One will recall the 1980s when liberals thought the Soviet Union was the wave of the future and that Communism would dominate over America’s evil and unjust Capitalism. Democrats thought it was their party’s duty to help the Soviets in their attempts to destroy America. In fact, Ted Kennedy even took a secret trip to Moscow and met with Russian officials in an attempt to undermine President Ronald Reagan’s policies to rid the world of Communism and liberate the suffering people trapped behind the Iron Curtain in Russia and other Soviet Block countries. Unfortunately for America’s Soviet-loving Democrat party, but fortunately for the rest of the world, the Soviet Union collapsed and America became even stronger as our Capitalism proved its value in making our nation wealthy and keeping Americans free.
Now, because Donald Trump is in the White House and liberals think they have a chance to get rid of him with their ridiculous collusion investigation, the Democrat party has flip-flopped and now insists that Russia is the modern-day evil power in the world, even though Barack Obama scolded Mitt Romney in a 2012 presidential debate for suggesting just this very notion, of Russia being an evil, dangerous threat to America. In fact Obama thought so favorably of Russia and of its dictator, Vladimir Putin, that he was recorded on an open mic as he met secretly with Putin and begged Putin to allow him time to get re-elected and then they could work together to achieve Putin’s ends. If this isn’t an example of Russian collusion, I don’t know what is.
And now, following the liberal flip-flop on Russia, America’s liberals are beginning to pivot from wearing China’s Chairman Mao T-shirts and waving Mao’s Little Red Book, both of which John Lennon told us were indicators of wisdom and enlightenment in the 1970s, and liberals are now beginning to criticize the Chinese and their totalitarian Communist nationalized prison camp, mostly because President Trump is attempting to use China as a wedge against North Korea, whom liberals apparently still love.
One even wonders at the liberal adoration for Kim Jong-Un’s sister as she attended the Winter Olympics a few weeks ago in South Korea. Was that expression of fondness for the sister of the murderer in control of North Korea any indication of, and the result of, their anti-Trump leanings, as our president tries to protect America from the nuclear development and the direct, in-our-face threat of a nuclear attack, that is coming from the North Korean dictator?
If trends continue in their current vein, and if President Trump does have a plan for peace in the Middle East that is successful, our liberal press will have to start expressing adoration for ISIS and the Syrian president who, wholesale, gases and bombs his own citizens, and liberals may soon have to make excuses for ISIS’s beheadings and drownings. And can it be far off that the former socialist hero, Hugo Chavez, is criticized as Venezuela drowns in a pile of human destruction begun by that demented ruler, and whose policies are continuing to starve Venezuelans today via a series of totalitarian, socialist despots? Senator Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist, but his silence at the horror going on in Venezuela, by fellow socialists, might well be taken as his approval with the current dictatorial government there.
And can the Castro brothers continue to be the heroes that Barack Obama and the American left made them out to be, while Donald Trump is in office? And one wonders about the American left’s love affair with Che Guevara; what happens to that love when American liberals discover that Che killed every Central American peasant who rejected and tried to oppose his taking their land for his own personal profit?
And finally, liberals are beginning to turn their backs on Communist Viet Nam, which was heroically depicted by liberals as a haven for freedom and liberty in the 1970s when America was fighting there to overthrow the Communists in the north. A possible reason for the seeming backing-off of American liberal love for Viet Nam has occurred as President Trump begins to normalize relations with Viet Nam by allowing our naval vessels to take R&R leave-time there, hoping to get Viet Nam’s assistance to put more pressure on China to control the excesses of Rocket-Boy in North Korea. As America grows closer to Viet Nam, the American left sees less heroism in that country and the attraction dims as President Trump becomes more friendly.
The old quip is true: If liberal Democrats didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all. But it’s become frightfully evident that those standards swing and revolve in the wind generated by the dynamic Trump presidency.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Mueller Casts About Further Afield, While Hillary Is Grand Jury-Ready
What the hell is Jeff Sessions waiting for? After over a year of intensive digging by non-Republican investigators, there has been no evidence of collusion with Russia on Trump’s part, while on the other side of the aisle, the former FBI Director, James Comey, prior to the 2016 presidential election, meticulously listed, for public consumption, the evidence that the FBI, in the Barack Obama administration no less, had accumulated against Hillary and her email corruption.
