Statement from the Candidate

In 2010 I ran an unsuccessful campaign for the United States Congress, but I'm still posting blogs that I believe express an opinion that most other people miss, and that I also believe can make America great again and cast off the yoke of liberal/progressive control that is currently in place.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

President Trump Is The Divisive One? I Don’t Think So.

So the owner of the New England Patriots football team thinks Donald Trump was divisive for his scornful words related to the NFL players “taking a knee’ during the playing of the National Anthem?  I see that issue rather differently.

When President Trump stated that multimillionaire football players were disrespecting our flag and the National Anthem by “taking a knee” he was simply expressing the attitude of most Americans and was not being disruptive at all; he was just responding to the disruption caused by the NFL players as they took up the leftist cause of America being rotten and the nation needing “fundamental” change, as was Obama‘s opinion. If you want to see what divisive looks like just consider the outrage and uproar that resulted from these acts of Barack Obama:

Barack Obama was divisive when he invited the Black Lives Matter group to the White House while they were celebrating the assassination of police officers nationally.

Barack Obama was divisive when he opened our borders to all who would illegally enter in contradiction to the laws passed by congress.

Barack Obama was divisive when he defended the leftist sanctuary city bad idea and allowed not only illegals but criminal illegals to live in the United States with full immunity from the laws of our nation.

Barack Obama was divisive when he promised to “fundamentally transform America” as soon as he was elected to the Oval Office, and then set about doing it.

Barack Obama was divisive when he ignored the obvious breaking of federal tax law by  the IRS when they discriminated against Republicans prior to the 2012 election.

Barack Obama was divisive when he identified the Ferguson police force as being racist and nationalized it under his Department of Justice.

Barack Obama was divisive when he declared that Hillary Clinton had committed no crime as Secretary of State when she used her own personal email server to send and receive classified messages.

Barack Obama was divisive when he took up the banner of allowing men, who could at the drop of a hat self-identify as women, and freely enter women’s restrooms across the nation.

Barack Obama was divisive when he stated that the American constitution was a “negative” document instead of its being the revolutionary and liberating document that America’s founders put in place to protect average citizens from an intrusive government, like the one Obama was putting in place.

Trump was just defending the interests and attitudes of his base, and no negative impact will stick to him for his bold, plain-spoken words. On the other hand, Barack Obama was certain that America was seriously flawed and needed large infusions of his radical medicine in order to get it thinking right again. Oddly enough, Obama’s opinion of America is the same opinion held by Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin, just to put his ideas in proper perspective.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Hillary Is a Professional Flip-Flopper

During the first Bill Clinton presidential campaign, Hillary swore to “stand by her man” and make him cookies, much like a typical housewife would do, and contrary to everything she believes in today.

During Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign Hillary headed up the Bimbo Eruption squad that attacked women who mentioned their relations with Bill. So these women who opposed the bad treatment that Bill meted out are, in Hillary’s opinion, bad women when they complain about Bill’s bad acts? Meanwhile feminists call all men predators and let Bill slide.

During her post-White House years Hillary proclaimed that women should be treated equally with men. As a test of just how serious feminists are with the women being equal to men thing, recently Joy Behar, of The View television show, criticized Mike Huckabee for allowing his daughter to work for Donald Trump’s administration, as though his daughter could not make up her own mind whom to work for, and as though Donald Trump is nearly the risk for a woman to work for that Bill Clinton is. Just ask Monica Lewinski.

During Hillary’s Senate and Secretary of State years, while she insisted that women should be paid equally with men, she consistently paid women on her staff less than her male employees.

During Hillary’s own presidential candidacy she ran as a female victim to be pitied for her mistreatment, and in her speeches she told every woman that they must vote for her or they would be letting all women down, indicating that voting for Hillary was an obligation owed her by all women. But would one be mistaken to believe that the president serves the entire nation and not only the female part of the nation? Does Hillary, given her self-absorption and her radical feminism, understand this aspect of the presidency?

During Hillary’s 2016 post-presidential run she claimed that American women allowed their husbands to instruct them to vote for Trump and not her. Does Hillary really believe that women are so stupid and weak that they can be told for whom to vote?

These examples of flip-flopping are a separate subject from the many lies Hillary has told publicly, such as flying into a war zone with Chelsea on board the aircraft and having to cork-screw down in order to avoid enemy fire while landing, and getting her first name as a sign of  her mother’s  respect for Sir Edmond Hillary after he scaled Mount Everest.

Hillary will use any misguided illogic to get votes and followers. One time she’ll be the dutiful wife, the next time she’ll be a con-woman trying to force all women to vote for her out of a misguided sense of duty to all other women, and then she’ll be abusive to her political base as she criticizes any woman as being a traitor if they didn’t cast a vote for her. It sounds like Hillary is against the principle of letting women make up their own minds about who is the best candidate to represent them for president. It reminds one of Hillary’s “deplorable” comments which lost her many votes in the last election.

