan resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one America Border Patrol Agent.

In this instance, Barry and Eric were creating the crisis they wanted to exploit. Yet, it is emblematic of the entire “crisis is opportunity” mentality.

They didn’t care that people would have to die in order for them to make their case; they just wanted to make their case. That a person would have to be some kind of monster to sacrifice lives for political purposes escapes the sensibilities of the Democrats and the media (progressives=Democrats=media). It never occurred to them that right-thinking people would care about dead Mexicans because, in their way of thinking, those dead Mexicans were being sacrificed for the greater good — in this case, gun control.

This crisis is the perfect example of what progressives have become in this country. Nothing matters to them, not dead Mexicans, not a dead Border Agent, and certainly not the constitution, or even what the majority of Americans want. All that matters is the politics and if Mexicans have to die in order for them to force upon the nation stringent gun control, or even gun confiscation, then it is a small price to pay.

If you need another example of their situational morality, you need to look no further than Charlottesville, which was a collusive operation involving Antifa, Black Live Matter (BLM), and the Democrats, represented by the odious Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia and the repugnant Michael Signer, Mayor of Charlottesville.

From the beginning, it was stagecraft. In August, fifty people assembled at a park in Charlottesville to protest the removal of a cultural icon, the statue of Robert E. Lee, they were soon joined by several hundred white supremacists. While this was going on, several thousand Antifa and BLM reprobates mobilized outside the park and were waiting for their signal.

At the prescribed moment, even though the protest was peaceful, the police under control of Mayor Signer and Governor McAuliffe moved to force the protestors out of the park into the waiting arms of Antifa and BLM. We all know what happened then — exactly what the Democrats wanted to happen. One person died that day, but for them, that was not a problem because it was in service of a greater goal, creating a “white nationalist” crisis that could only be solved by voting for Democrats. 

The Democrats cannot have blacks voting any other way except Democrat, so they decided to create a crisis where they could mythologize the several thousand white supremacists remaining in this country as a symbol of the embedded racism throughout America as represented by the Republican Party.

As a side benefit, they created a trap in which they could ensnare any Republican who didn’t denounce racism with enough vigor, labeling them as racists while blaming the whole thing on Trump and his “divisive rhetoric.”

If we didn’t have a complacent media, that little dirty trick would not have been possible. Yet, since the media is in bed with the Democrats all we heard is what Trump allegedly did or didn’t say.

These are just two incidents where Democrats were willing to create a crisis to exploit for political gain.

With respect to the recent shootings in Las Vegas, where 58 people died and almost 400 were injured. How long did it take the Democrats, led by the harpy Hillary Clinton, to call for “sensible” gun control measures? To Democrats, “sensible” gun control really stands for total control because what they really want is to confiscate all the guns in America.  

Stephen Paddock’s heinous act of savagery was the perfect crisis to make their point — even better than “Fast and Furious” because the dead were Americans –and they didn’t even wait for authorities to start washing away the blood to start making their case.

Note, however, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s almost total silence when the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke. They waited days before speaking because that was a crisis in their own house. Obama’s daughter interned for the man, for goodness sake.

Weinstein was one of them, and it took some time before they figured out an angle where they could tar Trump in particular and conservatives in general with the nastiness of Weinstein’s cruel and abusive acts toward women.

Even the death of an American Special Forces soldier is an opportunity to accuse Trump of not being sympathetic enough to the dead soldier’s widow — because no low is too low for Democrats to sink in order to make a political point.

How about the recent hurricanes — have you heard they were all Trump’s fault? He didn’t care enough about Puerto Ricans to effectively help the devastated island. At least, that’s what the Democrats said, led by the mayor of San Juan as she stood in front of pallet after pallet after pallet of relief supplies that she refused to release to her people.

That’s where we are today. Hillary, Barry, and their progressive brethren sit like ghouls awaiting the next crisis — hoping that enough people are either killed or injured for them to prove to America that Democrats should control everything. Maybe they’ll get lucky and the nation will suffer a truly horrifying tragedy.

After all, a crisis can be a beautiful thing for those who are willing to exploit it to realize their political dreams.

To the bitter, common man, deplorably clinging to his guns and religion, it is unseemly the way progressives strive to let no crisis or catastrophe go to waste.

Let’s start with Barry and his merry band of minions and sycophants.

We should all remember “Fast and Furious” — not the movie, the scandal. Though perhaps it is presumptuous to use that term, because, apart from Sharyl Attkisson, then of CBS News, much of the media studiously ignored this first of many Obama administration scandals. Here’s a short refresher. Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s mini-me, and our esteemed “my people” attorney general, through the aegis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed, and in some instances impelled, straw buyers to purchase firearms with the purpose of smuggling them across the border into Mexico so they could be used by drug cartels and various other nefarious cliques in the commission of crimes. This was done to create sufficient evidence to prove the nation needed more robust gun control measures. For what it was, it was successful because their little gem of a plan resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one America Border Patrol Agent.

In this instance, Barry and Eric were creating the crisis they wanted to exploit. Yet, it is emblematic of the entire “crisis is opportunity” mentality.

They didn’t care that people would have to die in order for them to make their case; they just wanted to make their case. That a person would have to be some kind of monster to sacrifice lives for political purposes escapes the sensibilities of the Democrats and the media (progressives=Democrats=media). It never occurred to them that right-thinking people would care about dead Mexicans because, in their way of thinking, those dead Mexicans were being sacrificed for the greater good — in this case, gun control.

This crisis is the perfect example of what progressives have become in this country. Nothing matters to them, not dead Mexicans, not a dead Border Agent, and certainly not the constitution, or even what the majority of Americans want. All that matters is the politics and if Mexicans have to die in order for them to force upon the nation stringent gun control, or even gun confiscation, then it is a small price to pay.

If you need another example of their situational morality, you need to look no further than Charlottesville, which was a collusive operation involving Antifa, Black Live Matter (BLM), and the Democrats, represented by the odious Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia and the repugnant Michael Signer, Mayor of Charlottesville.

