Pages

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Biden is starting to remind people why he has run twice before and lost

The gaffes keep piling up. This time insulting people born in the US.

So where are our standards?

It's a situation dripping with irony. The Inspector General put out a highly anticipated report specific to the conduct of former FBI Director James Comey. For most of us who have been paying attention, the report provided very little "new" information. But what it did clarify is whether or not the actions in question were considered justified normal FBI behavior, behavior that broke FBI rules and regulations, or whether or not any of his behavior actually broke the law.


Comey and his supporters had spent a lot of time justifying the behavior of the Director as little more than a concerned agent, dutifully and aggressively investigating the President over the legitimate concerns that he was a hostile foreign agent. They also justified the fact that he treated this President differently, kept him in the dark, lied to him, and ultimately leaked information in order to (by his own admission) prompt a Special Counsel to continue the probe he was working on.

Critics of Comey obviously saw it differently. They believed that the FBI director was not acting within the boundaries of his office, that he had gone rogue in his investigation of the President, and that some of his behavior could have been seen as criminal.

The Inspector General report split the difference at somewhere around 75-25 in favor of the critics. The report was scathing regarding the behavior of the Director. It did not mince words that James Comey broke FBI rules, regulations, and that he ultimately broke the sworn and signed terms of his employment agreement. The report flirts around the idea that some of what Comey did may have been in violation of the law, but stopped short of making a criminal referral. There would be literally no way on earth than an objective person could read this report, and make a case that Comey should not have been fired.

The irony works both ways. Much like the Mueller report, this report focuses on somewhat murky grey areas of misconduct. Mueller's volume one basically falls short of either establishing any sort of conspiracy or coordination or finding anything criminal in any of the actions in terms of Russian contacts. Volume two was more  of an accusation of misconduct which fell short of suggesting any of it was criminal. Trump supporters quickly called the report an exoneration and focused almost entirely on the fact that nothing was actually deemed criminal (obstruction allegations were declared not criminal by the AG, DAG, and OLC). Meanwhile, liberals jumped on the fact that the report showed behavior that might be considered non-becoming, even if it wasn't deemed criminal. Of course, others continued to argue that Mueller and/or Barr were wrong, and that it was all criminal.

So what are the reactions to this IG report on Comey? Exactly the same, with both sides switching logical allegiances. Comey (and some of his supporters) decided that the lack of criminal referrals exonerated his actions. Comey even tweeted that he expected apologies. Meanwhile Comey critics focused on the meat of the allegations, quick to point out that the behavior was against rules, regulations, and his employment agreement.

Now if there are certainly significant differences. The Mueller report remains to this day murky. There are no allegations that Trump broke any rules, regulations, or any sort of personal contract. There is just a question of whether or not certain questionable behavior had risen to something criminal. Much of that was entirely speculation and theory, as we have no actual laws that suggest a President can obstruct Justice by aggressively tweeting criticism, or by demanding people make public statements to the press denying media reports.

This IG report has specific regulations it can cite, and can demand that these rules were broken without any real ability to argue differently. There is no question that an FBI director attempting to blind side the President with misinformation or lie to him with the intentions of tricking him into doing or saying something damaging is wrong and against all FBI protocol.  There is no question that Comey's memos were not personal property, and that leaking them was in violation of FBI rules. These statutes and regulations were clearly cited by the report. This was very different from the Mueller report that sort of just purposely left things open to people's own interpretation.

At the end of the day, everyone had differences of opinions on what known actions actually meant. Were they justified, were they wrong, were they criminal. For some reason we feel it important that someone in authority be allowed to make a judgement (even if most people will still remain convinces of their previous beliefs). In case against Trump, that was Mueller. In the case against Comey that was IG Horowitz.

I suspect that the next report (the overall report about FBI behavior focussing on FISA warrants and the like) will end up being similar. Much of it will be known information (at least by those of us who keep up) and we will just be looking for someone in authority to agree with our own opinions on that subject.


It's only funny cause it's true!

Friday, August 30, 2019

Can this guy make it to Iowa?

More gaffes than gaffe free moments??
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Thursday defended his faulty description of a tale of military heroism and his interactions with the service members who carried it out.
 
The “essence” of his recollection is correct, the former vice president told a South Carolina newspaper Thursday after a Washington Post story detailed how an emotional anecdote Biden told recently while campaigning in New Hampshire contained inaccuracies.

So there are two sides of this conventional wisdom. One side is that Biden gaffes are much like Trump rants, already baked into the political market so so speak. Just Joe being Joe. No worries. The second side is that Biden's gaffes are causing a problem in a crowded field and many people are actually worried that it's more than just gaffes this time around. Why take a chance when there are other legitimate options?

The truth is that while Joe Biden was the Vice President less than four years ago, that seems like a lifetime ago. Let's also face the fact that Biden was not exactly an influential figure in the Obama White House. Not every one really knows Joe Biden all that well, and for many younger voters, they are just starting to get to know him.

So the question becomes, what is the shelf life on Biden's "electability argument"?  The two biggest concerns for Biden are that someone else starts polling as well as him, or the entire field starts to poll well ahead of the President. In scenario one, people will see this as a momentum thing. He's going down, while someone else is going up. In scenario two, liberals will ask themselves why pick a moderate (perhaps even a slightly conservative) nominee, when they could pick someone like Warren or Sanders (believing that they are going to win).

This might be a bigger knock down drag out than the 2016 nomination fight was. There also are likely going to be at least three or four Candidates in this for a while. The super delegates can do their best to make sure there isn't a mad free for all come convention time, but this is going to be a marathon, not a sprint.

Is Joe Biden in good enough condition to run this marathon?

It's just Trump that the courts are concerned about

Court has ruled that President cannot block users on social media. 
But why stop there? What makes his situation unique? 

If AOC really believed that followers were being abusive, then she would be free to report them to Twitter and have Twitter suspend their accounts. Now I personally never quite understood the lawsuit or the ruling that determined that Trump did not have the right to block users on Twitter. Every Twitter account can block or mute people, and every Twitter account can be blocked or muted by others. I lost count (at least 8), but I have been blocked by people multiple time over disagreements. My best guess is that they get sick of all of notifications showing people "liking" or "retweeting" my "reply" to one of their tweets (rather than notifying them that they are being "liked" or "retweeted").