It’s too bad Hillary is just unable to gain people’s votes, men’s and women’s alike, based on her being a good candidate and not a shrill, unpleasant liar every time she opens her mouth. But given her inability to will elections, I kind of like her just the way she is.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

A Word Of Advice To The NFL Players

One hears rumors that the National Football League players are concerned about police violence and black males overloading the American prison system. Here’s how people really searching for a solution to these very real and very serious issues can resolve both problems:

1) Don’t commit crimes.
2) Obey all police instructions.

By following these simple guidelines you’d be surprised how little trouble one runs into with the police, and, therefore, citizens are able to stay out of prison. I know that the subject is more nuanced and complicated than stated above, but on the other hand, I didn’t see any players protest when Black Lives Matters assassins were killing police officers and the then-president was hosting the BLM group at the White House as a sign of his support for the things they were doing.  But simply from a consideration of self-preservation, have you never heard of killing the goose that lays the golden egg?

If you players don’t follow these simple guidelines and instead go ahead with your insistence on holding demonstrations during football games in November, which is just a boring repetition of your current kneeling in disrespect for America’s flag and our national anthem, then your disruptive practices will possibly destroy your own high-paying jobs with the NFL, and possibly destroy the NFL itself as the great entertainment and escape-vehicle it has become.

From here on out it’s up to you players. Consider carefully, because your multi-million dollar salaries are at stake.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Leftist Doubters And Dictator Apologists Are Proven Wrong Again

With the real-world threat North Korea is presenting to the world, with its launching  of missiles over Japan and threatening the island of Guam with a missile attack, one hopes that the political left will, in just this one case, admit that they were wrong in the 1980s as Ronald Reagan, with intense criticism from the leftist press, supported the development of what the leftist peaceniks called “Star Wars” weapons: missiles that could intercept and shoot down other missiles.

One must remember that in the 1980s the American left loved the Soviet Union and didn‘t want to develop a defensive missile of our own that could destroy a Russian missile aimed at New York City, because that would only anger the Russkies and make them feel bad. So our leftists claimed that one missile intercepting another missile in flight was impossible and only created more international friction with our peace-loving brothers in Russia.

But now these missiles and their technology have been proven to be effective, and in fact, with all of the missiles North Korea has been launching, their technology may be the savior of a target that the Norks may be aiming at: perhaps even the leftist nirvana of Los Angeles.

But one doesn’t expect the political left to thank conservatives for potentially saving their worthless hides by continuing with the development of the “provocative“ and life-saving intercept missiles.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Bad News For The Left: Homosexuality Is Non-Sustainable

One hears a lot these days, from our know-it-all younger generation, about how to maintain our current level of quality of life by reverting to sustainable sources of energy, like wind power, solar power, by getting rid of internal combustion engines, by foregoing air conditioning and forced-air home heating, all of which leftists claim will make our nation more sustainable by using less carbon power, but in actuality would only make America poorer and less safe in a very dangerous world.

But another area where our young smart-set hasn’t yet thought of applying the theory of sustainability is the area of human reproduction, and especially the area housing the assumed wisdom and empowerment of homosexuality. Young people are, I’m certain, aware that a male and a female participant are required (not three or fifty sexual preferences or identities as listed in government approved lists, but one male sperm and one female egg) to create one, or several in rare cases, new human being.

So it’s not possible for homosexuals to adequately sustain their own area of sexual interest with only males or only females participating in the effort. Gays have brought LGBTQ identifiers into the class of  allegedly discriminated-against people who at least share the liberal, political leanings that are related to warming/change and sustainability, yet they are unable to create even one additional person of their own sexual persuasion by  practicing only with someone of the same sex. So sustainability is impossible for these enlightened people.

In the meantime we heteros are carrying the load of creating new citizens for the LGBTQ/Gay slackers, from which population they will extract some of the homosexual  product.

One wisely questions the leftist rhetoric of “sustainability” in general, but in the case of reproduction and homosexuality, it’s an open and shut case of sustainability being a load of misguided, political offal.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Why Isn’t Hillary Clinton Testifying Before A Grand Jury Yet?

The former Director of the FBI spent much television time in 2016 enumerating to the entire nation the crimes that the FBI confirmed were committed by Hillary Clinton related to her illegal email system. The list of crimes were serious and some even place America in a dangerous position in our current world filled with terrorists. So why is she not being frog-walked to the witness stand for a Grand Jury appearance?

Why, indeed, is Hillary still walking free in the United States? Why are the American people forced to listen to this common criminal when she claims that she will take possession of the Oval Office when Donald Trump is shown to have been elected illegally?

Why are Samantha Power and Susan Rice not being investigated by a special prosecutor for their wire-tapping and unmasking activities?  And why was Lois Lerner allowed to walk free and get a federal retirement check after illegally discriminating against Republicans when they sought positive tax treatment for their political activities like the Democrats got without a question being asked? Congress and the Department of Justice are neglecting the crimes of the establishment swamp by not pursuing these criminals. I thought President Trump was going to clear this swamp out, but it looks like it won’t happen.

