LGBT Restrooms Are “Occupy” Restrooms

A few years ago men were broadly and often justifiably criticized for being sexual predators by liberal women, but now these enlightened libs, along with politically correct and stupid celebrities like Bruce Springsteen and Joe Walsh, have assured the women of America that having men enter their restroom and use a toilet immediately next to them is a good thing, and that having these unzipped men in rooms with only partially clothed women is a positive and modern aspect of life that liberates women and strengthens our nation and society. In effect, this is just converting a women’s room into an “occupy” encampment, with all the legal, criminal and moral issues those hell-holes created. So if you were pleased with the filth, rapes and murders that occurred with each “occupy” encampment, you’ll love what’s to follow with the government’s imposition of LGBT restrooms.

Given that liberal women like Hillary Clinton only enter a stinky, smelly, foul subway station when they are pandering for attention from New Yorkers, when they’re surrounded by the press and a dozen of their handlers and staff in an attempt to make everyone think she’s a regular joe, do you think for a moment that she would voluntarily enter a restroom with cross-dressing men wearing crooked wigs present? At one of the recent Democrat political events it was reported that Hillary would not even enter a women’s restroom when another woman was in there, let alone if a man were present. But she supports the LGBT movement that is going to force women to do exactly what she will never consent to.

Also consider how confusing and uncomfortable it will be for a young girl who enters a restroom where partially clothed men are present, or that she experiences men boldly entering a restroom where the young girl is attending to a natural function of her own. If it’s an “occupy” veteran he’ll likely be standing back from the toilet to urinate and provide maximum exposure during the act (after all most of what liberals do in our present uncultured culture is an in-your-face attempt to shock you and create a stir and dare you to oppose them) and he’ll probably be a little slow to zip up after finishing his (her?) business. Such an experience by a young girl would probably generate more questions than a parent would want to consider, let alone explain what just happened to the six-year-old. But such an event could also cause a serious emotional problem for a young girl. It seems that it’s enough to have adults sufficiently confused that they want to enter the opposite sexes’ restroom, but now we’re compounding the confusion by including young children who may still be at the point where fairy tales and unicorns are their interest level and an explicit event like this could be very upsetting and troubling to them.

One is reminded of the men who years ago were called flashers and who got their jollies by exposing themselves to women in parks or bus stations or along the street, an action that greatly offended liberal women in the 1960s and 70s, but today these perverts are being invited to join women in the LGBT stalls.

Public restrooms are not anyone’s private property, but one nevertheless expects some level of privacy and cleanliness when in them. But having an opposite sex person join you in one is asking for trouble, which is exactly what Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” is all about, and he’s making the negative progress he promised when he became president by his administration fully supporting the LGBT thing. Stand by for more cultural rot to follow with the filthy Democrat/progressive/liberals running things.

Restrooms are not about sex, nor are they about sexual preference nor sexual identity.  They’re about providing a convenient, clean place in which all people can get needed relief. To expect that a male person, whatever his sexual identity, would even care where natural bodily functions were taken care of, is sheer idiocy. No one is keeping LGBT people from a restroom, but all of a sudden we hear how nasty their lives are with our prejudiced society, because a bearded man cannot enter a ladies’ restroom. This is solely a case of leftists creating a divisive issue and trying to upset our entire society with their pleas of discrimination and mistreatment.

 One doesn’t have to be very old to remember a time when elections were often ignored because no matter whether you voted for a Democrat or a Republican you could be certain that the president was a good person who wanted to protect Americans, assure our borders were secure, make certain that our military was strong and that the unique American traditions, values and customs, and most critical, our constitution and our laws, were protected and enforced. But since that time our nation has come under a threat by a president who has sworn to “fundamentally transform America” and we know that our very existence as a nation depends on assuring that a Democrat is not elected to the presidency in 2016. Electing a Democrat assures more cultural rot and more selfish demands for big government handouts and freebies.                         

Why Do Americans Make Bad Deals With Foreign Governments?

A classic example of America making a bad deal with a foreign government is the Iran nuke deal. Obama refused to help the young people of Iran when they revolted against the tyranny of the Mullahs during the Green revolution in 2009, and instead he gives nuclear capability to the ruling tyrants they revolted against. I don’t know what hold the radical Iranian government has over Obama, but it’s obvious he will do nothing to oppose them or make them uncomfortable. It may be Obama’s love and adoration for Islam or his preference for dark-skinned, third world people, all of whom are poor and down-trodden in Obama’s opinion, or it could just be his hate for America, but the Iranian nuke deal is an example of an American making the worst judgement possible when dealing with a foreign power.

