Category: Political

Political Ponderings #1

A friend of mine sent me a message a few days ago containing some random ideas on cause and effect, trends, and his conclusions. His thoughts got me thinking about several things, and I decided to do a little research and explore a few of his ideas. After doing a little digging, I then decided to share a bit of what I found in a short post. I may explore a few more of his musings as well. This one turned out to be interesting.

Random Idea #1

Sensationalism in the media has finally stirred enough pots so now we have an entire cross-section of society that believes police target minorities.

Do the police actively target minorities? We hear about it from the mainstream media, groups like BLM, and Left-wing politicians all the time. I have heard some statistical claims by some that I know are complete nonsense because I am interested in these things and do quite a bit of research myself.

Unfortunately, most people with an ax to grind, start with their belief, and then search for statistics to back it up. In addition, they will often take statistics out of context and completely ignore any statistics that do not support their belief. This is intellectually dishonest.

An intellectually honest person forms their belief based on the information the statistics provide.

You also have to understand the context in which the statistics exist. Many today, especially in the media and the radical Left, choose to ignore the background of the statistic they happen to be quoting at the time and instead choose to focus on that all-important “bumper-sticker” slogan or attention-grabbing headline rather than FACTS.

And too often, it seems, they continue to quote statistics that have already be debunked by well-respected research groups, think-tanks, and institutions of higher education.

But what is the truth …

The Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps and provides data on public interaction with police. The latest BJS figures are from 2011 and comprise the latest, most extensive, and accurate data set available.

When it comes to street stops and traffic stops by law enforcement, they fall firmly in line with the demographics of the nation. In 2011, 65.2 percent of those stopped in street stops were white, 15.3 percent were Hispanic/Latino, 12.4 percent were black, 3.6 percent were Asian, 3.1 percent were two or more races, and .6 percent were American Indian.

This demographic breakdown of traffic stops by police officers very closely tracks the demographic makeup of the population. It does not show any propensity for the over-policing of minority populations.

What Harvard says …

A study by a Harvard professor released in 2016 found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings even though officers were more likely to interact physically with minorities than whites.

Mr. Fryer, who happens to be black, told The New York Times that the finding of no racial discrimination in police shootings was “the most surprising result of my career.”

The 63-page study, “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” appears to support research conducted at Washington State University showing that officers in simulation tests were actually less likely to shoot at blacks than whites.

This does not surprise me since if you are a cop and you are involved in the shooting of a black suspect, you will be publicly charged with felony murder before any investigation is even launched, never mind completed.

The Left, failing in several coup attempts since the 2016 election, has simply now revived the anti-police rhetoric of the Obama years

Biden’s criminal-justice plan promises that after his policing reforms, “black mothers and fathers will no longer have to fear when their children ‘walk’ the streets of America” — the threat allegedly coming from cops, not gangbangers.

President Barack Obama likewise claimed during the memorial for five Dallas police officers killed by a Black Lives Matter–inspired assassin in July 2016 that black parents were right to fear that their child could be killed by a police officer whenever he “walks out the door.

South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has said that police shootings of black men won’t be solved “until we move policing out from the shadow of systemic racism.”

Beto O’Rourke claims that the police shoot blacks “solely based on the color of their skin.”

I have to admit, it’s enough to scare the proverbial crap out of anyone, especially if you are American who happens to be black! But is it accurate?

Another point to consider …

In 2016, the Obama administration recommended that all police departments lower their entry standards to qualify more minorities for recruitment. Many departments had already reduced reliance on written exams and eliminated requirements that recruits have a clean criminal record (Does anyone else see a problem with this one especially). These practices intensified after his administration’s suggestion.

The PNAS warned that these efforts would not reduce racial disparities in shootings.

In fact, a 2015 Justice Department study of the Philadelphia Police Department had already found that black officers were 67 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect. And, Hispanic officers were 145 percent more likely than white officers to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect.

Whether lowered hiring standards are responsible for those disparities was not addressed.

A study by Michigan State University and the University of Maryland at College Park show that police actually do not target minorities!

