The Clinton camp is now trying to say a Podesta email was a typo, and that is what caused the hack to his email. But that is not logical, nor even likely given the facts of the case.
According to the Clinton camp, Podesta received a "phishing" email stating someone had tried to access his account, and he should change his password. They go on to say that the email was sent to an aide who checked it out (John Delavan), and emailed Podesta "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."
Now they say it was a typo - that he MEANT to say "illegitimate". But that simply cannot be truthful, for two reasons.
One reason is grammatical. If he had intended to type "illegitimate", he would have prefaced that with "an", and not "a". Can you imagine any educated person saying "a illegitimate..."? Not hardly.
But even more telling is the actual context. If, in fact, Mr Delavan intended to type "illegitimate", he would NOT have suggested that "John needs to change his password immediately", because if illegitimate, his email account was not at risk, but WOULD be if Podesta were to respond to it and provide his password. It would only be at risk if the email WAS legit and from gmail, and someone HAD tried accessing his account. In other words, it is not the word "legitimate" that caused Podesta to respond to the email and give up his password. It was the statement from Mr Delavan that he SHOULD respond and change it (to change it you must first provide the current password), and that is what allowed the hack. If Delavan had intended to type "illegitimate", he would NOT tell Podesta to respond to it. Therefore, there was no "typo" - just more incompetence from the Clinton camp.
In short, the assertion that the hacking occurred because of a typo is pure BS, and just more deceit from a campaign that is notorious for deception.
/
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Friday, December 9, 2016
Fake News - Fact vs Fiction
Liberals and other Democrats are all harping on the proliferation of "fake news" that affect peoples actions and decisions. And while I agree there is a proliferation of phony news, perhaps we should take a closer look at where it is actually coming from.
All the mainstream media, excluding Fox News, reported the phony "hands up, don't shoot" narrative that came out of the Ferguson shooting. The New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC - even the "ladies" on "The View" pushed that phony narrative as if it were Gospel. And race baiting liberals like Sharpton are STILL pushing it.
And with the help of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, they pushed the bogus narrative that a video no one had ever seen was responsible for Benghazi.
And speaking of Mrs. Clinton, there is her phony report that she was under sniper fire on the tarmac (never happened); that she tried to get into the military in the '70's (false); that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (who did not gain fame until she was 6); and so many other falsehoods I haven't the time to type them all.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid started the fake story about Romney never having paid taxes, and pulled a similar stunt on Trump, with Hillary, Obama and the mainstream media following suit.
Liberal newscaster Brian Williams was canned for falsely reporting his own chopper was under fire - a narrative he had pushed for 10 years. And NBCs Dan Rather was caught lying about President Bush's military record - and even now, years later, many on the left are still pushing those falsehoods.
And as I read through liberal media this very day there are countless false stories, rumors and innuendo concerning President-Elect Trump. And even though he fought racism in Florida for years, they still call him "racist", not because of anything he actually did, but only because some racists support him (which does not equate to him supporting them), and because he wants to build a wall to keep us safe, which is a national security issue, not an issue of race.
Yes, there is a lot of fake news out there, anbd granted, some comes from the far right. But the vast majority has come from the liberals, Democrats and mainstream media, and they have been the purveyors of fake news for decades.
After all, it was Hillary Clinton who touted Senator Byrd, a former kingpin in the Klan, as a steadfast protector of people's rights. And even though the Civil Rights Act was passed by a much greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats, it is the Democrats who wrote the false narrative that they had pushed it through - even though the same Senator Byrd (D) tried to stop it with his filibuster against it.
Fake news is a problem, to be sure. But the only way to rid ourselves of most of it is to DEMAND that the media fact-check their stories before publishing them, and to DEMAND that all news media be OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED in their reporting, or to face huge fines for abusing their freedom of the press by using their outlets for propaganda.
And we can demand colleges and universities REQUIRE their professors to be objective, unbiased and to encourage diversity of thought, as least as much as they encourage diversity of color, or face the unemployment line, regardless of tenure.
And we should make our politicians subject to the same libel and slander laws as the rest of us - no one should be above ANY law.
Then, maybe we can begin to get things right again, and not just "great again".
All the mainstream media, excluding Fox News, reported the phony "hands up, don't shoot" narrative that came out of the Ferguson shooting. The New York Times, CNN, NBC, MSNBC - even the "ladies" on "The View" pushed that phony narrative as if it were Gospel. And race baiting liberals like Sharpton are STILL pushing it.
And with the help of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, they pushed the bogus narrative that a video no one had ever seen was responsible for Benghazi.
And speaking of Mrs. Clinton, there is her phony report that she was under sniper fire on the tarmac (never happened); that she tried to get into the military in the '70's (false); that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (who did not gain fame until she was 6); and so many other falsehoods I haven't the time to type them all.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid started the fake story about Romney never having paid taxes, and pulled a similar stunt on Trump, with Hillary, Obama and the mainstream media following suit.
Liberal newscaster Brian Williams was canned for falsely reporting his own chopper was under fire - a narrative he had pushed for 10 years. And NBCs Dan Rather was caught lying about President Bush's military record - and even now, years later, many on the left are still pushing those falsehoods.
And as I read through liberal media this very day there are countless false stories, rumors and innuendo concerning President-Elect Trump. And even though he fought racism in Florida for years, they still call him "racist", not because of anything he actually did, but only because some racists support him (which does not equate to him supporting them), and because he wants to build a wall to keep us safe, which is a national security issue, not an issue of race.
Yes, there is a lot of fake news out there, anbd granted, some comes from the far right. But the vast majority has come from the liberals, Democrats and mainstream media, and they have been the purveyors of fake news for decades.
After all, it was Hillary Clinton who touted Senator Byrd, a former kingpin in the Klan, as a steadfast protector of people's rights. And even though the Civil Rights Act was passed by a much greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats, it is the Democrats who wrote the false narrative that they had pushed it through - even though the same Senator Byrd (D) tried to stop it with his filibuster against it.
Fake news is a problem, to be sure. But the only way to rid ourselves of most of it is to DEMAND that the media fact-check their stories before publishing them, and to DEMAND that all news media be OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED in their reporting, or to face huge fines for abusing their freedom of the press by using their outlets for propaganda.
And we can demand colleges and universities REQUIRE their professors to be objective, unbiased and to encourage diversity of thought, as least as much as they encourage diversity of color, or face the unemployment line, regardless of tenure.
And we should make our politicians subject to the same libel and slander laws as the rest of us - no one should be above ANY law.
Then, maybe we can begin to get things right again, and not just "great again".
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Crunchy Caramel Apple Pie
This pie is the best I have ever had. Here is the recipe I use:
Ingredients:
1 pastry crust for a deep-dish 9 inch pie (I use frozen, but I put in a GLASS deep-dish pie plate)
½ cup sugar
3 Tbsp all-purpose flour
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1/8 tsp salt
6 cups thinly sliced apples ( I use 3 Fugi & 3 Golden Delicious)
½ cup chopped pecans
¼ cup caramel topping
1 recipe for crumb topping (below)
Ingredients for Crumb Topping:
1 cup packed brown sugar
½ cup all-purpose flour
½ cup Quick cooking rolled oats
½ cup butter
Directions Crumb Topping:
1) Stir together brown sugar, rolled oats, flour
2) Cut in ½ cup soft (not melted) butter until topping is like course crumbs
Directions for pie:
1) In large mixing bowl, stir together sugar, flour, cinnamon & salt
2) Add apples slices and gently toss until coated
3) Transfer coated apple slices to pie shell
4) Sprinkle crumb topping evenly over apple mixture
5) Place pie on cookie sheet so drippings won't drop into your oven
6) Cover edges of pie (if exposed) with aluminum foil
7) Bake in pre-heated 375 deg. Oven 25 minutes. Remove foil and bake for another 25-30 minutes
8) Remove from oven, sprinkle with chopped pecans then drizzle caramel on top
9) Cool on wire rack. Serve at room temp, cold, or heated in microwave
10) ENJOY!