All that being said, the Judges in this particular case have no real authority to demand that Twitter (or any other social media) extend out their ruling on Trump to any other politicians (which is part of why it is such a seriously flawed and boneheaded ruling to begin with). Ocasio-Cortez and everyone but the President will continue to be allowed to block accounts. Seems indicative of how our 2020 court system works for some people, but very specifically not for others.

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Read it yourself!

Regardless of the spin and lack of criminal charges, this is damning

Not a recession


2019 GNP 

  • 2019 Q1 - 3.1
  • 2019 Q2 - 2.0  
  • 2019 Q3 - 2.3 (estimated GDPNow) 

Even a fairly negative consensus by leading economist called the "blue chip assessment" now projects that the third quarter of 2019 will be at least two percent (original estimates had been lower). While these are not economic boom numbers, what should be obvious to everyone is that consistent growth in the two to three percent is a long ways off from a recession.

Generally speaking our economy just doesn't drop several percentage points in GDP growth for no reason. A cyclical recession would generally involve a fairly consistent slowdown for multiple quarters, leading to at least two quarters in a row of negative growth. Other recessions  are the result of something extremely tangible that has an overwhelming affect on the economy (such as the Housing market collapse of 2008). Generally these involve some sort of bubble burst of some economic condition that was keeping thing afloat.

So are we in any real immediate danger? Where are the economic bubbles right now? Real estate prices are going up, but there is no indication that Americans are spending (and relying on) their equities as they did in the mid 2000s. We are not running out of some stimulus package that will leave the economy with a hole to fill. The so called indicators with things like "inverted bond yields" are not tangible areas that are easily understood to slow growth. More to the point, just because every recession was preceded by a particular indicator, doesn't mean that that same indicator preceded a recession every time. All thumbs may be fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

What we know for sure is that we are not in a recession right now, and there is little actual reason to believe that things are slowing down at all, much less slowing down anywhere near fast enough to see any recession over the next few quarters.

Liberals are so "easy" to fool!

Read the headline:
Then read the story:
USCIS issued a clarification to the rule later Wednesday, explaining that the new rule would only affect three categories of people: Children of non-U.S. citizens adopted by U.S. citizen government employees or service members; children of non-U.S. citizen government employees or service members who were naturalized after the child's birth; and children of U.S. citizens who do not meet residency requirements.

So this is quite literally nothing like what the story is stating. The reality is that these are the exact same principles in play if a service person were to have been residing in the United States.

  • My wife was an adopted Korean to American parents. She had to become a U.S. Citizen upon her entry to the country. The fact that she was adopted by American citizens didn't make her an automatic citizen.
  • Many people I work with have become U.S. Citizens after being born outside the United States. Their families are also obligated to become U.S. Citizens on their own. They are not automatically made a citizen because one member became naturalized.
  • If any American becomes a non-resident of the United States and becomes a citizen elsewhere, their children are going to be born as citizens of their adopted country. This is not unique to service members. 

However, if you are U.S. Military citizen in good standing then your children will continue to be U.S. Citizens regardless of where they were born. This has not changed, and likely cannot be changed unless there is some actual change to the constitution. 

The fact that the media is pushing this crap is based on two things. They desperately want to harm Trump and they know that their liberal followers will fall for pretty much anything! 


Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Trying to run out the clock?

U.S. Intel Gatekeeper Dragging Feet on Trump-Russia Files, Insiders Say
More than three months after President Trump granted his attorney general unprecedented power to declassify intelligence files, key U.S. intelligence agencies are still withholding documents related to the Trump-Russia affair, say people with direct knowledge of White House discussions on the subject.
The source of the logjam: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which Trump is in the process of shaking up after the resignations last month of its director, Dan Coats, and principal deputy, Sue Gordon. “Establishment” officials in that agency are still dragging their feet, say the sources, who spoke on condition that they not be further identified.

So it most certainly appears that despite declassification and requests from the Department of Justice and the President himself, that certain member of the intelligence community are not following through with these requests. According to those in the know, the hope is that they can stall this beyond the 2020 election, hope that Trump is defeated, and that the demand for these documents disappears.

This is precisely why Dan Coats was fired. Coats apparently was more interested in following his subordinates than following his superiors. Obviously Trump found someone he believes will actually follow the orders provided by the Administration on this. Like it or not, the intelligence community is NOT an independent portion of the Federal Government. They answer to and work for the President.

Are there "good" reasons why these agencies are stonewalling this information? Certainly the President and the Attorney General have the classification levels to see EVERYTHING at all levels, including any and all methods and other nonsense that these agencies like to believe are theirs and theirs alone. So I would say there is no "good" reason to be holding this stuff back.

The logical reason is that there really is something to hide, and these agencies are in a total cover their own asses mode, and simply do not want to turn over information that will likely prove to be embarrassing, problematic, outside normal rules and procedures, or even flirting with illegal.


Last day to qualify more Democrats to the debate!


Tuesday, August 27, 2019

A congresswoman no less?

Doesn't realize that we are actually a Constitutional Republic?

But they would like their style of liberalism to rule the country?

Are the "Democratic approved pollsters" stonewalling the rest of the field?

There has been about a dozen new polls in the last week regarding the Democratic Primaries. Only one of them came from any of the pollsters that the DNC has labeled to be acceptable. Currently Tulsi Gabbard has reached the 2% threshold in 26 polls. Only one of those 26 is part of those that the Democratic Party is accepting. She had already had that one poll at the time of the previous debates, but has not managed to find even one more in any of the post-debate DNC approved pollsters (which seems like only a handful released since the last debate). This is especially odd because Gabbard seemed to have a significantly well played debate.

Now quite obviously the Democratic Party can run the Democratic Party how they want to run it. Obviously they can choose to accept or reject pollsters based on whatever criteria that the would want to consider. Certainly the list that they have approved is not the "best" pollsters. Some of them listed or considered wildly inaccurate (according to 538 rankings), while many left out have been consistently more accurate than those on the DNC list. Rather, they seem to have taken a large amount of stock in MSM commissioned pollsters, as well as those pollsters that have traditionally been kind to Democrats.

The challenge and the potential issue for the Party is that people will start to feel like the Party is once again attempting to manipulate the process, much like they did for Hillary Clinton last time around. Certainly the support for Tom Steyer or Tulsi Gabbard is not the same as what Bernie Sanders had in 2016, but this sort of thing could still spill over to supporters of a losing candidate if they feel that the process was not objective and fair to "everyone". Every sign of mis justice could be amplified. 