The FBI can invade Paul Manafort’s residence in the middle of the night and remove his personal documents, but the Democrats who served Obama’s crime machine are allowed to continue their lives unobstructed. Why?

Will The Next Monument To Be Destroyed Be The Pyramids?

With the radical American left quickly running out of racist, slave-owning monuments to deface, will they next look to the slave-state of ancient Egypt and try to tear down the great Pyramids?

It would be a logical next step if what they hate is really slave-owners, but in the case of Egypt, American liberals would likely claim that the relatively dark-skin color of Egyptians removes them from the judgment heaped on people with white skin color, so the dark-skinned Egyptians cannot be considered by the same standards white Americans are judged and labeled. Typical liberal-speak.

The truth of the matter is that the Pyramids were built with slave labor to be monuments celebrating the current or just-deceased former Pharaoh, so they were indeed slave owners, and slavery is color blind.

In fact, throughout history slavery was more common for a majority of people and nations throughout the world than freedom. All of the kingdoms in medieval times had serfs who were effectively slaves to the monarch. No one had the liberty to relocate from their assigned village and their assigned field which they were expected to  cultivate and pay taxes on. The legend of Robin Hood was of  someone who fought the dictates of the monarch , which the common people of England could not escape.

In the United States there were thousands of free blacks who owned slaves and profited from having them, and the American Indians enslaved enemy tribes that they conquered, including white settlers they picked up and enslaved along the way. When you consider the amount of slavery currently occurring in eastern Africa at this current time, and the suffering that results from it, it’s amazing how much emphasis American liberals place on the America of 150 years ago and how they assign blame to current citizens of the United States and for old Confederate monuments, for what happened in the distant past. But it’s a radical liberal thing, and no sensible person would understand.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Trump’s Plain Speaking To The U.N. Causes Liberals to Squeal. Here’s Why…

Liberals live in a world of political racism and a consuming hatred for Donald Trump, which makes it impossible for them to think in terms other than race and hate. America is predominantly a white nation, plus most people associate wealth with white people more than they do with black people; it’s just the truth even though there are enormous exceptions to the myth.

When Trump speaks to the United Nations he’s speaking to white and black nations and white and black peoples alike, and since most of the nations of the world are relatively poor, American liberals associate this lack of wealth with a dark skin color. Again, it’s just the truth.

Therefore, when Trump, a white, wealthy man in a predominantly white, wealthy nation, speaks in plain, bold terms to the world via a U.N. speech, American liberals see a white man lecturing black people. It is what it is, and liberals are what they are.

So the truth of what President Trump says, and the fact that there are not only black and white nations listening and being spoken to by his speech, but also Latin, Arab and Oriental/Asian audiences, leaves American liberals gasping about their favorite subjects, racism and Trump-hating, and they totally miss the point that the United States is just one of many nations, and that under President Trump America will no longer apologize for our wealth and we will insist upon getting the respect and consideration that all nations deserve, even though that respect has been denied this great nation that last eight years under an administration that traitorously swore to “fundamentally transform America“.

As a message of friendship and enlightenment to liberals I’d like to borrow from and reformat a phrase from  Bob Dylan: “The times, they have changed“. Get used to it.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

No Destroyed Statue Ever Fed A Hungry Child

Bill Clinton was famous for his ability to deflect criticism of his policies and actions by righteously and loudly proclaiming that the heated words from his opponent would not feed a hungry child.

In that vein, I’d like to attempt to use his tried-and-true practice and remind those on the destructive left that they waste money and time tearing down confederate statues instead of providing money for food to feed hungry children.

On one hand if hundred-year-old statues are the greatest threat to the nation and to the residents living in the neighborhoods in which they are displayed, then life in America is pretty comfortable and sweet on that basis.

On the other hand the statue destroyers’ time and money would be better spent by eradicating hunger and ignorance in America.  But the reference to ignorance is directed at the people tearing public statues down, so I fear this message will fall on deaf, and likely ignorant and unhearing, ears.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Name-Calling From The Left

In the Soviet Union the Stalinists called their enemies revisionists, capitalists and hoarders in order to brand them and create an atmosphere of negativism against people who just wanted to live their lives peacefully and have a little prosperity and happiness along the way. In current-day America, our leftist Democrats and their wholly-owned news agencies call their enemies “deniers” and “white supremacists”.

In both the Soviet Union and today’s America the name-callers knew that their enemies were neither hoarders nor white supremacists, but people on the left must label their political opponents with abusive names, and then demonize their enemies in order to defeat them. The necessity to name-call and demonize accompanies and precedes the left’s reversion to violence, which follows quickly when their enemies will not give in to their demands.

