“Never met a Commie he didn’t like” – Guest Opinion by Ari Kaufman

215 Views

“The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

It’s no surprise Bernie Sanders stated these iniquitous lines but would you believe this occurred more than 50 years ago?  

Perhaps in 1963 when he lived on a radical Israeli kibbutz called “the Young Guard”? 

Once that left-wing system failed and the nascent Jewish State progressed into a thriving democracy, and our lone ally in the world’s most volatile region, Sanders moved on to lauding Cuba, the Viet Cong, the Chicoms, USSR and, yes, those bread lines.  

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry agitator who accomplished very little, even pilfering electricity from his landlord via an extension cord.  

Despite a nice inheritance from his father and elite private college education, he was writing worthless fiction and making slideshows for schools “from an alternative point of view” into his late 30s about his lifelong political hero, socialist Eugene Debs.  

He didn’t receive a steady paycheck until age 40. Nearly four decades later, Sanders still only receives a taxpayer-funded salary.  

Sanders, who’s current wife is a white collar criminal, also has never passed a relevant bill during his three decades in Washington. And yet the collegians and aging hippies think this economic illiterate deserves the power to run our finances.   

Even his devotees might confess that yelling is what Sanders is “best” at; and it’s non-stop pablum, about the billionaires, how every nation is superior to America, and how our great country is institutionally racist. He deflects serious questions and rarely has an original thought. It’s truly surprising he didn’t go into academia.    

Instead Sanders tried politics, starting his own fringe anti-war party. During the 1970s, he ran four times in four years for statewide office, losing each time and never receiving more than single-digit support, even in Vermont.  

Sanders’ current nationalization plans for our innovative health care system, energy sector and other vital industries will destroy over a million jobs, make heating/cooling, gas production and general progress unaffordable, while taking away health insurance from nearly 200 million Americans during his first term.  

Formerly a protectionist, he now says he’ll end deportations, defund the heroes of Customs and Border Protection, while granting amnesty to illegal aliens. None of his beloved Scandinavian countries allow this.  He actually has little interest in Scandinavian systems, other than using them to obfuscate his real totalitarian idols.  

The stock market will, of course, crater and the “rich will get richer” as their educational loans are inexplicably paid off by lower middle class taxpayers. Want more “income inequality”? Vote for a Sanders regime and good luck portraying that as anodyne.  

The most noxious anti Semites support this campaign — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Keith Ellison, Pramila Jayapal, Michael Moore, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to name some of the worst  —  including his chief of staff and top campaign officials. These are folks he’ll place in his cabinet. Hide your children.   

Sanders doesn’t like the long-standing Israel-American alliance. He instead calls the venerable Israeli prime minister, and our staunchest ally, a “racist” on national TV. Sanders prefers to support many of our worst enemies. 

Unsurprisingly but appallingly, Sanders, who claims to be Jewish, is boycotting this week’s annual AIPAC event. He did so with an odious ad hominem attack. Naturally he’s never attended the massive bi-partisan pro-Israel gathering.  

Sanders also wants to cut U.S. military funding but increase spending everywhere else. Almost $100 trillion in new “well intentioned” taxes to fight normal weather patterns? Profligate, to put it mildly.

He writes admiringly of Cuba, the USSR and most rogue dictatorships. He once said John F. Kennedy “made him physically nauseous” for being against the Cuban Revolution. He still defends left-wing Latin dictators in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela today.  

Like anti-freedom radicals, Sanders never met with brave Cuban or Soviet dissidents in America, even when Nobel Prize Winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn lived just an hour away in Vermont.    

Sanders, who once told students that our military actions in Vietnam were “almost as bad as what Hitler did,” is simply a useful idiot like Lebron James, Colin Kaepernick or John Legend. He is a devotee of Lenin and Trotsky, just like America haters Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Glorification of evil sans penitence.  

And while it is true that Castro implemented a “literacy program” — mostly Communist propaganda — after seizing power in his bloody revolution, Cuba’s literacy rate was already high among Latin American nations. About 80 percent of Cubans knew how to read by 1959. It was an educated nation with figures similar to highly-educated Costa Rica, except Costa Rica did so without the heinous dictatorship Cubans have endured under the Castro regime for six decades.  