It appears that Mueller’s only intention is to cause all of Trump’s team and supporters to run from him for fear of being charged with things completely unrelated to the Trump candidacy or presidency, and hopefully get them to spill the beans on some obscure misstep that the Trump candidacy took.
This must stop, now! Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sitting on the Hillary investigation which was performed, I repeat, under the Democrat administration of Barack Obama, and all Sessions has to do is present the Obama administration’s evidence to a Grand Jury and see how they behave. That would be justice.
But justice is not being served by beating the dead horse that Mueller continues to try to get evidence from, while a mountain of evidence could put Hillary away for life, and Sessions would be able to attribute the investigation, the evidence, and the freedom that Hillary had to expose critically important, classified documents to our national enemies, to guess who? Barack Insane Obama and his slack, anti-American presidency.
It appears that Mueller’s only intention is to cause all of Trump’s team and supporters to run from him for fear of being charged with things completely unrelated to the Trump candidacy or presidency, and hopefully get them to spill the beans on some obscure misstep that the Trump candidacy took.
This must stop, now! Attorney General Jeff Sessions is sitting on the Hillary investigation which was performed, I repeat, under the Democrat administration of Barack Obama, and all Sessions has to do is present the Obama administration’s evidence to a Grand Jury and see how they behave. That would be justice.
But justice is not being served by beating the dead horse that Mueller continues to try to get evidence from, while a mountain of evidence could put Hillary away for life, and Sessions would be able to attribute the investigation, the evidence, and the freedom that Hillary had to expose critically important, classified documents to our national enemies, to guess who? Barack Insane Obama and his slack, anti-American presidency.
Monday, March 5, 2018
One Hopes The Mayor Of Oakland, California Looks Good In Orange
I hope that the commanding officers in ICE, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement organization responsible for enforcing laws related to criminals who may be in America illegally, and especially those illegals who are here illegally and are committing further crimes as they enjoy sanctuary in liberal-run cities across America, are keeping close tabs on the 800-plus persons who escaped capture during an ICE raid last week in California, capturing only 200 of the one thousand persons identified as dangerous and hiding in the garden spot of Oakland.
If ICE officials are serious about rounding up bad guys and making an example of sanctuary cities’ self righteous, pompous mayors and governors who are developing quite a lot of entertainment and enjoyment from helping criminals avoid punishment, they’ll track the criminals whose escape was enabled because they were fore-warned of the ICE raid(s) by Libby Schaff, the mayor of Oakland.
When the 800 violent criminals who escaped capture last week are finally rounded up and if it’s determined that additional violent crimes were committed by these people following Mayor Schaff’s public warning to her criminal “citizens” that allowed them to escape, this woman must be locked up and put in jail herself, as aiding and abetting the crimes and human suffering that she helped the escapees to inflict on people elsewhere in California, as they ran to avoid capture by ICE .
It will be a pleasure to watch this deranged lady frog-walked, cuffed, in an orange jump suit, to a waiting van, and taken to jail for colluding with criminals and joining the criminals she helped escape, in their prosecution and their jail-time punishment.
Then we can move to the governor of California, the mayor of San Francisco and the mayor of Chicago and start enforcing our laws for a change. Liberals are too dumb to know that they must obey the laws like the rest of us, so they need examples to show them what happens to law-breakers, and Libby Schaff is a good place to start.
If ICE officials are serious about rounding up bad guys and making an example of sanctuary cities’ self righteous, pompous mayors and governors who are developing quite a lot of entertainment and enjoyment from helping criminals avoid punishment, they’ll track the criminals whose escape was enabled because they were fore-warned of the ICE raid(s) by Libby Schaff, the mayor of Oakland.
When the 800 violent criminals who escaped capture last week are finally rounded up and if it’s determined that additional violent crimes were committed by these people following Mayor Schaff’s public warning to her criminal “citizens” that allowed them to escape, this woman must be locked up and put in jail herself, as aiding and abetting the crimes and human suffering that she helped the escapees to inflict on people elsewhere in California, as they ran to avoid capture by ICE .
