Mueller No Closer At Making A Case Against Trump Than He Was A Year Ago.

/in , , , , /by

On Friday afternoon, the Mueller team and the Special Prosecutors Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a series of memos dealing with their investigation on Russian collusion, obstruction, and campaign illegalities.  In response, the left wing media went abuzz citing the damning implications of the release. One article by Erica Orden and Marshall Cohen of CNN claimed that “Federal prosecutors said for the first time Friday that Michael Cohen acted at the direction of Donald Trump when the former fixer committed two election-related crimes. . . ” It also claimed that the memos “exposed deeper entanglements than previously known between Trump, his campaign apparatus and the Russian government, . . .” including a claim of “‘political synergy'” between Moscow and Cohen.  Meanwhile, The New York Times headlined a prosecutorial charge that “Trump Directed Illegal Payments During Campaign.”

In fact, the memos contained little by way of new material, and some of the cited comments were actually mere corollary references to the President with little indication of illegality on his part.

The memos, available at The Federalist Pages Library, are part of the ongoing prosecutorial wrangling against Trump allies Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.  In Cohen’s case, the two memos represent sentencing recommendations by the prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and Robert Mueller.  The federal prosecutors recommended “a substantial term of imprisonment” for Cohen while Mueller was much more cryptic stating only that the sentence should “reflect the fact that lying to federal investigators has real consequences, especially where the defendant lied to investigators about critical facts, in an investigation of national importance.”

But of more interest to the media were the comments implicating Cohen in Russian collusion or campaign finance violations on behalf of, or in coordination with, the President of the United States.  And although the press is doing its best to spin the published comments, in point of fact, no such allegations were made.

First, any objective analysis of these memos must acknowledge that neither refers to the actions of President Trump.  They specifically discuss and detail the actions of Michael Cohen.  In those instances where Trump is mentioned, the references are made solely with regard to the Cohen’s actions.  The prosecutor’s memo spends some time discussing potential campaign financing violations by Candidate Trump from the standpoint of Michael Cohen.  The allegations made regarding the President, if any, are actually those made by Cohen. In other words, there is no independent evidence presented that President Trump actually did anything wrong. There are contemporaneous comments made by Cohen where he claimed he was acting on behalf of candidate Trump and that he was facilitating Trump’s campaign, but these are hearsay comments made by a discredited party sounding like nothing more than boastful and hollow fluffery.

The references to potential Cohen participation in illegal campaign activity present no new insights or information regarding any potential violations on the part of Candidate Trump.  The memos spend a considerable time detailing the previously disclosed events surrounding alleged payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.  But the narrative provides no new details on the events nor does it provide any information regarding any orders from Candidate Trump.  More importantly, the memo does nothing to address the issue of intent on the part of Candidate Trump, a necessary element in any case regarding campaign-finance violations.  Specifically, the memo does nothing to clarify whether Candidate Trump desired to silence the women to keep him from falling into a negative light with his wife and in his business dealings, or whether this was primarily a campaign concern as would be required in a successful prosecution of Trump.

The second issue discussed in the Mueller memo is Cohen’s involvement in Trump’s dealings with the Russians and the possibility of cooperation between the two in influencing the outcome of the presidential election.  Here, the memos offered no evidence that such activities took place.  As a matter of fact, they dealt only with Trump’s legal real estate dealings with Russian nationals.

The Manafort memorandum is even less helpful to a potential case against President Trump because it is so heavily redacted. Just as in the Cohen memos, it deals not provide allegations against Trump.  Specifically, the memo makes the case that Manafort engaged in numerous lies after his plea agreement in 2018.

Despite the paucity of information regarding the President and any wrongdoing on his part, the media are doing everything in their power to divine implications that simply do not exist.  CNN’s and The New York Times’ comments regarding the President having directed Cohen to commit election related crimes is simply not true.  The claim comes from a sentence in the prosecutors’ memo detailing an admission by Cohen.  Specifically, the memo says, “In Particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination and at the direction of Individual 1.”  (Individual 1 in the memo is Candidate Trump.)  As is clearly evident, this sentence provides no independent evidence that President Trump actually directed the payments in question.  Rather, it is merely a recitation of the claim made by the already discredited Michael Cohen.  And even if Candidate Trump did direct the payments in question, one cannot conclude based on the information gathered, that the payments were illegal as CNN prematurely asserts.