I agree with Donald Trump’s statements about Americans making bad deals with Japanese, Chinese, Indian and Mexican governments and industries, and I believe that all of the affirmative action, racist charges against whites and dominant business people over the last 50 years has made an impact on the psyche of Americans. Americans have had self-doubt drilled into them. They are too often self-effacing, self-limiting and often self-hating. Especially with Asian, Mexican or African dealings, Americans fear being called racist, so they don’t press for the deal that favors them most.

White European-Americans operate from a position of dominance according to the current liberal talking heads, and they of course cheat members of the less-dominant societies. The Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Koreans, Africans and Arabs lack identifiable minority characteristics within their own borders, thus critics of their policies are unable to place blame or register complaints against them on a racial basis for any perceived abuse. Only in America, where racial diversity is common, do we see identifiable minorities, because America allows immigration and competition from every corner of the world and we tolerate and welcome all religions and all skin colors. But Americans are blamed for every person’s failure to succeed and prosper, and this blame is too often attributed to racism.

In fact, the point could be made in reverse: that American liberals rule their own nation ruthlessly and keep American minorities in a state of subservience in exchange for their votes, which in turn encourages liberals to keep the welfare goodies flowing. This control is called compassion when liberals do it.  America is being beaten by foreign governments because we don’t want to be thought of as being pushy and rude, and this false notion of fairness extends beyond our national borders (and in Obama’s case, it is his reason for eliminating America’s national borders completely and allowing all illegal invaders to freely enter our country).

Just as whites have been made to feel guilty for often being more successful than blacks, and just as wealthy people are made to feel guilty for having more money than less-wealthy people, so have Americans been made to feel guilty for dominating the world economy. This liberal-applied feeling of guilt is damaging the futures of all Americans. The lesson we should all learn from this blame-game is that lower earners always resent higher earners. It has nothing to do with wealth except that the difference between rich and poor are easier to see than the difference between twenty dollars an hour and ten dollars an hour. Resentment for the perceived success and greater wealth of another leads to feelings of being discriminated against, and this feeling can make one stop trying to succeed altogether, at which point we have a real disparity as the resentful person drops out and resorts to government handouts, which liberals consider to be a commendable thing to do.

Muslims restrict the movements and the very lives of their women, but if a conservative criticizes Muslims for this control he/she is called a racist who is simply attacking the Muslim based on religion. Even though liberals want Muslim women to be treated more equally and fairly within their own society, they take up arms against conservatives for their criticism of Sharia law and refuse to criticize the Syrian or Arab, based solely on their ethnicity or religion. The most extreme example of liberals not wishing to criticize Islamic mistreatment of women is female genital mutilation. Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote a book on the subject, but liberals will not allow her to speak to college audiences, claiming that she was improperly criticizing Islam.

In spite of the world of prejudice and discrimination that liberals see, there’s a real world outside our borders that seeks success without consideration of skin color or religion. They only want success.  Americans had better wake up to this reality and start negotiating on a basis of equality or the world economy will pass us by and we will all, regardless of color or religion, suffer at the hands of foreign tyrants.

The Donald Calls The System “Rigged”, But Only Where He Has Lost

You can tell the places where Donald Trump has won primary elections and the ones he has lost: when he loses an election he considers it rigged, and when he wins an election he struts and calls his opponents losers and whiners. Why were the elections he won not rigged? Wasn’t his money and his command of even liberal media platforms part of his success, and aren’t those things part of a rigged system?

Actually the system is rigged, always has been and always will be, but not quite how Trump frames the argument. Powerful, dominant, wealthy people will always win elections because the thoughtful, quiet types are unable to get their message across without the money and connections required to get the needed attention and support.

For someone who has been phenomenally successful, both in business and thus far in politics, me thinks Trump doth complain and whine too much. I’ve gone from being a big Trump supporter to now being concerned about his name-calling and whining, and I believe it’s way past the time for him to develop clear, precise plans of action upon being elected president, as Ted Cruz has, and drop any personal references and criticism of his Republican opponents.

But not all opponents are created equal, and Hillary Clinton deserves all of the criticism the Republicans can dish out. Trump’s calling her Crooked Hillary is right on target and is a successful title to give her because it’s true, and the current FBI investigation into her practices as Secretary of State are the most recent evidence of the fact that she is crooked, untruthful and dangerous.

So Now It’s Cultural Invasion Americans Are Guilty Of?

A few days ago we were made aware of a young black woman at San Francisco University who was verbally chastising (and physically blocking the path) of a white male student who had his hair in dreadlocks. She was berating him for invading her “culture” with his choice of hair arrangements. She was absolutely mini-aggressing him verbally but also put her hands on him in an attempt to keep him from escaping her abuse.