Americans can be very thankful that Hillary Clinton was not elected president last November or the American left would have taken the next step beyond name-calling and physically beating their rivals, and they would already have put their political enemies in jail in order to get rid of them and their insistence on the government being run under the guidance of an honest press and our constitution. By way of giving an example of what might have happened if Hillary had won last year’s election, Donald Trump and his family would have already been accused of treason and have been judged to be guilty by all of the forces aligned against them on the left. And if Hillary were in charge of the Justice Department you can bet Trump would be in jail right now. And what was the charge against Trump: collusion with Vladimir Putin to defeat Hillary and her run for the presidency, a charge that has fallen flat on its face after months of dedicated and intense investigation by thousands of leftists and a special council.

The left will listen to no defense to the evil “white supremacists” charge (remember that it’s the seriousness of the charge that convicts people in the opinion of Democrats, not the evidence or provable facts) because Democrats assume their own purity and righteousness, so the impure must be made to suffer.

Fear of the political left is completely justified because the left is serious when they say they want global warming deniers in jail, and when senatorial committees interrogating presidential appointees persecute the appointees by criticizing them for strongly held religious principles that Americans have always thought made a better person. But in today’s left-leaning America religion makes them bad people who are accused of racist deeds and intents and are judged to be unqualified for public service  in the current administration. The general rule of Democrats is that Christianity is a bad practice and all people who subscribe to it must be removed from positions of power.

Democrats and leftist news agencies are dangerous, and are a threat to the future welfare of Americans and to the United States of America.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Liberal Senate’s Judicial Nominee Religious Test

There was a time in America when attending church and abiding by the practices and teachings of a religion were qualities that were respected and looked up to by everyone, and it spoke well for those seeking pubic office and was widely thought to be a natural stepping stone in a public career and for someone seeking a seat on a federal court.

But that was a more reasonable time when substantive things mattered and reasonable politicians were deciding who our future judges would be. During the previous administration, Barack Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court simply because she had a “non-traditional” background and upbringing and because she stressed and supported liberal causes, completely ignoring whether she formed good, constitutionally sound opinions on her previous bench appointments and whether or not she would serve the welfare of America and the constitution in her future decisions. But let a more traditional, non-leftist appointee be nominated to the bench and the liberals on the Senate Judiciary Committee lose their minds.

Amy Barrett, a distinguished law professor at Notre Dame, has been appointed by President Trump to a vacant seat on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee could not contain themselves from getting very personal and suggesting that Professor Barrett was not a good candidate for the open position because she is a practicing Catholic, and we all know that religion, especially Christianity, is a massive target that all liberal politicians like to take pot-shots at. One strongly suspects that since Ms Barrett is a Catholic, her probable stand on abortion was the grievous sin that the liberal Senators were trying to criticize without actually having to say it. The current officially approved preference for liberal Democrats is to abort babies, not birth them.

Democrats have a lot of nerve stating that Catholics would be bad for the court because they may bring their religion to the bench (one remembers clearly when some Americans said the same thing about the presidency when John Kennedy, himself a Catholic, was running for the White House), especially since each of these smug Democrats represent the most narrow-minded, closed-minded, prejudiced people in the nation. So now liberals are suggesting a Judicial litmus test for making judicial appointments.

Maybe in the future patriotic, non-leftist Senators on the Judiciary Committee should make it a parallel litmus rest to reject any female judicial appointee who had actually had an abortion or had given money to Planned Parenthood, along with any male appointee who does not attend a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue regularly. Applying a litmus test of any kind has been specifically forbidden by leftist politicians for many decades, until their own anti-American and anti-constitutional schemes are at stake, then they’ll apply any off-the-wall argument to gain or retain power and influence, and in the current case of Donald Trump’s current appointee to a vacant Circuit Court position, they’ll happily and proudly defame, insult and reject the good lady being considered. And that’s how America’s radical, leftist, establishment politicians demonstrate their own religion of diversity.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

ANTIFA Is The Modern-Day Democrat KKK

What is the difference between the old Democrat, hooded, fire-bombing KKK and today’s hooded, fire bombing ANTIFA? Not much!

Both are hate-filled, leftist, evil people, and good Democrats. Oh, the hoods of the KKK were white and today’s KKK rebirth wears black hoods. And the fire of the KKK was from torches, whereas ANTIFA uses a Bic lighter, but both groups were/are Democrat leftist groups who do not believe in the constitution of the United States and who have no respect for private property nor a citizen’s right to private expression.

One wonders at the bravery and conviction of the KKK/ANTIFA cause; a bunch of thugs who have to hide behind masks and hoods and who burn property and beat people who have differing views from themselves, without having to, or, one suspects, even being able to, fully and logically explain and justify their violent actions and destructive positions.

The KKK did their evil deeds based on emotion and hatred of people different from themselves, and today’s ANTIFA do their evil deeds based on hate and a steady income from the Democrat Party, which has for a long time hired unemployed union members and out-of-work derelicts to threaten, beat people and burn things, and most recently to cause trouble for anyone involved in the Trump presidential campaign or any person who is a supporter of President Trump’s administration.

Hoods are hoods and violence is violence, no matter how close they are to Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Democrat underground. And in fact these ladies are the enablers of domestic destruction and terrorist actions via their bought-and-paid-for ANTIFA terrorist organization.