Ingredients:
1 pastry crust for a deep-dish 9 inch pie (I use frozen, but I put in a GLASS deep-dish pie plate)
½ cup sugar
3 Tbsp all-purpose flour
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1/8 tsp salt
6 cups thinly sliced apples ( I use 3 Fugi & 3 Golden Delicious)
½ cup chopped pecans
¼ cup caramel topping
1 recipe for crumb topping (below)
Ingredients for Crumb Topping:
1 cup packed brown sugar
½ cup all-purpose flour
½ cup Quick cooking rolled oats
½ cup butter
Directions Crumb Topping:
1) Stir together brown sugar, rolled oats, flour
2) Cut in ½ cup soft (not melted) butter until topping is like course crumbs
Directions for pie:
1) In large mixing bowl, stir together sugar, flour, cinnamon & salt
2) Add apples slices and gently toss until coated
3) Transfer coated apple slices to pie shell
4) Sprinkle crumb topping evenly over apple mixture
5) Place pie on cookie sheet so drippings won't drop into your oven
6) Cover edges of pie (if exposed) with aluminum foil
7) Bake in pre-heated 375 deg. Oven 25 minutes. Remove foil and bake for another 25-30 minutes
8) Remove from oven, sprinkle with chopped pecans then drizzle caramel on top
9) Cool on wire rack. Serve at room temp, cold, or heated in microwave
10) ENJOY!
Saturday, November 12, 2016
The Puppet Masters vs Drain The Swamp
Following a very contentious election, the anti-Trumpers - from celebrities and elitists to the millennials and the anarchists on the streets of our cities - are all enraged and acting in anti-American ways. But it's not entirely their fault.
It is the fault of powerful liberal/socialist people, some working behind the scenes, like billionaire George Soros, while others are in other positions of power, like the media, politicians and college professors. These people actively poison the minds of everyone whose attention they can get, and specialize in brainwashing young minds.
For example, liberal professors on college campuses across America teach students that they have a right to protest anything they do not like. And while that is very true, they intentionally fail to advise these same students that there are more legitimate means available for creating change, and that other people also have the same right to protest THEIR views and beliefs. Almost nowhere on campuses these days will you find professors that actually teach the Constitution, that ALL Americans have the same rights, and those rights must be RESPECTED, whether you agree with a person or not.
In the liberal climate of the "flower power" hippie generation of the 1960's, America was inflicted with its most liberal Supreme Court - the notorious Warren Court. It was this SCOTUS that pushed us into an era of "sin without repercussions", as God & prayer were kicked out of the public square, and abortion was made legal. And for the first time in American history, a generation was reared that did not have the same respect for sanctity of life - after all, if their own mothers could simply have ended their lives before birth, what value is there to life? And those children learn that it is okay to escape responsibility for their choices. And if those same children are no longer finding God in their lives very much, that makes for a lethal combination - life has no value, and ending a life had no real consequences in the "Hereafter".
It was during this period of unfettered liberalism that the Puppet Masters like the followers of Saul Alinski found an impressionable audience among America's youth. Those Puppet Masters began to fill colleges and universities with increasingly liberal professors, with the express purpose of molding the young minds to do their dirty work - the "useful peons", as Alinski called them. At the same time, liberals became the power in almost every part of the mainstream media - after all, those liberal colleges, like Columbia University, were cranking out the new generation of media people.
With both education and media in the hands of liberals, our youth do not stand a chance. And that is why they are rioting in the streets, destroying property and killing each other in street violence. A direct product of the liberal poison being spread by our media and universities, and with the help of many politicians, celebrities and other elites who chose division, and hatred of those who disagree with them. They claim "love trumps hate", but they are the ones who hate - their actions prove it. They say they love you, but will beat you to death if you don't agree with them. They don't even see their own hypocrisy.
When Obama was elected, people on the right did not riot, protest or destroy property. Only those on the left do that. Even when Obama shoved ObamaCare down our throats, and issued controversial Executive Orders, Republicans remained peaceful - indignant, yes, but they did not take to the streets or become violent. Only the left does that.
Liberals try to convince people that they are all for "diversity" in everything. But they are only for diversity when it suits their agenda. They are never in favor of diversity of thought. They learn that in our public schools, colleges and universities. If you disagree with them, they will attack you viciously and mercilessly - something else that conservatives do not do.
When you have a group of people, in this case liberals, who actively and openly try to shut down the speech or freedom of expression of those that do not agree with them, you have mindless, spoiled little anarchists created by the Puppet Masters like Soros, the media and even Clinton, who follow the "Rules For Radicals" of Saul Alinski, who refer to their minions like Cher, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda and all the rioters and protestors as "useful peons" and trolls. These "useful peons" and trolls are not to be blamed - we should be laying the blame at the feet of those who create them. The minions do not know better - despite their education level, they are ignorant, self-serving and full of themselves, and the Puppet Master prey upon that. And that mentality is created by the liberal media, teachers & politicians. Every liberal learns these things from a young age - Cher & Streisand and Fonda, products of the liberal "hippie" '60's, were taught this way by liberal teachers, professors and liberal media. And they never bothered to question those teachings, nor have they learned anything since. Most people, upon experiencing real life for a time, eventually learn the truth and become more conservative with age. But these babied celebrities never experienced real life - they live their lives sheltered from the real world that most of us actually have to deal with. What is even worse - those elitists believe they ARE living in the real world because they do not spend any time living amongst ordinary people, struggling through every day in ways that the elites cannot even imagine.
Donald Trump says he will "Drain the Swamp". Laudable, to be sure, but pointless if you do not also stem the flow into it. We need to have media that is, and remains, objective, and being honest in their coverage of every subject. We need our college professors and yes, even school teachers, to encourage diverse thoughts and beliefs, and teach every student the Constitution, and that America was intentionally created to be a Republic, not a democracy (and for good reason), or forfeit any federal funding. And we need to have a Supreme Court that has NO activists on it - Justices are supposed to be unbiased, fair and objective, and their ONLY job is to uphold (not "interpret") the Constitution, as written, and stop looking for ways to twist it to fit an agenda.
When liberals lose a battle, they protest, they riot and they get violent, as in the cases we see today in our streets upon the election of Trump. They call for "unity and peace" by using division and violence. This is what they are being taught. Any young mind can be corrupted, and the Puppet Masters are very, very good at that.
When conservatives lose a battle, you do not see rioting in the streets, or people beating up liberals, or calling them racist, mysogyist or some other insulting label that is not true.
You will not find conservatives that try to shut down someone else's freedom of speech or expression. You will not find conservatives who try to divide people by gender, race, religion or income. They may not agree with others, but you will not see them protesting or rioting in the streets, or advocating violence. And when a Republican does call for an act that may APPEAR racist, like building a wall or banning immigration from terrorist territories, it is not for any racist reason - it is for national security. It is the Puppet Masters who have taught their minions to ascribe nasty labels to everything they disagree with - labels like racist, Islamophobe, homophobe and mysogenist. To them it matters not what the reality is - they will twist it to whatever suits their agenda.
Unity cannot happen by dividing people, as Mrs Clinton has done - she chose to draw lines between rich and poor, men and women, black and white. She would have won by a landslide, despite all her scandals, if she had been more unifying in her rhetoric; that any differences can be softened by our efforts and by being more accepting of differences. We can see, this very day, that the liberals rioting in the streets and beating up Trump supporters that they are not willing to accept differences. To liberals, it's "my way, or else." Those who do not think as they do, or believe what they believe will be punished.
And that makes everything worse.