Lastly, it’s often mentioned that Fascism is remembered as a crime in schools and film, whereas Communism is glossed over or treated like a mistake. It’s mentioned because it’s true. Has recent movie portrayed the evils of the Great Leap Forward or Stalinist gulags and collectivism that killed more than 100 million?  

But I am sure Sanders has a Che Guevara shirt and probably saw recent hagiographic films romanticizing the Argentine-born Marxist. That Guevara was a mass murderer who supported ignominious policies that placed homosexuals and dissidents in concentration camps? Bern prefers to talk about literacy programs.

 A former teacher and military historian, Ari Kaufman has worked as a journalist since 2006. He’s lived in 11 states and currently resides with his wife in Minnesota

Your vote is in danger

72 Views

There are 16 states that have already passed legislation to steal the votes of the people of their respective states. Additionally 10 other states are considering similar legislation in a move that will alter the voice of those states as well. This should not be allowed to continue.

When our nation’s Founding Fathers gathered to create our government form. There was a clean slate. They could have created anything. There was talk about crowning George Washington as King. But the wisdom of our Founding Fathers gave us a Republic under the Rule of Law.

Our Founding Fathers knew of the dangers of a democracy. Many of them hated the very concept. For democracies do not promote the freedom of Liberty that was hard fought for in our War of Independence from the British Crown.

In our Constitution, the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College. Thus destroying any attempt at having a popular vote of of urban populations dictating policy towards rural populations. It made the states of the United States all equal. It also made possible that importance of the first in the nation Iowa Caucuses.

But since 2006 there has been an established effort to circumvent the protections of the Constitution and the Electoral Collage without rewriting the Constitution. The legislative effort is called “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”.

Under this legislation, once passed and enforced, will grant the state’s electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular election. Even if that means the people of the state had a majority vote for someone else.

This legislation, if allowed to continue, will destroy the Republic. We will fully become a Democracy and enter the violent twilight years of our nations history. Some will say it is to protect our “democracy” but there is no democracy to protect in the first place.

To put somethings into perspective. There is no danger to our Republic if a Presidential election results in a President winning the Electoral College vote but losing the national popular vote. This means it is working at the Founding Fathers designed it to work.

This event has only happened 5 times since the founding of the Republic. There have been 58 presidential elections since that time. So 8% of them. Hardly a sign of trouble. This is an invented crisis.

The Electoral College is based on the total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. Most states give all of their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular election in that state. Which ever candidate gets more than 270 electoral votes wins the election.

There are 2 proper ways to reform the Electoral College. One is to have each state give a proportional electoral vote. So it is no longer winner take all. This makes it harder to get to 270 votes. It also means that the Presidential election could be determined by the House of Representatives instead of the peoples vote.

The 2nd method is to increase the number of Representatives in each state. This will raise the threshold above 270 while still keeping the winner take all on the electoral votes.

But the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact doesn’t go into effect until there are enough states that have passed the legislation to reach 270 electoral votes. At this time the total is 196 electoral votes from the 16 states. The state of Virginia is close to passing this legislation which if it does will bring the electoral vote total to 209.

Even if this legislation does pass to 270 electoral votes. It will be challenged. As it violates Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution which reads in part:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact requires the consent of Congress to enact. And Congress should not grant that consent which would destroy the Republic.

How the Votes will add up

92 Views

We are early in the caucus/primary season for the Democratic Party. This is the beginning of how the party chooses it’s delegates and eventual nominee for president this summer. The delegates are locked into their assigned candidate, at least on the 1st round of voting during the summer convention.

To win the Democratic Party nomination the candidate needs to get 1991 delegates/votes. If this happens on the 1st round of voting due to the results of the caucuses and primaries then that candidate did extremely well. However, it doesn’t look like that is going to happen just yet.

Senator Bernie Sanders is doing well. He is getting about 1/3 of the available delegates in each contest. While the remaining delegates get split up between all of the other candidates that are running. If this rate holds through the entire caucus/primary season then Senator Sanders wont have enough delegates/votes to win in the 1st round. He will be over 650 delegate/votes short of that goal.

In the 2nd round of voting, the powerful block of Democratic superdelegates are able to vote. They are not locked into any one candidate. This powerful block gives 771 votes. But right now Senator Bernie Sanders is only supported by 23 of them. Still not enough to win the nomination.