From the beginning, it was stagecraft. In August, fifty people assembled at a park in Charlottesville to protest the removal of a cultural icon, the statue of Robert E. Lee, they were soon joined by several hundred white supremacists. While this was going on, several thousand Antifa and BLM reprobates mobilized outside the park and were waiting for their signal.

At the prescribed moment, even though the protest was peaceful, the police under control of Mayor Signer and Governor McAuliffe moved to force the protestors out of the park into the waiting arms of Antifa and BLM. We all know what happened then — exactly what the Democrats wanted to happen. One person died that day, but for them, that was not a problem because it was in service of a greater goal, creating a “white nationalist” crisis that could only be solved by voting for Democrats. 

The Democrats cannot have blacks voting any other way except Democrat, so they decided to create a crisis where they could mythologize the several thousand white supremacists remaining in this country as a symbol of the embedded racism throughout America as represented by the Republican Party.

As a side benefit, they created a trap in which they could ensnare any Republican who didn’t denounce racism with enough vigor, labeling them as racists while blaming the whole thing on Trump and his “divisive rhetoric.”

If we didn’t have a complacent media, that little dirty trick would not have been possible. Yet, since the media is in bed with the Democrats all we heard is what Trump allegedly did or didn’t say.

These are just two incidents where Democrats were willing to create a crisis to exploit for political gain.

With respect to the recent shootings in Las Vegas, where 58 people died and almost 400 were injured. How long did it take the Democrats, led by the harpy Hillary Clinton, to call for “sensible” gun control measures? To Democrats, “sensible” gun control really stands for total control because what they really want is to confiscate all the guns in America.  

Stephen Paddock’s heinous act of savagery was the perfect crisis to make their point — even better than “Fast and Furious” because the dead were Americans –and they didn’t even wait for authorities to start washing away the blood to start making their case.

Note, however, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s almost total silence when the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke. They waited days before speaking because that was a crisis in their own house. Obama’s daughter interned for the man, for goodness sake.

Weinstein was one of them, and it took some time before they figured out an angle where they could tar Trump in particular and conservatives in general with the nastiness of Weinstein’s cruel and abusive acts toward women.

Even the death of an American Special Forces soldier is an opportunity to accuse Trump of not being sympathetic enough to the dead soldier’s widow — because no low is too low for Democrats to sink in order to make a political point.

How about the recent hurricanes — have you heard they were all Trump’s fault? He didn’t care enough about Puerto Ricans to effectively help the devastated island. At least, that’s what the Democrats said, led by the mayor of San Juan as she stood in front of pallet after pallet after pallet of relief supplies that she refused to release to her people.

That’s where we are today. Hillary, Barry, and their progressive brethren sit like ghouls awaiting the next crisis — hoping that enough people are either killed or injured for them to prove to America that Democrats should control everything. Maybe they’ll get lucky and the nation will suffer a truly horrifying tragedy.

After all, a crisis can be a beautiful thing for those who are willing to exploit it to realize their political dreams.



Source link

Misunderstanding America and Its Constitution


I know I won the lottery when I was born in America. Think about that word, “America.” Go anywhere on this third rock from the sun, and tell anyone you are an American, and he will know you are talking about the United States of America. 

Yet Canadians are Americans, and so are Mexicans, as well as Argentinean gauchos and blood-spilling Cali Cartel members. Pinochet was an American, and so was the murderous Che — so was “Don’t cry for me,” Evita, and Simon Bolivar.

All North and South Americans are Americans

Yet, when anyone says “America,” they are talking about these United States of America.  Most people don’t really understand what America is.  Ask anyone on the street to define this country and most will inevitably say it is a democracy, which, to almost universal surprise, is wrong. 

America is not a democracy; it is a republic.  When I talk to people about this, I tell them to imagine 50 separate countries bound together by a set of rules, our Constitution, which while among the briefest of world constitutions, is a document that forged a nation, which became the longest lasting of free republics to have ever graced this planet.

This glorious nation, this America, is the envy of the world. I don’t see people walking through the desert for days to get into Russia, or making a boat out of old tires to get to Cuba. 

Yes, they do whatever they have to do to get to Europe, but I would wager that if the millions who have fled Barack Obama’s legacy in the Middle East had their druthers, they would rather come here.  It’s just that the Atlantic is a pond too big to swim.

Another thing to note is that America, in its two-hundred-odd years of existence has always had relatively open borders. America is also the most ethnically diverse place on the planet. America is a nation of immigrants founded by immigrants. That shouldn’t preclude us from being careful in this day of rampant religious terrorism from picking and choosing who we want to allow access to this most bountiful of Edens.

I have long believed that when someone tells you he is going to kill you, you should believe him.  Picking and choosing is not racism, as many would have you believe; it is due diligence. It is prudence.   

Let’s, for a moment, review the motives of the progressive plan to throw open our borders to anyone who wants to come here. They do this not out of generosity, or compassion, or even a desire to create a better world — no matter what they say. They do this as a deliberate scheme to create enough new voters to guarantee their dream of eternal progressive governance, with them of course, in total control of everything. If people have to die for their dream, if this grand experiment in representative governance is destroyed, then so be it. 

They will always be on top of the food chain and it won’t be them, or their families, or even their friends who will do the suffering. It will be the little people, who will pay for progressive hopes and dreams.

They care so much about us that if they have to kill us to make our lives better they will.   

They misunderstand America and its constitution, which is why the EPA’s destruction of Barry’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) tasks them so. They view themselves as the ones we’ve been waiting for and because of that, if they break the rules for our own good (see above), then, we should grant them a dispensation.

If they wanted the Clean Power Plan, or DACA, or any of the things Barry thought he could create out of thin air with his pen and phone, they should have enacted legislation to implement them.  Why have a constitution at all if our betters are not bound by its strictures?

When President Trump canceled the illegal ObamaCare payments to insurance companies to cover losses from trying to work within a program destined, without intervention, to failure, he was merely abiding by our Constitution, which clearly requires that any money spent must first be appropriated by Congress.   

They called it “spiteful” and “malevolent,” and “sabotage.”  Yet, he was merely following the Constitution, which after all, is our founding document.

If they wanted this, they should have included it in the legislation. 