A study published in 2019 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings. While the radical Left claim that white officers are engaged in an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black men, it turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer.

The more often officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the higher the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer. In fact, the study found that if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians.

This study looked at 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments. Fifty-five percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic.

  • Between 90 and 95 percent of the civilians shot by officers in 2015 were attacking police or other citizens.
  • 90 percent were armed with a weapon.
  • So-called threat-misperception shootings, in which an officer shoots an unarmed civilian after mistaking a cellphone, say, for a gun, were rare.
The Black Lives Matter narrative, however, remains impervious to the truth

The truth is, the persistent belief that we are living through an epidemic of racially biased police shootings is a creation of selective reporting on the part of the media.

In 2015, a PNAS study addressed white victims of fatal police shootings that included:

  • A 50-year-old suspect in a domestic assault in Tuscaloosa, Alabama that ran at the officer with a spoon.
  • A 28-year-old driver in Des Moines, Iowa, who exited his car and walked quickly toward an officer after a car chase.
  • A 21-year-old suspect in a grocery-store robbery in Akron, Ohio, who had escaped on a bike and would not remove his hand from his waistband when ordered to do so.

I suspect that had any of these victims been black, the media and activists would probably have jumped on their stories and added their names to the roster of victims of police racism. Instead, because they are white, they are unknown.

The biggest threat facing minorities in crime-ridden cities is not “over-policing” or “brutal policing.” The most significant danger facing minorities in crime-ridden cities is “de-policing” and allowing criminals free reign.

I hope you will take some time to check out some of my other “blog posts by clicking here!

And if you enjoy reading a good action-adventure story, check out my new novel, Montagnard, on Amazon.com! It’s getting a lot of great reviews.

Climate Change: Just Follow the Money!

Who is really polluting the climate change debate?

I have not met too many conservatives who do not want clean water, clean air, or who want the world to end in 2012! Oh, wait! We are past that already. Well, let’s just say twelve years from now! I get a real kick out of these climate alarmists running around warning us that if we don’t give them all our money, the world will end in twelve years, while at the same time, they are planning long-term fundamental changes to our country.

I mean, if we’re all going to die, what’s the point …

While we can all certainly agree we should be good stewards of our planet, we must take a scientific-based approach to ensure its longevity. However, Congress has proven time and time again that they are great at ignoring real science and incredibly incompetent when it comes to making smart decisions. Or, at least decisions not based on direct influence from wealthy mega-donors.

You can find a study to back any position!

For example, in the 1960s, industry-funded research was designed to downplay the risks of sugar while highlighting the hazards of fat. The study was requested by an industry group called “the Sugar Research Foundation” who needed evidence to refute concerns about sugar’s role in heart disease.

The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did precisely that. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding. It suggested there were significant problems with all the studies that implicated sugar. It concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

So, what does that have to do with climate change research?

Not a damn thing! But it does show you that, with enough money, you can get whatever research results you want. Even from some “highly respected” sources.

The fact is that an overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. While it is true that the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government and left-wing foundation funding only go toward research that advances the global warming regulatory agenda. What we actually have is a pre-determined public-policy outcome buying research to support its program. The resulting government and left-wing foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity than the actual risk of global warming is to our planet.

With the fate of the U.S. economy, and perhaps the planet at stake, you would think Americans would want the actual facts!

But some people in the government and the media work very hard to keep the facts from getting in the way of good brainwashing!

Back in 2015, the New York Times and the Boston Globe pointed to documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, and attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon by suggesting that he hid $1.2 million in research funding contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” Their stores were part of an ongoing campaign by Greenpeace and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

However, by choosing to not be impartial watchdogs, and closely allying themselves with radical activist groups, those reporters fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming research funding.

The Smithsonian Institute, which employs Dr. Soon, told the Times it appeared the scientist had inadvertently violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter.

Soon is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense.

“It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding.

In fact, it is almost impossible for some of the world’s top climate scientists such as Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, and MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen to get funding for their work. This is because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.

It is interesting to point out here that, back in the 1950s, a study by MIT showed that when the government funds research through grants, it typically receives the results it wants. Amazing, isn’t it! It shocked the nation back then. I believe it has only gotten worse today.