On the terrorist front, which is worse and more threatening to America: ANTIFA or ISIS? Good question.

Friday, September 15, 2017

And The Winner By Default: Donald Trump

American citizens who in the past have traditionally voted Democrat, helped elect Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016, and now these former Democrat voters hate the Democrat party and its politicians for being such hard-core, violent, unconstitutional, leftists; and Republicans who voted their party into the majority in the national legislature and who voted for Trump to be president, now hate the Republican legislature for not helping Trump implement his policies as he promised to do.

So when Democrats get mad at their party officials and Republicans get mad at their legislators for turning their backs on President Trump, who is the winner?

Donald J. Trump is the easy winner!.

This is a turn of events that was totally unforeseen last November, and we see the game being played out in completely nontraditional twists and turns.

Non-political people of all stripes trust Donald Trump to do the right thing because he’s honest, he speaks his mind and is not part of the much distrusted DC establishment, and because of his non-political background and his business success. The American people know they have a president they can depend on to move the nation forward and not stick us with more of the big government crap that Obama shoved down our throats and that Hillary would have crammed even harder down the national gullet if she had been elected.

And as far as the Democrat circus act of Chuck and Nancy, no one trusts these fool talking heads and everyone knows that Trump can be trusted to give them just so much leeway to push their leftist, failed ideas on the nation before he pulls them up short and casts them aside when he’s through using them and the legislative votes they can bring to the fore.

Go Donald!

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Democrats Use A Trojan Donkey To Get Inside The Gates

Just as the Greeks used the offer of a Trojan Horse to get into Troy and defeat it, so do the Democrats use their own sort-of horse, their Trojan Donkey, to gain access to our electoral system in order to compete for power and attempt to destroy our entire electoral/economic system.

Our open and free form of government assumes that a politician will be patriotic and play by the rules in order to get elected to an official position, but today’s Democrat Party recognizes and abides by no known rules in their desperate quest for absolute power, and no tactic is too miserably low-life that they won’t use it for their own reward and personal power.

Democracy bestows many benefits on winners of elections, but more importantly democracy requires a certain level of restraint and honesty for it to endure for an extended period of time. So the lies that have been told about Trump, the tactics of violence and intimidation used by the Democrats during the following the latest election, followed by the claims of rampant racism launched at Trump and Republicans, not to mention the lie that Trump colluded with Russia to win the last election, are too much of a nasty set of tactics for Americans to just chalk it up to “politics as usual” and look the other way.

Just as the Greeks used the gift horse to get into the city of Troy and destroy it, so the current-day Democrats use the vehicle of their donkey and the one-time prestige of the Democrat party to get into the game of electing a legislator and a president, but they undermine the meaning of the party when they lie and defame their way into elected office.

American citizens recognize the un-American tactics and policies of the Democrat Party and they reject these people and their false and phony principles. So far, during the latest election cycle, Americans have been denying Democrats elections to political office, thereby keeping them outside the gates of our precious Troy. One only hopes this trend continues.

The Rich Will Not Benefit From Trump’s Tax Plan? Why Not?

One hears news reports that the rich will not get any relief under the new proposed tax bill of President Trump. Given the proclivity to lie on the part of those who give us our news reports, one should reserve judgment and not get too excited when we hear initial reports of what’s going on in Washington. But a little advance consideration of what we’re hearing can’t hurt.

Discrimination and prejudice are wrong whether the injured party is rich or poor. So how can the rich be discriminated against with Trump’s new tax plan? Have the rich done something wrong that keeps them from enjoying the same benefits as the rest of the nation? Are they being punished for working longer and harder than people making less money or for the purely chance happening that they inherited their wealth? These don’t seem to me to be adequate reasons to deny them equality under the law, and it appears to be contrary to all that Americans hold dear that the federal government would write a law that treated the rich as though they were second class citizens.

And what exactly is it that makes a person “rich” anyway? One may recall that the Clinton/Gore administration determined that a person making $50,000 a year was “rich” by using the flawed logic that in 20 years that person would have made a million dollars, so therefore they are rich while making $50,000 annually, which is typical liberal illogic.

It’s highly likely that many Americans making $50,000 to $80,000 a year would consider the senators and congressmen, the people deciding what is rich and what is poor, as being rich themselves, and I will predict right now that our dear legislators will define the borderline where being rich begins and above which level no tax benefits will accrue, to be well above their rather inflated salaries. And it’s a certainty that the cable news talking heads making six-figure salaries and demanding that the rich not be allowed to benefit from any new tax law, do not consider themselves to be rich.

And as a spark to the economy, consider that if the already-rich were allowed to get a tax break from any new law, they would possibly buy a new yacht or a new jet and get rid of the old model, and that new purchase would create a well-paying job for a union member or a private builder, and this additional expenditure by a rich person would benefit all Americans as more jobs were created.