Perhaps, next time they want to partake in “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” they should probably read a thing or two on how the law works in this land — but that is probably too much to expect from the “ones we’ve been waiting for.”

Maybe they could read our constitution; it is only 7,591 words, including all 27 amendments. 

Why that’s less than the total number of times our personal pronoun ex-president Barack Obama uttered the words, “I, me, mine, and myself” in his two terms as president.

 

I know I won the lottery when I was born in America. Think about that word, “America.” Go anywhere on this third rock from the sun, and tell anyone you are an American, and he will know you are talking about the United States of America. 

Yet Canadians are Americans, and so are Mexicans, as well as Argentinean gauchos and blood-spilling Cali Cartel members. Pinochet was an American, and so was the murderous Che — so was “Don’t cry for me,” Evita, and Simon Bolivar.

All North and South Americans are Americans

Yet, when anyone says “America,” they are talking about these United States of America.  Most people don’t really understand what America is.  Ask anyone on the street to define this country and most will inevitably say it is a democracy, which, to almost universal surprise, is wrong. 

America is not a democracy; it is a republic.  When I talk to people about this, I tell them to imagine 50 separate countries bound together by a set of rules, our Constitution, which while among the briefest of world constitutions, is a document that forged a nation, which became the longest lasting of free republics to have ever graced this planet.

This glorious nation, this America, is the envy of the world. I don’t see people walking through the desert for days to get into Russia, or making a boat out of old tires to get to Cuba. 

Yes, they do whatever they have to do to get to Europe, but I would wager that if the millions who have fled Barack Obama’s legacy in the Middle East had their druthers, they would rather come here.  It’s just that the Atlantic is a pond too big to swim.

Another thing to note is that America, in its two-hundred-odd years of existence has always had relatively open borders. America is also the most ethnically diverse place on the planet. America is a nation of immigrants founded by immigrants. That shouldn’t preclude us from being careful in this day of rampant religious terrorism from picking and choosing who we want to allow access to this most bountiful of Edens.

I have long believed that when someone tells you he is going to kill you, you should believe him.  Picking and choosing is not racism, as many would have you believe; it is due diligence. It is prudence.   

Let’s, for a moment, review the motives of the progressive plan to throw open our borders to anyone who wants to come here. They do this not out of generosity, or compassion, or even a desire to create a better world — no matter what they say. They do this as a deliberate scheme to create enough new voters to guarantee their dream of eternal progressive governance, with them of course, in total control of everything. If people have to die for their dream, if this grand experiment in representative governance is destroyed, then so be it. 

They will always be on top of the food chain and it won’t be them, or their families, or even their friends who will do the suffering. It will be the little people, who will pay for progressive hopes and dreams.

They care so much about us that if they have to kill us to make our lives better they will.   

They misunderstand America and its constitution, which is why the EPA’s destruction of Barry’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) tasks them so. They view themselves as the ones we’ve been waiting for and because of that, if they break the rules for our own good (see above), then, we should grant them a dispensation.

If they wanted the Clean Power Plan, or DACA, or any of the things Barry thought he could create out of thin air with his pen and phone, they should have enacted legislation to implement them.  Why have a constitution at all if our betters are not bound by its strictures?

When President Trump canceled the illegal ObamaCare payments to insurance companies to cover losses from trying to work within a program destined, without intervention, to failure, he was merely abiding by our Constitution, which clearly requires that any money spent must first be appropriated by Congress.   

They called it “spiteful” and “malevolent,” and “sabotage.”  Yet, he was merely following the Constitution, which after all, is our founding document.

If they wanted this, they should have included it in the legislation. 

Perhaps, next time they want to partake in “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” they should probably read a thing or two on how the law works in this land — but that is probably too much to expect from the “ones we’ve been waiting for.”

Maybe they could read our constitution; it is only 7,591 words, including all 27 amendments. 

Why that’s less than the total number of times our personal pronoun ex-president Barack Obama uttered the words, “I, me, mine, and myself” in his two terms as president.

 



Source link

The Right Man at the Right Time


The hardcore progressives, around 20% of the population, will forever loathe him and regular “run of the mill” Democrats will never think of him as anything but illegitimate — that’s been the media’s meme since last November.

Even many “middle of the road” Republicans — who in essence, stake out positions once held by mainstream Democrats before the party mutated into a hard-left progressive movement — don’t like him either.

Yet, there is a silent majority in this nation who are willing to give the man a chance to succeed. I know the media are already calling his presidency a failure after ten months, but that was expected.

This silent majority believes in America as something of value, unlike the Democrats, who constantly tell us the country is racist and unfair. Yet, they don’t want to stand up in public, or on the job, or even with friends, because they don’t want to be screamed at, or passed over for promotion, or lose friends over politics. That’s the thing about the regular guy or gal trying to survive in this world. They and their families have bad habits, like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They don’t need drama. They just want to survive.

The difference between conservatives and progressives is that we view progressives as mistaken or misinformed, whereas progressives view us as evil. It’s understandable that most choose to remain quiet about their politics. Who wants to be the evil guy?

Silence may be the requisite tact in this age of snowflakes, virtue signaling, and Twitter shaming, but there will always be elections. In fact, this is why America has always had a secret ballot. It prevents exactly the type of intimidation progressives utilize in the public square.

The Democrats have been decimated at the polls since Barack Obama took the party leftward. The Republicans now control 33 governorships and 32 statehouses including 26 trifectas, which occur when the governor’s office and both houses of the state legislature are controlled by the same party; the Democrats have six trifectas.

Barry had skills with respect to his own election and reelection, but his attempts, in his own words, at “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” devastated his party because, without him, his coalition of the ascendant crumbled.

We also make our opinions known with our dollars. We can choose to spend them on what we want, and choose not to spend them when we don’t want to, as the NFL, ESPN, and Hollywood are just now learning.

We may not want to argue in public but we make our feelings known. I used to go to four or five movies a year, no more, and even though I was never a big ESPN guy, choosing movies and hour-long dramas on cable over sports TV, I would watch it perhaps an hour a week, which now I no longer do. I read and write about politics, I don’t want politics with my sports. Sports have always been an escape, but the progressive harpies can’t have that, they must control everything. As far as the NFL is concerned, in the past, I would never miss a Jets game (I know, stop laughing, this is a serious article), this year, I don’t think I’ve seen an entire game all season.

