Category: Liberals

Another good reason why I am not happy with President Donald Trump

Is this nutty idea that The President should be able to cancel the broadcast licenses of those in the press that he disagrees with. This is crazy talk and smacks of Hitler.

Here’s a snippet of the story and commentary from HotAir.com:

Yet, there are also plenty of conservatives and libertarian who have criticized Trump for his attack on the MSM. AP and Ed both wrote Trump was wrong in his challenge to the First Amendment. Katherine Timpf at National Review went even further, (correctly) using the “f-word,” as in fascism, in her condemnation.

Let me be clear: Calling for government control of the media is not a conservative view; it’s a fascist one. You’re fine to think that the government should control the media; you’re fine to espouse it — thanks, of course, to the First Amendment that you’re apparently totally fine with jeopardizing — but please understand that this idea is not compatible with conservative, or even traditionally American, values.

There’s no doubt the MSM has raised the dander of conservatives and libertarians, and for good reason. The newscaster plenty of people cite as an example of fair news, Walter Cronkite, wasn’t fair at all. Douglas Brinkley’s book Cronkite, written with participation from the ex-CBS News anchor’s family, showed Cronkite wasn’t biased, especially to Barry Goldwater. There’s also the stupidity of Dan Rather, who pushed the idea ex-President George W. Bush figured out a way to skip out on his service in the National Guard.

These are examples of biased press, and should cause people pause. It’s totally okay if someone decides to find another source for a story because it was written by an outlet which may or may not give someone a fair shot. That’s up to individuals, not the government. Yet, biased press is very much protected by the First Amendment. In fact, biased press is free press, whether it makes conservatives, libertarians, liberals, or socialists happy or furious. Federalists and Anti-Federalists used the press to put out their opinions on whether the Constitution should be approved. Jeffersonians used the press to get their viewpoints out to the masses.

It’s also important to remember it’s not just “conservatives” who have had issues with the press. California Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested only “real reporters” deserved to be protected in a 2013 media shield law (which should just be the First Amendment, but I digress). Her amendment thankfully failed.

But it shows both parties have issues with outlets which don’t give them favorable press, and there are politicians in both parties who want to see the press restricted. All political ideologies, especially those who believe in freedom and liberty, should reject this wholeheartedly.

If President Donald Trump thinks that he can control the media; he is very highly mistaken. I voted for this man; to tackle trade, secure the boarder and straighten out our fiscal mess. I did NOT vote for a fascist. This whole idea smacks of the German Nazi nonsense of the 1940’s and it needs to be stood up to and stopped.

This is America and here, we do not control the press, ever. End of Discussion.

 

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 America’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 state’s representation in Congress, tips the scales in favor of smaller states; a Wyoming resident’s vote counts 3.6 times as much as a Californian’s. And because almost all states use a winner-take-all system, the election ends up being fought in just a dozen or so “battleground” 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 — 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 nation’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 state’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. 🙄

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

Couldn’t post this earlier today because it’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 don’t know what to say. This country — and the world — is in for a nightmare world of hurt. We’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. 🙄

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, Le·gal In·sur·rec· 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:  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 conservatives’ 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 Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were 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 was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And 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 media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” 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 one’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 member 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 “blow back” 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 — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young 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 “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’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 doesn’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 don’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 America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’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 America’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 “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, 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 government’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?

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 insanity… – Source: Why the Dems Need Bernie More Than Bernie Needs the Dems | The Mahablog

Chuck Baldwin makes a very good point

Chuck Baldwin makes this good point:

So, let’s see: all over America this Sunday, millions of Christians will gather in their churches to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. Adult choirs, children’s programs, teen choirs, orchestras, bands, Sunday School lessons, pageants, and sermons will all laud the birth of the Prince of Peace. They will hear messages about love and peace and brotherhood. They will raise their hands in “worship,” smile and laugh, shout “Amen,” and get warm and fuzzy feelings all over as they celebrate the day that the Prince of Peace was born.

No doubt, pastors all over America will quote Luke 2:13, 14. “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

But as soon as the Christmas celebration passes, their vocalizations of peace and goodwill will be buried amidst a cacophony of hatred for their fellow man: specifically, for their fellowmen who call themselves Muslims. We might hear “Kill the infidels!” from the mouths of certain Islamic jihadists, but that same cry is heard by God from the hearts of, perhaps, millions of America’s Christians.