The regular delegates will have to be freed from their pre-assigned voting block before there is a clear winner. And it might not be Senator Sanders. There will be backroom deals cut during the convention so there is a strong enough block of delegates supporting one candidate to get the nomination. When it comes down to the delegates and deals at a convention the nomination is wide open. Even the 5th place loser can become the winner.

I am predicting it wont be Senator Sanders. He isn’t really a Democratic Party member, he always runs as an independent for this Senate seat. He does have a strong following of useful idiots that don’t know why or who everything is free but they like it. But that wont be enough for Bernie to win the nomination. The Democratic Party base still has a strong moderate lean to it. And a hardcore Socialist rubs them the wrong way.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

85 Views

Another week, another existential threat against the Constitution, our democracy (which is actually a Constitutional republic, but the Left doesn’t get that), and America. This week’s outrage revolves around President Donald Trump commuting sentences of several people who were convicted of various crimes and were sentenced accordingly, often in excess of what the actual punishment should have been. Not surprisingly at this point, the Left lost their collectivist minds.

Although it’s nice to see Leftists care about criminal justice reform, it’s odd they’ve decided to attack the President for pardoning criminals. While they concern themselves with the color of those they think got the lion’s share of the pardons (i.e. white people, or as I prefer to be called Honkey-Americans), they might not have the first idea of the Presidential pardon powers. In the interest of informing (and possibly entertaining) any Leftist who might be reading this, I am going to give a quick primer on pardons.

Presidential pardon

What the Left thinks it means – the power of the President to forgive criminals, a power abused by Donald Trump to help out his white collar criminal buddies

What it really means – the power of the President to forgive criminals, a power that has been overly scrutinized depending on which party is in the White House

Since we’re talking about the power of the President, let’s consult with the US Constitution. Article 2, Section 2 reads:

The President…shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

In the interest of transparency, there are a lot of words between “President” and “shall” that have nothing to do with Presidential pardons, but if you want to look for yourselves, here is a handy link.

Meanwhile back at the Leftist hivemind, there are people who think this use of a Constitutionally-defined Presidential power is unprecedented, signals a dark time in our history, and should cause massive panic and outrage. The truth is none of this is true. (Shocking, I know!) What President Trump did was exercise his Presidential powers in accordance with the Constitution, which goes over in Leftist circles as well as a white male eating full GMO vegetables with his so-rare-you-can-still-hear-the-moo hamburger washed down with a non-soy coffee produced by MAGA hat wearing American veterans and taken as dark as Michael Avenatti’s 2020 Presidential hopes. (To quote the great Dennis Miller, “Stop me before I subreference again.”)

For all of the Left’s fearmongering over President Trump wanting to be a dictator, you would think they would be happy he’s following the Constitution, but we can’t have nice things, so they aren’t. A huge (or yuge if you prefer) portion of the outrage comes from who is doing it, but there’s another element at work here. Chelsea Handler’s idiotic Twitter post suggesting the recipients of the President’s commutations and pardons were all white notwithstanding, a significant chunk of them didn’t look like Trump. People of color and women in particular made up a noticeable percentage of the recipients, and that scares Leftists because it destroys a few of their narratives. Cries of “racist” and “sexist” are harder to justify when looking at those on the good business end of a Trump Presidential pardon.

But the most profound narrative that gets destroyed is Leftists are the only ones who can understand the struggles of minorities in America. With a stroke of a pen, Donald Trump has taken action while Leftists only give lip service to the minority communities across America. Although it’s still several months before the Presidential election, actions like this speak volumes about who is really committed to addressing the concerns of all people, not just the ones one party or the other is trying to sucker into voting for their candidate.

Now, here’s the part that will really blow Leftists’ minds. President Trump is on pace to pardoning or commuting the fewest number of people in the past several years. If Trump is a power-mad dictator who can do whatever he wants, why so few pardons with none going to people who support him? He even pardoned Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat! Wrap your few but still functional neurons around that, Leftists!