If the richest and most influential people in the nation can’t get equal treatment under the new law, what about the rest of us poor slobs with no influence and no ability to buy the attention of our legislators in DC? What will we do in a year or two when congress drops the hammer on us and raises our taxes? We won’t stand a chance of getting an even break. Therefore, all Americans must be treated equally.

The discussion above is based on what is being reported by our news sources as the plan being developed for tax relief in America. One hopes this information is wrong and that all Americans are treated equally and with respect, because the whole idea behind the proposal of tax relief is to allow the citizens of America to be able to keep more of the money they earn so they can spend their earnings on themselves and their families, thereby sending less of their hard-earned money to the big government swamp in DC to be wasted by the big-spending officials there.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

No More Good Guys and Bad Guys, Just “Other” Guys

With the presidency of Donald Trump the entire American political landscape has become foggy and uncertain. As Trump tries to get his own Republicans to stand with him against the radical and unconstitutional moves of Democrats and the Obama administration, he’s had to side with Democrats in order to keep things moving in the hurricane- and immigration-filled world he has inherited, and don’t forget the nuclear threat of North Korea and Iran looming on the horizon that Trump is also having to deal with, after eight years of Obama kicking this particular can down the road.

We can thank all we hold dear that Donald Trump is in office as all of these emergencies demand attention, because we know that he will address each one without making an unconstitutional mess of things and by not letting a “crisis to go waste” by politicizing it, as the Democrats always do with any crisis. But President Trump is setting a course that is without political parallel, and, if continued, will establish a trend, if not a precedent, for a president to do the right thing with little or no consideration for the political ramifications of his decisions.

Under Donald Trump the Republicans have become the bad guys for their inability to do the things they promised to do legislatively, and for not helping Trump do the things he has promised to do as president, and then he commits the forbidden action of making nice with the Democrats and helping them push their ideas. Although this niceness to Schumer and Pelosi seems to be a dangerous political thing to do, keep in mind that the Democrat party is in the process of crumbling and that the leftists don’t like the idea of Chuck and Nancy dealing with Trump any more than conservatives like to see Trump making nice with the leaders on the left, but the entire political scene in America has been so misshapen the last eight years that there is no clear vision of where we are going as a nation.

Is Trump taking us on a psychedelic trip by dumping party affiliation as we’ve known it the last 100-plus years, or is he leading us to a three party system with Democrats and Republicans both in the descendancy? With the advent of the anti-establishment Trump administration we’ve seen the idea of the Republicans being the “good guys” in a Republican presidency and the Democrats being considered the “bad guys”, being turned on its head as the entrenched parties behave so as to protect and advance their swamp-like powers.

Beyond this point politicians are just playing it by ear, and we’ll see where the nation goes in a totally new political world. Hang on; this may be quite a ride we’re about to take.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

When Confederate Monuments Are All Gone What Will Be Next?

With the liberal Democrat concentration on imagined hate and symbolism, once they have torn down the statues of confederate soldiers, including the idiocy of punishing living persons for having the same name as a confederate soldier, or for condemning a horse because it has the same name as a confederate soldier’s horse, what’s  next?

With liberals there is always a next move. They are never satisfied and their demands never end, especially when their former demands have been met by people too innocent and na├»ve to push back against the liberal onslaught and insistence for change and progressive government control over our lives. Liberals have taken the sensible prohibition of smoking cigarettes on long airline flights and expanded it to the stupidity of  banning smoking in our own homes. So, with this tendency to overreach, it seems logical that the next concentration of hate for leftists, after all of the statues and monuments are gone, is to attack the descendents of former confederate soldiers, whether the confederate was a general or just a farmer defending his home and family against the Union Army advances. Such an effort may well be called lynching by lineage.

One fears a new, modern-day inquisition will be waged by liberals when they begin demonizing people with the same last name of southern heroes and soldiers. And don’t discount liberals going after descendents of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson: these descendents will be identified by their current-day names and condemned to be criminals for the acts of their forebears. But who does not share a first or last name with a confederate soldier, even if there is no traceable family tie?

And what about the leftist lie that Christians are to blame for the wars the world has fought and for the suffering and slavery practiced in the past (the left is too consumed with hate and too busy blaming current America for all of the ills of the world to worry about actual slavery occurring in predominantly black Africa and the dark-skinned Arabic world, but to expose these areas where people still suffer under slavery would be a racist act in the minds of liberals, so they don’t even mention them, let alone try to put a stop to the continued practice of slavery) .

So, with people of religion in liberals’ sites, are Christians and Jews the future group to be attacked and have their monuments torn down because of liberal insanity and their assignment of blame to religion for the ills of the world? We’ve already seen  the forced removal of the Ten Commandments inscription from an American courtroom and the destruction of a hilltop cross in California commemorating persons who died at war for America, so the movement has already begun.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

The Difference Between Trump‘s “MAGA” And Just Plain “MAG”

The final “A” in MAGA (for Make America Great Again) could possibly be an alienating thing for some people, especially liberals, never-Trumpers and Democrats, because it strongly infers that Obama and his policy to “fundamentally transform America” didn’t agree that America was ever great and that he distorted and undermined the things that most Americans considered to be the greatness of America, a greatness that liberals will never admit ever existed. After all, Obama stated his policy of transforming America very succinctly, and moved ahead with numerous policies and executive orders that were clearly contrary to the constitution and established law. So it seems natural that the average person would assume that Obama meant that America was never great in the first place, or that his administration would end the greatness that conservatives assumed and celebrated, and go another direction with his radical left ideas. Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America”  was shoved smack in the faces of all Americans as he swore to take America down and rip it apart to reach the radical ends that he and his mentors had always envisioned.