Lord knows they will still need to deal with their insane concept of "Superdelegates" where in a close three or four way race like we may see, those Superdelegates might be the sole deciding factor. One can only imagine how upset Sanders and Warren supporters would be if Slow Joe Biden continues his downward trek, only to be "saved" by Superdelegates who see him as the best chance of defeating Trump.

Either way, there seems to be almost an outward plot to have a majority of these approved pollsters hold off until after the August 28th deadline. This would be good news for the Party as they can avoid having to split up the debate into two groups again. The number of 10 (still a large number) seems to be pretty much set. That is the exact number that the Party probably wanted to see. That is the exact number that the Party will see. Perhaps it's just a coincidence?


Monday, August 26, 2019

NY Times: McCabe might actually be indicted?

Prosecutors Near Decision on Whether to Indict Andrew McCabe
In two meetings last week, Mr. McCabe’s lawyers met with the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who is expected to be involved in the decision about whether to prosecute, and for more than an hour with the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, according to a person familiar with the meetings. The person would not detail the discussions, but defense lawyers typically meet with top law enforcement officials to try to persuade them not to indict their client if they failed to get line prosecutors to drop the case.
So in layman's terms:
  • It would appear that the Prosecutor (Jessie Liu) handling the case for the District of Columbia has decided to indict McCabe for his false and misleading statements during the investigation. 
  • This has prompted the Attorneys for McCabe to reach out to a higher authority (Deputy A.G. Jeffrey Rosen) to see if they can pull some strings and have that decision reversed. 

The NY Times is using some semantic magic by calling the decision to indict McCabe a "failure to get line prosecutors to drop a case" and by suggesting that the meeting with the Deputy A.G. is a common place event where attorneys can make an additional plea. It's not.

The headline is more than a little misleading as the guts of the story actually strongly suggests that the decision has already been made by the D.C. prosecutors to go ahead with the case. A better headline might be that counsel for McCabe are making a last minute plea with higher authorities to head off an upcoming indictment.

The story also tosses in the red herring that indictments of FBI agents are rare and that it might be difficult to get a conviction in a D.C. Court because of the political makeup of the D.C. jury pool. But the fact that an indictment is rare, or that a potential jury might be partisan, does not really affect whether or not there is a case to be brought.

The reality is that this is about the fairness in our criminal justice system. There is little logic in the argument that General Flynn or George Papadopoulos were correctly indicted for false statements, while Andrew McCabe should not be because of his position as a liberal FBI agent making it harder to get a conviction with a potentially liberal jury. The indictment should go through, and the prosecutors should have their day in court. 


The white supremacists of PragerU


You have to find this interesting. The knee jerk reaction from the left is to label any conservative speech that offends them to be either "hate speech" or laced with "white supremacy".  The good old southern poverty law center cannot keep up anymore with all of these groups that are now considered "white supremacy groups" including, of course the white supremacy of Candace Owens, Michelle Malkin, and Larry Elder and the rest of PragerU. 

One of those examples of how the liberal brain works is the classic decision to completely change your mind (logically) because a valid argument is being made by someone you politically disagree with.

  • A conservative with a higher math degree understands mathematical formulas, at least until a liberal finds out that person is conservative, then they assume that they are probably wrong. 
  • A conservative doctor completes his professional diagnoses, only to have it ignored when the liberal figures out he voted for Trump.
  • A conservative attorney making a completely legitimate legal argument will not find himself contradicted until the liberal figures out that the attorney is conservative.

Never before in our nation's history has a group of people (liberals) put so much emphasis on politics as to determine the expertise, legitimacy, or validity of an argument. In fact, the examples of liberals who will originally have one thought on an issue, only to change their minds when they determine who is making the argument is staggering. It's also a sign of someone who is weak minded, gaslighted, and ultimately no longer has the ability to think for themselves (or to trust what they might think).

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Important lawsuit? Watch the video!

Sunday Funnies



Saturday, August 24, 2019

Slow Joe Biden is losing his marbles

A step in the right direction that will no doubt be criticized!

AG William Barr announces changes to immigration courts
The Justice Department proposed changes to the immigration court system Friday that would give more power to the agency’s political leadership.Under the new rules, the director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review would have the power to personally decide the longest-running cases. 
The interim rule would also limit the power of EOIR’s general counsel to influence immigration judges’ decisions, a department official said in previewing the new policy for reporters. 
EOIR is the agency that hears deportation cases from illegal immigrants nabbed in the interior of the U.S. 
It also rules on requests for asylum, which have surged in recent years as migrants have abused the process with bogus claims that, while usually rejected in the end, still allow them to be released into the U.S. while their cases are pending, giving them a chance to disappear into the shadows.

Bottom line, the concept here is to make sure that the immigration court move a quickly as possible and come to more generic decisions regarding the status of those who are either being deported or asking for asylum. There seems to be some sort of idea that the longer people can muck up the court system, the more likely it is that the government will be forced to release illegals into the public. Once released, it's almost impossible to get them removed, even if the courts rule against them and deny their asylum request.

What it the point of having an immigration court that rules on asylum, if you are simply wanting them to be allowed to stay regardless of the decision by the court? The state should be in a position to deport those who are denied, while allowing those who are accepted to be made a legal member of our society. That seems pretty obvious, and little more than common sense. Too bad, that obvious common sense concept is lost on many people.

Friday, August 23, 2019

This is her fourth bout with cancer...

Second with her pancreas. Third most fatal cancer in the U.S. 

Public Support for Impeachment not improving for Democrats

Never been popular, but seems to have stagnated out at around just over a third of the country in favor... 





Even as Democrats in the House slowly but surely creep forward in their support of impeachment (nearing 130 Democrats now)... the general public has soured on the idea. This becomes especially true once people are reminded that "formal impeachment proceedings" are a complete waste of time because nothing will become of them. 

The 35% or so are likely Trump haters who are both angry that he is still President and figure that impeachment hearings or impeachment itself would likely harm the President's reelection chances. Of course, the main reason why House leadership is against impeachment is the belief within the old guard that impeachment hearings would do the exact opposite and actually help the President.

I am not sure if they would make much difference. Everyone knows that it is a partisan ploy and that nothing would come of it. Everyone has already settled into the collective positions on whether or not the President committed "high crimes or misdemeanors". After the Mueller hearing fiasco, I would think that smart Democrats would want to put this behind them. But I have a feeling that emotional ones will not let it fade without an ongoing fight. 