I would bet if you were to take away Cher's or Streisand's celebrity, wealth and gated communities and place them smack dab in the middle of America, with no resources other than a middle-class family and a real job, they would soon become more conservative. I would guarantee it. It is nature for the young to rebel against the old, which helps to temper the traditional, and keep humanity on course. And it is also natural for those young people to grow older, experience real life (as opposed to their youthful ideals), and in aging become more conservative - which also keeps humanity on course. The problem today is that too many of the brainwashed youth never end up in the real world - they live in a world of priviledge, with celebrity, wealth, gated communities - even the "poor" in America have wide screen HD TV, smart phones and cars. All of America's wealth has created a generation of (mostly) spoiled rotten millennials who have never experienced real hunger, cold, poverty or deprivation. To them, deprivation is being told not to text while driving, and poverty is getting $40,000 per year in various welfare payments.
Something the liberal professors (themselves merely useful trolls) never get around to teaching students is that everyone has the same rights, and those rights must be respected. Instead, they teach students that in a perfect world they should have everything they want, and everything their way. And that simply is not reality, and never can be. It is not even reasonable, nor sane to believe everyone can have it all, because everyone else is ALSO trying to get it all. And life - just like any game - must have winners and losers.
What these professors and the media should be teaching young minds is that sometimes they will win, sometimes lose, and the only way to lose less is not by taking what others have won, but by learning, working harder, working smarter and pushing YOURSELF to do better. If you lose a lot at poker, you cannot simply rob the winner - you need to learn how to be a better player. And if you chose not to work at it, then you deserve to lose.
It is the fault of powerful liberal/socialist people, some working behind the scenes, like billionaire George Soros, while others are in other positions of power, like the media, politicians and college professors. These people actively poison the minds of everyone whose attention they can get, and specialize in brainwashing young minds.
For example, liberal professors on college campuses across America teach students that they have a right to protest anything they do not like. And while that is very true, they intentionally fail to advise these same students that there are more legitimate means available for creating change, and that other people also have the same right to protest THEIR views and beliefs. Almost nowhere on campuses these days will you find professors that actually teach the Constitution, that ALL Americans have the same rights, and those rights must be RESPECTED, whether you agree with a person or not.
In the liberal climate of the "flower power" hippie generation of the 1960's, America was inflicted with its most liberal Supreme Court - the notorious Warren Court. It was this SCOTUS that pushed us into an era of "sin without repercussions", as God & prayer were kicked out of the public square, and abortion was made legal. And for the first time in American history, a generation was reared that did not have the same respect for sanctity of life - after all, if their own mothers could simply have ended their lives before birth, what value is there to life? And those children learn that it is okay to escape responsibility for their choices. And if those same children are no longer finding God in their lives very much, that makes for a lethal combination - life has no value, and ending a life had no real consequences in the "Hereafter".
It was during this period of unfettered liberalism that the Puppet Masters like the followers of Saul Alinski found an impressionable audience among America's youth. Those Puppet Masters began to fill colleges and universities with increasingly liberal professors, with the express purpose of molding the young minds to do their dirty work - the "useful peons", as Alinski called them. At the same time, liberals became the power in almost every part of the mainstream media - after all, those liberal colleges, like Columbia University, were cranking out the new generation of media people.
With both education and media in the hands of liberals, our youth do not stand a chance. And that is why they are rioting in the streets, destroying property and killing each other in street violence. A direct product of the liberal poison being spread by our media and universities, and with the help of many politicians, celebrities and other elites who chose division, and hatred of those who disagree with them. They claim "love trumps hate", but they are the ones who hate - their actions prove it. They say they love you, but will beat you to death if you don't agree with them. They don't even see their own hypocrisy.
When Obama was elected, people on the right did not riot, protest or destroy property. Only those on the left do that. Even when Obama shoved ObamaCare down our throats, and issued controversial Executive Orders, Republicans remained peaceful - indignant, yes, but they did not take to the streets or become violent. Only the left does that.
Liberals try to convince people that they are all for "diversity" in everything. But they are only for diversity when it suits their agenda. They are never in favor of diversity of thought. They learn that in our public schools, colleges and universities. If you disagree with them, they will attack you viciously and mercilessly - something else that conservatives do not do.
When you have a group of people, in this case liberals, who actively and openly try to shut down the speech or freedom of expression of those that do not agree with them, you have mindless, spoiled little anarchists created by the Puppet Masters like Soros, the media and even Clinton, who follow the "Rules For Radicals" of Saul Alinski, who refer to their minions like Cher, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda and all the rioters and protestors as "useful peons" and trolls. These "useful peons" and trolls are not to be blamed - we should be laying the blame at the feet of those who create them. The minions do not know better - despite their education level, they are ignorant, self-serving and full of themselves, and the Puppet Master prey upon that. And that mentality is created by the liberal media, teachers & politicians. Every liberal learns these things from a young age - Cher & Streisand and Fonda, products of the liberal "hippie" '60's, were taught this way by liberal teachers, professors and liberal media. And they never bothered to question those teachings, nor have they learned anything since. Most people, upon experiencing real life for a time, eventually learn the truth and become more conservative with age. But these babied celebrities never experienced real life - they live their lives sheltered from the real world that most of us actually have to deal with. What is even worse - those elitists believe they ARE living in the real world because they do not spend any time living amongst ordinary people, struggling through every day in ways that the elites cannot even imagine.
Donald Trump says he will "Drain the Swamp". Laudable, to be sure, but pointless if you do not also stem the flow into it. We need to have media that is, and remains, objective, and being honest in their coverage of every subject. We need our college professors and yes, even school teachers, to encourage diverse thoughts and beliefs, and teach every student the Constitution, and that America was intentionally created to be a Republic, not a democracy (and for good reason), or forfeit any federal funding. And we need to have a Supreme Court that has NO activists on it - Justices are supposed to be unbiased, fair and objective, and their ONLY job is to uphold (not "interpret") the Constitution, as written, and stop looking for ways to twist it to fit an agenda.
When liberals lose a battle, they protest, they riot and they get violent, as in the cases we see today in our streets upon the election of Trump. They call for "unity and peace" by using division and violence. This is what they are being taught. Any young mind can be corrupted, and the Puppet Masters are very, very good at that.
When conservatives lose a battle, you do not see rioting in the streets, or people beating up liberals, or calling them racist, mysogyist or some other insulting label that is not true.
You will not find conservatives that try to shut down someone else's freedom of speech or expression. You will not find conservatives who try to divide people by gender, race, religion or income. They may not agree with others, but you will not see them protesting or rioting in the streets, or advocating violence. And when a Republican does call for an act that may APPEAR racist, like building a wall or banning immigration from terrorist territories, it is not for any racist reason - it is for national security. It is the Puppet Masters who have taught their minions to ascribe nasty labels to everything they disagree with - labels like racist, Islamophobe, homophobe and mysogenist. To them it matters not what the reality is - they will twist it to whatever suits their agenda.
Unity cannot happen by dividing people, as Mrs Clinton has done - she chose to draw lines between rich and poor, men and women, black and white. She would have won by a landslide, despite all her scandals, if she had been more unifying in her rhetoric; that any differences can be softened by our efforts and by being more accepting of differences. We can see, this very day, that the liberals rioting in the streets and beating up Trump supporters that they are not willing to accept differences. To liberals, it's "my way, or else." Those who do not think as they do, or believe what they believe will be punished.
And that makes everything worse.
I would bet if you were to take away Cher's or Streisand's celebrity, wealth and gated communities and place them smack dab in the middle of America, with no resources other than a middle-class family and a real job, they would soon become more conservative. I would guarantee it. It is nature for the young to rebel against the old, which helps to temper the traditional, and keep humanity on course. And it is also natural for those young people to grow older, experience real life (as opposed to their youthful ideals), and in aging become more conservative - which also keeps humanity on course. The problem today is that too many of the brainwashed youth never end up in the real world - they live in a world of priviledge, with celebrity, wealth, gated communities - even the "poor" in America have wide screen HD TV, smart phones and cars. All of America's wealth has created a generation of (mostly) spoiled rotten millennials who have never experienced real hunger, cold, poverty or deprivation. To them, deprivation is being told not to text while driving, and poverty is getting $40,000 per year in various welfare payments.