It will be a pleasure to watch this deranged lady frog-walked, cuffed, in an orange jump suit, to a waiting van, and taken to jail for colluding with criminals and joining the criminals she helped escape, in their prosecution and their jail-time punishment.
Then we can move to the governor of California, the mayor of San Francisco and the mayor of Chicago and start enforcing our laws for a change. Liberals are too dumb to know that they must obey the laws like the rest of us, so they need examples to show them what happens to law-breakers, and Libby Schaff is a good place to start.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Oh My, How The Democrats Doth Fret And Worry So.
The day after President Trump mentioned, just mentioned in passing, that he is thinking of imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum coming into our country from abroad, which is pretty much what he promised to do during the campaign of 2016, the Fake News media and the rest of the Democrat party began wringing their hands about the extra cost of a tin can of soup that this proposal will cause and how much a can of Coke or Pepsi will increase with Trump’s loose and faltering hand on the tiller of state. To hear the liberals complain, you’d think that the world was coming to an end. If Trump does indeed impose such a tax on the two metals listed it will make prices on some items go up, but it will also allow steel and aluminum mills to stay open and employ Americans working in industries that are now going broke due to cheap, subsidized metals coming from abroad.
And isn’t it strange that the Democrats aren’t looking at the issue from the perspective of the American labor unions, which are firmly in the left’s back pocket. Even when a Republican proposal will benefit their own Democrat supporters and voters, they are of such a hate-Trump attitude that they will bite the hand trying to help them. This effort by President Trump will maintain or increase levels of employment for labor inions, but the Democrat party is so baffled with Trump and made so deranged by his undoing of the Obama legacy that they will strongly oppose it.
But left out of the radical leftists’ prediction about the possible increased costs of steel and aluminum products, is any comparison to the costs to every American, and generations of Americans into the foreseeable future, of the doubling of the national debt that the Obama administration oversaw during its eight years of borrow and spend. The costs in future taxes will be enormous even if interest rates remain flat, but if interest rates increase our nation could be drowned in increased taxation resulting from the Obama administration’s borrow, giveaway and spend scheme that doubled the national debt.
And another thing the leftist press never worried about under the Obama administration was the increased costs and the lowering of health standards that accompanied Obamacare. The ACA bill granted socialized medicine to the pals of Obama’s socialist, radical administration, but the increased deductibles and premiums nearly bankrupt many good, hard-working, independent, tax paying Americans who had been self-insuring up to that point at a price they could afford for the coverage they wanted.
Also left out of any Democrat criticism of President Trump is his lowering of taxes on working Americans, his booming economy, his lower unemployment rate and the rising stock market he has overseen in his first year in office. Even as Democrats see their 401(K)s and IRAs, breaking records of profit, all of which are attributable to President Trump, they do nothing but heap abuse on him with every breath he draws.
And isn’t it strange that the Democrats aren’t looking at the issue from the perspective of the American labor unions, which are firmly in the left’s back pocket. Even when a Republican proposal will benefit their own Democrat supporters and voters, they are of such a hate-Trump attitude that they will bite the hand trying to help them. This effort by President Trump will maintain or increase levels of employment for labor inions, but the Democrat party is so baffled with Trump and made so deranged by his undoing of the Obama legacy that they will strongly oppose it.
But left out of the radical leftists’ prediction about the possible increased costs of steel and aluminum products, is any comparison to the costs to every American, and generations of Americans into the foreseeable future, of the doubling of the national debt that the Obama administration oversaw during its eight years of borrow and spend. The costs in future taxes will be enormous even if interest rates remain flat, but if interest rates increase our nation could be drowned in increased taxation resulting from the Obama administration’s borrow, giveaway and spend scheme that doubled the national debt.
And another thing the leftist press never worried about under the Obama administration was the increased costs and the lowering of health standards that accompanied Obamacare. The ACA bill granted socialized medicine to the pals of Obama’s socialist, radical administration, but the increased deductibles and premiums nearly bankrupt many good, hard-working, independent, tax paying Americans who had been self-insuring up to that point at a price they could afford for the coverage they wanted.
Also left out of any Democrat criticism of President Trump is his lowering of taxes on working Americans, his booming economy, his lower unemployment rate and the rising stock market he has overseen in his first year in office. Even as Democrats see their 401(K)s and IRAs, breaking records of profit, all of which are attributable to President Trump, they do nothing but heap abuse on him with every breath he draws.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Is Discrimination Based On Age Really Discrimination In Any Traditional Sense?