Were these Roger's last words?


Thursday, August 22, 2019

Another Trump policy is working

On the border, officials see dividends from Trump’s deal with Mexico
“We’ve been monitoring the apprehension numbers closely, specifically going back 70 days before June 10 and 70 days after June 10,” Chavez told Fox News. “And what we’ve seen here in Laredo Sector is a reduction in 30 percent in our apprehension numbers, southwest border-wide numbers are down 38 percent.”
Trump announced in May that June 10 was the date he would impose tariffs on Mexico if it did not help the U.S. combat the migration crisis. Trump ultimately suspended the tariffs days before after a deal was reached that included Mexico taking “unprecedented steps” to boost enforcement, including deploying its National Guard, while the “Remain in Mexico” policy by which asylum applicants were returned to Mexico for their hearings was expanded.
Results are being seen across the entire border. CBP said this month that it encountered 82,049 people in July, down 21 percent from June when there were 104,344 people and down 43 percent from May. The number of families and minors crossing the border also dropped.
Chavez says that, along with efforts by the DHS toward further collaboration with Central American governments, it is helping reduce the once-overwhelming flow.

I know this probably upsets certain liberals out there, who tend to like bigger numbers of illegal immigration, especially those who are trafficking guns and drugs. But for the rest of us, this is welcome news. And it happened because we partnered with Mexico and Central American countries, rather than just attempt to fix it ourselves.

Actually it happened because we are actually taking border security sort of serious now. No more looking the other way. No more catch and release. No more incentivizing border crossings. We actually are attempting to get to the root of the problem by addressing immigration from the home country and Mexico (where they go through), rather than just waiting till they get here, release them into the community and hope they show up for hearings and obey the judges ruling.

Bottom line is that this is working. When other things fall into place, you can look for even bigger improvements.

Fact vs Fiction

To have the media tell it, our consumer confidence is at some sort of all time low!
(And of course, it's all because everyone now understands that tax cuts are bad because CNN says so!)



Sorry to tell the NYT, WaPo, Politico, CNN, and MSNBC this, but the country is not in some sort of consumer confidence tailspin. We are also not headed for a recession in the next few months, nor is everyone taking their money out of the banks and putting it under their mattress because they are worried about the next great depression. 

Consumer confidence is quite literally approximately twenty points higher than when Obama got reelected to his second term. It has shown a dip here and there, but has remained consistently over 90 in the UOM Consumer Sentiment gauge (a standard in the industry). 

There is neither an economic crisis or a crisis in our consumer confidence. 

Michell Malkin blacklisted by Google

Triggering the Google Social Credit System
Armed with internal memos and emails, former Google software engineer Zachary Vorhies exposed how MichelleMalkin.com (online since 1999) was placed on a news blacklist banning my content from appearing on newsfeeds accessed through Android Google products. I do not advocate violence, publish porn or indulge in vulgarity or profanity (other than my occasional references to Beltway crapweasels). But I triggered the Google Social Credit System and there's no going back.
My apparent sin: Independently growing a large organic following of readers on the internet who share my mainstream conservative views on immigration, jihad, education, social issues, economic policy, faith and more.
Other conservative victims of the Google ban hammer include: Twitchy (a Twitter aggregation site I founded in 2012), FrontPage Magazine (founded by prolific conservative author and journalist David Horowitz), the Daily Caller (founded by Fox News host and journalist Tucker Carlson), Legal Insurrection (founded by Cornell University law professor and investigative blogger William Jacobson), NewsBusters (founded by Media Research Center in 2005), The Gateway Pundit (founded by grassroots social media pioneer Jim Hoft in 2004), the American Thinker (another of the veteran conservative blogs founded in 2003 by Thomas Lifson), LifeNews.com (an independent, pro-life news site founded in 1992 by Steven Ertelt), the Catholic News Agency and The Christian Post.

Ironically my google, chrome, and everything else I open up these days sends lists of stories that include liberal blogging websites like the Huffington Post and Politico. These sites are literally the liberal counterparts to places like Hot Air, twitchy, and the FrontPage Magazine. The sole difference is the slant of the political content.

Now some people will argue that Google is a private business and can hold whatever views that they want. But the problem is that they continue to deny what they are doing, even as they provide no real explanation for how they come to these conclusions. The best they can offer is the self fulfilling prophecy that some of these sites that they link to have more overall activity than the ones that they ban. So they deem them to be more "credible" because they reach more people, even though they reach more people precisely because google and others choose not to bring up conservative sites via their search engines and feed designs.

I find it amazing that a site like Legal Insurrection (which has literally been awarded in the past for being objective journalist as it pertains to the law and other social issue) has been chosen to be banned. It would appear that this is entirely because Legal Insurrection decides to write about things like the Oberlin Gibson bakery lawsuit, when the rest of the MSM wanted to ignore it.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Trump rips on Tlaib

President Trump tore into Rep. Rashida Tlaib on Tuesday for her emotional press conference alongside Rep. Ilhan Omar in which they condemned Israel for blocking a planned trip, calling the Michigan congresswoman an anti-Semite and saying he doesn't "buy Rep. Tlaib’s tears."
Tlaib and Omar, D-Minn., a day earlier had called for retaliatory measures, urging Congress to “conduct oversight” regarding U.S. aid to Israel as Tlaib decried the conditions her Palestinian relatives live under.
“Sorry, I don’t buy Rep. Tlaib’s tears. I have watched her violence, craziness and, most importantly, WORDS, for far too long,” the president tweeted. “Now tears? She hates Israel and all Jewish people. She is an anti-Semite. She and her 3 friends are the new face of the Democrat Party. Live with it!”

Well this is a manufactured tragedy by The Squad.  If Tlaib really wanted to go see her poor old grandmother for one last time, then she was given permission to do so. The problem was that going to see her poor old grandmother was just an excuse to go to Palestine and offer political criticism of Israel. When given the choice between seeing her grandmother and grandstanding for political purposes, Tlaib chose her politics.

So Tlaib is not a family person. She is, first and foremost, a hater of Israel. That hatred trumps everything else she wants to do. In many ways this entire sequence of events is indicative of the bigger Muslim Jewish feud. The politics of religion drive most everything. There is nothing logical or otherwise reasonable about this sort of conflict where certain people (Palestinians and Muslims) will not be happy until other people (Jews) are driven from the region.