Something the liberal professors (themselves merely useful trolls) never get around to teaching students is that everyone has the same rights, and those rights must be respected. Instead, they teach students that in a perfect world they should have everything they want, and everything their way. And that simply is not reality, and never can be. It is not even reasonable, nor sane to believe everyone can have it all, because everyone else is ALSO trying to get it all. And life - just like any game - must have winners and losers.
What these professors and the media should be teaching young minds is that sometimes they will win, sometimes lose, and the only way to lose less is not by taking what others have won, but by learning, working harder, working smarter and pushing YOURSELF to do better. If you lose a lot at poker, you cannot simply rob the winner - you need to learn how to be a better player. And if you chose not to work at it, then you deserve to lose.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Hillary Must Think We're All Stupid
In 1964, Democrats ran a BOGUS ad called the "Daisy Ad", featuring a little girl with an atom bomb exploding in the background. Now, everyone knows that ad was bogus, and nothing less than a dirty trick (much like the lies Harry Reid tells about any Republican that threatens to win an election).
But Democrats were not content to leave that ad in the trash bin of political history. Nope!
The Hillary Clinton team decided to revive it by running an ad featuring that same girl - now a woman - stating that Trump cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Apparently, the HRC team seems to think we are all so stupid as to believe that the woman, by virtue of having appeared in a political ad as a child, is somehow qualified to make such a claim, or to even assume she knows anything about nuclear weapons. She isn't, and doesn't.
Once again the Democrats have chosen to go low; to resort to fear mongering, and to hold a non-expert up as if she were the person who invented the bomb.
All that this shows is 1) desperation, and 2) the deception that has become a trademark of the Democrat party. They should change their symbol from a jackass to Pinocchio.
/
But Democrats were not content to leave that ad in the trash bin of political history. Nope!
The Hillary Clinton team decided to revive it by running an ad featuring that same girl - now a woman - stating that Trump cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Apparently, the HRC team seems to think we are all so stupid as to believe that the woman, by virtue of having appeared in a political ad as a child, is somehow qualified to make such a claim, or to even assume she knows anything about nuclear weapons. She isn't, and doesn't.
Once again the Democrats have chosen to go low; to resort to fear mongering, and to hold a non-expert up as if she were the person who invented the bomb.
All that this shows is 1) desperation, and 2) the deception that has become a trademark of the Democrat party. They should change their symbol from a jackass to Pinocchio.
/
Saturday, October 22, 2016
It's Not What You Eat or Drink That Kills Ya
For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health. It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans..
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a ride
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans..
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a ride
Saturday, October 8, 2016
ObamaCare: Intentionally Designed to Fail? Of Course
Most people believe that Bill Clinton made a huge gaffe when he said Obamacare is an amazingly bad thing. But it was no gaffe - we now know the White House scripted Clinton's speech for him. And while it appears to be a dumb move, it is actually diabolical.
Six years ago I wrote that Obamacare was INTENTIONALLY designed to fail; that Obama and his minions actually wanted socialized medicine (single payer), but they knew the public would never go for it. So, they came up with a system that would destroy the current insurance plans (burn the bridges so we could not go back) and would ultimately fail, so "we the people" would clamor for it to be fixed. And lo and behold, the progressives would trot someone out with a fix - single payer!
Obama and Hillary fear that Obamacare would become an albatross hung around their necks at election time, so Obama scripted Bill Clinton's speech that trashed Obamacare. He also has scripted Hillary - she will come out and say that, yes, Obamacare is a debacle, but SHE can FIX it.
And if elected, make no mistake: she will aggressively push a single payer system - the same system (HillaryCare) she tried to push when Bill was president.
Diabolical. Well planned. But that is how progressives do things - in progressive steps.
Here's hoping that "we, the people" are too smart to fall for it. But I have my doubts. After all, 45% of the voters seem to be OK with all of Hillary's lies, all of her 30 years of scandals, and the corruption that oozes throughout government.
Perhaps that is because 47% of the people pay no taxes and she represents all the "free stuff" they will get under her administration. "Freebies" are a powerful incentive to vote for someone.
'Nuff said.
Six years ago I wrote that Obamacare was INTENTIONALLY designed to fail; that Obama and his minions actually wanted socialized medicine (single payer), but they knew the public would never go for it. So, they came up with a system that would destroy the current insurance plans (burn the bridges so we could not go back) and would ultimately fail, so "we the people" would clamor for it to be fixed. And lo and behold, the progressives would trot someone out with a fix - single payer!
Obama and Hillary fear that Obamacare would become an albatross hung around their necks at election time, so Obama scripted Bill Clinton's speech that trashed Obamacare. He also has scripted Hillary - she will come out and say that, yes, Obamacare is a debacle, but SHE can FIX it.
And if elected, make no mistake: she will aggressively push a single payer system - the same system (HillaryCare) she tried to push when Bill was president.
Diabolical. Well planned. But that is how progressives do things - in progressive steps.
Here's hoping that "we, the people" are too smart to fall for it. But I have my doubts. After all, 45% of the voters seem to be OK with all of Hillary's lies, all of her 30 years of scandals, and the corruption that oozes throughout government.
Perhaps that is because 47% of the people pay no taxes and she represents all the "free stuff" they will get under her administration. "Freebies" are a powerful incentive to vote for someone.
'Nuff said.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Johnson Amendment A Violation Of Law
In 1954, Congress passed the Johnson Amendment, making it a violation for any non-profit to endorse any political candidate. This effectively muzzles the clergy, which is a violation of their Constitutional Right to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. And here is a prime example why:
Let's say you decide to declare yourself a non-profit - John Doe Inc. - and get your non-profit status from the IRS because you plan to be a philanthropist and give away most of your income each year. Under the Johnson Amendment, you would no longer have the right to endorse any candidate. You forfeited your Constitutional Rights which, by law cannot happen.
Hillary Clinton stands up for the Johnson Amendment, and does not think it goes far enough. She has stated, on video, that "die-hard Christians will have to give up some of their beliefs" in favor of things like abortion. No candidate has ever been more anti-religious liberty.
In contrast, Donald Trump wants to do what should have been done 60 years ago - abolish the Johnson Amendment, and restore Constitutional rights to all.
The short take - if you believe the right to free speech and freedom of religion should be restricted to suit whatever political agenda a party - any party - might have, then Clinton is your best choice. But if you believe no person should have to forfeit their rights to suit a political agenda, then maybe Trump's your boy.
The choice is ours, as a nation, to make. I think Trump is a bit erratic and eccentric, but I also believe he will make better choices for us, particularly in his appointees to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS will rule our land for generations, not just 4 years. And that is the real issue in 2016. Save the Supreme Court from liberalism today, replace Trump in 2020.
With all the lies Hillary has been caught telling, it would be most unwise to believe anything she promises in order to pander for votes.
/
Let's say you decide to declare yourself a non-profit - John Doe Inc. - and get your non-profit status from the IRS because you plan to be a philanthropist and give away most of your income each year. Under the Johnson Amendment, you would no longer have the right to endorse any candidate. You forfeited your Constitutional Rights which, by law cannot happen.
Hillary Clinton stands up for the Johnson Amendment, and does not think it goes far enough. She has stated, on video, that "die-hard Christians will have to give up some of their beliefs" in favor of things like abortion. No candidate has ever been more anti-religious liberty.
In contrast, Donald Trump wants to do what should have been done 60 years ago - abolish the Johnson Amendment, and restore Constitutional rights to all.
The short take - if you believe the right to free speech and freedom of religion should be restricted to suit whatever political agenda a party - any party - might have, then Clinton is your best choice. But if you believe no person should have to forfeit their rights to suit a political agenda, then maybe Trump's your boy.