Donald Trump, however, refuses to be silent, and you have to respect him for it. For far too long, the Republicans have allowed progressives to dictate the conversation. Utilizing this capability, progressives portray anyone who doesn’t agree with them as heinous. With their control of the media and the entertainment industry, anytime someone diverges from the liberal path, he is publicly vilified. No one wants to be the villain, so most Republicans try to never disagree — at least, for attribution.

Donald Trump is having none of that; he doesn’t care what anyone says, he stands by his convictions and that has long been missing from our elected Republicans. It is said that politics is Hollywood for ugly people. Yet those people want to be famous, just like those in Hollywood. Sixes and sevens all want to be nines and tens. They want to be invited to all the right parties; they want to rub shoulders with George Clooney and Meryl Streep, some wouldn’t mind being groped by Ben Affleck. They want to go on “The View’ and have Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar fawn all over them and tell them how great they are for being so progressive.

Trump doesn’t care; he has already done that. He already is a star. His greatest asset is his ego because he knows who he is and he doesn’t care what people say. In the past, when the left challenged a Republican, the Republican would fold. You can’t win a war if you are afraid to hurt your opponent, just as Obama’s Rules of Engagement (ROE), where our troops weren’t allowed to fire first (the first war in history of mankind where one side was not allowed to shoot first) was losing the war against ISIS and in Afghanistan, conservatives were losing the war of ideas against the autocratic progressive claque.

As an aside, note how long it took our troops to roll up ISIS when the ROE were changed and Obama’s policy of “pursue and let retreat” was changed to “pursue and destroy.”

Trump is not perfect, but he is the perfect man in the age of Twitter. He tells it as he sees it, and he isn’t afraid to make hard decisions and to be portrayed in the media as a buffoon and a failure. He realizes that even were he to bow to the media as deeply as Obama bowed to every potentate and Islamic dictator in the world, the media would still call him a buffoon and a failure. John McCain learned that lesson, although by how he votes today, not well enough. When he was the “Maverick,” trying to walk the liberal path while still being a Republican, the media loved him because he played their game, but once he ran against Obama, they destroyed him.

Trump bows to no man, and that’s what many like about him because a president should never bow. The United States of America doesn’t bow. We finally have a president who will stand up and fight. He dictates the conversation; he calls out the other side, something a Republican would never do because God forbid, he doesn’t get invited to the latest “in” party. Trump doesn’t care; he’s been to all the “in” parties.

Like him or not, he is the first president, aside from Reagan, who has made any effort to keep his promises — and he will fight as the left fights. Barry lived off executive orders maintaining that if Congress wouldn’t act, he would use his phone and his pen.

Trump has often criticized Obama for using executive orders exclusively to implement his agenda in the last seven years of his presidency. Now, Trump will use them himself to implement his policies, many of which are a rollback of Barry’s attempt at radically transforming the nation.

Trump is willing to fight the way the left fights. He is willing to get down and dirty and fight in the mud if he has to. When they insult him, he insults back. When they ridicule him, he ridicules back. When they throw a punch, he throws a punch and he is not afraid to throw the first punch either (see the NFL, see the media).

I learned a long time ago that you can’t win a fight unless you’re willing to do whatever your opponent is willing to do.

Trump is willing to use every single weapon progressives have always used.

It’s not only about time we had a president like Donald Trump, it is the right time, because if he fails all is lost for the nation.

No matter what he does, a large part of the country will never accept Donald Trump as our president. Hollywood will never like him, not that that matters any longer, since the implosion of Harvey Weinstein has shown the entire lot of virtue signaling miscreants to be morally bankrupt.

The media will always be against him. They may have been head over heels for Barry the “lightworker,” “sent to help us evolve,” but it will always be “he can’t do anything right,” for Trump.

The hardcore progressives, around 20% of the population, will forever loathe him and regular “run of the mill” Democrats will never think of him as anything but illegitimate — that’s been the media’s meme since last November.

Even many “middle of the road” Republicans — who in essence, stake out positions once held by mainstream Democrats before the party mutated into a hard-left progressive movement — don’t like him either.

Yet, there is a silent majority in this nation who are willing to give the man a chance to succeed. I know the media are already calling his presidency a failure after ten months, but that was expected.

This silent majority believes in America as something of value, unlike the Democrats, who constantly tell us the country is racist and unfair. Yet, they don’t want to stand up in public, or on the job, or even with friends, because they don’t want to be screamed at, or passed over for promotion, or lose friends over politics. That’s the thing about the regular guy or gal trying to survive in this world. They and their families have bad habits, like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They don’t need drama. They just want to survive.

The difference between conservatives and progressives is that we view progressives as mistaken or misinformed, whereas progressives view us as evil. It’s understandable that most choose to remain quiet about their politics. Who wants to be the evil guy?

Silence may be the requisite tact in this age of snowflakes, virtue signaling, and Twitter shaming, but there will always be elections. In fact, this is why America has always had a secret ballot. It prevents exactly the type of intimidation progressives utilize in the public square.

The Democrats have been decimated at the polls since Barack Obama took the party leftward. The Republicans now control 33 governorships and 32 statehouses including 26 trifectas, which occur when the governor’s office and both houses of the state legislature are controlled by the same party; the Democrats have six trifectas.

Barry had skills with respect to his own election and reelection, but his attempts, in his own words, at “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” devastated his party because, without him, his coalition of the ascendant crumbled.

We also make our opinions known with our dollars. We can choose to spend them on what we want, and choose not to spend them when we don’t want to, as the NFL, ESPN, and Hollywood are just now learning.

We may not want to argue in public but we make our feelings known. I used to go to four or five movies a year, no more, and even though I was never a big ESPN guy, choosing movies and hour-long dramas on cable over sports TV, I would watch it perhaps an hour a week, which now I no longer do. I read and write about politics, I don’t want politics with my sports. Sports have always been an escape, but the progressive harpies can’t have that, they must control everything. As far as the NFL is concerned, in the past, I would never miss a Jets game (I know, stop laughing, this is a serious article), this year, I don’t think I’ve seen an entire game all season.