Contrast this treatment with that of Michael Mann

Mann is the director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was also at the center of the 2009 Climate-gate scandal. This occurred when uncovered e-mails between climatologists revealed they were discussing how to skew scientific evidence to support their claims as well as how to blackball experts who don’t agree with them.

Mann is a prime example of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government, which by the way, will gain massive regulatory power if their climate legislation is passed, has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989. This number is provided by the Science and Public Policy Institute. This amount dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

According to a study by The American Spectator, Michael Mann received some $6 million, mostly in government grants, including $500,000 in federal stimulus money WHILE he was being investigated for his Climate-gate e-mails.

So where is the “free and balanced” press?

I used to cringe at the statement that the mass media has become the enemy of the American people. Now I am in agreement. They more I see, the more I believe many in the media are directly supporting a left-wing takeover of this country.

Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as The Times have ignored the government’s heavy-handed role in directing climate change research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations; funding that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate.

Media outlets have also been one-sided in their reporting on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The NY Times trumpeted Greenpeace’s FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors. Yet, they have ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings by the Competitive Enterprise Institute requesting funding source disclosures of external income of NASA scientist James Hansen, a key ally of Al Gore.

The fact that we have experienced a lack of “global warming” for over a decade and have actually experienced dangerous and record-breaking low temperatures combined with scandals such as Climate-gate are strong evidence that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis in an effort to gain power and control.

Failure of the media to cover both sides of the debate fairly while attempting to shut up their critics shows either a clear disregard or ignorance of the real threat to science.

The Lost Constitution

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

The U.S. Constitution

Clarence Thomas is an American judge, lawyer, and government official, and for the last three decades, a highly respected Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is, perhaps, one of our era’s most consequential and controversial jurists.

Often described as an originalist or textualist, Thomas would be ranked neck and neck with the late Justice Scalia for being considered the most conservative justice on the court, and for being a part of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court.

Myron Magnet

I was reading a article in the September issue of Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. The article was adapted from a speech given by Myron Magnet at Hillsdale College’s Constitution Day Celebration in Washington, D.C. on September 17, 2019. Magnet earned an MA from Cambridge University and a PH.D. from Columbia University where he taught for several years. He has worked as an editor for the City Journal, and written for several publications including The Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times. He has also authored several books, including The Founders at Home, The Building of America, 1735-1817, and, most recently, Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution.

A fascinating article

According to this article, during his almost three decades on the bench, Justice Thomas has been laying out a plan for reshaping Supreme Court jurisprudence. His template for this endeavor is the U.S. Constitution as the Framers wrote it 232 years ago. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the first Federalist, the plan was to create “good government from reflection and choice,” rather than settle for a regime based, as are most in history have been, on “accident and force.”

In Clarence Thomas’s view, what the Founding Fathers achieved 232 years ago remains as modern and up-to-date as it was in 1787.

However, according to Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court lost its way. During the 1930s and the implementation of the “New Deal,” the Supreme Court buckled under President Franklin Roosevelt’s threat to enlarge and stack the court. Roosevelt had wrongly diagnosed the cause of the Great Depressions as a “crisis of overproduction” and therefore, wanted to take control of the entire economy to regulate it. Sound vaguely familiar?

The “Court’s dramatic departure in the 1930s from a century and a half of precedent,” Thomas says, was a fatal “wrong turn” that marks the start of illegitimate judicial constitution-making.

Myron Magnet, Author, Clarence Thomas and the Lost Constitution

Starting with this fateful decision, over time the “Supreme Court” has over seen and sanctioned the development of a new administrative system. One in which the Congress has given up its legislative role, and has delegated the power to make and enforce laws to nameless, faceless, and unaccountable bureaucracies. According to Thomas, this new legislative process has no basis to exist within our constitutional structure.

You can read the entire article here if you like.

Why does it matter?

The United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, and a wildly successful experiment in self-government that lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in existence. Americans have shed more blood in the name of Liberty and Freedom than any other nation on the planet.