The choice is ours, as a nation, to make. I think Trump is a bit erratic and eccentric, but I also believe he will make better choices for us, particularly in his appointees to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS will rule our land for generations, not just 4 years. And that is the real issue in 2016. Save the Supreme Court from liberalism today, replace Trump in 2020.
With all the lies Hillary has been caught telling, it would be most unwise to believe anything she promises in order to pander for votes.
/
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
The Truth About the "Party of Hate"
Democrat politicians and the brain-dead zombies who follow them like lemmings just love to tell everyone that Republicans are "the party of hate and intolerance". So let's take a little look, shall we?
When was the last time you saw a Republican burn the American flag?
When was the last time you saw a conservative throw stuff at a liberal speaker on campus?
When was the last time a conservative shouted down a liberal speaker on campus?
When was the last time you saw a liberal speaker banned from a campus?
Which party refers to Christians as "Bible thumpers"?
When was the last time you heard a Republican say he/she hated America?
Which party demonizes law abiding gun owners and the NRA?
Which party demonizes the businesses that provide jobs and pay salaries?
Which party calls the other "homophobes" for their religious beliefs?
What party calls the other "bigots" because they point out that the majority of felons are black because they commit the most crimes?
Which party supports the hateful, often violent Black Lives Matter, but scorns police officers trying to protect us?
Which party propagated the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie that was disproved by the DOJ, but is still used to commit acts of violence?
Which party actively disemboweled one of their own (Bernie) and insulted his supporters?
When was the last time you heard someone had destroyed a Hillary billboard or signage?
When was the last time that someone was denied service for being a Hillary supporter?
When was the last time a liberal was punished for saying "Black Lives Matter"?
Which party gets demonized and hated for saying "ALL Lives Matter"?
When did a Republican ever try to remove Christmas from the public square?
When did a Republican ever say "What difference does it make" when four Americans are murdered?
When did a Republican congressman ever try to ban Hillary from a country?
Which party thinks it is sexist for a man to try to get a date with a woman?
Which party thinks it's OK to waive the Constitutional Right to due process when it suits them?
Which party used the I.R.S. to prevent conservatives from forming non-profits?
I could go on for days, but it's 3:00 AM, I think the point has been made, and I'm going to bed. And I will pray for those hateful, intolerant liberals because, while I may disagree with them, I am a conservative Republican and the only people I despise are child molesters (I guess that makes me a bigot), woman beaters and rapists (I must be sexist) and murderers (I must be intolerant). And the only thing I have against LGBT folks is that they insist I accept their beliefs but they refuse to allow me my own (so I guess I'm still intolerant).
/
When was the last time you saw a Republican burn the American flag?
When was the last time you saw a conservative throw stuff at a liberal speaker on campus?
When was the last time a conservative shouted down a liberal speaker on campus?
When was the last time you saw a liberal speaker banned from a campus?
Which party refers to Christians as "Bible thumpers"?
When was the last time you heard a Republican say he/she hated America?
Which party demonizes law abiding gun owners and the NRA?
Which party demonizes the businesses that provide jobs and pay salaries?
Which party calls the other "homophobes" for their religious beliefs?
What party calls the other "bigots" because they point out that the majority of felons are black because they commit the most crimes?
Which party supports the hateful, often violent Black Lives Matter, but scorns police officers trying to protect us?
Which party propagated the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie that was disproved by the DOJ, but is still used to commit acts of violence?
Which party actively disemboweled one of their own (Bernie) and insulted his supporters?
When was the last time you heard someone had destroyed a Hillary billboard or signage?
When was the last time that someone was denied service for being a Hillary supporter?
When was the last time a liberal was punished for saying "Black Lives Matter"?
Which party gets demonized and hated for saying "ALL Lives Matter"?
When did a Republican ever try to remove Christmas from the public square?
When did a Republican ever say "What difference does it make" when four Americans are murdered?
When did a Republican congressman ever try to ban Hillary from a country?
Which party thinks it is sexist for a man to try to get a date with a woman?
Which party thinks it's OK to waive the Constitutional Right to due process when it suits them?
Which party used the I.R.S. to prevent conservatives from forming non-profits?
I could go on for days, but it's 3:00 AM, I think the point has been made, and I'm going to bed. And I will pray for those hateful, intolerant liberals because, while I may disagree with them, I am a conservative Republican and the only people I despise are child molesters (I guess that makes me a bigot), woman beaters and rapists (I must be sexist) and murderers (I must be intolerant). And the only thing I have against LGBT folks is that they insist I accept their beliefs but they refuse to allow me my own (so I guess I'm still intolerant).
/
Friday, July 29, 2016
True Colors - Growing Segment of Democrat party is Anti-American
While Hillary Clinton professes to have the backs of law enforcement and tells us she wants a strong military, those platitudes are political theatre that do nothing to cover up the growing anti-Americanism within the Democratic party, much of which Mrs Clinton has been an avid supporter.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama snd most other Democrat politicians are on record as being supporters of Occupy Wall Street, the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter, all of which are anti-police. And they have supported President Obama's castration of our military, firing generals, pulling troops away from the fight before it's won, and cutting the military to pre-WWII levels.
And the Democratic National Convention offered proof that what Democrats SAY and what they DO are two entirely different things. On the first day of the convention the American flag was conspicuously absent. And they needed to put the Pledge of Allegiance on the teleprompter. So they set out to fake their support of America by adding flags, patriotic balloons and having police and generals as speakers. But when a speaker - a police chief - requested a moment of silence for our fallen heroes she was instead shouted down with anti-police chants. And when a general and a Medal of Honor recipient spoke, they, too, were shouted down, disrespected and shamed by the Democrat audience. And even Leon Panetta was heckled and shouted down when he tried to stand up for America. So much for all the pretty balloons!
The Democrats tried to prove their "patriotism" with red, white and blue balloons. I'm sorry, but political theater is not patriotism. Wearing a flag does not a patriot make. A patriot is someone who FIGHTS for and SUPPORTS the flag and our military instead of just giving it lip service.
And let's not forget that most of the Bernie supporters are anti-police and anti-American, fighting for anarchy and socialism, and Mrs Clinton and the Democrat party are trying to cozy up to them for political purposes. Maybe they should be spending at least as much effort into trying to win the votes af middle America - those "rubes" in the fly-over country that actually love America, respect law and order and support our military.
/
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama snd most other Democrat politicians are on record as being supporters of Occupy Wall Street, the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter, all of which are anti-police. And they have supported President Obama's castration of our military, firing generals, pulling troops away from the fight before it's won, and cutting the military to pre-WWII levels.
And the Democratic National Convention offered proof that what Democrats SAY and what they DO are two entirely different things. On the first day of the convention the American flag was conspicuously absent. And they needed to put the Pledge of Allegiance on the teleprompter. So they set out to fake their support of America by adding flags, patriotic balloons and having police and generals as speakers. But when a speaker - a police chief - requested a moment of silence for our fallen heroes she was instead shouted down with anti-police chants. And when a general and a Medal of Honor recipient spoke, they, too, were shouted down, disrespected and shamed by the Democrat audience. And even Leon Panetta was heckled and shouted down when he tried to stand up for America. So much for all the pretty balloons!
The Democrats tried to prove their "patriotism" with red, white and blue balloons. I'm sorry, but political theater is not patriotism. Wearing a flag does not a patriot make. A patriot is someone who FIGHTS for and SUPPORTS the flag and our military instead of just giving it lip service.
And let's not forget that most of the Bernie supporters are anti-police and anti-American, fighting for anarchy and socialism, and Mrs Clinton and the Democrat party are trying to cozy up to them for political purposes. Maybe they should be spending at least as much effort into trying to win the votes af middle America - those "rubes" in the fly-over country that actually love America, respect law and order and support our military.
/
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Famed U.S. Physicist: Global Warming A Scam
In all likelihood, you never saw this in the mainstream media, as it opposes their agenda. But before he passed away, noted U.S. physicist Hal Lewis, upon resigning his post with American Physical Society, and like Christopher Columbus repudiating the accepted "science" of the day that the world was flat, submitted the following letter of resignation:
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it [ED: worldwide, over a period of years], that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it….