If the young man, who in years past would have been praised for his hair and for its message of being down with the struggle, was in fact infringing on the woman’s “culture” as she argued, how is she not infringing on his culture by wearing an upscale, stylish sweater and jacket, by taking showers, which are uniquely western/American activities, by eating American food instead of conch burgers, by speaking English and attending an American college instead of idly laying under a palm tree somewhere smoking grass and doing nothing at all toward her future? She probably even drives an American automobile. She was doing all of these things, but were they infringing on the young man’s culture or the culture of any white person? Not in my American they weren’t.

And exactly what is the “culture” of a black woman living comfortably in America that she would abuse someone for any particular hairdo?  It’s very much a part of the American culture to allow differing ideas and styles to be seen and heard and not be attacked, as we plainly saw in the video of the event. And additionally, the woman complaining about culture infringement wore an afro hairdo. Why is her non-white hair not culturally offensive to white Americans? Is this woman from Communist North Korea that she is so demanding that only what she approves can be displayed?

It’s almost a relief to find that the charge of racism has been dropped from minority attacks on white people, but also disturbing that the young man’s hair got a minority student so upset. After all, the man made no claim of being black, he only chose to do the dreadlock thing with his hair.

I don’t think any hair style is owned by any group of people, but if cultural infringement on a black person’s life is the issue, then the young lady of this subject should be outraged at Rachel Dolezal who a year of so ago wore an Afro hairdo and pretended to be black, even though both of her parents are white and she has no black brothers or sisters. She passed as black and even held a racially identified position that was thereby denied to a real black person, and she did everything she could to be accepted as black and to be thought of as such. This type of activity is deranged cultural infringement and outright lying on Ms. Dolezal’s part, but the young lady who abused the man with dreadlocks was apparently good with the lying identity of Dolezal and just wanted to confront someone about something.

When a hair style becomes a subject of abuse and attack, the attacker had better get her head examined, because she’s nuts. But Obama promised to “fundamentally transform America” and this is just another tentacle of that promise.

Liberals Are Wrong: It’s Not White Privilege That Assures Success, It’s American Privilege, And It’s Available To All Citizens

For the past year or so Americans have been subjected to liberal claims that “white privilege” is assuring that non-white citizens are not allowed to succeed and are kept in a state of poverty. An attempt to make any achiever, whether black or white, feel guilty about their success, was at the base of this movement, and of course it was used by the liberal Democrat political class to call for a “fundamental transformation of America” with new goodies being promised for those poor folks left behind by the evil white privileged class.

What the liberal Democrats have not mentioned and hoped that no one would notice, is the increasing number of black millionaires who have become successful through risk-taking, hard work, thrift, education, inventing new products, and development of personal abilities: in other words, blacks have succeeded for the same reasons and in the same ways that whites have succeeded.

But I don’t think this revelation of success through hard work, etc., negates the idea of privilege, but rather expands the privileged class to the entire nation of America; it’s an American Privilege that favors all who reside in this great nation.

Actually the word privilege isn’t completely appropriate because it’s not as though any successful person was granted or inherited the privilege, it just comes with the package of being an American, sort of like American Exceptionalism, a phrase that angers liberals every time it’s uttered. The platform this package is founded on is the United States Constitution and the Declaration’s promise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Traditionally the United States was a nation where a citizen could do nearly anything he/she wanted to do, as long as the thing wasn’t illegal or immoral. The nation has changed a great deal in this regard in the last 100 years or so with the rise of the Progressive movement (a movement that was anything but progressive) and the implementation of the politics of the environment, the usage of your own land and of energy usage and development, all of which have caused a disruption to the paths of success. But for the most part America remains a nation where it doesn’t matter what your parents did nor where they came from. If you get educated, stay out of trouble and develop your natural skills and talents, you will likely succeed; and that’s where the “privilege” thing enters the picture.

Too often family background and traditions, or even the unintended consequence of governmental policies and politics, have blocked the otherwise clear path to personal success and happiness, not the actions of any ethnic or racial group. The very same Democrats who have falsely tried to convince the nation of white privilege being the policies and programs that have kept non-white people in poverty and resentment, therefore ruining many lives, are the very same group that have indeed kept large sections of the American population in a state of poverty and resentment. The liberal Democrat policy most harmful to generations of poor Americans is the one that has kept them shackled to the government for sustenance via food stamps, welfare and government housing and has kept them from getting a job that would liberate them and make them proud of their accomplishments. Add to this entrapment and the despair of poverty, the claim that white privilege was the cause of non-white suffering and you have resentment added to a lack of personal achievement and accomplishment which produces the perfect storm of perpetual failure that Democrats have been nurturing in order to keep people voting them into office.