This removal of the Jewish state from the Middle East is not an American ideal, and American strategy, or an American policy... nor will it ever be. The idea that we elect a couple of Muslims into Congress and somehow this is going to change is wishful and dangerous thinking.

Julian Castro qualifies

10th Democrat to qualify for the debate(s) 

A few more candidates qualify and we still might see two separate debates again. That being said, we will likely only see as few as one more qualify, and probably no more than an additional four. If I had to guess, I might put the over/under at 12. That's a lot of candidates on a stage. 


Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Misleading headline?

Well not really... but is the story misleading? 

 74% of economists in survey see US recession by end of 2021
A strong majority, 74%, of U.S. business economists appear sufficiently concerned about the risks of some of President Donald Trump's economic policies that they expect a recession in the U.S. by the end of 2021.
The economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics, in a report released Monday, mostly didn't share Trump's optimistic outlook for the economy, though they generally saw recession coming later than they did in a survey taken in February. Thirty-four percent of the economists surveyed said they believe a slowing economy will tip into recession in 2021. That's up from 25% in the February survey.

Well first of all, the questions asked of the NABE had nothing to do with whether or not they are concerned with Trump's policies. Everyone understands that recessions will happen in some form of a cycle, and that economic policies simply may not prevent them from eventually happening. The only real reference to his policies was a question regarding a possible trade deal with China, which economists were not confident of. Of course, that really isn't an economic question as much as it is a political and negotiation question.

The article implies that economist believe that tariffs and higher deficits are a concern (which seems odd since we have been dealing with tariffs since Trump has been President, and our deficits are running at a lower percent of GDP than they had just a few years ago). But those subjects were not actually addressed in this particular poll. The authors of the article just sort of tossed it in their for effect.

The breakdown:
  • Approximately forty percent see a recession prior to the 2020 election.
  • Approximately a third do not see a recession happening until 2021.
  • Approximately a quarter do not see a recession at all in our immediate future. 

What this represents is actually a slightly less amount of them believing it will happen prior to the election than did six months ago. In February the number was closer to forty five percent believing we would see a recession before the election. So quite obviously the strength of the economy "right now" convinced a few of these economists to push back their predictions.

This is obviously "at odds" with the media's increased attention to the possibility of the recession, since the media seems to act as if the chances have gone up dramatically. The reality is that the economists polled here see the economy as stronger than they did six months ago, and predictions of any recession have been pushed out further into the future.

As a whole, the business economists' recent responses have represented a rebuke of the Trump administration's overall approach to the economy.
Still, for now, most economic signs appear solid. Employers are adding jobs at a steady pace, the unemployment rate remains near a 50-year low and consumers are optimistic. U.S. retail sales figures out last Thursday showed that they jumped in July by the most in four months. 

Again, the idea that this survey is a "rebuke" of Trump's overall approach to the economy is not exactly as self evident as the article would like it to be. The economy at this point is still going plenty strong, and the "blue chip consensus" regarding the third quarter GDP is actually rising as the quarter goes on. These predictions are moving from under the two percent threshold to coming at least a couple tenths above that number. A recession (keep in mind) is defined as two consecutive quarters with negative GDP growth. There is a big difference between two percent and a negative GDP growth.

Things would have to change in a hurry.

So which is it?

So Omar condemns any effort to infringe upon LGBTQ while simultaneously supporting the Palestinian Authority (who are infringing on their rights). That would be a little like the President saying he would condemn any acts of white supremacist, while simultaneously supporting the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood.


Omar's first reaction was to simply attack the messenger, and confuse the situation by pretending there is some sort of false equivalency. Then later she provides the condemnation of the generic act of infringing on the rights of the LGBTQ while still not specifically condemning the Palestinian Authority.


The saddest part of all of this is that nobody from the media will really question or press Omar on this. Just like nobody questions or presses her on her various marriage scandals or tax violations or campaign violations, or pretty much anything. The hypocrisy is astounding, but necessary when the "big tent Democratic Party" wants to cater both to the LGBTQ community and the Muslim community (which as a matter of religious definition sees everything LGBTQ to be a sin). How long can they possibly balance this act before it comes crashing down?

Castro and Steyer only one poll away from qualifying for September debate

I need this many more polls!

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, all I need is one more! 

Monday, August 19, 2019

There is point where things are beyond ridiculous

Abrams still won't concede 2018 Governor's race!

'CBS This Morning' why she still continues to resist conceding
 the race to the winner, Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA).

The media is now openly calling for a recession.

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle said on air Monday that a recession under
President Trump would be “okay,” saying “it’s about time” America has one.

Something wrong with Joe?

You can hide, but you can't run? 
The campaign has Joe on a short leash as his "gaffes" continue to pile up. The bigger (real) problem is that it's becoming obvious that Joe is no longer just committing gaffes, but that he just might be losing his marbles.

Saturday, August 17, 2019

Liberal White Males are in a co-dependent relationship with the Democratic Party

Liberal White Males have to remember that this behavior is not healthy 
Codependent relationships involve an unequal situation in which one partner makes it his or her responsibility to ensure the happiness of the other. These types of people often seek out those who are needy; in many cases, the other person will engage in self-destructive behavior, such as alcoholism. The first partner will become the caretaker for the other, many times enabling the destructive behaviors by making excuses or providing resources for it to continue. Even if the relationship does not involve such behavior, one person still will constantly give everything to keep the other person satisfied, often feeling compelled to find solutions for him or her and anticipate the person's needs.
Another characteristic of codependent relationships is one person's repression of his or her own needs in deference to the other's needs. These people feel uncomfortable putting themselves first; they are much more comfortable focusing on the needs of their partners. Even if they feel anger or resentment that their needs are not met, they will bury those emotions and put all of their energy into pleasing their partners. They also tend to deny that they are in a bad, inequitable situation and ignore the pain it is causing them. This often leads them to feel depressed and may lead them to their own self-destructive behaviors.
The people who are the constant caretakers in codependent relationships often suffer from a lack of self-esteem as well. They only see themselves as valuable when they are involved in a relationship, even if it is negative and destructive, and define their lives based on this. They may only feel validated by love and approval from their partner, who many times will not or cannot provide it. If they leave their codependent relationships, they often will seek out the same type of person again and end up in the same situation.