"This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.
"I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.
"So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you — you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.
"So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game."
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it [ED: worldwide, over a period of years], that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it….
"This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.
"I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.
"So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you — you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.
"So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game."
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Is the Cop Racist - or Something else?
In MN a police officer shoots and kills a black man whose only "crime" appears to have been a defective taillight. At leasty, that is what his girlfriend, the MN governor, Jesse Jackson and thousands of protesters would have us believe. And so they automatically play the race card, claiming the cop must have been racist.
But a thinking person without any bias would see another possibility.
First, it must be considered that with all the cops being murdered these days, every police officer has that in the back of their mind - that, without warning, they could be shot for no reason.
Second, in most police departments, officers are trained to handle certain situations in certain ways. For example, if someone tells you they are armed, the officer would, as a matter of standard operating procedure, advise the person to keep their hands where the officer can see them until such time as the officer can safely secure the weapon. Since the "livestream" of the girlfriend does not show what transpired prior to the actual shooting, we should assume that is what the officer attempted, since he wants to go home at night.
So, let us assume the officer followed SOP, and told the individual to keep his hands in view. Instead, the driver, innocently enough, reaches for his wallet to show his license. To the officer, the driver could have been reaching for his gun. He has no way of knowing.
At this point, most people would act defensively. The cop draws his weapon and fires. And at that point the girlfriend begins livestreaming, and making claims that would make it appear that her botfriend was shot without cause.
I contend the officer was doing what all officers are trained to do when they encounter an armed person. And the armed person, without thinking, acted in a way that gave the officer cause for fear for his life.
They both made huge mistakes. And it cost one man his life.
The driver may have been acting innocently enough, but the officer would not know what is in his mind, as the armed person reaches for his pocket.
Unfortunate. But not racist.
If YOU were the cop, and you were faced with an armed person who reaches for his pocket instead of keeping his hands in view, and having it in the back of your mind that the murder of police officers is up 40% this year. Would YOU gamble your life?
Not me.
As to the MN governor, Jesse Jackson and all the other race-baiters out there who want to use this to further a false narrative, I say they are the true racists.
And as I type this, eleven more police officers have just been shot, 3 dead in Dallas, TX.
Can't blame cops for erring on the side of caution.
But a thinking person without any bias would see another possibility.
First, it must be considered that with all the cops being murdered these days, every police officer has that in the back of their mind - that, without warning, they could be shot for no reason.
Second, in most police departments, officers are trained to handle certain situations in certain ways. For example, if someone tells you they are armed, the officer would, as a matter of standard operating procedure, advise the person to keep their hands where the officer can see them until such time as the officer can safely secure the weapon. Since the "livestream" of the girlfriend does not show what transpired prior to the actual shooting, we should assume that is what the officer attempted, since he wants to go home at night.
So, let us assume the officer followed SOP, and told the individual to keep his hands in view. Instead, the driver, innocently enough, reaches for his wallet to show his license. To the officer, the driver could have been reaching for his gun. He has no way of knowing.
At this point, most people would act defensively. The cop draws his weapon and fires. And at that point the girlfriend begins livestreaming, and making claims that would make it appear that her botfriend was shot without cause.
I contend the officer was doing what all officers are trained to do when they encounter an armed person. And the armed person, without thinking, acted in a way that gave the officer cause for fear for his life.
They both made huge mistakes. And it cost one man his life.
The driver may have been acting innocently enough, but the officer would not know what is in his mind, as the armed person reaches for his pocket.
Unfortunate. But not racist.
If YOU were the cop, and you were faced with an armed person who reaches for his pocket instead of keeping his hands in view, and having it in the back of your mind that the murder of police officers is up 40% this year. Would YOU gamble your life?
Not me.
As to the MN governor, Jesse Jackson and all the other race-baiters out there who want to use this to further a false narrative, I say they are the true racists.
And as I type this, eleven more police officers have just been shot, 3 dead in Dallas, TX.
Can't blame cops for erring on the side of caution.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
The "Game of Two Faces" That Democrats Play
Here I go, pissin' off Democrats again! But they make it so easy - and necessary. Please note - when I say Democrats (big "D"), I am speaking of Democrat Politicians. But democrat (small "d") voters are simply "useful pawns", as comrade Saul Alinsky so aptly put it.
Democrat politicians (not democrat voters) have a tendency to use a certain two-faced tactic to win elections, and it is incredible that democrat voters never catch on. Example:
Democrat politicians will pander to every minority group, making wonderful promises in order to get the votes. But they never actually come through - they never intended to. Unemployment is up in the black community, during the entire 8 year reign of a black Democrat president.
Take Hillary and the big banks and Wall Street as a specific example:
Hillary knows "the people" hate Wall Street and big banks (because Democrat politicians have poisoned that well). She campaigns that she will "take them down, beat 'em up", which makes voters happy. But what the voters haven't caught onto is that in just two years, Hillary has been paid $21 million by these same banks and Wall Street. Democrat voters never seem to bother asking the question, "Why would the big money give so much to the candidate that wants to destroy them?"
It's because they know Hillary will NOT harm them. And they give the money because they want her to be elected. And if that happens, the democrat voters will once again get screwed - and will forgive her, because Democrats keep pumping out the "freebies".
The point: when giving $225,000 speeches to Wall Street, Hillary lets them know she'll look out for them. She has to, because they have the money Democrats need. But then she turns around and promises voters she will take down those fat cats, because she needs their votes. And while she speaks from both sides of her mouth, the big money guys chuckle under their breath because once again they have succeeded in staying on top.
If you doubt the close relationship the Clintons have with the banks, you might want to recall Clinton's "Dream Act" - using the power of the presidency and the Attorney General to force banks to make risky loans (Bliley bill) which resulted in the crash of 2007-08. You might think that hurt the banks, but it actually made them wealthier as they packaged up those risky loans and sold them off as derivatives and stuck Fannie Mae with the problems. And then it was Democrats who BAILED OUT those banks with taxpayer money.
A THINKING voter would at least ask the question, "Does it make sense for Hillary to say she'll put the screws to fat cats, while all the while those same fat cats are funding her?"
/
Democrat politicians (not democrat voters) have a tendency to use a certain two-faced tactic to win elections, and it is incredible that democrat voters never catch on. Example:
Democrat politicians will pander to every minority group, making wonderful promises in order to get the votes. But they never actually come through - they never intended to. Unemployment is up in the black community, during the entire 8 year reign of a black Democrat president.
Take Hillary and the big banks and Wall Street as a specific example:
Hillary knows "the people" hate Wall Street and big banks (because Democrat politicians have poisoned that well). She campaigns that she will "take them down, beat 'em up", which makes voters happy. But what the voters haven't caught onto is that in just two years, Hillary has been paid $21 million by these same banks and Wall Street. Democrat voters never seem to bother asking the question, "Why would the big money give so much to the candidate that wants to destroy them?"
It's because they know Hillary will NOT harm them. And they give the money because they want her to be elected. And if that happens, the democrat voters will once again get screwed - and will forgive her, because Democrats keep pumping out the "freebies".
The point: when giving $225,000 speeches to Wall Street, Hillary lets them know she'll look out for them. She has to, because they have the money Democrats need. But then she turns around and promises voters she will take down those fat cats, because she needs their votes. And while she speaks from both sides of her mouth, the big money guys chuckle under their breath because once again they have succeeded in staying on top.
If you doubt the close relationship the Clintons have with the banks, you might want to recall Clinton's "Dream Act" - using the power of the presidency and the Attorney General to force banks to make risky loans (Bliley bill) which resulted in the crash of 2007-08. You might think that hurt the banks, but it actually made them wealthier as they packaged up those risky loans and sold them off as derivatives and stuck Fannie Mae with the problems. And then it was Democrats who BAILED OUT those banks with taxpayer money.