Donald Trump, however, refuses to be silent, and you have to respect him for it. For far too long, the Republicans have allowed progressives to dictate the conversation. Utilizing this capability, progressives portray anyone who doesn’t agree with them as heinous. With their control of the media and the entertainment industry, anytime someone diverges from the liberal path, he is publicly vilified. No one wants to be the villain, so most Republicans try to never disagree — at least, for attribution.

Donald Trump is having none of that; he doesn’t care what anyone says, he stands by his convictions and that has long been missing from our elected Republicans. It is said that politics is Hollywood for ugly people. Yet those people want to be famous, just like those in Hollywood. Sixes and sevens all want to be nines and tens. They want to be invited to all the right parties; they want to rub shoulders with George Clooney and Meryl Streep, some wouldn’t mind being groped by Ben Affleck. They want to go on “The View’ and have Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar fawn all over them and tell them how great they are for being so progressive.

Trump doesn’t care; he has already done that. He already is a star. His greatest asset is his ego because he knows who he is and he doesn’t care what people say. In the past, when the left challenged a Republican, the Republican would fold. You can’t win a war if you are afraid to hurt your opponent, just as Obama’s Rules of Engagement (ROE), where our troops weren’t allowed to fire first (the first war in history of mankind where one side was not allowed to shoot first) was losing the war against ISIS and in Afghanistan, conservatives were losing the war of ideas against the autocratic progressive claque.

As an aside, note how long it took our troops to roll up ISIS when the ROE were changed and Obama’s policy of “pursue and let retreat” was changed to “pursue and destroy.”

Trump is not perfect, but he is the perfect man in the age of Twitter. He tells it as he sees it, and he isn’t afraid to make hard decisions and to be portrayed in the media as a buffoon and a failure. He realizes that even were he to bow to the media as deeply as Obama bowed to every potentate and Islamic dictator in the world, the media would still call him a buffoon and a failure. John McCain learned that lesson, although by how he votes today, not well enough. When he was the “Maverick,” trying to walk the liberal path while still being a Republican, the media loved him because he played their game, but once he ran against Obama, they destroyed him.

Trump bows to no man, and that’s what many like about him because a president should never bow. The United States of America doesn’t bow. We finally have a president who will stand up and fight. He dictates the conversation; he calls out the other side, something a Republican would never do because God forbid, he doesn’t get invited to the latest “in” party. Trump doesn’t care; he’s been to all the “in” parties.

Like him or not, he is the first president, aside from Reagan, who has made any effort to keep his promises — and he will fight as the left fights. Barry lived off executive orders maintaining that if Congress wouldn’t act, he would use his phone and his pen.

Trump has often criticized Obama for using executive orders exclusively to implement his agenda in the last seven years of his presidency. Now, Trump will use them himself to implement his policies, many of which are a rollback of Barry’s attempt at radically transforming the nation.

Trump is willing to fight the way the left fights. He is willing to get down and dirty and fight in the mud if he has to. When they insult him, he insults back. When they ridicule him, he ridicules back. When they throw a punch, he throws a punch and he is not afraid to throw the first punch either (see the NFL, see the media).

I learned a long time ago that you can’t win a fight unless you’re willing to do whatever your opponent is willing to do.

Trump is willing to use every single weapon progressives have always used.

It’s not only about time we had a president like Donald Trump, it is the right time, because if he fails all is lost for the nation.



Source link

For Democrats, Politics Is the Only True God


The Democrats were once a political party. Today, they have metastasized from a political party into a religious movement and the beliefs of that movement are inviolable. As the Ten Commandments were the basis for Judeo-Christian religious tradition, the idea that politics transcend all things is the basis of the progressive mindset.

Democrats = Politics = God = the Progressive Movement

To the Democrat of today, all things are political and everything can be framed within their vision of how the nation, and indeed, the world should be run. That this country, in particular, should be run by them is at the core of their beliefs — the identity politics, the idea that there are no legitimate leaders except their own, full control of the economy, where people live, where they go and how they get there, what they do, what they eat, and lastly what they think, are merely tools to facilitate their total control.

As Thomas Lifson said, everything is about “the state controlling more and more aspects of citizens’ lives, while it consumes more and more of their income.” 

Climate control has never been about the climate. It is the perfect means of control. It is about forcing people to live in densely populated cities, without cars, in an ever-smaller living space, with everything within walking distance. To those that refuse to give up their cars they will make fossil fuels impossibly expensive, while passing laws to force them into electric cars, limiting the distance they can travel. They will monitor everywhere they go with EZ Pass, and mileage taxation made possible by GPS tracking. They will triple or even quadruple electric bills. A population without the funds and means to travel is so much easier to control.

Identity politics is never about identity. America is the land of opportunity and the poor performance of Blacks economically and educationally is more about culture and the welfare state incentivizing non-work and stifling ambition, than any kind of racial animus. The war against police is about reversing the gains made in the fight against crime because the Democrats can’t let that happen. Any electoral chance they have depends almost exclusively on keeping blacks and other minorities voting Democrat at better than 90% in perpetuity. If minorities move out of the ghetto and realize how the Democrats have destroyed their lives and prospects, they will no longer vote for them.

Hundred-year-old statues of dead Democrats, erected by dead Democrats in protest of racial equality, never killed a black man in the projects. Sadly, statistically it is more than likely, it was another black man who did. Stop that and the Democrats’ hold on the black vote will be weakened. That is how you get: “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” and “Hands up, don’t shoot.” That’s how we got Barack Obama as president, who spent his eight allotted years creating as much racial tension as was possible.

To the Democrats, the “Ferguson Effect,” is a good thing. The result will be more crime in minority areas and that’s good for getting out the Democrat vote. The fact that it costs lives is immaterial. If thousands of more young black men have to die to guarantee perpetual progressive governance then that is a small price to pay for the Democrats.