Americans are additionally privileged to live in a nation where tradition has seen each generation live a little better than their parents lived. Unfortunately the resentment and despair that Democrats currently offer is quickly undermining this tradition, specifically expressed by Barack Obama when he claimed that he would “fundamentally transform America” with his administration. And he’s done a good job of transforming it in just seven years.

To repeat, it’s not white privilege that made America the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen with the largest middle class in history, it’s rather the American Privilege of liberty and freedom that has created wealth and success, and this privilege is slipping away as fewer Americans prepare themselves to take advantage of its blessings, and as the political rulers in the federal government reject the nation’s traditional policies and laws and opt for their personal power, and in the process dis-obey the Constitution and divide the nation along racial and economic lines.

American privilege is available to everyone, but increasingly we see government policy denying this privilege that all Americans have been granted, whether at birth or at the awarding of citizenship, to too many of its own deserving citizens.

Enough Already With The “White Privilege” Nonsense In A Privileged Liberal, Democrat World

The idiot, white, superior-to-thou Democrat liberals are at it again with their “White Privilege” conference in Philadelphia, pandering and calling all white people, except themselves, of course, racists who are living a life of white privilege. Actually it’s the liberals who behave and tacitly assert their own superiority over blacks and whites alike, a fact that is obvious when one notices that white leftist liberals really do live better and more privileged lives than the average black or white citizen in America. And the reason for this disparity between white, leftist liberals like Hillary and Bernie, and the rest of society is not white privilege, but rather Liberal Privilege!!

Who else other than a white, Democrat liberal could have served as Secretary of State while getting four Americans killed in Benghazi; caused the embarrassment of the Russian reset; declared Syria’s Assad to be a reformer; declared an Arab Spring prior to allowing ISIS to become an international, wholesale murdering force; sided with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; used an illegal email system on an unsecured server that was reportedly hacked by every terrorist organization and unfriendly government in the world; caused the general diminution of the reputation of the United States with friend and foe alike the world over; and still be allowed by her party to run for president? Only a privileged white, Democrat liberal named Clinton could accomplish this.

And Bernie is not much better for wear when you consider his record: he was a homeless bum until he got into politics and finally entered the big-time of the Senate; he honeymooned in the garden spot of the Soviet Union, the country that has made it a tradition to conduct occasional pogroms against Jews, homosexuals and other undesirables; he proposes the overthrow of capitalism, which is the only known economic engine powerful enough to have raised the civilized world out of the poverty of the middle ages; proposes that all Americans be given free college, while being so irresponsible as to not inform the uneducated youth of America that, while his program relieves them of having to pay for only their own individual education, as they can under the current system of loans or cash, Bernie’s scheme will trap them into paying for the educations of all other American citizens, forever, thus trapping them into unending college payments via confiscatory taxes into the future, while at the same time dumbing-down college education even further than it is today, so all comers will be able to earn the soon-to-be worthless “free” diploma. This socialist fool is abusing the youth of America by promising them something that cannot come to fruition. And our Bernie is not being personally true to the socialist creed because he’s reportedly worth a half-million dollars, which is much more than socialists believe any person should be allowed to possess. After all, it’s just not fair that some people have more money than others.

And of course the term “social justice” has to be part of the Philadelphia conference’s official name, while ignoring that it has been mainly white, Democrat liberals who have trapped young black people into a continuing state of poverty by giving them just enough free stuff to keep them poor, unemployed, dependent on big-government handouts and voting Democrat, plus assuring, via the vehicle of the Department of Education, that their education is below par and doesn’t allow them to grow intellectually and succeed in the larger economy (recall that it was Barack Obama himself who killed the school choice plan in Washington, D.C., thus destroying many young black lives by trapping them into the public school system in our failing capitol city).

Of course, when you get a gaggle of liberals together for a conference they branch out and eventually attack everything but the real target: themselves. An article in EAGnews lists religion as also being a white privilege and limiting the religious selections in America to only Christianity, which would be shocking news to Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other religions who freely practice their faith by the millions. But liberals aren’t bothered with telling the truth about America; they are privileged to be able to lie about the greatest nation on earth yet still live here comfortably with their own form of rich, elitist privilege.

When Cruz Is Disrespected, I’m Disrespected, And I Resent It!

Ted Cruz’s speech was intentionally silenced last night at the Republican Gala in New York City, while Trump’s and Kasich’s speeches were broadcast in a normal, clear, perfect manner.