A THINKING voter would at least ask the question, "Does it make sense for Hillary to say she'll put the screws to fat cats, while all the while those same fat cats are funding her?"
/
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Even When Hillary Is Right, She's Wrong
Today Hillary made the very dumb comment that Trump's immigration policy would not have saved a single life in Orlando. To that the response would be, "So what?"
Two important points: Trump's immigration policy WOULD have saved the 3000 lives on 9-11. It WOULD have saved the lives and crippling that occured at the Boston Marathon. And it might have saved the lives in San Bernardino. And therefore it can be expected to save lives in the future if implemented.
The point that Mrs Clinton is apparently oblivious to - no policy will prevent ALL terrorist attacks, but that should not prevent us from initiating a policy the can prevent many of them.
No person who is so obviously short-sighted should ever be considered presidential material. Especially when that same person has been proved to be a liar of pathological proportion.
Trump is no prize, but he sure beats Clinton.
And while we are on the topic, Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, both of who recoil at using the phrase "radical Islam", should, by the same token, refrain from using the term "right wing extremist".
/
Two important points: Trump's immigration policy WOULD have saved the 3000 lives on 9-11. It WOULD have saved the lives and crippling that occured at the Boston Marathon. And it might have saved the lives in San Bernardino. And therefore it can be expected to save lives in the future if implemented.
The point that Mrs Clinton is apparently oblivious to - no policy will prevent ALL terrorist attacks, but that should not prevent us from initiating a policy the can prevent many of them.
No person who is so obviously short-sighted should ever be considered presidential material. Especially when that same person has been proved to be a liar of pathological proportion.
Trump is no prize, but he sure beats Clinton.
And while we are on the topic, Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, both of who recoil at using the phrase "radical Islam", should, by the same token, refrain from using the term "right wing extremist".
/
Monday, June 13, 2016
Bill O'Reilly Off The Rails Again
Normally, I'm a big O'Reilly fan. Since 2001. But tonight he once again ran off the rails, this time on the issue of guns and the 2nd Amendment.
Bill stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us "the right to OWN guns, but not a right to CARRY them". That is actually diametrically opposed to what the Constitution clearly states:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Mr. Bill should take note - we not only have a right to "keep", but also to "bear" arms. Perhaps Bill does not comprehend what "bearing" something means. It means to hold it. To carry it. To have it on our person. From the dictionary:
Having a gun tucked away in a safe, in your home, miles away - that is not "bearing arms", nor does it allow you to defend yourself.
More to the point - and this should be obvious even to Mr. Bill, we have not only a God-given right to defend ourselves, but the obligation to do so. Not just in our homes, but anywhere, any time. You cannot defend yourself from a maniac if your means of defense is miles away.
And now to the other important part of the 2nd Amendment that Mr. O'Reilly seems to miss - the right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. To infringe is defined in the dictionary as "to limit; encroach on". When anyone passes any law that limits or encroaches on the right to keep AND bear arms, they are violating the Constitution. No interpretation necessary.
Our Founding Fathers were not idiots. They spent many months debating the precise language that would say exactly what they intended, in such a way as to require no interpretation, as they wanted to make sure that every school child could read and understand the Constitution, and their rights. That is the only way to preserve them.
Bill, you should be ashamed of yourself, promoting such hogwash on "The Factor". It's supposed to be a "no spin zone". But you certainly did spin the 2nd Amendment. Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary could not have done it better.
We have a God-given right to keep and carry arms, and that right cannot be infringed upon. Period!
/
Bill stated that the 2nd Amendment guarantees us "the right to OWN guns, but not a right to CARRY them". That is actually diametrically opposed to what the Constitution clearly states:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Mr. Bill should take note - we not only have a right to "keep", but also to "bear" arms. Perhaps Bill does not comprehend what "bearing" something means. It means to hold it. To carry it. To have it on our person. From the dictionary:
"(of a person) carry: "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry · bring · transport · move · convey" Having a gun tucked away in a safe, in your home, miles away - that is not "bearing arms", nor does it allow you to defend yourself.
More to the point - and this should be obvious even to Mr. Bill, we have not only a God-given right to defend ourselves, but the obligation to do so. Not just in our homes, but anywhere, any time. You cannot defend yourself from a maniac if your means of defense is miles away.
And now to the other important part of the 2nd Amendment that Mr. O'Reilly seems to miss - the right to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED. To infringe is defined in the dictionary as "to limit; encroach on". When anyone passes any law that limits or encroaches on the right to keep AND bear arms, they are violating the Constitution. No interpretation necessary.
Our Founding Fathers were not idiots. They spent many months debating the precise language that would say exactly what they intended, in such a way as to require no interpretation, as they wanted to make sure that every school child could read and understand the Constitution, and their rights. That is the only way to preserve them.
Bill, you should be ashamed of yourself, promoting such hogwash on "The Factor". It's supposed to be a "no spin zone". But you certainly did spin the 2nd Amendment. Bloomberg, Obama and Hillary could not have done it better.
We have a God-given right to keep and carry arms, and that right cannot be infringed upon. Period!
/
Is Hillary's Support of LGBT's Phony?
It is understood by this writer that most liberals, if they read this at all, will find excuses, or even ignore the facts. That's okay - we have come to expect that. But for people with open minds, the truth becomes obvious.
Hillary Clinton insists she is a great supporter of the LGBT community. But that is nothing more than political bluster. She supports the LGBT community only because it is politically expedient, so she can garnish their votes. How do we know this?
The Clinton Foundation has raked in over $25,000,000 from countries where there is a death penalty for being gay or lesbian. Those countries do not give that kind of money unless they expect something in return. If Hillary Clinton REALLY has the best interests of the LGBT community at heart, she would not be cozying up to governments that actively murder gays.
I ask you - if you held a principle that was solid, and heartfelt, would you cozy up to those who want to destroy those principles? If you are truly opposed to drug use, for example, would you be friendly with drug dealers, and simply look away while they ply their trade, then have them over for dinner?
We're talking about actual PRINCIPLES here, not just buddying up to someone for the sole purpose of self indulgence, greed or diatribe designed to get votes.
If Hillary really believed in her phony support for the LGBT community, she would refuse money from those governments, and would at least call them out for their savage, uncivilized treatment of fellow human beings. But I am not hearing a peep from her on that.
The only thing ANY Clinton believes in is raking in the bucks. Of course, Bill also has other dubious hobbies...
/
Hillary Clinton insists she is a great supporter of the LGBT community. But that is nothing more than political bluster. She supports the LGBT community only because it is politically expedient, so she can garnish their votes. How do we know this?
The Clinton Foundation has raked in over $25,000,000 from countries where there is a death penalty for being gay or lesbian. Those countries do not give that kind of money unless they expect something in return. If Hillary Clinton REALLY has the best interests of the LGBT community at heart, she would not be cozying up to governments that actively murder gays.
I ask you - if you held a principle that was solid, and heartfelt, would you cozy up to those who want to destroy those principles? If you are truly opposed to drug use, for example, would you be friendly with drug dealers, and simply look away while they ply their trade, then have them over for dinner?
We're talking about actual PRINCIPLES here, not just buddying up to someone for the sole purpose of self indulgence, greed or diatribe designed to get votes.
If Hillary really believed in her phony support for the LGBT community, she would refuse money from those governments, and would at least call them out for their savage, uncivilized treatment of fellow human beings. But I am not hearing a peep from her on that.
The only thing ANY Clinton believes in is raking in the bucks. Of course, Bill also has other dubious hobbies...
/
Friday, June 3, 2016
Make California Mexico Again?
Just when I thought some people could not possibly be any dumber, I am proven wrong. At the Trump Rally in San Jose, rioters (NOT protesters), most of whom were illegals, SEIU trouble-makers, La Raza and assorted Soros instigators, you could hear the chant "Make California Mexico Again."
Really? Let me get this straight...