To exist, such a nation relies on a system of ethics. It does take a certain level of character to be capable of liberty.

Unfortunately, for the last several decades, some have been leading a movement toward the politics of victimization, the politics of race, or gender. The Left divides Americans into categories and then pits one category against another in order to gain and keep power. They have succeeded in dumbing-down our education system to the point that we have a generation of young people incapable of critical thinking. These kids can only regurgitate what they have been spoon-fed by the public school systems for their entire time in school.

The Left simply wants a compliant citizenry and to take total control of your life.

And I think Thomas Sowell agrees …

The U.S. Constitution

According to Sowell, one of the more painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is the number of people who are unable to make a coherent argument. Sure, they can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, and repeat slogans. They can do almost anything … except reason.

And what about Thomas Sowell’s thoughts on the divide and conquer politics of today’s left?

If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s right,” “gay rights;” etc. mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.

Thomas Sowell, Random Thoughts column, 2013

Give up your freedom, give up our Country!

Socialism, communism, fascism … all different names for the same authoritarian form of government, and the antithesis of everything America was founded on.

Socialism, in fact, has a clear history of failure so blatantly obvious, that only a truly dishonest liberal intellectual could successfully ignore it. But for today’s new radical left, the facts don’t matter and the U.S. Constitution is a thing to be disregarded and destroyed … except in the rare occurrence (sort of) following it just happens to suit their agenda.

Character, honor, critical thinking, ethics, integrity, and America’s great history: all the things needed to help ensure the continued success of this constitutional democratic republic are ridiculed, discarded, or removed.

In a government system based on equal opportunity and individual rights, the truth is much relies on the individual. In this land of equal opportunity for all, each citizen must forge their own fate, like all the other Americans that came before them. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

If you fall down seven times, get up eight

Not everyone can or will succeed every time they try. But you have the right to try again. Yes, we as a country provide certain safety nets, but they are a hand up … not a hand out. And, they need to be viewed as such. If you come to rely on the government for your existence, the government owns you, body and soul.

Regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or gender, everybody faces adversity at one time or another. Each individual must choose whether or not to buckle down and overcome that obstacle, and in this way, shape their own destiny.

Unfortunately, it is simply easier to blame life’s adversities on some powerful evil entity that forces us into a state of victim-hood … powerful entities that only a mighty and benevolent government master can protect you from.

The Constitution, as created for us by our Founding Fathers is a brilliant document designed to ensure individual freedom for all American citizens,. But, it presupposes citizens of the first kind, not the second. Without them, and a culture that nurtures them, no free nation can long endure.

Responsible Spending Perhaps?

I try not to get too political on my blog, but sometime I can’t help it. I love my country and do not want to see it destroyed by irresponsible leadership.

Did you know that originally you had to own property to vote in the U.S.? Do you know why that was? It was because taxes were based on your property and it was important that property owners had a say in how much they could be taxed on their property!

Today, voting and the voter registration process has morphed into nothing more than an attempt to grab more power. We don’t let 16-year-old kids fight wars, drink alcohol, buy guns, or get married because their rational brain is not fully functioning yet and they can easily be led. How many really think letting a 16-year-old vote is a great idea? If you do, I’d have to really question your motivation!

Is your vote for sale?

With the 2020 election looming in the future, irresponsible politicians are up to their same old games, promising things that the Federal Government cannot afford to provide in an effort to buy votes. Free healthcare, free college, government funded savings accounts, and guaranteed minimum income payments. Each politician seeking to be elected or re-elected stridently trying to out-promise the others in an effort to buy your vote. Truly … an example of pandering of epic proportions!

Do you really believe we can tax our working citizens enough to pay for all this?

Let’s Fact Check the Fact Checkers!

On February 1, 2019, an economics professor at Duquesne University tweeted a statement that said the following:

responsible spending

Some fact checkers immediately labeled this as a false claim. However, the number of billionaires, their estimated net worth, and the costs of running the government for the time period the professor used for his calculation support this claim.

Davies used figures from 2016, pointing at Forbes estimates of 540 U.S. billionaires worth $2.4 trillion, and he used the CBO’s report of federal outlays for FY 2016 of $3.9 trillion which would give an average of $2.6 trillion for eight months.