Look, we can all see why people like "The Squad" are liberals. They would like the country to bend to their will, change to their whims, and please them. They represent others with the same viewpoints. They want to bring in more Somalis, more Muslims, more Hispanics, more Blacks and want a country that specifically caters to the whims and desires of those factions. This requires a heavy handed government that will step in and uproot the basic fundamental principles of life, liberty and and the "pursuit" of happiness, and replace it with income redistribution, robust government services, and some sort of pie in the sky "guarantee" of happiness. Certainly it's much harder (if not all together impossible) to get this all done with little more than hard work and personal responsibility.

So this is the major constituency of the Democratic Party:

  • Minorities - Vote three to one in favor of Democrats
  • Immigrants - Vote three to one in favor of Democrats 
  • The Poor - Under $50K/year vote Democrat by approx 15 points
  • LGBTQ - Vote five to one in favor of Democrats
  • Felons - Seventy percent of convicted felons are registered as Democrats
  • Unmarried  - Vote three to two in favor of Democrats
  • Non-Christian - Other religions vote two to one in favor of Democrats
  • Atheists -  Vote three to one in favor of Democrats 
  • Post graduate degrees - Vote three to two in favor of Democrats 

Now to be clear, I am not against any of those people. I am married to a minority immigrant, I grew up fairly poor, I have many LGBTQ friends, I have a relative who is a convicted felon, and I am myself an Atheist. But let's be realistic. Most of those groups (as a whole) are quite literally against me as a conservative white male. How much should I cater to people who have literally zero interest in meeting me even close to half way? Catering to them would be an unhealthy one sided relationship. 

The reality is that healthy well adjusted people live their lives with the normal thought process that they want to both be happy, take care of those around them, and of course try to leave the world in a better place than when they left it. They want to do this as responsible members of society. Healthy people do not want to be a burden on others, rely on handouts from others, and they most certainly do not blame others for their own failures. 

Healthy people do not feel guilt over how they were born, what race they are, what sex they are, or what age they are. Healthy people do not chastise themselves at their "privilege" or look to provide other people with "reparations" because they feel guilty over things that happened over a century ago. 

Healthy people do not knowingly work against their own self interest, which in turn works against the self interests of their families, their children, and maybe even their children's children. Healthy people put their responsibilities to themselves, and their families first. In order to be truly a helpful member of any society, you first have to be a healthy member of that society. 

A society full of healthy people who take responsibility, take care of themselves and their family, who are good neighbors and citizens, do not commit crimes, do not demand handouts, and do not rely or blame others is a healthy society that will prosper. A society full of unhealthy people who expect others to take care of them and their families, blame others for their failures, and expect others to feel guilt for their lot in life is a society that will never function. The more healthy people you have, the easier it is to take care of the unhealthy. The less healthy people you have, the harder it becomes to take care of the unhealthy and eventually your society crashes and burns.

The reality is that we all know white male liberals. Is it a coincidence that most of them are unhappy, guilty, and generally pissed off at the world. How many of your white male liberal friends appear happy or well adjusted? Have we have all not witnessed people who fall into this category lose important things in their lives, largely because their undying one sided devotion to their Democratic Party (who spits in their face). Have we not seen people who claim to be spiritual Christians who set aside the very teachings they claim to follow, because they do not correspond to what their precious Democratic Party is telling them today. 

The question is the classic chicken or egg dilemma. Does the typical white male liberal becomes so because they prone to and crave a co-dependent relationship where they can be used and abused, or does being a liberal in general create the co-dependency after the fact? 

Literally the very next day Tlaib does a complete 180

So she writes the letter dated August 15th requesting the visit and vowing to respect any restrictions while promising not to promote her political agenda. Then Israel grants the access and her response:


The conditions were specifically what she requested and received. The complete dishonestly surrounding every single member of "The Squad" is astounding. Almost as astounding as the lack of any call out from the MSM. Of course, if they call out Tlaib for this giant piece of hypocritical rhetoric, she will probably state something to the extent that she would rather be morally dishonest than factually honest.  


Friday, August 16, 2019

Another 9th circuit court judge overturned

Appeals court sides with Trump administration on asylum rule, limits injunction
A federal appeals court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in the legal battle over its efforts to limit asylum claims from Central America – blocking, for now, a nationwide injunction that blocked the implementation of the rule.
Last month a California federal judge blocked the rule that would require migrants to first apply in one of the countries they cross on their way to the U.S. – with certain exceptions. The rule is tailored to target Central Americans from the Northern Triangle of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras who would travel across multiple countries, including Mexico, before claiming asylum in the U.S.
But the San Francisco federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit on Friday ruled that the injunction imposed by the California federal judge can only apply in states within the court’s jurisdiction in the western U.S. The ruling says that the court failed to discuss why a nationwide injunction was necessary to remedy the harm alleged by those immigration advocacy groups named in the lawsuit.
The article goes on to suggest that there was no actual reason for the Judge to order a national injunction (something that has been happening at alarming rates recently). Logically, if there was no good reason to order an injunction nationally, there was probably not a good reason to order any injunction at all. This injunction (or what is left of it) will likely get overturned either by the 9th or by the USSC.

While it's nice to see another bad ruling overturned, the best part about this was the fact that the appeals court saw the blunder of the national injunction. Without the power of the national injunction, the 9th circuit is only going to affect the 9th circuit. If you do not live in California, Hawaii, etc, then there is no need to fret on how they rule. The danger has always been that some crazy west coast liberals file a lawsuit, get some crazy west coast liberal Judge, who then makes a crazy west coast liberal ruling and demands it be followed everywhere. This practice must stop.

Tlaib shows her true colors

of the Palestinian flag 

Trump "fuels" but Democrats are "accused"....

Democrats accused of fueling attacks on cops, ICE with incendiary political rhetoric
From dousing police with water to doxxing immigration agents to attacking detention centers, it’s been a long, hot summer for law enforcement, and the inflammatory political rhetoric on the left isn’t helping.
Four Immigration and Custom Enforcement facilities have come under siege in the last month, most recently the Tuesday shooting at the field office in San Antonio, Texas, as Democrats upped their attacks on the administration’s immigration policies with blasts at “concentration camps,” “Gestapo tactics,” and “children in cages.”
Her viral “concentration camp” comparison was cited in a manifesto by Willem Van Spronsen, the armed antifa activist who was killed by police July 14 after he threw incendiary devices at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, which he called an “abomination.”
“It has become fashionable again, in the aftermath of the mass shooting by a white separatist in El Paso, Texas, to ascribe blame for political violence to President Trump and his allies,” said the American Spectator’s John Jiang in a Thursday op-ed. “The knife cuts both ways.”
Todd Bensman, senior national security fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, cautioned against blaming political disagreements and policy debates for acts of violence committed by unhinged activists, but said politicians cross a line when they start invoking Nazi Germany.