These people LEAVE Mexico because it is not such a great place to live, and they illegally enter California because it IS a nice place to live, with all the wonderful benefits America has to offer - including free everything. And now they want California to be given back to Mexico?
If they want to live in Mexico so badly, why didn't they STAY there? And if they would actually THINK (which they rarely ever do), they would realize that if California was to revert to Mexico, all those great benefits would go away - Mexico does not provide such things, and America would not continue providing them - they would no longer be part of the United States.
The only thing that would be accomplished by making California Mexico again would be to automatically put 5 million illegals who live there back into Mexico. Then they would have to steal across the Nevada border (illegally) to again be in the States. And then what? Make Nevada Mexico? They crap in their own nest, and when they can no longer tolerate the stink they move to another nest, and crap in that.
These people are complete morons! And they had nothing to do with protesting Trump. Their only purpose was to cause trouble, and the Trump Rally was a good venue for doing just that. They were criminally violent, and in another time they would have been shot.
America needs to stop enabling these thugs by calling them "protesters" or "demonstrators". They are neither. They are criminal thugs, trying to subvert the rule of law, and the United States. And according to the Constitution, that is SEDITION, punishable by death. But I would settle for seeing them all go to prison for 20 years. Or Mexico!
/
Really? Let me get this straight...
These people LEAVE Mexico because it is not such a great place to live, and they illegally enter California because it IS a nice place to live, with all the wonderful benefits America has to offer - including free everything. And now they want California to be given back to Mexico?
If they want to live in Mexico so badly, why didn't they STAY there? And if they would actually THINK (which they rarely ever do), they would realize that if California was to revert to Mexico, all those great benefits would go away - Mexico does not provide such things, and America would not continue providing them - they would no longer be part of the United States.
The only thing that would be accomplished by making California Mexico again would be to automatically put 5 million illegals who live there back into Mexico. Then they would have to steal across the Nevada border (illegally) to again be in the States. And then what? Make Nevada Mexico? They crap in their own nest, and when they can no longer tolerate the stink they move to another nest, and crap in that.
These people are complete morons! And they had nothing to do with protesting Trump. Their only purpose was to cause trouble, and the Trump Rally was a good venue for doing just that. They were criminally violent, and in another time they would have been shot.
America needs to stop enabling these thugs by calling them "protesters" or "demonstrators". They are neither. They are criminal thugs, trying to subvert the rule of law, and the United States. And according to the Constitution, that is SEDITION, punishable by death. But I would settle for seeing them all go to prison for 20 years. Or Mexico!
/
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Mitt Romney - A Threat to All Republicans
Mitt Romney poses as a conservative Republican, but all of his actions over the years prove beyond any doubt that he is a Progressive Democrat. A little history...
Romney got elected governor in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, a feat no true conservative, or true Republican could ever accomplish.
While governor, Romney pushed through "Romney Care", the precursor to ObamaCare. Again, not exactly a conservative thing to do.
Romney then runs for President of the United States - but throws the race to Obama, which appears to have been intentional, according to many who studied the debates and campaign. It were as if he were sabotaging his own campaign.
Then, when the people choose Trump in 2016, Romney stumps against him, intentionally trying to undo the will of Republican voters. He uses every nasty tactic and verbiage he can muster.
And when that does not work - when he cannot help Hillary by eliminating Trump in the primaries - he steps WAY over the line. He is actively seeking to prevent a Republican from winning the White House by trying to start a "third party" run, designed specifically to keep Trump out of the White House - which would guarantee a win for the Democrats, since there is only one other choice if Trump loses. His "third party" candidate would only run in key "battleground" states, to ensure the Democrat nominee wins, whereas any candidate that only runs in "swing" states cannot actually win the White House. The "third party candidate" would simply be a ruse to keep the liberals in power. And Romney knows that.
Considering the facts, it is the belief of intelligent Republicans that Mitt Romney is, and always has been, a wolf in sheep's clothing, or more specifically, a Democrat posing as a Republican in order to insure Democrat rule. He is desperate to put another Democrat in the White House because he understands the next president will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices.
It is my considered opinion that Mr Romney, and those who follow him, should be banned from the Republican party - ex-communicated, as it were.
/
Romney got elected governor in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, a feat no true conservative, or true Republican could ever accomplish.
While governor, Romney pushed through "Romney Care", the precursor to ObamaCare. Again, not exactly a conservative thing to do.
Romney then runs for President of the United States - but throws the race to Obama, which appears to have been intentional, according to many who studied the debates and campaign. It were as if he were sabotaging his own campaign.
Then, when the people choose Trump in 2016, Romney stumps against him, intentionally trying to undo the will of Republican voters. He uses every nasty tactic and verbiage he can muster.
And when that does not work - when he cannot help Hillary by eliminating Trump in the primaries - he steps WAY over the line. He is actively seeking to prevent a Republican from winning the White House by trying to start a "third party" run, designed specifically to keep Trump out of the White House - which would guarantee a win for the Democrats, since there is only one other choice if Trump loses. His "third party" candidate would only run in key "battleground" states, to ensure the Democrat nominee wins, whereas any candidate that only runs in "swing" states cannot actually win the White House. The "third party candidate" would simply be a ruse to keep the liberals in power. And Romney knows that.
Considering the facts, it is the belief of intelligent Republicans that Mitt Romney is, and always has been, a wolf in sheep's clothing, or more specifically, a Democrat posing as a Republican in order to insure Democrat rule. He is desperate to put another Democrat in the White House because he understands the next president will nominate at least two Supreme Court justices.
It is my considered opinion that Mr Romney, and those who follow him, should be banned from the Republican party - ex-communicated, as it were.
/
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Genocide in America
What do you suppose we would do to any person or group responsible for genocide in America? More specifically, if we discover they were complicit in the deaths of 35 million people of color? What would you expect we should do if a group were to do this right here in America?
According to the Guttman Institute (which tracks this) the total number of babies aborted since 1973 rises to 52,008,665
67% were among black women. This means abortions have claimed 34,845,805 black babies since Roe vs Wade. Note that Roe vs Wade was decided by a liberal Supreme Court (the infamous Warren Court). Since 1973, it is liberals, like the Senator who was a ranking KKK member, who have pushed hard to protect abortion "rights". If I did not know better, I might think liberals are actively trying to depopulate blacks in America. I am certain they are aware the majority of abortions are among minorities.
If those 35 million had been allowed to live, it would have resulted in another 50 million black children and millions more of grandchildren being born from them by 2025.
Imagine - 100 million black people that will never breathe their first breath, or contribute to society.
Add to that, in liberal cities throughout the country (New York, Chicago, Baltimore etc) the liberal city leaders are doing little or nothing to curb "black on black" murders numbering in the thousands each year.
I'll state it clearly - liberals are directly responsible for the deaths of 35 million blacks in America and their future generations. Liberals call it "reproductive rights." I call it genocide.
According to the Guttman Institute (which tracks this) the total number of babies aborted since 1973 rises to 52,008,665
67% were among black women. This means abortions have claimed 34,845,805 black babies since Roe vs Wade. Note that Roe vs Wade was decided by a liberal Supreme Court (the infamous Warren Court). Since 1973, it is liberals, like the Senator who was a ranking KKK member, who have pushed hard to protect abortion "rights". If I did not know better, I might think liberals are actively trying to depopulate blacks in America. I am certain they are aware the majority of abortions are among minorities.
If those 35 million had been allowed to live, it would have resulted in another 50 million black children and millions more of grandchildren being born from them by 2025.
Imagine - 100 million black people that will never breathe their first breath, or contribute to society.
Add to that, in liberal cities throughout the country (New York, Chicago, Baltimore etc) the liberal city leaders are doing little or nothing to curb "black on black" murders numbering in the thousands each year.
I'll state it clearly - liberals are directly responsible for the deaths of 35 million blacks in America and their future generations. Liberals call it "reproductive rights." I call it genocide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)