In our everyday lives Americans have become used to speaking of discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, skin color or sex as being a bad thing that should be avoided, but we’re not in agreement that keeping young people from doing certain things that we think only older people should do is to be called “discrimination“. We have, instead. thought of those limitations on youth from the perspective of a parent and as a way of protecting our children until their bodies, minds and emotions could mature to a point where they could make “adult” decisions and accept the risks accompanying those decisions.
The young man who bought and used the rifle that killed 17 students at the Parkland high school was 19 years old when he did the shooting, and younger than that when he bought the rifle. Understanding the immaturity and tendency to act and react emotionally at such a young age, is it really “discrimination” to prohibit a person under 21 years of age from buying a rifle, just as it is currently illegal to sell a pistol to someone under that age?
After all, everyone outgrows youth as they age, and outgrowing youth causes one to mature in ways that young people will not understand until they have gone through that aging process. In the mean time, we accept that certain limitations on young people should be imposed.
It’s without doubt that such an age restriction will not stop school shootings, but it can prevent some crazed high school student from buying a rifle and hiding it in the trunk of his car or in his bedroom until he decides to use it on his classmates, as was done in Florida. If pistols are too dangerous for people under the age of 21 to own, then rifles should be, too.
On the other hand, any young person could still be allowed to go hunting if their parents consider them mature enough to loan their rifles to them in order to engage in that activity.
Or maybe, keeping in mind the illogical, illegal, and unconstitutional things that liberal Democrats, seemingly daily, want to impose on the nation (examples would include, but not be limited to: open borders; letting men self-identify as women so they can enter a women‘s restroom; rejecting the appointment of a fully qualified legal scholar to a federal judgeship because his skin color is white; celebrating the Black Lives Matters appeal to assassinate police officers by inviting them to the White House for a pat on the back for doing a good job; unconstitutionally taking all healthcare from Americans and imposing on them, under penalty of law, a governmentally required socialist healthcare plan that costs more than their previous plan and provides worse coverage), and calling these ridiculous, non-traditional leftist suggestions and proposed laws, to be an indicator of the Democrat left’s immaturity and weak intellect, maybe we should just prohibit liberals from being able to own guns; that would have saved Steve Scalise and several of his Republican House membership from severe and life-threatening injuries and suffering as they were shot by a radical, leftist Bernie Sanders supporter while attending baseball practice in a Washington DC suburb.
The young man who bought and used the rifle that killed 17 students at the Parkland high school was 19 years old when he did the shooting, and younger than that when he bought the rifle. Understanding the immaturity and tendency to act and react emotionally at such a young age, is it really “discrimination” to prohibit a person under 21 years of age from buying a rifle, just as it is currently illegal to sell a pistol to someone under that age?
After all, everyone outgrows youth as they age, and outgrowing youth causes one to mature in ways that young people will not understand until they have gone through that aging process. In the mean time, we accept that certain limitations on young people should be imposed.
It’s without doubt that such an age restriction will not stop school shootings, but it can prevent some crazed high school student from buying a rifle and hiding it in the trunk of his car or in his bedroom until he decides to use it on his classmates, as was done in Florida. If pistols are too dangerous for people under the age of 21 to own, then rifles should be, too.
On the other hand, any young person could still be allowed to go hunting if their parents consider them mature enough to loan their rifles to them in order to engage in that activity.
Or maybe, keeping in mind the illogical, illegal, and unconstitutional things that liberal Democrats, seemingly daily, want to impose on the nation (examples would include, but not be limited to: open borders; letting men self-identify as women so they can enter a women‘s restroom; rejecting the appointment of a fully qualified legal scholar to a federal judgeship because his skin color is white; celebrating the Black Lives Matters appeal to assassinate police officers by inviting them to the White House for a pat on the back for doing a good job; unconstitutionally taking all healthcare from Americans and imposing on them, under penalty of law, a governmentally required socialist healthcare plan that costs more than their previous plan and provides worse coverage), and calling these ridiculous, non-traditional leftist suggestions and proposed laws, to be an indicator of the Democrat left’s immaturity and weak intellect, maybe we should just prohibit liberals from being able to own guns; that would have saved Steve Scalise and several of his Republican House membership from severe and life-threatening injuries and suffering as they were shot by a radical, leftist Bernie Sanders supporter while attending baseball practice in a Washington DC suburb.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Trump Was Right Again; But Never-Trumpers Are Too Critical
The latest criticism of President Trump now comes from conservatives who are complaining about his off-hand comment of wanting to remove guns from a suspect prior to getting a court order to officially do so.