The reason this tweet was labeled false is that the number of billionaires and their net worth change constantly.

Many people will become richer or poorer within weeks, or even days of any publication due to changes in stock prices and exchange rates. For example, on July 27, 2017, Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, was indeed the richest man in the world … for a few hours.

Forbes has identified additional billionaires since 2016, and their combined estimated net worth could fund the government longer than eight months. So, the tweet is labeled as FALSE.

Are you kidding me? So, now there are enough billionaires to fund the government for 9 months, 12 months, or 18 months? The point Antony Davies was making is accurate and valid to this day. The claim, by fact-checkers, that his statement is false is misleading at best.

So, say you tax all the billionaires at a rate of 100% and fund the federal government for, let’s be generous and say three years. What then?

Who do we tax next?

As Margaret Thatcher so clearly stated, “The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.”

We would need to tax the millionaires, then the middle class, then the poor. At this rate, in 10 years we’d all be broke! Can you say Venezuela?

Some claim paying taxes is our patriotic duty

Perhaps it is. I have no problem with paying fair taxes to support the expenses of the federal government.

However, before they raise taxes even one iota, they need to ensure that they are acting as responsible stewards of taxpayer money!

Do any of you see any signs of that? No? Then why should we let them take more of our money?

Perhaps if the federal government demonstrated and practiced responsible spending habits, some of the federal deficit and current budget issues could be avoided. Perhaps they could start by cutting wasteful spending. Here are a few of my suggestions worth looking into:

  • Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year’s 10,160 earmarks included $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
  • Members of Congress have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying their offices with popcorn machines, plasma televisions, DVD equipment, ionic air fresheners, camcorders, and signature machines — plus $24,730 leasing a Lexus, $1,434 on a digital camera, and $84,000 on personalized calendars.
  • Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. In addition, debit cards provided to hurricane victims were used to pay for Caribbean vacations, NFL tickets, Dom Perignon champagne, “Girls Gone Wild” videos, and at least one sex change operation.
  • The state of Washington sent $1 food stamp checks to 250,000 households in order to raise state caseload figures and trigger $43 million in additional federal funds.
  • The National Institutes of Health spends $1.3 million per month to rent a lab that it cannot use.
  • Congressional investigators were able to receive $55,000 in federal student loan funding for a fictional college they created to test the Department of Education.
  • The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.
  • More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.
  • The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.

These are just a few of the many examples of past government financial inefficiencies and waste. Before you try to take more of my money, be sure you are spending the money you already take wisely!

What Is It About The Electoral College?

electoral college

The Electoral College has recently been the subject of heated debate. However, most of what I’ve seen and heard makes it clear not too many Americans today understand why and how the Electoral College came to be. This is not all that surprising, given the state of our public school system. The truth is that, at one time, the Electoral College was not controversial at all. This was because people understood how it worked and why it was put in place.

Today, more than a dozen states have joined in an attempt to remove or circumvent the Electoral College. This is because Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election while receiving a majority of the popular vote. However, if you examine how that popular vote broke down, Clinton received a large number of votes from densely-populated urban areas like New York and California. In fact, if you remove California, President Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.4 million votes.

This is a somewhat flawed argument. You could arbitrarily remove any state’s electoral votes and the outcome could be altered in some way. But, it still illustrates the central point. The Electoral College was instituted to ensure that a President must have broad national support to win. The president is the president of the whole nation, not just president of the most densely-populated urban areas.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states:

Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution insures that each state retains equal representation in presidential elections, exactly like they do in Congress. It is genius and it insures a nationwide “fair” representation in presidential elections.

The Electoral College was designed to make sure that each candidate took their message to the whole nation, and subsequently won based on national support for their policies. The Electoral College was designed precisely to prevent a situation where a state like New York or California become the defacto policy decision maker for the entire nation. Since its inception, it has worked brilliantly in doing exactly that, sometime benefiting the Democratic Party and sometimes the Republican Party.