Cruz has a message that I personally would implement if I could suddenly become president, while the messages of Trump and Kasich may be persuasive but lack specificity as to what they would do and how they would do it if they were elected.

I and other people who want Cruz to be our next president have been bitch-slapped by the resentful “New York values” crowd who were likely responsible for the interruption, and I resent that they undermined Cruz’s important message.

I hope there is a price to pay for this elimination of Cruz’s ideas to save America, and if either Trump or Kasich were in on the trick, I’d rather see them in hell than vote for them. It’s enough to know that the Democrats would silence conservative Americans if they could, but to suspect that fellow Republicans did the evil deed is disgusting. Maybe this is part of what Megyn Kelley and Trump secretly discussed in Trump’s office a few days ago? Whatever the reason, it makes me fear even more for the future of America and the conservatism that is the only way of preserving our nation’s liberty and prosperity.

The Political Class Needs To Learn The Difference Between Democrat And Democratic

The name of America’s leftist political party is Democrat, they’re the Democrat Party.  The description of a party or organization in America would be that it’s democratic in nature. This doesn’t mean that the Democrat Party is democratic nor that it practices democracy, but that’s their name. Democrat is a noun and democratic is an adjective that modifies a noun. To say some one or some party is democratic means that they are in the form of a democracy, or they are democracy-like.  No one would say that the Republican Party is republican-like, so why would they say that Democrats are democracy-like. It’s the old difference between a big “D” and a little “d”.

Too often all flavors of political talking heads, left and right, refer to the “Democratic Party” doing this thing or that thing, when they should simply say “The Democrat Party” did them. This is not a difficult distinction to make and our smart-set talking heads should know better. In fact it’s possible that this is just another verbal war won by Democrats, similar to “the Republican war on women” or “Bush lied and people died” and such idiotic but easy to say phrases that shape an argument before it’s even begun. If we wanted to talk about people dying from a presidential lie, we’d coin the phrase “Obamacare lied and people suffered and died, after going broke trying to pay for it” or we’d say “Bush fought terrorism and we won the Iraq war, but Obama shied and people died all over again when we left too soon”. The latter phrases are neither short enough nor cleverly-enough assembled, and that’s why Republicans are losing the verbal war with Democrats, even though the latter points are true and the former Democrat phrases are lies.

To be quite truthful, the Democrat Party may be the least “democratic” organization in America. When one considers that Hillary is losing to Bernie in states won and delegates accumulated, but that Hillary is ahead of Bernie in the actual delegate count when the super-delegates are included, we find a lack of democracy being practiced by the Democrats.

And one should not confuse the difference between a democracy and a representative republic. The primary elections and the caucuses are examples of direct democracy because the votes of the individuals in the various political organizations are supposed to immediately indicate who the winner of the event is. On the other hand, America is a Representative Democracy because we elect our representatives directly, who in turn either pass laws that are not directly voted on by the public they represent or they elect the president via the Electoral College which is also an indirect election path from the people.

It’s a shame when a rube like myself has to correct the spoken and written word of the elites in Washington and New York, but there it is.

Bad News For Hillary And The Bernmeister: They’re Now Evil Conservatives

After years of America’s leftward drift and the progressive (this is the word that Hillary loves to label herself with) advancement to socialism, and following the presidency of Barack I-will-fundamentally-transform-America Obama with his dis-obeyance of our laws and the flogging of the constitution, the candidates of the Democrat party are now in the position of having to be the new political conservatives who must defend the destruction, poverty and unemployment of the last seven-plus years as they’ve swung the nation from capitalism with its vitality and achievement to socialism with its dull existence of idleness and jealousy and resentment of anyone who has possessions better than theirs.  They are now the defensive conservatives trying to preserve their leftist paradise by promising more goodies to the masses and trying to find a new class of achievers somewhere to label as selfish so they can be taxed to pay for it all. I wish them luck trying to defend, for example, a policy of an individual’s getting a “free” college education, and then, via the higher taxes needed to pay for this “free” stuff, having to pay for every other individual citizen’s “free” college education without end, for the remainder of their life. At least when you had to only pay for your own education the payments would end at some point and the expenditure could be budgeted and controlled, but not when it’s a national obligation for everyone to indulge in, and most will indulge in it; that’s why leftists put it there. The new conservatives will have a lot of explaining to do when their current followers and voters who are not college bound, begin to object to this drain on their middle class incomes as they are taxed to provide for the elitist class’s education.