What Trump said was that in a case of someone like the Parkland school shooter and his sixty-six prior visits from the police, if the person who got police attention is deemed to be a threat to himself or other people, the police should be able to remove the gun(s) as a preventive measure, and then get court approval later. In the case of the Florida school shooting conservatives criticize the local police and the FBI for not moving swiftly enough, after sixty-six prior visits from the police, to deprive the shooter of his guns. But maybe the police were following a precise policy of that jurisdiction and would have confiscated the shooter’s gun after the sixty-seventh police visit. But whether it takes six or sixty-six prior police visits to get a court order, this or any other process may take too long to save lives.
What Trump was saying is that if the police have reasonable suspicion that any given person is a danger, and I would say that threatening to become a school shooter is “reasonable” evidence, they should be able to, at least temporarily, remove the gun from the hands of the suspect. The police do this sort of thing all the time or we wouldn’t all be familiar with the phrase “drop it”.
The other side of this coin is that conservatives believe that the threat of gun violence comes not from the gun, but from the person wielding the gun. So it would be logical for conservatives to argue not that the gun should be confiscated, but that the suspected person should be locked up. After all, if you only take a gun from a suspect, he may well have another gun hidden that he could grab and start shooting, or he could easily borrow a gun or steal one from a neighbor. So, in addition to the police taking the gun that they can see, with this confiscation possibly doing no good at all except to enrage the potential shooter, conservatives don’t want people to be locked up until the legal process has been satisfied and some hard evidence presented as to the danger of the accused.
So if conservatives have any trust and faith at all in the police to protect us, they’d be more in line with their core beliefs to have a gun removed from a suspect, than to have the suspect locked up in a case where no crime has yet been committed. And I’d say that if the police had a report of a suspect stating that he would like to become a school shooter, and if when they visited him they had any suspicion that he was unstable or had too great a fascination with his guns, then they might be well advised to remove those guns until the situation could be fully investigated, especially if this were the sixty-sixth time this man had been questioned.
The conservative position is one of careful balance: the person using the gun is the threat, but we can’t just lock up, in Hitlerian or Stalinian fashion, one suspected of being unstable or dangerous, until the full legal process has been exhausted. But the Florida school shooting allows us to consider preemptive removal of the gun, which does not deprive the suspect of his personal liberty, until a court can decide the issue. And heaven help us all if a weapon is not confiscated for reasonable suspicion, as one can believe happened in the Parkland incident, and another school shooting occurs. We can’t stop off-the-wall shootings as happened in Las Vegas a few months ago, but if there is any foreknowledge of possible danger, we must act to remove that danger.
What Trump said was that in a case of someone like the Parkland school shooter and his sixty-six prior visits from the police, if the person who got police attention is deemed to be a threat to himself or other people, the police should be able to remove the gun(s) as a preventive measure, and then get court approval later. In the case of the Florida school shooting conservatives criticize the local police and the FBI for not moving swiftly enough, after sixty-six prior visits from the police, to deprive the shooter of his guns. But maybe the police were following a precise policy of that jurisdiction and would have confiscated the shooter’s gun after the sixty-seventh police visit. But whether it takes six or sixty-six prior police visits to get a court order, this or any other process may take too long to save lives.
What Trump was saying is that if the police have reasonable suspicion that any given person is a danger, and I would say that threatening to become a school shooter is “reasonable” evidence, they should be able to, at least temporarily, remove the gun from the hands of the suspect. The police do this sort of thing all the time or we wouldn’t all be familiar with the phrase “drop it”.