However, I do have to take a slight issue with the idea of Presidential pardons because of the political nature they’ve taken on in recent years. Ever see the name of someone getting a Presidential pardon and wonder why he or she is getting it? More than likely, it’s because it advances a political/ideological agenda. Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich was one such instance because Rich and his wife were large donors to the Democrats. (Who says Leftists don’t love Rich guys?) To keep that sweet contribution money rolling in, the Commander in Briefs did Rich a solid. Naked partisanship (and, really, does Bill practice any other kind) is bad enough, but it gets worse when people who should be locked up for life get a Get Out of Jail Free card from the President. Clinton and Barack Obama both pardoned known terrorists for reasons that still escape me, but the damage is done and we have to live with the consequences.

I’m not sure what, if any, political or ideological angle President Trump’s recent pardons and commutations entailed aside from the ones I mentioned above, but he would be wise to take extra care with each request he receives to dole out the appropriate amount of compassion and justice. If anyone Trump pardons gets involved in shady dealings after the fact, the Left is going to scream. Then again, that’s pretty much been their standard MO since November 2016. Regardless, handing out pardons shouldn’t be handled with the grace of a sledgehammer in a china shop and should be based on merit, not politics. After reading up on a number of the cases involved, I can say the President met that burden.

Now if he pardons Jussie Smollett, on the other hand…

Democracy in Danger

136 Views

There are a lot of memes on Social Media recently stating that President Trump and other Republicans are dangerous to Democracy.

I agree with these memes. And it is a good thing too. Democracy was hated by our Founding Fathers. That is why they gave us a Republic.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The whims of the majority can change like the wind. Democracies don’t last and they are violent in their deaths. A little knowledge of US and World History, untainted by the Left, is the best teacher of these facts. It is a shame it is no longer taught in our schools.

I am glad that President Trump is fighting against Democracy. I support this effort fully. I do not want a Democracy to take hold of the United States, it will be the end of our nation if it does.

Unfortunately we have already had some encroachments of Democracy. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the 17th Amendment was ratified. And for more than a 100 years now we have had this stain of Democracy eating away at our Republic. It is time to stop it. Repeal the 17th Amendment and preserve the Republic and end Democracy.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

139 Views

There is a phrase that has been batted around lately more than a tennis ball during a long rally at Wimbledon: rule of law. But for once, it’s not the Right that is doing the batting. It’s the Left. It seems they’ve become acutely aware of the concept after claiming President Donald Trump believes he’s above the law due to his recent impeachment acquittal in the Senate. On top of that, the President has also suggested the Department of Justice look into the conviction of former Trump associate Roger Stone (and with good reason if the recent news around the judge and jury in his case are accurate). Now, the Left is on their outrage soapboxes demanding the President and the Right respect the rule of law.

As you might guess, I take the rule of law seriously, or at least seriously enough to write a weekly blog post highlighting the Leftist take on the phrase.

rule of law

What the Left thinks it means – following the letter and spirit of the law

What it really means – following the letter and spirit of the law even when it’s politically inconvenient to do so

The Left may have the trial lawyers in their back pockets (and their hands in the back pockets of the trial lawyers for that matter), but that doesn’t mean they have a healthy respect for the law. What they do have is a healthy respect for those who can create laws through rhetorical or contextual devices that judges who are already predisposed to agree with the outcome will allow to stand in court. From the bizarre arguments from Roe v. Wade to the more recent, yet equally bizarre, legal arguments requiring Christians to act against their faith to accommodate same sex marriages, the Left figured out how to get what they want without consulting the voting public: file a lawsuit! Then, it’s just a matter of crafting a legal argument so seemingly air-tight that no appeals court could overturn it and, voila, you have a law and the rest of the country has to go along with it.

Of course, once that happens, the Left demands everyone follow the letter and spirit of the law with no deviations whatsoever. On the other hand, if it’s a law they don’t like, they feel it’s morally justified to defy the law. Sanctuary cities, anyone?

It’s this duplicity when it comes to the law that rings hollow when the Left talks about the rule of law. The recent impeachment fiasco…I mean trial is a nice microcosm of this. Remember when the Left jumped all over Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators to recuse themselves because they already made up their minds on impeachment? On the surface, it seems like a reasonable and legally justifiable position. Of course, that same argument could have been applied to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and a whole host of Democrat Senators who had not only made up their minds to impeach the President, but made it a part of their regular communication with followers, constituents, and fawning media types.

