From the “You Must kidding…” File: Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is deemed unacceptable by progressives

Racist?

Read more over at Hotair.com

I’ve always said, we’ve got two political parties, the war party and the stupid party. Right now, the stupid party is really stupid. šŸ™„

613 reported and confirmed acts of left wing violence

I am posting this because it bears repeating….

I am posting this hesitantly, because I’ve never been a fan of the “They do it too!” argument. Because violence is wrong, no matter who or what is behind it. But, it does need repeating, because there are some on the left, who want to white wash the truth.

oh, and…this:

I am reposting the Breitbart list because it was hacked earlier this week, and will likely be attacked again given liberalā€™s bent on interfering in the upcoming elections.

Let them try and hack this site. Ha! Good luck! šŸ˜†

Via Do Right Christians and BreitBart.com:

Continue reading “613 reported and confirmed acts of left wing violence”

Further proof that society is swirling the drain

Oh brother….:

Healthline has claimed health disparities and higher rates of HIV and STIs observed in LGBTQIA communities are due to discrimination in the sex ed world. So, the California based health information provider has adopted the gender-inclusive term ā€œfront holeā€ in place of the medical term, ā€œvaginaā€ in their latest LGBTQIA safe sex guide.ā€œFor the purpose of this guide, weā€™ll refer to the vagina as the ā€˜front holeā€™ instead of solely using the medical term ā€˜vagina,’ā€ the document explains. ā€œThis is gender-inclusive language thatā€™s considerate of the fact that some trans people donā€™t identify with the labels the medical community attaches to their genitals.ā€ā€œFor example, some trans and nonbinary-identified people assigned female at birth may enjoy being the receptors of penetrative sex, but experience gender dysphoria when that part of their body is referred to using a word that society and professional communities often associate with femaleness. An alternative thatā€™s becoming increasingly popular in trans and queer communities is front hole.ā€The document went on to claim, lack of representation and anti-LGBTQIA bias in standard safe sex guides stigmatizes certain sexual behaviours and identities and is directly related to higher rates of HIV and STIs reported within LGBTQIA communities.The guide goes on to suggest, ā€œitā€™s imperative for safe sex guides to become more inclusive of LGBTQIA and nonbinary people and their experiences. This will help address barriers to accessing care and effective educational tools, while simultaneously normalizing and acknowledging the true diversity that exists with regard to gender and sexuality. – Source: Healthline says, using the medical term ‘vagina’ is not gender-inclusive language, uses ‘front hole’ instead. Ā· Caldron Pool

Gateway Pundit says:

This is your brain on liberalism.

Indeed.

Instapundit quips:

Iā€™m looking forward to the next presentation of The Front Hole Monologues.

And quotes this:

UPDATE: James Woods tweets, ā€œThe good news is that ā€˜assholeā€™ will still be used for the idiot who came up with thisā€¦ā€

Heh. šŸ˜†

God Bless Shepard Smith at Fox News Channel

For this gem of a smack down of Donald Trump: (H/T to Mediaite)

https://youtu.be/weHjxfa4bvA

Shepard Smith is correct, we need NATO, no matter what people like Pat Buchanan might say.

A perfect example of just how bad the left has become

It used to be that the left, as it is called, had an actual purpose. We were against the Iraq War. We were fighting against something that, we felt, was very wrong. When I was among those ranks, we were writing against something that actually existed. It has been said, by many, that it seems that the left, has lost its way. Well, I give you proof of such.

Matt Vespa writing over at Townhall.com has discovered, just how far the liberal left, has fallen:

Around Christmas time, yes, I will confess I sometimes watch a Hallmark Christmas movie. Theyā€™re cheesy. All aspects about it are too good to be true, but to get into the season and to take a break from my usual viewing of graphic violence, Iā€™ve seen worse. Apparently, thoughā€”itā€™s very problematic because everyone is white, there are no feminists, no Muslims, and the male leads have white nationalist haircutsā€”whatever that means. Itā€™s your typical contrarian drivel from Slate, a Washington Post-affiliated site. Oh, and the areas with the strongest viewership are in states where Trump won. I smell collusion. I smell propaganda, right? No, I actually donā€™t because Iā€™m not a progressive, but the analysis is quite entertaining [emphasis mine]:

Here is the quote:

At a rally in November 2015, Donald Trump heralded, ā€œIf I become president, weā€™re all going to be saying ā€˜Merry Christmasā€™ again, that I can tell you.ā€ Of all his empty guarantees, the president has perhaps fulfilled none better than a counterstrike in the War on Christmas, and no battalion has fired more rooty-toot artillery for him than the Hallmark Channel. In 2017, the network is premiering 21 original Christmas movies (up from 20 last year)ā€”42 hours of sugary, sexist, preposterously plotted, plot holeā€“festooned, belligerently traditional, ecstatically Caucasian cheer. To observe the first holiday season under the Trump administration, Iā€™m bearing witness to them all.