Chuck goes on:

Every day, my email inbox fills up with anti-Muslim hatred–and much of it from professing Christians. These are the same ones that will celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace next week.

As justification for their bigotry and hatred, Christians love to quote passages from the Koran that speak of jihad against “infidels.” But, it never ceases to amaze me that these same Christians seem to have never read the Jewish Talmud–or even the writings of many Christian leaders from years gone by.

For example, here are some excerpts from the Talmud:

“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” (BT Bava Metzia 59b)

“All gentile women without exception are: ‘Niddah, Shifchah, Goyyah and Zonah’ (menstrual filth, slaves, heathens and prostitutes).” (BT Sanhedrin 81b – 82a)

“The best of the gentiles: kill him; the best of snakes: smash its skull; the best of women: is filled with witchcraft.” (BT Kiddushin 66c)

“Regarding bloodshed the following distinction applies: If a non-Jew killed another non-Jew, or a non-Jew killed a Jew, the killer is liable for execution; if a Jew killed a non-Jew, he is exempt from punishment.” (BT Sanhedrin 57a)

“Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a gentile.” (BT Baba Kamma 113a)

“On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days and proclaimed, Jesus of Nazareth is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited and led Israel astray. Whoever knows of an argument that may be proposed in his favor should come and present that argument on his behalf. But the judges did not find an argument in his favor, so they hanged him on Passover Eve…Did Jesus of Nazareth deserve that a search be made for an argument in his favor? Surely he incited others to idol worship.” (BT Sanhedrin 43a)

Celebrated ancient religion historian Peter Schafer, who is now the director of the Jewish Museum of Berlin, wrote this commentary on the Babylonian Talmud (BT) Grittin 57a, “…Jesus shares his place in the Netherworld (hell) with Titus and Balaam, the notorious arch enemies of the Jewish people. Whereas Titus is punished for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes, reassembled, and burned over and over again, and whereas Balaam is castigated by sitting in hot semen, Jesus’ fate consists of sitting forever in boiling excrement.” (Peter Schäfer, “Jesus in the Talmud,” Princeton University Press, p. 13)

Amazingly, I don’t hear Christians screaming the accusation that “there is no such thing as a peaceful Jew,” based on the writings of the Talmud and its apologists. Yet, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently promised that Talmudic law is the official law of Israel. [Link]

Make no mistake about it: the Talmud, NOT the Torah, is the Bible of the Zionists. The “Oral Law” of the Pharisees who crucified Christ formed the basis for the Talmud. This was exactly what Jesus was referring to when he scolded the Pharisees for placing their “traditions” ahead of the Law of Moses (the Torah). I propose that the Talmud is FAR WORSE than the Koran; and I believe I can prove it.

The Pharisees hated the Lord Jesus then, and their spiritual descendants, the Zionists, still hate Him today. Yet, there is not a peep from the Christian community at large about the threat posed to Christian America from Zionists.

Most people would dismiss this as hate speech. But, it is factual truth. What is a pity that most Christians won’t wake up to this fact.

Problem is Chuck Baldwin is wrong about the Roman Catholic Church. They’re just as evil as the left and the Zionist right.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church are the biggest enablers of the Zionist movement today. In fact, they practically own it.

LOCAL NEWS: Puerto Rican Woman removed from board of local community theatre after calling makeup racist

Seems like the liberal intolerance thing is getting a little close to home now. For what it is worth, Wyandotte, Michigan is about 10 miles to the south of me. This was in the local paper here.

Via News Herald:

Jazmyn Bencik isn’t afraid to speak up when she sees something she perceives as wrong.

That’s exactly what she did recently when she saw something she thought was insensitive against her race.

Bencik saw a member of the Southgate Community Players post a photo of himself titled “Puerto Rico Suave” on Facebook. The theater group was preparing to put on “West Side Story,” which closes this weekend.

Bencik, who at the time was a board member for the Wyandotte Community Theater, thought using white actors to portray Puerto Rican characters was wrong. She was even more offended when she found out several cast members were using spray tans to appear “brown.”

“It’s highly offensive to use excessive spray tan like that,” Bencik said. “It’s the equivalent of using yellow or black face.”

She said she commented on the photo and was nearly immediately attacked for her feelings.

“It was racially insensitive and personally offensive,” she said. “I was told that they weren’t likely to get that many Puerto Ricans to try out for a play in Southgate. Then I suggested they take into account casting difficulties in the future.”