And let’s not forget one of the articles of impeachment had zero basis in law, but it didn’t bother Senate Democrats enough to make them vote with the law and not with their party. But hey, party over country is a Republican thing, right?

If you haven’t recognized this Leftist tactic, it’s right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. They are trying to hold the Right to the rule of law (or at least the Leftist version of it) while ignoring it themselves, and until recently it was virtually foolproof. Then, as more conservatives and Republicans began to educate themselves on the Left’s tactics, they started to call out the Left and flip the script on them. Not only did the Right flip the script, but the Left flipped their lids, as well as their talking points, to the condition we’re in now. To use a more modern bit of terminology, we’re in the Upside Down.

Or at least some of us are.

Although it’s nice to hear Leftists take the rule of law seriously for a change, it’s based on the politics of the situation, not out of any core principles they have. In fact, the same Leftists going after President Trump for alleged violations of the rule of law were conspicuously absent when President Barack Obama took similar action on matters more pressing than a Tweet about Roger Stone.

This is where it’s important to take the politics out of the rule of law. President Obama violated the law on several occasions and many, including your humble correspondent, were justifiably outraged. President Trump, I feel, has violated the law as well, and only some of us are outraged. By letting our politics guide our decision-making, we can justify poor behavior for the sake of rooting for “our team.” But wrong is wrong, no matter whether we love or loathe the criminal. An eye for an eye may be a boon for the eyepatch industry, but it’s a poor way to enforce the law. It has to be enforced across the board for the rule of law to have any weight.

That is why Lady Justice is blind. Either that or it was an unfortunate recreation of a scene from 50 Shades of Gray, but in either case, we need to be absolutely sure we are standing for the rule of law in every case. Donald Trump isn’t my cup of Earl Grey (not of the 50 Shades variety), but I want him to be extended every legal opportunity I would get as an American citizen. The Left doesn’t want that, though. They want to prosecute first and ask questions never, all under the guise of defending the rule of law from the man they’re trying to prosecute. Call me crazy, but doesn’t that sound a lot like abuse of power? And, if so, where are the Left’s rule of law hawks on impeaching Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and the whole cast of characters involved with the impeachment process? I’m sure they’re working on it, right after they try to impeach President Trump for something else that may or may not be against the law.

After all, it’s not like Leftists are known to be hypocrites, right?

Liberal or Conservative?

186 Views

Forget Liberal or Conservative when defining political movements and parties. Who fits under these terms can change over time and place. Liberalism of today and Liberalism of past times are not equal. One is clearly wicked and evil while other is good and righteous. The same can be said for Conservatism as well.

If you were a conservative in the Roman Empire around 35 AD. You were either a Roman Citizen or a Pharisee. While the liberals would be Jews or Gentiles who were followers of Jesus and his disciples.

In the 1860s to be a liberal meant to be a Republican. It was a small political party but won the Presidency under Abraham Lincoln. The conservatives where the much larger Democratic party.

A century back, in the 1770’s. The Founding Fathers were the liberals of their time and place. While the monarchists and those loyal to the British crown were the conservatives.

These 3 examples are histories greatest because today all 3 of them have changed labels. Today Christianity is conservative and those ideologies that oppose it are liberal. Today the Republican Party is conservative while the Democratic Party is liberal. And the Founding Father’s are conservative in thought verses the liberal thoughts of the role of government today.

But the key point to keep in mind here. Is none of these 3 examples have changed their world view. Christianity still preaches the same message it has preached for 2000 years. The Republican Party’s base is still the same as it was at it’s founding. And the Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers still says the same words today as it did 240+ years ago.

The label has been changed. The message hasn’t been changed. And what is righteous is always righteous despite any label applied to it. And what is wicked will always be wicked as well. This is due to the message and not the label.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

166 Views

With President Donald Trump being acquitted by the Senate on both counts of impeachment, the Left has gone crazy…well, crazier than normal…and normal is relative when it comes to the Left. Let’s try this again. The Left hasn’t taken the President’s acquittal by the Senate very well. Some have gone so far as to say we’re on the verge of a dictatorship, while others say we’re already there. After all, the Left has all this evidence of President Trump acting and sounding and looking like one, so how come nobody else can see it?