Critical Race Theory with its concentration on “white privilege,” institutional racism, and the multidimensionality of oppression, as well as Implicit Bias, and the theory that equality of results is more important than equal opportunity are all significantly effective tools at stoking racial resentment to increase votes for Democrats. The key is to convince minorities that they are always oppressed despite any success they might have — and to convince whites that they are somehow at fault for this and must vote Democrat to atone.

The smothering of conservative thought on our campuses and through media shaming is another very effective tool. If you want people to believe in a bankrupt orthodoxy, you have a better shot if you start training them when they are still young, instead of waiting until they are older and harder to brainwash. Of course, full control of academia is necessary and they already have that.

Media in America was never the epitome of “fair and balanced.” Yet, there was a time when media at least maintained the facade of fairness. Today that is no longer true. For the eight long years of Barack Obama’s royal reign, the media was on its knees, the customary position of fealty and obeisance, praying to the man who was going to halt the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.

Today the members of the media aren’t even embarrassed that they have allowed themselves to become an arm of the Democratic Party. They lie in wait for any non-Democrat to say the wrong thing so they can be publicly shamed and driven out of any position of power they might have.

Barack Obama could have micturated upon the steps of the White House and the media would have universally exclaimed it was a daring, provocative expression of equality and the rights of all men, while the effusion would be kept on display in the Smithsonian visited by schoolchildren from all over the world. Donald Trump, however, could cure cancer and the headline would read “Millions Die before Trump Acts.”

Having the media in your pocket is good for getting your message out and the Democrats use it extensively to further their goal of full control.

The Democrats believe every elected official who is not a Democrat is illegitimate and they want to rectify that. The recent Supreme Court case about gerrymandering, Gill v. Whitford, is not about gerrymandering, it is about guaranteeing Democrats a chance to win in every election not just on the coasts where they have huge registration advantages. They plan to use the pseudo-science of the “Efficiency Gap” to do so. Note that the Democrats had no problem with gerrymandering when they controlled most of the state houses, but now, with Barack Obama having devastated the Democratic Party and the Republicans controlling most of the state houses it’s suddenly unfair.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos explains the “Efficiency Gap” this way:

“The efficiency gap is simply the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are ballots that don’t contribute to victory for candidates, and they come in two forms: lost votes cast for candidates who are defeated, and surplus votes cast for winning candidates but in excess of what they needed to prevail. When a party gerrymanders a state, it tries to maximize the wasted votes for the opposing party while minimizing its own, thus producing a large efficiency gap. In a state with perfect partisan symmetry, both parties would have the same number of wasted votes.”

By using the efficiency gap to determine districts, parties would win close to the number of legislative seats in proportion to the total votes received by each party in the entire state. In this way, the Democrats can guarantee that they have a better chance of winning in every election in every district in America.

Controlling the economy is a little bit harder. Capitalism is the truest form of freedom and if people were truly free, they would reject the progressive message. Barack Obama did his best with countless regulations and anti-business executive orders. He couldn’t try too hard, however, because if he killed the golden goose there would not be any money to reward friends, cronies, and members of the elite who have the right opinions on progressive policies. That’s another benefit of progressive governance; those who are in on the game and think the right way will be rewarded.

ObamaCare was never about healthcare; it was about controlling a large part the economy while also dictating to the people what healthcare they were allowed to have.

If all this leaves nothing for the rest of us who don’t believe, it is a small price to pay for progressive control — and, we better like it because if we don’t, they will take away what we have left.  

Make no mistake, if you think you should be able to live where you want, or drive where you want, or own the car you want, or say what you want, or believe in God, or think for yourself, or simply want to live safe in a free country while being your own person, the Democrats are coming for you.

We either rise up now and fight back, or the war will be lost, and the future described above will be all we have to look forward to. 

The Democrats were once a political party. Today, they have metastasized from a political party into a religious movement and the beliefs of that movement are inviolable. As the Ten Commandments were the basis for Judeo-Christian religious tradition, the idea that politics transcend all things is the basis of the progressive mindset.

Democrats = Politics = God = the Progressive Movement

To the Democrat of today, all things are political and everything can be framed within their vision of how the nation, and indeed, the world should be run. That this country, in particular, should be run by them is at the core of their beliefs — the identity politics, the idea that there are no legitimate leaders except their own, full control of the economy, where people live, where they go and how they get there, what they do, what they eat, and lastly what they think, are merely tools to facilitate their total control.

As Thomas Lifson said, everything is about “the state controlling more and more aspects of citizens’ lives, while it consumes more and more of their income.” 

Climate control has never been about the climate. It is the perfect means of control. It is about forcing people to live in densely populated cities, without cars, in an ever-smaller living space, with everything within walking distance. To those that refuse to give up their cars they will make fossil fuels impossibly expensive, while passing laws to force them into electric cars, limiting the distance they can travel. They will monitor everywhere they go with EZ Pass, and mileage taxation made possible by GPS tracking. They will triple or even quadruple electric bills. A population without the funds and means to travel is so much easier to control.

Identity politics is never about identity. America is the land of opportunity and the poor performance of Blacks economically and educationally is more about culture and the welfare state incentivizing non-work and stifling ambition, than any kind of racial animus. The war against police is about reversing the gains made in the fight against crime because the Democrats can’t let that happen. Any electoral chance they have depends almost exclusively on keeping blacks and other minorities voting Democrat at better than 90% in perpetuity. If minorities move out of the ghetto and realize how the Democrats have destroyed their lives and prospects, they will no longer vote for them.

Hundred-year-old statues of dead Democrats, erected by dead Democrats in protest of racial equality, never killed a black man in the projects. Sadly, statistically it is more than likely, it was another black man who did. Stop that and the Democrats’ hold on the black vote will be weakened. That is how you get: “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” and “Hands up, don’t shoot.” That’s how we got Barack Obama as president, who spent his eight allotted years creating as much racial tension as was possible.

To the Democrats, the “Ferguson Effect,” is a good thing. The result will be more crime in minority areas and that’s good for getting out the Democrat vote. The fact that it costs lives is immaterial. If thousands of more young black men have to die to guarantee perpetual progressive governance then that is a small price to pay for the Democrats.