But perhaps, in order to assure national unity, the negative interpretation some Americans see in the final “A” of  MAGA should be downplayed so as to minimize the hurt feelings of those who did not vote for Donald Trump.

Maybe Trump’s acronym should be just plain MAG, as in, simply, Make America Great, and perhaps this revision of Trump’s motto would allow Democrats to join President Trump’s promise to put America and its ideas of liberty, freedom and prosperity back on a pedestal and get rid of the radical leftist notions of the government controlling the lives and futures of American citizens.

One hopes that all Americans will support the idea of Making America Great so our children and grandchildren can live in a free and wealthy nation. But, as one who lived and suffered through Barack Osama’s “fundamental transformation of America“ and recalls the prosperity, wealth and national unity that existed prior to the radical Democrat Obama destroying these things, I prefer the motto of Making American Great, Again, but I‘m willing to bend a little if it will bring more people on-board Trump‘s smooth-running train to a better tomorrow for all Americans.

Furthermore, considering Trump’s motto in a bit more depth, for conservatives to agree to drop the final “A” is confirmation that the Obama administration did actually end the former greatness of America and that we‘re now having to start all over, again, to recapture that greatness, so this omission should not be too painful.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Do Hugs And Hand-Holding Save Lives And Repair Homes?

No matter how quickly President Trump responds to a disaster like hurricane Harvey; no matter how much federal aid President Trump gives to those unfortunate people suffering in the Houston area; no matter how much praise the local officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, dealing with the hurricane destruction in Texas, give to Trump for the quick and professional emergency assistance he’s given them, his petty, liberal, Democrat detractors are now criticizing him for not giving enough hugs, for not holding enough hands and for not emoting sufficiently with the victims of this disaster.

And, of course, right on the heels of this criticism that he is not being out-front and personal enough with those people who are suffering, is the opposite criticism that he is concentrating too much attention on himself and not being impersonal enough and letting the victims take the forefront of attention. Even in the face of a disaster of unseen proportions that this hurricane has produced, liberals can’t set aside their hate of Donald Trump and appreciate the emergency assistance the federal government has provided. It’s a certainty that if Trump had not gone to the devastated area and had not met with local officials and given the help that he has indeed provided, that liberal Democrats would be wailing and moaning about how unfeeling and insensitive Trump was in this hour of need. But the partisan, political attacks on Trump are always there, the Democrats just change the words to fit the current circumstance.

When Trump announced that he would personally donate a million dollars of his own money to help the locals provide relief, liberals could have taken this as a personal “hug” of sorts, but instead they claimed that Trump was only thinking of himself, that he was trying to up-stage the people suffering in Texas and that he was placing his wealth before the welfare of the hurricane victims. But the snotty, petty and bitchy negative statements of a female CNN reporter about the “inappropriate” shoes that Melania Trump wore as she boarded Air Force One while accompanying Trump to Texas for their first visit there, is beyond explanation or understanding. Hillary informed us that an attack on one woman was an attack on all women, so has the CNN reporter apologized to the women of America for her attack on them, via Melania Trump?  One would be ill-advised to hold one’s breath awaiting the apology.

Trump-hating is destroying Democrats. What saves lives and repairs flooded homes is not hugs nor hand-holding nor childish comments about the First Lady’s shoes, it’s quick, decisive action, and that’s what President Trump is good at, and that’s what he’s been providing and will continue to provide.

Trump Gets Rid Of Another Of Obama’s Bad Ideas

Now the left is all exercised with President Trump because he has declared that he will end the ban that Obama placed on giving military-grade weapons to local police forces to fight crime. It’s almost as though if Obama issued a bad, injurious executive order, that each and all subsequent presidents must worship the edict and no one would be permitted to rescind it.

The phony reason given by Obama to justify this failed decision to withhold weapons from police forces that must daily fight violent criminals, a decision that denied heavier firepower to local police forces across the country, was that the use of heavier weapons by the police might offend and be considered a threat to local residents. But what our lame-brained, radical, police-hating former president did not even consider is that the denial of heavier weapons might also get police officers killed by better-armed criminals.

But the idea that local residents would be offended by these weapons in the hands of police is just another in a series of Obama‘s bald-faced lies; the only people offended by the use of such weapons would be criminals who would no longer be able to out-shoot the police while defending the local residents who Obama claimed would be offended with their use. The local police forces already carry pistols and shotguns that can kill if discharged, so what is there to be offended about if the police also possess more deadly weapons needed to fight today’s better-armed criminals?