Well, to paraphrase a former President, that all depends on what your definition of dictatorship is. Which is great for me because it gives me this week’s Leftist Lexicon topic!

dictatorship

What the Left thinks it means – a form of government where there is an all-powerful leader, what we are experiencing now or will be experiencing soon

What it really means – the go-to excuse for when the Left fails in imposing their will, used interchangeably with fascist

The Left thrives on oppression, real or imagined, as a means to control how people think. Most of the time, this oppression is imaginary, but it’s just as effective at getting mush-minded people to agree with them and act accordingly. After all, if you feel you’re oppressed, it means you are and, thus, can claim victimhood, which is the coin of the Left’s realm. Of course, the more boxes you can check off on the Oppression Checklist, the more oppressed you are. After that, there’s a whole hierarchy of oppression that is an M.C. Escher/Rube Goldberg/Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” flowchart, and there isn’t enough booze or drugs to make heads or tails out of it. Needless to say, you shouldn’t even try unless you want to end up like Keith Richards and be 1000 years old.

That need for victimhood drives the Left’s perception of the Trump Administration being a dictatorship, more so after the Senate acquittal. They complained about the Senate trial not allowing witnesses (in spite of the fact the House Managers called 17 witnesses and didn’t bother to do even a little legwork to enforce the subpoenas filed against members of the Trump Administration so they might get home for Christmas break sooner). They said it wasn’t right for Senate Republicans to coordinate with the President on a defense. They screamed about how it wasn’t fair some of the jurors in the Senate trial said they would vote to acquit before the trial began (while saying nothing about the multiple Democrat Senators who said they would vote to convict before the trial even began). All of this and much more is proof the President is now a dictator and above the law, and it has the Left protesting loudly on social media and in public.

Let that last sentence roll around in your heads for a moment. Leftists say we’re in a dictatorship while they complain online and in public…without the President arresting them for speaking out against him. Either Donald Trump is the most incompetent dictator in world history or, now hear me out here, he’s not a dictator. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say the President isn’t a dictator, and not because he hasn’t arrested me for making fun of his haircut. In fact, has anyone been arrested for just making fun of President Trump? Not that I’m aware of. Even most of the people who have openly opposed him haven’t seen the inside of Gitmo or any other prison for that matter. It’s only the extreme cases that get a visit from the Secret Service because that’s their job. Even if you humor the Left on this, the lack of incarceration for protesting the President is hard to overlook when making the case we’re in a dictatorship.

Good luck trying to convince Leftists of that, though. They are bound and determined to be under a dictatorship even if it doesn’t kill them. The odd thing is they aren’t opposed to being in a dictatorship as long as they’re in control of it. Some of the same folks who paint Trump as a dictator are strangely quiet on actual dictatorships in the Middle East or try to whitewash Leftist dictators like Pol Pot. For some examples closer to home, check out some of the antics the Left pulls on college campuses to stifle conservatives. That’s what makes their vocal opposition to dictatorships so disingenuous to me. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to dictatorships. Once you allow one to curry your favor, you lose the moral high ground.

Let’s just say the Left ceded that moral high ground a looooooong time ago.

In the meantime, we have to stay on our toes to ensure we don’t become an actual dictatorship. For all of the faults I find with President Trump, wanting absolute power doesn’t seem to be one of them. I understand he likes to be in control of situations based on the way he’s conducted business, but I’m just not seeing where he’s enacting anything that would lead to him becoming President for Life. If anything, he’s acted better on improving things at home by removing government regulations and making a positive impact abroad by expanding gay rights protections in countries that don’t have them. You know, like those Middle Eastern dictatorships the Left conveniently overlook?

Just because President Trump was acquitted by the Senate of two of the weakest impeachment articles in our history doesn’t mean we’re becoming a dictatorship or that we’re already there. It simply means the House Managers didn’t give the Senate much to work with. Even in real criminal trials, you can’t try to prosecute someone for a crime and expect the defense to prove your case for you. And no amount of screaming, pouting, fuming, or general jackassery will change that.

Of course, it makes it easier for us to spot the loonies, so at least we can be entertained.