The difference here, of course, is that the mainstream media amplifies the allegations against Trump, while they work their best to ignore similar allegations against Democrats. Moreover, they seem to jump through hoops to "find" connections that can tie acts of violence with Trump. In the case of the El Paso killer it was his use of the term "invasion" that prompted the media to declare that the killer was acting on Trump's behalf, while completely ignoring the 90% of his manifesto which justified his actions with social issues supported by liberals and Democrats. The knee jerk reaction from the press was to declare the California shooter a white nationalist based on a quote from a book that they felt was racist, only to walk back allegations when it turned out that the shooter was not White (Iranian/Italian).

On the flip side, you hear the media downplay the fact that the Dayton shooter was a supporter of Antifa and had been involved with armed protests that were at least Antifa influenced if not purely Antifa organized. The fact that he was a liberal, hated trump, and supported Warren were declared irrelevant by a hypocritical media.

Meanwhile, almost nobody has tied the recent attacks on ICE officials and ICE facilities to Ocasio-Cortez and her gang of "concentration camp" screamers. It was nearly impossible to not hear about her visits and the criticism of AOC and others regarding the detention facilities, or the ICE officials themselves. But the media has been a quiet as a church mouse about recent attacks on these facilities or on the ICE employees themselves (can anyone here even list the four attacks if they had even heard about all four?). Certainly if a shooter uses "one term" that they can associate with Trump (even as the same term can be associated with countless others) and cast blame. When the attacker in this case references the term "concentration camps" to justify his attacks, there really isn't anywhere else to go, but to associate it with Ocasio-Cortez and gang. But the lamestream media cannot quite seem to make that obvious connection.

The double standard would be laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous. Democrats at this point can literally incite violence (Castro's doxing donor list for example), and not face much, if any, scrutiny from most of the mainstream press. In fact, most liberals welcome such attempts to incite violence against conservatives, or otherwise find ways to hold conservatives "accountable" for having a difference of political opinion. The idea of some sort of political "civil war" is discussed ad nauseum by people on the left, as if it actually a justifiable means to garner the political power that they cannot seem to achieve at the ballot box.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

As soon as liberals fall to their knees and apologize about the Russian Trump collusion hoax

... they can then criticize the President about the Epstein Clinton murder connections. Until then, I suggest we spend the next three years, five investigations, and a $30 million special counsel getting to the bottom of whether or not the Clintons had anything to do with the Epstein murder.


Americans have a right to know the truth... and if there is no "there" "there" then we are no worse off for the wear than we were with the whole Russia Trump collusion hoax.

BREAKING!!!!!

Hickenlooper drops out of Democratic Race! 


Um, yeah... like does anyone really care? Who was he anyways?

Philly Shooter

This one doesn't fit the narrative 

Public records show that he has been arrested about a dozen times since turning 18, and convicted six times on charges that involved illegal possession of guns, drug dealing, and aggravated assault. He has been in and out of prison; the longest sentence handed him came in 2010, when a federal judge gave him a 55-month term.

Certainly proof positive that actual criminals will not follow gun control laws, just as they do not follow other laws. Sort of silly to assume that you can stop someone willing to commit mass murder by criminalizing gun ownership. What would they think: I'd like to shoot these 10 people, but I won't because owning a gun is against the law?

This is more about the whole soft on crime attitudes of certain politicians, who want to court favor with the very sorts of people who do commit crimes. I am all for criminal justice being about rehabilitation and giving people a second chance, or even a third. But perhaps the whole fourth, fifth, sixth, and seven chances are a bit much.

This is especially a problem when the people in these communities root for the criminal:

While Philadelphia police officers were dealing with a gunman who shot six of their own during a standoff at a home in the Nicetown-Tioga section, cops also had to deal with being taunted by some bystanders. CBS3’s Alexandria Hoff reports a crowd of people laughed and yelled at officers in the midst of gunfire during a standoff on Wednesday.

Reports are that cops were physically shoved and otherwise chastised for trying to bring this situation under control. I strongly suspect that anti-cop rhetoric from politicians is part of what drives citizens to do so. This is the effect of making our law enforcement out to be the bad guys.

The battle lines are definitely being drawn. Time to decide which side you fall on. Law and order, or crime and chaos.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

CNN comedy news channel?

Yang qualifies for September debates!

Steyer "this close"


So this officially happened late last week, but I missed it because (well frankly) who cares a lot about Andrew Wang. But the reality is that the more Democrats who qualify the more chances there are for everything to be completely mucked up in the debate, which is good for Trump and the GOP.

I actually like Wang. Glad he qualified. 

Meanwhile Tom Steyer is on pace for a spot as well. He apparently got to 130,000 donors and has three qualifying polls so far. Many are upset with his rise in donors, largely because he spent millions in advertising in order to gain less money in donations. The accusation being that he has "bought" his donor base. Fair enough. But 130,000 donors are 130,000 donors. I saw people in downtown St Paul with dollar bills in their hand asking people to sign up and donate $1.00 to Amy Klobuchar's campaign. Were they offering to front the $1.00 or were they using it as a prop? 

Either way, neither Wang, Steyer, or Klobuchar is going to win the nomination. Probably hanging around looking for a possible spot either on the ticket or in a potential cabinet if the Democrat actually wins (at least for Wang and Klobuchar - not too sure about Steyer). 

Still hoping Williamson and Gabbard make the field. The more than merrier. Williamson adds some comic relief, while Gabbard can pick on her jail yard bitch Kamala Harris a little more.

Another day, another BIden gaffe!

Well technically, this was another day and a rehash of something that is now being exploited as another gaffe. But Biden is taking some retroactive heat about a debate comment where he suggested that those who are crossing at the southern border should "get in line".

One top Biden surrogate, former Labor secretary and current Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis, said his "get in line" remark was just a poor choice of words. “I think he has to rephrase and pivot,” Solis said. “I know the man is compassionate and, more importantly, he has a record."