The truth of Obama’s issuing this idiotic order is that our former president was best pals with the Black Lives Matter terror group, who were party to the random assassination of police officers while he was in office, and he just bought their favor by limiting the killing ability of the withheld weapons compared to what potential criminals like themselves might carry.

For many years, America’s police forces have encountered criminals who have much more powerful weapons than the police forces have, and many police officers have lost their lives trying to combat a criminal force that had superior weapons. These new weapons will not only help police officers defend themselves, but will also allow them to better protect the citizens they serve.

Friday, September 1, 2017

How Must Poor Barack Obama Feel Now?

One has to have compassion for our beleaguered and ill-treated former president for the way events have developed since he left the White House. Under Donald Trump many things have improved greatly, and in a relatively short period of time. Let’s review a few of the areas where Obama could have done good things, but because of his radical, ultra-leftist, anti-America beliefs, he instead did very bad things:

The economy has surged. Illegal immigration has dropped dramatically. Sanctuary cities are in trouble and could lose federal money if they continue to break the law. Police officers are no longer being assassinated on a nearly daily basis. The lying press is being challenged for the lies they tell by our new and energetic president. North Korea has the inevitable nuclear weapons that Obama permitted them to develop, but President Trump is standing up to them in a manly, presidential manner. Iran is working to become the next nuclear threat, following in North Korea’s foot steps and with the billions of dollars Obama gave them. Obamacare’s failure and demise is now admitted by nearly all Democrats, and they are waiting for Trump to fix it and in doing so, save their butts for enacting it in the first place. The Paris Accords are history. Progress is being made against ISIS now that the rules of engagement have been revised by Donald Trump to allow military personnel to be able to fight without having their hands tied behind their backs. Even Democrat, hack, talking heads like Nancy Pelosi are condemning the ultra left ANTIFA/ Occupy Wall Street groups for the violence and destruction they create and commit.

I have no doubt that our Barry feels great about the diminished America he left behind. After all, he swore to “fundamentally transform America”, and he did exactly that. So what is there for him to regret? Not a whole lot.

Well, one area he would still love to be around for: the Houston hurricane destruction would be the perfect platform for him to strut around and pretend to show compassion and concern, and he would love to be in camera range so he could be photographed as he hugged and cried with the victims of the flooding and got the praise and admiration of the fawning press.

Charlie Hebdo: From “Je Suis Charlie” To “Je Suis Stupide”

When terrorists attacked a Charlie Hebdo office in Paris in 2015 Americans felt their pain and responded with outrage and sympathy for our French brothers and sisters. But now that Texas is suffering, the folks at Charlie are mocking this misery and calling Texans hurtful and untrue names.

Americans could have rubbed French noses in the fact that their own gun-restriction laws allowed the armed terrorists to attack Hebdo without penalty and continue the attack for an extended period of time, and their own national thoughtlessness at allowing people from known terrorist nations settle in France with no proper vetting left them open to the vicious terrorist attack. Americans did not take the route of mocking the killings in Paris and Nice and at the Charlie offices as being their due at leaving themselves defenseless to such attacks, but, typical of the Frogs, they attack Texans for the lie that Texas is racist and full of Nazis.

The suffering in Texas at the moment is from a naturally-occurring storm, not from ignorantly leaving ourselves open to a predictable attack from people who have sworn to kill us in our own nation. The drowning Nazi pictures are a little over the top given the lives of Americans who served in WWII ridding France of real Nazis.

But liberals, whether French or American, are so predictable. After months of our own stupid liberal Democrats claiming that Republicans and Donald Trump are racists, and then blaming this fantasy of racism for all of the evils left behind by the Obama administration, now the Hebdo people are joining the anti-American left and associating the lie of racism with the destruction of an American city, and are blaming the Texas victims for the force of nature that actually did the destruction.

Have the French not seen the mainly white National Guard and the mainly white volunteers from the Cajun Navy risking their own lives and safety and spending their own money to help and rescue the largely black and minority Texas citizens who are suffering and need help? Where is the sanity and sense of fair play from the heroes of Hebdo?

And where do the idiot leftists, American and French alike, get their racist/Nazi crap from when referring to Texan Americans, anyway? Did Americans rag on the Hebdo people at the time of their misery and bring up the Algerian situation that could have easily been used against France as a reason for the Muslim attack on their offices? But when America is in trouble we are dumped on with vigor and glee. The Charlie Hebdo employees have to have visited Texas as some point and they have to know that Texans, although  they may be larger than life with their boots and hats and their big cars, are not racists and bigots. Today’s Texans are the same people whose forebears are buried at cemeteries lining the coastal areas of France and who died trying to rid France of the Nazism that had already defeated the French Army in WWII. So it’s hurtful to be called a Nazi when America, and many Texans, were pivotal in getting rid of real Nazis who occupied much of Europe, and all of France, during World War II.

This gratuitous attack on Texas is truly “stupide”, and it hurts.