They are not the same

156 Views

This is not only false it is blasphemous. The God of the Bible is not and has never been the god worshiped by Moslems. They are distinctively different beings with different characteristics and decidedly different character.

The cause of fighting isn’t based on the messenger. It is the message.

This whole lie needs to be stopped as it is anti-Christian and anti-Israel as well.

In Defense of the Iowa Caucuses…Or At Least Some of Them

161 Views

Well, it happened, pretty much as I predicted. The Iowa Caucuses are over, the candidates have moved on, and the Hawkeye State is the center of some controversy because we don’t know who actually won the caucuses on the Democrat side. As a result, the country is looking down at Iowa for being disorganized and incapable of counting beyond ten without taking off our shoes.

But here’s the thing. There were two sets of caucuses going on, not just the one for Democrats. The Republicans had one, too, which was more of a formality than anything else. President Donald Trump won the Iowa Caucuses for the GOP with 97% of the vote. How do I know?

Because the Iowa Republican Party has its shit together.

I’ve participated in the Republican caucuses and observed the Democrat caucuses, so I have an idea of what the internal processes are. The Republicans take their time, but not in excess because they’re there to complete the tasks before them and get out. Democrats, on the other hand, play a game of Red Rover where they try to attract/bully other potential voters to abandon their first choices if they’re not considered viable and add them to the roles of those supporting viable candidates. This process can be quick, and other times it’s more painful than watching the Socialist Socialite trying to explain how gum works.

Last night was the latter on steroids.

And it was made worse thanks to an app developed by the totally non-scary-sounding Shadow Inc. with a website listing none of its board members or leadership and made up of people who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Then again, given how her campaign turned out, I’m not sure I’d want my name out there on anything. Maybe there’s a Witness Relocation Program for failed Presidential campaign staffers, especially ones that couldn’t even win a rigged election….

Adding to the intrigue is the fact Shadow Inc. is associated with Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who just happens to be one of the Democrats running for President. Let’s not forget what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders in 2016, too, in understanding the magnitude of fuckitude we’re dealing with here. If the DNC were trying to exorcize the demons of 2016, they didn’t do a very good job of it here because these little niggling issues make it look like there is someone or something pulling the strings. I’m not usually one to indulge in conspiracy theories, but let’s just say I’ve made a tidy profit after investing heavily in tinfoil.

So many moving parts, and so many fingers being pointed at the wrong people, namely President Trump, Russia, and Iowa in general. The Iowa Caucuses are run by the Democrats and Republicans, and the President and Russia have nothing to do with the chaos that occurred with the Democrats. Iowa as a whole isn’t to blame, either. Remember, the Republicans didn’t seem to have trouble reporting the outcome, only the Democrats did. (Maybe the non-Democrats in Iowa need a hashtag, #NotAllIowans?) As such, the slings and arrows of outrageous commenters should be pointed not at the entire state, but at the Iowa Democratic Party.

But that can’t and won’t happen, thanks to the Leftist mindset. The Left hates Iowa and Iowans (but, surprisingly, not their votes and money). They consider us to be ignorant hicks lacking in the sophistication that can only come from living on either coast. They see us as a roadblock to progressive success and want us to take a back seat to what they want and what they feel we need. The caucus debacle only helps to make their case.

Or so they think.

When you dig a little bit deeper, you see this was a self-fulfilling fuck-up. The Left needed the Iowa Caucuses to fail so they could better make the argument why Iowa shouldn’t take such a prominent role in determining who gets to be the Democrats’ nominee. Just like with Obamacare (with a healthy hat tip to Tammy Bruce for making and inspiriting this same point), the solution to the problem was meant to fail so a larger objective could be achieved. In this case, the Iowa Caucuses served many purposes, including a continuation of the “Russia hacked our elections” narrative that has become gospel to the Left since Hillary Clinton lost. If the Left can repeat the notion our elections aren’t secure, they will cast doubt on whomever wins in 2020 (except, of course, if it’s a Leftist who wins because that only proves we were able to overcome Russian interference). Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Yet, the failures of the Iowa Caucuses only point in one direction, and it points to the party that claims to be smarter and more moral than we are. Oh, and who want us to adopt Medicare For All as a solution to what they think is a health care crisis. If they can’t run a caucus that they control, that makes the best argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed to run anything come November.