Hallmark Channel, owned by the Kansas City, Missouriā€“based greeting-card giant, has boomed since Trump began campaigning. In 2016, Hallmark was the only top-15 entertainment channel with double-digit ratings growth, and viewership has jumped another 16 percent this year. Meanwhile, Hallmarkā€™s Christmas programming, which this year began before Halloween, generates more than 30 percent of its annual ad revenue and has helped Hallmark become the seasonā€™s highest-rated cable network among women aged 25ā€“54. More than 70 million Americans watched Hallmark Channel Christmas movies last year.The network has already approached that number in 2017, with three weeks and five premieres remaining. And the networkā€™s strongholds map to Trumpā€™s Electoral College victories.After watching a few of Hallmarkā€™s Countdown to Christmas films, the networkā€™s burgeoning red-state appeal comes into focus. As much as these movies offer giddy, predictable escapes from Trumpian chaos, they all depict a fantasy world in which America has been Made Great Again. Real and fictional heartland small towns with names such as Evergreen and Cookie Jar are as thriving as their own small businesses, and even a high school art teacher (played by Trump supporter and the face of Hallmark, Candace Cameron Bure) can afford a lavishly renovated Colonial home. They brim with white heterosexuals who exclusively, emphatically, and endlessly bellow ā€œMerry Christmasā€ to every lumberjack and labradoodle they pass. Theyā€™re centered on beauty-pageant heroines and strong-jawed heroes with white-nationalist haircuts. There are occasional sightings of Christmas sweaterā€“wearing black people, but they exist only to cheer on the dreams of the white leads, and everyone on Trumpā€™s naughty listā€”Muslims, gay people, feministsā€”has never crossed the snowcapped green-screen mountains to taint these quaint Christmas villages. ā€œSanta Just Is Whiteā€ seems to be etched into every Hallmark movieā€™s town seal.

I don’t even know how to respond to this. At least when we were protesting the Iraq War, we were actually protesting something that was real; and not something imagined.

Liberal Democrats and the Electoral College

I know I have not written in a long while. I just do not have the drive to write about politics, like I used to. I guess I just do not have the stamina like I once did.

However, I have to laugh at the idiotic nonsense that I am seeing on Memeorandum about the electoral college. First up let’s look at the NYT’s call for getting rid of the electoral college:

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of Americaā€™s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

Today the college, which allocates electors based on each stateā€™s representation in Congress, tips the scales in favor of smaller states; a Wyoming residentā€™s vote counts 3.6 times as much as a Californianā€™s. And because almost all states use a winner-take-all system, the election ends up being fought in just a dozen or so ā€œbattlegroundā€ states, leaving tens of millions of Americans on the sidelines.

There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas? A direct popular vote would treat all Americans equally, no matter where they live ā€” including, by the way, Republicans in San Francisco and Democrats in Corpus Christi, whose votes are currently worthless. The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nationā€™s demographic and geographic diversity. Almost 138 million Americans went to the polls this year, but Mr. Trump secured his Electoral College victory thanks to fewer than 80,000 votes across three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I cannot believe that the NYT actually wrote that with a straight face. Funny, I do not seem to remember anyone complaining about the electoral college when Barack Obama won the election twice or when Bill Clinton won the election twice.

Then, there is this from the NYT:

In Washington, a state where Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had strong support in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton, three of the stateā€™s 12 electoral votes went to Colin L. Powell, the Republican former secretary of state. One more elector voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American leader. Another Democratic elector in Hawaii voted for Mr. Sanders.

Two Texas electors voted for different Republican politicians: Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and former Texas congressman Ron Paul.

In addition, three Democratic electors, in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, initially declined to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Two were replaced by an alternate, and one ended up changing his vote.