If this once great nation had a press that was really free and independent of the political process it would already have raised this issue and would be attacking Hill and Bern for looting the working class in order to get the votes of those who can’t think past their next toke. This awareness will eventually happen as the members of the press think about what will eventually happen to them and their children via government policy and as terrorist attacks on American soil increase, new wars break out, unemployment increases, more jobs go overseas, illegal immigration sky rockets, poverty increases and the “free” college education becomes worthless and allows no access to a better-paying job.  At this point the new liberals (Republicans will be the political liberals by this time) will finally be listened to and their lessons will be realized as the truth that is currently being denied under the existing liberal-Democrat confusion of the nation. But it will take much pain and suffering for the once-liberal, now conservative and defensive press, to see the light and begin attacking the welfare state, although it will happen.

Capitalism has generated more middle class wealth than all of the socialist/communist governments of the world combined. Coal-generated power plants have saved countless lives of the poorest among us via refrigeration and the preservation of food and drugs. The existing left’s ban on coal power and other liberal lies about warming/change and the abolition of all that has made the world comfortable and pleasant through capitalism, will make for a much more dangerous and painful world. An increasingly poor and impoverished America will result from the pendulum swing of time to the existing left-wing (which is becoming the new right-wing).

National Micro-Insanity Is Why Leftism Is Taking Control Of America.

Never, prior to the age of Obama, would any state or local government have suggested that men should have a right to enter a women’s restroom. But under the president who promised to “fundamentally transform America” it’s come true.

Why is it that Hillary, whose husband signed DOMA into law in 1996, is now in favor of same-sex marriage? Why did Obama change his mind on homosexual marriage and begin the push for it after rejecting it prior to the last two presidential elections? Why did Bruce Springsteen, only now and not ten years ago, get all uppity and insist that men should invade a woman’s private restroom area? Why has Obama opened up our borders to all comers when in the past a secure border was not only important to keeping the public safe but absolutely defined a functioning nation?

Why has this nation, which has been so successful over the past 200-plus years at being wealthy and secure, at creating jobs and allowing people to achieve their goals and achieve personal success, now have politicians claiming that jobs should have a minimum pay; taxes should be even higher than they are; that government should issue masses of regulations restricting how people behave on their own land; that every person should be promised a cell phone; that every citizen of every nation has a right to live in America illegally; that everyone should have a right to internet access but be denied the right to own a gun; and that the government should pay for every citizen’s college education? These deviant ideas were held at bay by politicians who understood right from wrong and good from bad, but we are now seeing politicians who are fighting each other for the absolute power that Obama has defined via an increasingly big and intrusive government, and they are competing, Republicans and Democrats alike, for the votes of deviant leftists who have banded together and made their voices violently heard at anti-Trump rallies, at hands-up-don’t–shoot and black-lives-matter protests and any of the “occupy” movements.

Just as socialism has always been off-limits to Americans because it’s been a failure everywhere it’s been tried, higher taxation was always understood to be contrary to American citizens’ economic fortunes. The president not abiding by duly passed laws and dis-obeying the constitution were not even considered by any former sitting president. And weakening our national borders was contrary to logic. But under Obama and his aggressive anti-American policies these formerly verboten ideas are now common practice. Socialism, high taxes, and denial of laws and the constitution, have already begun to be the destruction of America’s promise for personal achievement and happiness on the part of each citizen.

Prior to the Republican and Democrat rush to satisfy the whining demand of leftists for goodies, the American dream was intact. But with both parties responding to the deviant ideas that are contrary to common sense, public safety and achievement, just to maintain the party leaders’ personal power and influence, this leftward drift will end badly for all Americans, and the larger world that depends on America’s power and influence.

A nation that has gone from legally welcoming refugees who shed tears at the sight of the Statue of Liberty, to one where illegal aliens casually traipse across our border, scorn our flag, deny our language, ignore our modes of conduct and demand welfare and free healthcare upon arrival, is a nation at great risk to its own existence. Our national micro-insanity is firmly established and we’d better relearn old lessons of government and personal deportment or we’re lost.

Obama Again Uses His Main Lie-Tell: “Period”

If you’ve kept up with our president’s lying tells you’ll recognize one of them in the following: You can keep your doctor, period. You can keep your plan, period. You’ll save $2500 a year, period.

More recently he’s been quoted as saying that Iran has not broken the Nuke deal, period. So at this point we have the advantage of knowing how to tell if Obama is lying (aside from his being awake and talking). When Chris Wallace of Fox News last weekend asked him if he was involved in the FBI investigation of Hillary’s email and server issue he said that he was not, “Period”.

So there you have it from the supreme ruler’s mouth. Obama is heavily involved in getting Hillary out of her mess and no punishment will be inflicted on her at all.