Phillip Rauch, president of the Southgate Community Players, said Bencik’s feelings are off base.

“We don’t use black face,” he said. “We are actors putting on a show. That’s all it is. Using spray tan is nothing more than part of the costume.”

Bencik said she was willing to leave it at that, having spoken her mind. But it didn’t end there for her.

“When I went to practice for our group I was told what I had said was wrong,” she said. “I don’t understand what I did wrong. I was speaking my own opinion.”

She said members of the board told her that she shouldn’t have spoken out on the issue since she was also on the Wyandotte Community Theater board of directors.

“They told me that especially because I was the social media director that I shouldn’t have spoken out,” she said.

That night, Nov. 10, she was removed from having access to the Facebook page for her group. She said she received a letter the next morning notifying her that she was relieved of her duties with the organization.

There you have it folks, liberal intolerance at it’s finest. Jonah Goldberg was on to something:

Blacks are whining in Detroit….Again

It seems that the “social justice” crowd is at it again, trying to subtly suggest that because Detroit has a white Mayor, that blacks are being discriminated against.

Via NBC News black division:

Downtown Detroit has been fashionably in redevelopment and undergoing resurgence since the economic downturn, but not everyone is feeling welcome.

With its shiny new facades on chic eateries, cafes and microbreweries, the bright transformation and new attitude has often been called “New Detroit.” It’s all a point of pride for Mike Duggan, the first white mayor elected in 40 years who took office last year. His efforts ranging from urban landscaping to lowering the crime rate to incubating booming businesses have brought new hope for the Motor City—consistently plagued for decades with scandals, crime and blight.

Yet, many black Detroiters are crying foul, saying Detroit is becoming a tale of two cities; while young, white residents enjoy a stylish, prosperous downtown, black business owners say they are being systematically forced out of business.

Not everyone is buying that little lie however:

Charlie Beckham, Detroit’s Group Executive for Neighborhoods, who invited the first group of business owners to talk, is adamant there is no effort to push out black businesses. Instead, he said, the economy has changed, and people are repositioning.

“There are plenty of successful black business owners doing the right thing. They scratched and saved and paid their workers before they bought the Cadillac,” said Beckham, who has served six mayors since the late Coleman Young, the city’s first black mayor. “The responsibility is on us. When you’ve had a month-to-month lease for 25 years, and you get pushed out of your lease or when you lose your property because you didn’t pay your mortgage or taxes, that’s just bad business.”

Meanwhile, Smith negotiated a lease with new building owners and Spectacles is staying put. Mo’ Better Blues, which in October won a $50,000 Motor City Match grant from the city of Detroit, is celebrating its grand opening in another downtown location on November 7. The Mongos continue to run Café D’Mongo’s Speakeasy, a downtown bar/restaurant.

“We’ve got to tighten up in this new environment,” Beckham said. “Buy the building. Negotiate a strong lease. If the economy goes up or down, you will not get pushed out. Is there still racism? Yes. But we can’t let that be an excuse.”

Here’s what I wrote in the comments section of this story:

Amazing, the same people that are largely responsible for the downfall of my great city are now @!$%#ing because they’re not being allowed to do it again. How quaint. 

The truth is, if you don’t have the money to be in business, you shouldn’t be in business to start with! NO ONE is entitled to anything! If you can’t hang with the big dogs, get off the porch!

Racist? No. Racial Realist? Yes. 

If you ain’t got the flow to be in business, than take your broke black a$$ on down the road and let someone who does have the building, it is just that simple. 

Amazing how blacks think that they’re entitled to everything. This is what happens when you give them special treatment. Give them an inch and they try to take a mile. 

I stand behind that comment 100%.

 

I guess the “tolerant left” does not like it when I tell the truth!

Remember my posting about the Texas Deputy who was executed for being in a uniform and for being white?

Well, it seems that someone did not like my telling of the truth about the situation; here’s a comment that was left here on my blog:

Author: fair (IP: 128.249.1.198, 128.249.1.198)
E-mail: notgiven@yahoo.com
URL:
Comment:
Truly ignorant person – delete this post and then kill yourself.

Oh yeah, that is the liberal leftist tolerance that we keep hearing about. Call me names, when you do not have an honest rebuttal and then say, “kill yourself.” This is the status of the Democratic Party and the leftist movement in this Country today.