Golly gee, you think that it might just be that the majority of Democratic Party voters simply hated Clinton and just saw her as a 1990’s retread and a continuation of establishment Democratic Party politics as usual? Or…Maybe perhaps that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of living under the conditions that the Democrats have created, like stagnate wages, high taxes and a health care system that quite frankly sucks?

Nah, that would actually mean thinking in true reality terms, something that Democrats of today have a problem doing. šŸ™„

And finally, there is this from this guy here (click the link please…):

Couldnā€™t post this earlier today because itā€™s too depressing, but today the Electoral College voted to put the worst president-elect in my memory in charge of the United States.

I expected this, because the Electoral College has become a meaningless rubber stamp, instead of the safeguard against the election of an unqualified president it was intended to be.

I donā€™t know what to say. This country ā€” and the world ā€” is in for a nightmare world of hurt. Weā€™re witnessing the early days of a disaster.

I mean, it is truly laughable to see liberal Democrats, quite literally losing their ever-loving minds over Donald Trump. I mean to listen to these people; you would think that Trump is going to start rounding people up and sending them to death camps or something. Do these people know that we are a Republic and that there safe guards in place to limit his power and if he attempts to abuse that power, that he could be impeached? Apparently not. šŸ™„

The Trump Derangement Syndrome era has begun.

Other Bloggers, your mileage may vary: Washington Monthly, Occupy Democrats, Washington Free Beacon, Hot Air, LGBTQ Nation, The Daily Caller, The Guardian, TheBlaze, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, FiveThirtyEight, Jezebel, Morning Consult, Little Green Footballs, Harvard News, Common Dreams, Washington Post, Political Wire, Liberal Values, NPR, Sputnik International, Politico, Business Insider, Vox and CNBC, Independent Journal Review, Los Angeles Times, LeĀ·gal InĀ·surĀ·recĀ· tion, Victory Girls Blog, Politico, Outside the Beltway, The Week, The Daily Caller, Townhall.com, MichelleMalkin.com, New York Magazine, The Geller Report, Business Insider and The Point

Leftists show their true colors at the news of Nancy Reagan’s passing

This, my friends, is the true colors of the Democratic Party and the leftist base that supports them. This is why I quit voting for them. This is the sort of bile that drove me away from that Party. I was no fan boy of Bush and Co. But, this sort of bile is uncalled for. Which is why I stopped voting for them, supporting them and such.

Check out:Ā  First 30 Minutes: Vile Tweets About Death of Nancy Flow On Twitter – Breitbart

There is no excuse for it, at all. This is why Ronald Reagan left that party.

Update: Seriously Wonkette? I hope the Reagan family sues the crap out of you for this bile.

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservativesā€™ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizensā€™ United decision but seems to have forgotten how weĀ wereĀ urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there wasĀ George W. Bush, the man who decided it was Americaā€™s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). AndĀ before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative mediaā€™s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a ā€œconservativeā€ are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for oneā€™s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a memberĀ of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in ā€œblow backā€ or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how ā€” 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later ā€” conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its youngĀ to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called ā€œconservativesā€ responded with the usual ā€œHow dare he?ā€ Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush ā€œkept us safe.ā€ I can assure you that President Bush didnā€™t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesnā€™t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I donā€™t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in Americaā€™s interests instead of the rest of the worldā€™s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in Americaā€™s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like ā€œIslam is the religion of peace,ā€ or ā€œOur war is not with Islam.ā€ Uh,Ā sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a governmentā€™s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Hillary doesn’t deserve the black vote, says The Nation

I saw this on Memeorandum and my eyes bugged out. šŸ˜Æ

ViaĀ Michelle Alexander at The Nation:

Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillaryā€”or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with ā€œcourting the black vote,ā€ a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.

Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that weā€”black peopleā€”are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.

And it seems weā€™re eager to get played. Again.

It gets better, go read this one. She spares no expense in gutting the Clintons. It’s that good.

Others: Mother Jones, Washington Post and Slantpoint

Interesting reading: The DNC, Hillary and Barnie

This is some very interesting reading about the dog fight between Hillary and Bernie.

Check it out:

One of the objections to Bernie Sanders’s candidacy that I keep reading on social media is that “he’s not even a Democrat.” People who say this appear to believe that it’s vitally important to be loyal to the institution of the Democratic Party as the last and only bulwark against the rising tide of insanityā€¦ – Source: Why the Dems Need Bernie More Than Bernie Needs the Dems | The Mahablog