Which is exactly the problem.  Biden's actual record as a Senator does not match today's hyper-aggressive liberal positions on illegal immigration, and the Obama administration's actual record was much more aggressive in policing, arresting, and deporting illegals than even the Trump administration. As pointed out before, Biden voted for the very law that was being enforced by ICE with their recent raids of those food processing plants.

So as a matter of truth and honestly, Biden cannot pretend to have any sort of record that is left of the Trump record on immigration. As hard as that is to swallow, it is very much both a fact and a truth. He can only pretend to have changed his mind about his past record, and fall to the altar of open borders and free stuff for illegals.

But he has (and I find it admirable) stuck to much of his guns on this one. He is the so-called voice of reason within the Democratic primary candidates on immigration. But it certainly appears to be hurting more than helping him. This means that he will have to be extra extra careful about what he says and how he says it.

Get in line is a perfectly reasonable idea. Millions of people throughout the world want to come to America. Many have been waiting for years to get a chance. Is it really fair that they wait (or are completely turned away) because we are prioritizing those who enter the country illegally and many times break our employment laws to remain.

But in 2019  "get in line" might as well be a racial slur. Or in the case of Joe Biden, another gaffe that will make even more people question is viability at the top of the Democratic ticket.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

CNN stands by violent outburst

This is part of the reason CNN has about 17 viewers left
CNN is standing by anchor Chris Cuomo after a profanity-laced video of him threatening a heckler went viral Monday
As the conversation escalated, Cuomo added: "I’ll (expletive) ruin your (expletive). I’ll (expletive) throw you down these stairs like a (expletive) punk … you’re gonna call me Fredo, take a (expletive) swing?"

So take a stand CNN. Racist outbursts are racist outbursts angry tirades are angry tirades. You have no moral authority to judge others when you will not judge your own.

Monday, August 12, 2019

New liberal legal logic

People who break the law = victims
People who are tasked to enforce the law = bad guys

Family separation facility

The real question here is at what point did our liberal friends decide that the laws of our society are to be selectively enforced or ignored based on the whims a few? Isn't it ironic that someone who sat in Congress when laws were created is now telling us that the actions of enforcing those laws to be nothing short of terrorism.

Joe Biden among others voted for the very laws that were being enforced by the recent joint DOJ/ICE effort that arrested nearly 700 people.

The recent action against the food processing plants was about the exploitation of workers. These plants were underpaying these employees, the conditions were bad, and the companies were breaking all sorts of laws.

I agree that the companies (not just the workers) need to be held accountable. By all official versions, this was a long planned joint DOJ/ICE officials that was designed to target the employers (not the employees). The reality is that the workers are breaking the law (without question). They become the low hanging fruit. But the company is also under suspicion of breaking the law, and the case in question will largely be made on the backs of these workers who can prove the worst of the allegations against the company.

But either way, there were criminals here. Both the workers and employers. If and when it comes time to arrest the employers for their actions. I doubt very seriously whether Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi will step up and question those arrests because those Americans being arrested have families and children who might be without one of their parents.

Liberals don't care if American citizens who are arrested for breaking the law have families or end up with children living without that parent. For whatever reason, child separation is only an issue when it involves the person who currently is "not" a citizen of our county. Maybe someone can explain how some children are more important than others?

Joe Biden at his finest!

Sunday, August 11, 2019

These are new White Nationalist ideas!

How Climate Change Is Becoming a Deadly Part of White Nationalism
Patrick Crusius, the 21-year-old suspect police took into custody after the shooting, is believed to have uploaded a four-page white nationalist document to the message board 8chan (it’s since been removed from the site, which itself has been forced into retreat, and we won’t be linking to it) outlining his motives for killing at least 22 people at Walmart on Saturday. Included among its racist, anti-immigrant rhetoric are ideas central to the mainstream environmental movement. 
“[O]ur lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources,”
While I hesitate to call it a trend, there are growing signs the right-wing populists are leaning into climate change and other environmental crises as a way to drum up support for their policies of exclusion and hate.
Now, there’s also a powerful apocalyptic discourse that links climate change, environmental degradation, overpopulation, and scarcity. White nationalism is already steeped in violent apocalypticism—fears about the white race coming to an end feed the impetus to mount an Armageddon-style bloody-but-cleansing race war.

Or it could just be that what is obvious is what is real. Occam's razor so to speak. Patrick Crusius was an socialist environmental nut, who saw mass immigration as a major threat to a minimum guaranteed income, socialized medicine, and a more successful green policy. There is quite literally zero reason to believe that he wasn't exactly who he said he was in his manifesto.

Oh, and by the way, the only real reason for someone "not" to link his manifesto, is because the person writing about it doesn't want you to actually fact check them. There is nothing shocking or vulgar about the manifesto. Unless you are a Sanders/Warren type socialist or Al Gore environmentalist, then you would be shocked to see that he justified your arguments into mass murder.

White nationalism is white nationalism. It's the inherent believe that one race (whites) exists above others. If we now decide to expand the definition of white nationalism to anyone who is against illegal immigration for any reason whatsoever, then we no longer have a real definition of the term. The arguments made by Patrick Crusius in his manifesto could have been made by anyone of any race. There was no explicit suggestion that there was anything superior about white people, anymore than there was any explicit suggestion that there was anything superior about anyone living here legally. Just that they are currently here and that others are attempting (illegally) to invade their space and use up their resources. That might be a dumb argument, but it's not a white nationalist argument.

I get it. It's tough for liberals to understand that not everything fits into easy to understand compartments. Sometimes people are a little more complicated than that. It's also difficult for liberals to accept that their own extreme versions of political discord can lead to people acting out in violent and deadly fashion. They have gotten so used to just blaming "right wing" ideals or "racism" for every act of mass killing that it now gets to the point where it takes a five page essay to explain why black is white, up is down, and left is right, and this is the fault of Donald Trump. They continuously expand their range of logic into these sorts of fantastical realms, in order to stick to the talking points memo.

Truth is that mass killings is a bi-partisan thing. The only two obvious things we know about the recent mass shootings is that the California killer was Iranian/Italian and that the Dayton Ohio shooter was left wing radical who had stood with Antifa in armed conflicts. Because neither of them fit into the simple pattern that is ingrained in the mind of the typical liberal, we will hear less about them. Rather we will see the MSM focus on redefining the manifesto of the El Paso shooter into something their petty simpleton brains can wrap itself around. Which of course is the misguided concept that "everything" they disagree with is racism or white-nationalism.

Sunday Funnies!