Critical Race Theory with its concentration on “white privilege,” institutional racism, and the multidimensionality of oppression, as well as Implicit Bias, and the theory that equality of results is more important than equal opportunity are all significantly effective tools at stoking racial resentment to increase votes for Democrats. The key is to convince minorities that they are always oppressed despite any success they might have — and to convince whites that they are somehow at fault for this and must vote Democrat to atone.

The smothering of conservative thought on our campuses and through media shaming is another very effective tool. If you want people to believe in a bankrupt orthodoxy, you have a better shot if you start training them when they are still young, instead of waiting until they are older and harder to brainwash. Of course, full control of academia is necessary and they already have that.

Media in America was never the epitome of “fair and balanced.” Yet, there was a time when media at least maintained the facade of fairness. Today that is no longer true. For the eight long years of Barack Obama’s royal reign, the media was on its knees, the customary position of fealty and obeisance, praying to the man who was going to halt the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.

Today the members of the media aren’t even embarrassed that they have allowed themselves to become an arm of the Democratic Party. They lie in wait for any non-Democrat to say the wrong thing so they can be publicly shamed and driven out of any position of power they might have.

Barack Obama could have micturated upon the steps of the White House and the media would have universally exclaimed it was a daring, provocative expression of equality and the rights of all men, while the effusion would be kept on display in the Smithsonian visited by schoolchildren from all over the world. Donald Trump, however, could cure cancer and the headline would read “Millions Die before Trump Acts.”

Having the media in your pocket is good for getting your message out and the Democrats use it extensively to further their goal of full control.

The Democrats believe every elected official who is not a Democrat is illegitimate and they want to rectify that. The recent Supreme Court case about gerrymandering, Gill v. Whitford, is not about gerrymandering, it is about guaranteeing Democrats a chance to win in every election not just on the coasts where they have huge registration advantages. They plan to use the pseudo-science of the “Efficiency Gap” to do so. Note that the Democrats had no problem with gerrymandering when they controlled most of the state houses, but now, with Barack Obama having devastated the Democratic Party and the Republicans controlling most of the state houses it’s suddenly unfair.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos explains the “Efficiency Gap” this way:

“The efficiency gap is simply the difference between the parties’ respective wasted votes in an election, divided by the total number of votes cast. Wasted votes are ballots that don’t contribute to victory for candidates, and they come in two forms: lost votes cast for candidates who are defeated, and surplus votes cast for winning candidates but in excess of what they needed to prevail. When a party gerrymanders a state, it tries to maximize the wasted votes for the opposing party while minimizing its own, thus producing a large efficiency gap. In a state with perfect partisan symmetry, both parties would have the same number of wasted votes.”

By using the efficiency gap to determine districts, parties would win close to the number of legislative seats in proportion to the total votes received by each party in the entire state. In this way, the Democrats can guarantee that they have a better chance of winning in every election in every district in America.

Controlling the economy is a little bit harder. Capitalism is the truest form of freedom and if people were truly free, they would reject the progressive message. Barack Obama did his best with countless regulations and anti-business executive orders. He couldn’t try too hard, however, because if he killed the golden goose there would not be any money to reward friends, cronies, and members of the elite who have the right opinions on progressive policies. That’s another benefit of progressive governance; those who are in on the game and think the right way will be rewarded.

ObamaCare was never about healthcare; it was about controlling a large part the economy while also dictating to the people what healthcare they were allowed to have.

If all this leaves nothing for the rest of us who don’t believe, it is a small price to pay for progressive control — and, we better like it because if we don’t, they will take away what we have left.  

Make no mistake, if you think you should be able to live where you want, or drive where you want, or own the car you want, or say what you want, or believe in God, or think for yourself, or simply want to live safe in a free country while being your own person, the Democrats are coming for you.

We either rise up now and fight back, or the war will be lost, and the future described above will be all we have to look forward to. 



Source link

Bending the Knee


When I grew up, we were poor. We had very little and if my grandfather hadn’t come to this country from Sicily at the turn of the last century and with his own hands built the house we lived in, we would have had nothing at all.

My mother was a widow with three children under four years old living in a one-bedroom apartment. Yet, the things we didn’t have didn’t matter, because in school we learned that in this country if we worked hard we could have anything, we could be anything — it was the American dream.

So, I may not have had much, but I was still blessed by God to be an American. I believed every morning when we said the Pledge of Allegiance that the good Lord had bestowed upon me a true grace allowing me to be born in this “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

I remember crouching underneath my desk waiting for a warning siren. I remember praying every day that the Soviet Union (that’s what Russia was called then) would not blow us up. I had a key to our apartment when I was five years old because my mother had to work every day so that we could have Captain Crunch and Quisp for breakfast. I wonder what kids had for breakfast in the Soviet Union?

Years later when I held my little boy on my chest as we watched TV, I thanked God and Country for the child in my arms and the opportunities he would have in his life.

Today, I fully understand that if I had been born in another nation, I would have been dead long before my expiration date.

I believed in the American dream then and I believe in it now. I look around me at the things I have and the life I lived and know there is no other place on earth where this would have been possible. I stand for the National Anthem; I stand in gratitude; I stand in awe; I stand humbled by the greatness of America.

Colin Kaepernick refused to stand because he believed the flag stood for oppression or something or other. It doesn’t matter what his reasons were. We should not care because the “why” is immaterial. He refused to stand and he paid the price for his actions through lost employment opportunities. He has never expressed regret for what he did. Good for him, you should never let your mouth write a check your backside isn’t willing to cash. But it is not racism that he can’t get a job; it is due diligence on the part of potential employers. What team wants distractions from their backup quarterback?

Recently he said he was done with his protest and the ‘not standing for the National Anthem’ fad was losing traction until Donald Trump tweeted that any son of a b@#*h who doesn’t stand should be fired. This reignited the protests when the NFL decided that they were going to support players who refused to stand, which opened the door to those players who wanted to virtue signal their purity as rebels in society. Being a rebel is fun when it doesn’t cost you anything.

I don’t agree with the president’s choice of language and if I were he, I would have stayed out of the whole thing, but he has a right to his opinion just like everyone else.