Another interesting thing about Obama’s lies is the way he claims to get news and information about current events and things happening within his administration. When the IRS scandal broke he claimed to know nothing about it until he heard the report on cable news. Now Obama claims that he only knows about Hillary’s FBI investigation and its progress through newspapers and television news. Obama has a multi-million dollar staff with the most sophisticated equipment in the world and lackeys running about trying to “fundamentally transform America” before Obama is forced to leave office, and we’re supposed to believe that not one of these many staff people ever give him a briefing on Hillary’s legal status? It’s true that he never accepts the Presidential Daily Brief that the security agencies provided for him, because anyone who wants to fundamentally transform America cannot be too concerned about the nation’s security, but when it comes to scandals within the Obama administration, I’m certain that he keeps up with every person’s every move, every day.

I know that he’s just a lying liberal and I should allow for that and move on. But all we get is lies from this bunch, and it’s destroying our nation. Period.

Boston Globe Lying, Anti-Trump Headline: “Deportations to Begin”

The fake, lying, anti-Trump headline referenced above, dated April 9, 2017 (after Trump is in office if he wins election this November) recently appeared under the Boston Globe umbrella and destroys any pretense that the liberal press is just reporting the news and remains impartial in the upcoming election. The headline is a hit piece not only on Trump but on all Americans who want to get illegal persons of every nationality out of our country and stop the daily flow of illegal entrants breaking down our borders.  The Globe’s headline is a lie, but I can think of several headlines I believe they should have printed years ago that would be completely true, and which indicate problems of greater import to Americans than Trump trying to get rid of criminals who illegally crossed our borders. The Globe and all other papers should print the following true headlines:

Obama illegally opens our borders to all entrants, all citizens as risk

Liberals and President Obama OK with Sanctuary Cities which harbor illegal immigrant murderers

Obama inviting Syrian refugees to America knowing that some will be terrorists

Obamacare financially breaking the American middle class

Obama indifferent to Hillary’s unsecured email server and the classified information the emails contained

Obama disobeys the laws he swore to obey and the Constitution he swore to defend

Obama’s Justice Department blaming police departments for the shootings of criminals breaking the law; more crime, murders and resentment of the police an assured result

Obama swears to “fundamentally transform America” and needs to be watched carefully and suspected of anti-American policies at every turn

Obama’s EPA regulations are vastly exceeding their legal bounds and causing in increase in unemployment as a result

Obama only pretending to hurt ISIS and other terrorist groups threatening America

Those would be true headlines and would reassure all Americans that the liberal press is not an instrument of the liberal/progressive/Democrat party just shilling for Hillary’s election. But unfortunately that’s exactly what the mainstream press is, and may God save this great nation.

Of course if our fat-and-happy Republican legislators would occasionally speak up and voice an opinion contrary to the Obama party line it may increase public opinion against Obama and cause the press to really report the news and not pro-Hillary tripe. But don’t hold your breath.

Obama: “There’s Classified, And Then There’s Classified”

In the quote above, our beloved president was of course referring to Hillary’s exposing of classified national secrets via her unsecured and illegal email server, and without question he asserts that Hillary has done nothing wrong, so we can expect the outcome of the FBI investigation into her destructive ramblings about the globe as Secretary of State to reflect what he wants to not happen here. There will be no consequences for her destructive and illegal behavior and she’ll continue her pursuit of the presidency.

Obama’s “there’s classified, and then there’s classified” statement is similar to the idiotic courtroom defense Bill Clinton made as president when he said “it depends on what the meaning of is, is”. I promise you that any military person recognizes only one thing as being important: “CLASSIFIED”.  And there is nothing relative about the subject. It doesn’t matter what level of classification, where the classification came from, nor what the subject matter is, if it’s classified it means someone, somewhere could pay with their life if the subject were to be exposed, and any military personnel would in turn pay with their freedom or their life if the matter were allowed to be exposed to a source of any kind, anywhere. But of course liberal/Democrat/progressives are exempt from all the rules that traditionally assured that our society was behaving legally and that all were treated equally under the law.

The Liberal/Democrat/progressive filth that passes through the Oval Office is destroying America and the lives of every American citizen. With Obama’s casual treatment of the subject of national security classification and the lives and security of each and every American, I’d hate to discover the way he treats the top secrets that cross his desk and with whom he shares them.

Why are Americans sitting back and allowing this travesty to occur? And where are the Republican Senators and House Republicans on the subject? Don’t they care when the president inserts himself into a serious investigation like the subject of Hillary’s emails, and don’t they care when Obama asserts that classification is only relative and not a big deal?  Republicans are being unpatriotically politically correct by not going after Obama at least as diligently as the Democrats once attacked Richard Nixon for lesser crimes against the nation.