One has to ask if those currently clamoring for ending the Electoral College would be doing so if their side had won the majority of Electoral College votes and the election.

electoral college

Perhaps the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Throughout American history it has shaped American politics in many ways that were beneficial to this country. It only becomes an issue when one side loses a closely contested election and just cannot make themselves accept the results.

For those interested in states rights, abolishing the Electoral College would give the states less power against the federal government. The Electoral College also prevents a strong, charismatic person from using a fickle surge in popular support to consolidate more power and become a dictator.

If you truly understand the role of the Electoral College in making sure the entire nation has a voice in its presidential elections and you believe in fairness and the Rule of Law, it is hard to imagine why anyone would call for its abolition. I can only think of two reasons.

  • You do not understand what it does
  • You are making a power grab, and you can’t win national elections … therefore, you have to change the rules.

Judges Arming Following Violence At Courthouses

Judges Arming Themselves2nd Amendment, Shooting & Firearms Blog recently posted this item on Judges Arming Themselves.

We now have judges arming themselves in the courtroom?  It is a sad state of affairs when judges arm themselves to feel safe in their own courtrooms. My question is, should not everyone else have the same option? Is the judge’s life more valuable than mine? I am not allowed into the courtroom with a pocket knife.  However, the judge packs some serious heat? I would really like to see nationwide Constitutional Carry the law of the land. It could certainly be combined with serious penalties for anyone choosing to use firearms in the wrong way, such as during the commission of a felony, committing murder, assault, etc.

It seems that all the leniency, reduced sentencing, and revolving door judicial policies are not helping to protect these Judges!

No more wrist slapping and revolving door policies for criminals using firearms during the committing of their crimes. Severe penalties exist on the books on the books for people who do.  Do judges impose them?. Hurricane Irma brings to light the true greatness of many of our citizens.  However, then we also see looters and people taking advantage of victims of such catastrophes. People have a right to protect themselves and their property from criminals, rapists, looters, and other snakes of the two-legged varieties. Rioting … burning people s cars, businesses, beating people up for wearing a Trump hat is not political free speech. People have a right to protect themselves from actions such as these.

As long as we enable and elevate criminals, denigrate and handcuff our police, and continue use the racist left-wing progressive policies of identity politics, our American civilization will continue to deteriorate and fall into further decline. It is time for Americans to stand up and take our country back.

 

Source: More Judges Arming Up Following Recent Uptick In Violence Around Courthouses

Can We Have an Honest DACA Discussion

Some DACA Honesty … Please?

DACACan we have an intelligent discussion about DACA? The Left now blasting President Trump for his decision to phase out DACA. However, what he did is put the decision back where it RIGHTFULLY, LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY belongs … in the hands of Congress. Of course, if you hate America, the U.S. Constitution, the Rule of Law, and everything this country stands for, you would be blasting this decision … no matter who made actually made it

.

What did President Trump Say?

The President Trump’s administration announced its decision on DACA Tuesday.  They will implement an “orderly wind down” of this Obama-era executive order.  The unilateral order gave a deportation reprieve to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. In addition, President Trump gave Congress 6 months to come up with a legislative solution to the issue. Congress, not the President, writes the laws. They don’t teach that in school anymore? It is almost as if our schools are preparing our kids for a more “authoritarian” form of government.

I often wonder were all the vocal critics and protestors when, under the Democratic controlled legislature, Obama couldn’t get this done through legislation? Remember, Obama is the one who took the unconstitutional path and imposed it unilaterally by executive order … not President Trump.

What About Being A Society built on Laws?

It has become fairly clear that neither the establishment politicians of both parties nor the media care about the rule of law. 25 States sued the previous administration in Federal Courts with Federal Judges ruling that DACA (and DAPA) were unconstitutional executive actions. Did you hear about this in the left-wing mass media? Nope? I sure didn’t. I think I heard it on Fox news though! That must be why the Left hates Fox News so much. Furthermore, it is simply more evidence of the mass  media’s  “enemy of the people” status perhaps?

President Trump is Heartless, Evil, Racist, and Cruel!

I don’t think so. First of all, I think this decision weighed heavily on his mind.  Look at what he said and think about what it really means. What is the message behind President Trumps words?
I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are a nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.