Stand, kneel or don’t come out of the locker room, this is a free country. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees everyone the right to disrespect our nation and its flag but don’t dare tell me I have to like it or if I don’t like it I am a Nazi, or a racist, or whatever they say I am because I don’t support their ingratitude — and don’t say their employer doesn’t have the right to fire them or that people don’t have a right to change the channel either. The Constitution guarantees your right to voice your opinion but it doesn’t shield you from the repercussions of voicing your opinion.  

Remember James Damore? He’s the Google engineer who wrote the infamous “Google Memo” about the differences between men and women and how their personal choices and interests explain the relative paucity of female engineers better than does discrimination and unconscious bias. Google fired him for his missive and many on the right were outraged, maintaining he was terminated for exercising his First Amendment right to his opinion. Google said he was canned for “perpetuating gender stereotypes,” which lends credence to that charge but he was also fired for sending out a company-wide email criticising his employer. Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak your mind but it doesn’t shield you from consequences.

The First Amendment works both ways. While everyone is afforded the right to their opinions, everyone else also has the right to disagree with you and that goes for people booing football players and employers terminating recalcitrant employees who voice disagreeable opinions. Everyone has the right to disagree with anyone’s opinion.

My opinion is that those who refuse to stand should understand there is blood beneath their feet. People died so they can do what they do — disrespect their nation’s flag while playing a game for fame and fortune.

As I said before, this is a free country. The forefathers fought for this. Dead people whose names most cannot recall fought for this.

Stand if you want, kneel if you want.

But don’t you dare look at me and think you are anything special because you take the very fashionable stance of disparaging this nation.

There is blood at your feet, whether you stand or kneel. Fathers, sons, mothers, and daughters died so that you can look down your nose at the rest of us.

I will not condemn you; I will not hold anything you do against you.

As I said, you do what you want — it’s your right.

But for me, I stand and in doing so, to God and Country, I bend the knee.

And that’s my right.

When I grew up, we were poor. We had very little and if my grandfather hadn’t come to this country from Sicily at the turn of the last century and with his own hands built the house we lived in, we would have had nothing at all.

My mother was a widow with three children under four years old living in a one-bedroom apartment. Yet, the things we didn’t have didn’t matter, because in school we learned that in this country if we worked hard we could have anything, we could be anything — it was the American dream.

So, I may not have had much, but I was still blessed by God to be an American. I believed every morning when we said the Pledge of Allegiance that the good Lord had bestowed upon me a true grace allowing me to be born in this “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

I remember crouching underneath my desk waiting for a warning siren. I remember praying every day that the Soviet Union (that’s what Russia was called then) would not blow us up. I had a key to our apartment when I was five years old because my mother had to work every day so that we could have Captain Crunch and Quisp for breakfast. I wonder what kids had for breakfast in the Soviet Union?

Years later when I held my little boy on my chest as we watched TV, I thanked God and Country for the child in my arms and the opportunities he would have in his life.

Today, I fully understand that if I had been born in another nation, I would have been dead long before my expiration date.

I believed in the American dream then and I believe in it now. I look around me at the things I have and the life I lived and know there is no other place on earth where this would have been possible. I stand for the National Anthem; I stand in gratitude; I stand in awe; I stand humbled by the greatness of America.

Colin Kaepernick refused to stand because he believed the flag stood for oppression or something or other. It doesn’t matter what his reasons were. We should not care because the “why” is immaterial. He refused to stand and he paid the price for his actions through lost employment opportunities. He has never expressed regret for what he did. Good for him, you should never let your mouth write a check your backside isn’t willing to cash. But it is not racism that he can’t get a job; it is due diligence on the part of potential employers. What team wants distractions from their backup quarterback?

Recently he said he was done with his protest and the ‘not standing for the National Anthem’ fad was losing traction until Donald Trump tweeted that any son of a b@#*h who doesn’t stand should be fired. This reignited the protests when the NFL decided that they were going to support players who refused to stand, which opened the door to those players who wanted to virtue signal their purity as rebels in society. Being a rebel is fun when it doesn’t cost you anything.

I don’t agree with the president’s choice of language and if I were he, I would have stayed out of the whole thing, but he has a right to his opinion just like everyone else.

Stand, kneel or don’t come out of the locker room, this is a free country. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees everyone the right to disrespect our nation and its flag but don’t dare tell me I have to like it or if I don’t like it I am a Nazi, or a racist, or whatever they say I am because I don’t support their ingratitude — and don’t say their employer doesn’t have the right to fire them or that people don’t have a right to change the channel either. The Constitution guarantees your right to voice your opinion but it doesn’t shield you from the repercussions of voicing your opinion.  

Remember James Damore? He’s the Google engineer who wrote the infamous “Google Memo” about the differences between men and women and how their personal choices and interests explain the relative paucity of female engineers better than does discrimination and unconscious bias. Google fired him for his missive and many on the right were outraged, maintaining he was terminated for exercising his First Amendment right to his opinion. Google said he was canned for “perpetuating gender stereotypes,” which lends credence to that charge but he was also fired for sending out a company-wide email criticising his employer. Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak your mind but it doesn’t shield you from consequences.

The First Amendment works both ways. While everyone is afforded the right to their opinions, everyone else also has the right to disagree with you and that goes for people booing football players and employers terminating recalcitrant employees who voice disagreeable opinions. Everyone has the right to disagree with anyone’s opinion.

My opinion is that those who refuse to stand should understand there is blood beneath their feet. People died so they can do what they do — disrespect their nation’s flag while playing a game for fame and fortune.

As I said before, this is a free country. The forefathers fought for this. Dead people whose names most cannot recall fought for this.

Stand if you want, kneel if you want.

But don’t you dare look at me and think you are anything special because you take the very fashionable stance of disparaging this nation.

There is blood at your feet, whether you stand or kneel. Fathers, sons, mothers, and daughters died so that you can look down your nose at the rest of us.

I will not condemn you; I will not hold anything you do against you.

As I said, you do what you want — it’s your right.

But for me, I stand and in doing so, to God and Country, I bend the knee.

And that’s my right.



Source link