The other side of this coin is that conservatives believe that the threat of gun violence comes not from the gun, but from the person wielding the gun. So it would be logical for conservatives to argue not that the gun should be confiscated, but that the suspected person should be locked up. After all, if you only take a gun from a suspect, he may well have another gun hidden that he could grab and start shooting, or he could easily borrow a gun or steal one from a neighbor. So, in addition to the police taking the gun that they can see, with this confiscation possibly doing no good at all except to enrage the potential shooter, conservatives don’t want people to be locked up until the legal process has been satisfied and some hard evidence presented as to the danger of the accused.
So if conservatives have any trust and faith at all in the police to protect us, they’d be more in line with their core beliefs to have a gun removed from a suspect, than to have the suspect locked up in a case where no crime has yet been committed. And I’d say that if the police had a report of a suspect stating that he would like to become a school shooter, and if when they visited him they had any suspicion that he was unstable or had too great a fascination with his guns, then they might be well advised to remove those guns until the situation could be fully investigated, especially if this were the sixty-sixth time this man had been questioned.
The conservative position is one of careful balance: the person using the gun is the threat, but we can’t just lock up, in Hitlerian or Stalinian fashion, one suspected of being unstable or dangerous, until the full legal process has been exhausted. But the Florida school shooting allows us to consider preemptive removal of the gun, which does not deprive the suspect of his personal liberty, until a court can decide the issue. And heaven help us all if a weapon is not confiscated for reasonable suspicion, as one can believe happened in the Parkland incident, and another school shooting occurs. We can’t stop off-the-wall shootings as happened in Las Vegas a few months ago, but if there is any foreknowledge of possible danger, we must act to remove that danger.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Liberals Want Police Officers Assassinated, Until Politics Intercedes
One will recall the Black Lives Matters crowd chanting for the assassination of police officers, “now!”, and Democrats were fine with that sentiment. In fact President Obama even invited the BLM leadership to the White House in order to show his solidarity with them on the subject of killing police officers.
In 2014 the Obama administration blamed the police department in Ferguson, Missouri for the rioting that occurred there. The liberal attitude of blaming the cops was so widespread that the Obama administration ordered his Department of Justice to take control of the Ferguson police department and get the officers’ minds right.
Baltimore’s police department was considered so racist and evil that six police officers, three of whom were black, were charged with the murder of a repeat criminal who was in police custody. Of course as a result of this blame-the-cops mentality and with the police officers then standing down for fear of being accused of hurting or killing a dangerous suspect they were trying to apprehend as they protected the city’s largely black population, crime in Baltimore increased dramatically following the persecution of the police officers.
An officer in Chicago was charged with killing a repeat criminal who was trying to avoid capture. This event occurred in the liberal American city which sets new records of gang killings each year, so of course, they charged the police officer and ruined his life.
But now the left does an about-face and can find no fault with the various police forces involved with the Florida shooting: Following the Parkland shooting a week ago, it was discovered that the FBI, and especially the local police, missed up to sixty-six opportunities to stop or divert the man who did the shooting and thereby could have possibly saved 17 high school students from death. As well as failing to deal with the killer in advance, we learned that several police officers were at the school as the killings were taking place, but did nothing to stop the shooter, and instead sat safely outside the school and only listened as the shooting continued, and the students died.
Immediately after the shooting was over the leftist American Democrat Party began shouting for the heads of all NRA members, although the NRA had no presence at the school and did no shooting. But one wonders why the left did not criticize the police once again, and where was the logical radical left insistence that the police be blamed for missing chances to avoid the killings? But that would be too logical and would not be political enough for the Democrat party.
Now the left, after blaming the police for years for any violence committed in the United States, protects the culpable police and criticizes conservatives for trying to attach responsibility to the non-responding police forces. And then when it was learned that Barack Obama’s Promise Program, a deviant plan intended to reduce the number of minority expulsions from school and criminal apprehensions by the police, by neither reporting nor recording such incidents performed by protected minorities, was in place in Florida and was likely one of the reasons the police treated the Hispanic shooter with velvet gloves and filed no charges against him nor seriously investigated the numerous incidents reported to them about his conduct, even after he stated he would like to become a school shooter, we finally are able to assemble the puzzle, and now get the racist, politically correct, and student-killing, picture that the American left has created.