And What of Barack Obama?

Yesterday, Obama went on the attack, saying President Trump’s ending of DACA is “cruel”. Yet, he once said he did not have the authority to do what he later did. Either Obama has a very short memory or his is being very disingenuous in his attack on President Trump. Furthermore, I remember when Obama stated this was not amnesty or immunity. Obama said it was not a path to citizenship. He stated himself this was not a permanent fix … calling it a temporary stopgap measure.

Just maybe, what President Trump is doing … is actually fixing the gap!

FLOTUS, Melanie Trump, Wears Spike Heels to Texas

FLOTUS Wears Spike Heels to View Texas Damage … Left-wing Media in a Tither!

Spike Heels
President Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive for briefing on Harvey relief efforts, Aug. 29, 2017, in Corpus Christi, Texas. (Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)

 

Spike heels … are you kidding? Of course you can see from the photograph, she must have somehow found time to change from Spike Heels into sneakers on the flight down from Andrews AFB.  It is obviously hard for the left-wing media to believe that the First Lady would be capable of such a daunting task! I mean, change her shoes? What was she thinking. Left-wing pundits are obsessed with the state of her shoes while the rest of America worries about the rescue efforts and what will be needed to rebuild!

It is just another piece of evidence as to how political the media has become and how it has, in fact, become an enemy of the American People. As I have posted in the past, a Free Press is certainly a vital part of a free and democratic society. The lest-wing media simply continues to prove time and time again that it is not a Free Press. It is the propaganda wing of the Democratic Left-wingers and Progressives.

Mean While … In the Real World!

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had high praise for President Donald Trump and the federal government for its response to Hurricane Harvey, describing it as  “A-plus.” This effort is only just beginning. It will be a long haul because this storm and its rain will continue to weak havoc for several days.

Abbot want on to say

I’ve got to tell you, I give FEMA a grade of A+, all the way from the president down,” Abbott said. “I’ve spoken to the president several times, to his Cabinet members, such as secretary of homeland security, such as the administrator of FEMA, such as Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services.

Of course, you won’t hear any of that on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABS, The Washington Post, The NY Times, or any of the left-wing’s propaganda tool … the one that, at one time, was the American Free Press!

It’s Become Time to Resist the Resist Trump Group

 Resist Left-wing TyranyI just have to ask, what kind of a responsible news organization publishes the transcripts of a Presidential conversation with other heads of state knowing that these transcripts were illegally released? This Trump Derangement Syndrome is really getting out of hand. Maybe it is time to resist the resistance!

There is no logical reason for it. Have you seen the “new” new Democratic platform? They rail against the evils of unrestrained capitalism, but their proposed solutions, with the exception of building the wall, are copied from the Trump playbook … only smaller-minded. How can President Trump be that evil, if they want to do what he is already doing, but on a more limited scale? If capitalism was the devil they portray it to be, they should want to take much more drastic action. Their actions and their rhetoric do not jive. And, they accuse President Trump of being unbalanced?

Despite our differences, we came together whenever the Country was threatened. What changed? We no longer have allegiance to the ideals that made our County great. The Left has worked so hard to ridicule, remove, denigrate, destroy and rebuke what it means to be an American.

Unhinged Resistance

The liberal-left and their media lapdogs have truly lost their minds. They have no concerns about the integrity of our government, the safety of its people, or the welfare of our Country. As long as they “resist” they think they can attack President Trump with impunity. Right or wrong … they will do it … regardless of the Constitutional, Legal, Ethical, or International consequences. It is insane!  And, it is a very real threat to the American people. Let me say that again, another way … the media has indeed become the enemy of the American people. President Trump got it right

We Now Have a Criminal Mass Media

The FBI should arrest the Editor-in-Chief of the Washington Post. Charges of treason may be a bit unreachable, but knowingly releasing classified information to the public is a crime! Even if somebody else leaked it to him. Let him sweat through a few FBI interrogations. Maybe some of this insane, and illegal, leaking of classified information will stop

Democrats totally ignore the many good things the President has already done. I think it is simply because they cannot get over the fact that he won. They somehow cannot forgive him, or themselves, for that. Furthermore, they attack his Presidency at the expense of the American people.  They ignore the fact that the world is about to go up in flames. We have highly volatile situations with Russia, Iran, and North Korea, mostly because of the Marvin Milktoast policies of the former president, Barack Obama.  Yet, they ignore all that so they can play “blame President Trump” and wage unrelenting war on the Trump Presidency. The really scary part is, they do it to the detriment and endangerment of us all.