Damn these fools in Washington to hell!

Eye In The Sky, A Must-See Movie

I just saw the new movie Eye In The Sky and thought it was very illuminating as regards our current techno-warfare and our current political correctness towards the religious zealots that are murdering thousands of people, and the liberal defense of any enemy America is threatened by.

The subject of the movie is concerned with ordering an American drone to identify and monitor the capture of high level Islamic murderers while the London-based British military officials coordinate the event in Kenya. The dilemma enters when a beautiful young Kenyan girl is seen selling bread on the outer wall of the intended house in which the terrorists are simultaneously seen strapping on suicide vests and arming with AK47s, at which point the capture mission becomes a kill mission which puts the young Kenyan girl at risk.

The movie demonstrates the PC world that will not allow otherwise smart people to act against evil to eliminate it, and demonstrates the left’s failure to take action which may sacrifice one innocent person to save seventy or more other innocent persons.

It shows the sluggishness of bureaucracies that can’t approve a needed action because of fear of the liberal press condemning them, and worrying about legal issues as they try to protect innocent by-standers from terrorist bombings, and their inability to make quick changes in a mission when the facts on the ground indicate a “capture” mission must change immediately to a “kill” mission.

It shows the hate and evil of people who don suicide vests and carry AK47s with the intent of killing at a nearby shopping mall, while their fellow country-men try to live decent, although impoverished lives, and raise their children in this horrible mix.

It shows the concern that the American and British soldiers and pilots have for the poor people of Africa and the Middle East who must live and die in the immoral filth of their world. The military is shown operating in a world of political make-believe while and real world of death and destruction keeps them from helping the very people who need their help the most.

At the end of the movie the cast demonstrates the care and concern for life and liberty of the modern western soldier, while the liberals accuse them of being evil and uncaring toward the poor and powerless. The movie elaborately describes the idiocy of modern warfare and Obama’s very restrictive rules of engagement, where instead of moving to kill and otherwise inhibit an enemy that swears to kill mass numbers of innocent people and proceeds to do exactly that, causes valuable time to be wasted determining collateral damage estimates to the innocent casualties nearby that may result from the attack.

The difficulty of the decent western powers who want to protect innocent lives at all cost is weighed against an ancient, murderous force that will kill anyone anywhere and rejoice in doing so, is well demonstrated in this movie.

“Iran Has Not Violated The Nuke Agreement, Period”.

Does the construction of that sentence sound familiar? The era of Obama has been replete with similar phrases. Every sentence that Obama ends with the word ”Period” is a lie, period. Also sentences that even end with the punctuation mark of the period are lies. Do you remember Obama’s “keep your doctor”, “keep your plan” and “save $2500 a year, period”? Only this time he has negotiated a deal with Iran to supposedly keep them from developing a nuclear weapon, but instead allows them to develop not only the weapons, but the missiles to deliver them as well.  And there is no promised setback when the agreement is violated because the Obama administration lied to Congress and the American citizens about the rules of the agreement with Iran. Simply stated, our president is giving a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver that weapon, to Iran.

In other words, in order to gain his “legacy” and get Iran to sign any agreement (and it’s my understanding that the Mullahs still haven’t actually signed the agreement these several months later), Obama gave them the ability and the money to develop a nuke after repeatedly promising that such a thing would never happen. I thought Obama’s legacy was assured in his “fundamental transformation of America” but he wants to not only destroy America’s economy but seeks our physical destruction as well.

Has Obama thought of how the destruction of America will adversely impact the illegal aliens he has so willingly allowed to enter our borders? The America Obama leaves behind will be about as appealing as the Mexico that Mexicans are running away from, and it’s all part of Obama’s “legacy”. Sounds a little racist to me.

Congress is now investigating what the Obama administration told them were the terms of the Iran nuke deal as opposed to the current claims of what the actual terms of the deal are. It’s no surprise that the originally negotiated terms are not what the Obama team are using to evaluate Iran’s adherence to the agreement.

Obama has stated that the most beautiful sound he’s ever heard is the morning call to prayer from a Mosque, so he is unable to deny these adherents to the religion of peace a nuclear weapon with which they can terrorize the civilized world. The liar in the Oval Office is once again asking us to believe another of his lies, one that places our entire nation at risk of a nuclear attack and invasion by Islamic hoards. How did this once great nation get reduced to third-world status and start believing the transparent lies of a fool president in just seven years?