The very fact that the Obama administration felt the need to rig the figures with the Promise Program and make minority crime rates appear smaller that they really are, is an admission that minorities do in fact commit a disproportionate number of crimes, and instead of blaming themselves for causing this tragedy by excluding fathers from too many minority families and insisting that the government fill the role of the father and force the mother raise children all alone, Democrat leftists generate false statistics that are an insult to all decent Americans, and are especially insulting to all law-abiding minorities who reject big-government injecting itself into their lives.
It becomes more obvious all the time that the Democrat party has lost its collective mind and is using race and self-identity to undermine the safety and security of the United States and its citizens. Conservatives love the police and support them all the time in the dangerous and difficult job they do, but when politics causes them to ignore public safety and to not do their job because of a leftist program put in place by Barack Obama to make minority crime statistics look much smaller than they really are, these circumstances must be corrected, and the police must be rescued from control by leftist political partisans that threaten life in America.
In short, Democrats must be voted out of all offices, nationwide, period.
In 2014 the Obama administration blamed the police department in Ferguson, Missouri for the rioting that occurred there. The liberal attitude of blaming the cops was so widespread that the Obama administration ordered his Department of Justice to take control of the Ferguson police department and get the officers’ minds right.
Baltimore’s police department was considered so racist and evil that six police officers, three of whom were black, were charged with the murder of a repeat criminal who was in police custody. Of course as a result of this blame-the-cops mentality and with the police officers then standing down for fear of being accused of hurting or killing a dangerous suspect they were trying to apprehend as they protected the city’s largely black population, crime in Baltimore increased dramatically following the persecution of the police officers.
An officer in Chicago was charged with killing a repeat criminal who was trying to avoid capture. This event occurred in the liberal American city which sets new records of gang killings each year, so of course, they charged the police officer and ruined his life.
But now the left does an about-face and can find no fault with the various police forces involved with the Florida shooting: Following the Parkland shooting a week ago, it was discovered that the FBI, and especially the local police, missed up to sixty-six opportunities to stop or divert the man who did the shooting and thereby could have possibly saved 17 high school students from death. As well as failing to deal with the killer in advance, we learned that several police officers were at the school as the killings were taking place, but did nothing to stop the shooter, and instead sat safely outside the school and only listened as the shooting continued, and the students died.
Immediately after the shooting was over the leftist American Democrat Party began shouting for the heads of all NRA members, although the NRA had no presence at the school and did no shooting. But one wonders why the left did not criticize the police once again, and where was the logical radical left insistence that the police be blamed for missing chances to avoid the killings? But that would be too logical and would not be political enough for the Democrat party.
Now the left, after blaming the police for years for any violence committed in the United States, protects the culpable police and criticizes conservatives for trying to attach responsibility to the non-responding police forces. And then when it was learned that Barack Obama’s Promise Program, a deviant plan intended to reduce the number of minority expulsions from school and criminal apprehensions by the police, by neither reporting nor recording such incidents performed by protected minorities, was in place in Florida and was likely one of the reasons the police treated the Hispanic shooter with velvet gloves and filed no charges against him nor seriously investigated the numerous incidents reported to them about his conduct, even after he stated he would like to become a school shooter, we finally are able to assemble the puzzle, and now get the racist, politically correct, and student-killing, picture that the American left has created.
The very fact that the Obama administration felt the need to rig the figures with the Promise Program and make minority crime rates appear smaller that they really are, is an admission that minorities do in fact commit a disproportionate number of crimes, and instead of blaming themselves for causing this tragedy by excluding fathers from too many minority families and insisting that the government fill the role of the father and force the mother raise children all alone, Democrat leftists generate false statistics that are an insult to all decent Americans, and are especially insulting to all law-abiding minorities who reject big-government injecting itself into their lives.
It becomes more obvious all the time that the Democrat party has lost its collective mind and is using race and self-identity to undermine the safety and security of the United States and its citizens. Conservatives love the police and support them all the time in the dangerous and difficult job they do, but when politics causes them to ignore public safety and to not do their job because of a leftist program put in place by Barack Obama to make minority crime statistics look much smaller than they really are, these circumstances must be corrected, and the police must be rescued from control by leftist political partisans that threaten life in America.
In short, Democrats must be voted out of all offices, nationwide, period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)