Resist the Unhinged Resistance

That is what is truly unforgivable! Yes, this Administration has certainly had some issues and some shake-ups. Let us remember it is only his 8th month in office. I can remember a few other Administrations that had some shake-ups and problems as well. This situation in the media is very much like the Pot calling the Kettle black

In conclusion, let me just say that it may be time for President Trump’s supporters to wage a little counter-war. And, no I am not calling for violence in the streets. It is simply time for his supporters to speak up, to protest the protestors, resist the “Resist” group, and try to get a little equal time in the spotlight.

Firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions Would Be a Mistake

Jeff Sessions
Donald Trump sits with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York, U.S., October 7, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo – RTX2U9ZJ

A Beleaguered Attorney General?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions admitted that President Trump’s criticism over his recusal from the Russia investigation was “kind of hurtful.” However, Sessions insists he will continue at his job and has no plans to resign. Jeff Sessions is not completely “in the clear” when it comes to fault in this situation.

Criticism From the Boss

President Trump has repeatedly slammed Jeff Sessions in media interviews and on Twitter. The criticism has been over the Attorney General’s decision back in March to recuse himself from the Russian Investigation. Sessions still stands by his decision to recuse himself. I am not an expert on the legalities of this situation. But, if Sessions is correct, then he did do the right thing. An Attorney General who doesn’t follow the law is very problematic as we have seen with former Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch!

Some Criticism of Attorney General Jeff Sessions is Justified

However, I do agree with President Trump on his point. Jeff Session needed to address this before accepting the appointment. He could have let the President that if his involvement with then Candidate Trump’s campaign became an issue in the Russian Investigation, he would be forced to recuse himself. That would have given President Trump all the information he needed to make his best decision about appointing Sessions as Attorney General. Appointed and confirmed as Attorney General and then immediately recusing himself from the Russian Investigation was very unfair to President Trump.

What many in the media forget, is that President Trump is a plain-talk kind of man. That is why so many Americans outside California, New York City and Washington, DC voted for him. You know where you stand with President Trump. He will tell you … either on the air, on Twitter, or in person. That is simply who he is and why he was elected. The Mass Media hyperventilating over every new Tweet is beginning to get a little silly. I find it refreshing, especially after all the years of political double-speak that the left seems to love so much.

Jeff Sessions Understands the President’s Position

Jeff Sessions has publically stated that he understands President Trumps feelings on this issue.  Sessions knows that this has been a big problem for the President. “The President of the United States is a strong leader,” Sessions recently told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson while on a trip to El Salvador. “He has had a lot of criticisms and he’s steadfastly determined to get his job done, and he wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Sessions, in El Salvador Thursday, is working to improve cooperation with the Central American nation. As Attorney General, he is leading the charge in the fight against the MS-13 street gang. Sessions has described this gang as a top security threat to the United States.

Firing Attorney General Sessions Would be a Mistake

I do think President Trump and Attorney General Sessions need to talk this out. It would be a big mistake for President Trump to fire Jeff Sessions. Sessions is one of the few people working hard to keep the President’s campaign promises. Maybe the problem is that Jeff Sessions is more loyal to Trump’s positions than President Trump himself …

As Attorney General, Sessions has already:

  • Cracked Down on Illegal Immigration
  • Led the effort to defund Sanctuary Cities
  • Is waging war on Opioids
  • Cracking down on the gang  MI-13
  • Has opened criminal investigations into “Leaking”

Now … if Sessions would just reopen the investigation into the Clinton Campaign’s secret server, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s real collusion with Russia … Uranium sales, etc., maybe President Trump would back off on his criticism!