The comment of “political synergy” alluded to by CNN is even more deceitful.  This one comes from the Mueller memo describing a Russian national repeatedly offering Cohen the opportunity to arrange for “‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level,'” an invitation that Mueller specifies Cohen “never follow[ed] up on.”

In the end, the media’s enthusiasm over the contents of these memos is overplayed, once again demonstrating their zeal to go after the President no matter how fictitious an allegation may be.  Although Friday’s claim by the President that he had been completely vindicated by the contents of the memos is overly enthusiastic, to say the least, the media’s claim that these memos contained anything threatening against the President is downright unfounded.

Once again, we will have to wait for the production of further documents on the part of federal prosecutors before a definitive conclusion can be made.  But this much can be gleaned.  With the information available, Mueller is no closer to establishing a case against Trump today, than he was one year ago.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Joel & Jasmin Førestbird on Unsplash.

High-End Retailer Nordstrom Has Low-Brow Standards for Life and Values

/in , , , /by

Nordstrom is one of America’s leading retailers of high-end clothing. Their values, however, are very low-quality. On life, guns, marriage, and religious liberty, Nordstrom is a low-quality store which should be avoided by 2ndVote shoppers this Christmas season.

Nordstrom backs a number of groups with values opposed to those of 2ndVote consumers. The YWCA, for example, opposes your Second Amendment rights, backs a redefinition of marriage, and supports abortion. Nordstrom is a financial supporter of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights and Girls Inc., which back abortion, and Susan G. Komen and United Way — both of which are financial backers of Planned Parenthood.

Finally, Nordstrom opposes your religious liberty rights. They have created a corporate structure which ranks 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. They back the Equality Act, which if enacted will undermine First Amendment rights related to religious liberty.

This Christmas season, be sure to go high-end for clothing gifts and your values…by avoiding Nordstrom.

Many of our better Christmas alternatives have online retail options and all the items in our 2018 Christmas Gift Guide are linked to vetted online retailers. Sign up for our newsletter below to receive a free copy of the guide:

Connedservative Cures: For the West to Live, “Equality” Must Die

/in , , , , /by

Equality is the chief faux virtue of our time. Our obsession with it brings to mind the great G.K. Chesterton’s observation,

“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

Long ago the West erred by exalting “equality” at, ultimately, quality’s — and sanity’s — expense. In fact, it’s at a point where boys claiming girlhood are allowed in girls’ bathrooms and locker areas based on equality dogma. How do we correct this mistake? First, stop being connedservative and realize that few people have pondered equality deeply and that, of those who have, few actually believe in it.

Let’s start with what most already reject: seeking equality of outcome. We so often hear, for example, that growing income disparities must be eliminated. Not only does this imply big-government redistributionism, but does “inequality” actually tell us anything relevant?

Consider: Imagine two tennis centers training children. After a given period, all the kids at the first are advanced beginners. At the second, there are some advanced beginners, a large group comprising varied intermediates, a decent-size set of advanced players and a few approaching tournament caliber. Which center exhibits more equality?

Now, at which are the kids faring far better on average?

This absolutely reflects the “income gaps” reality. The rich are getting richer — but so are most others. As even left-wing Think Progress reported in 2013, the current standard of living worldwide is history’s highest. Thank the spread of the market-economy meritocratic system.

Examining our related Diversity™ obsession, is there one endeavor that equal group representation would improve? Would the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL be better being 50 percent female and reflecting the wider population’s racial/ethnic composition?

Then, Jews are less than one percent of the world’s population but constitute 20 percent of its Nobel Laureates, and most great scientists are men. Would intellectual endeavors be improved by enforcing proportional group representation?

Lesson: Equality tells us nothing about quality.

Equality Under Law

“But we must have equality under the law,” the connedservative will say. Really? Because we don’t have it — and never have.

Most obviously, minors aren’t afforded adult rights and privileges, with even smart 15-year-olds disallowed from driving, voting, entering into contracts, joining the military, etc.

Then, only men must register for selective service; if there’s a major war, only men will have to make the ultimate sacrifice.

This is easily remedied? That’s not the point. Many of us understand why the sexes have always been, and should be, treated differently by government (though men deserve benefits, too, but that’s another topic). So, in reality, do we actually believe in true “equality under the law”?

Equality of Opportunity

This is related to the above, and we already know how minors don’t have equal opportunity. But what of women? If in the military, should they be allowed in every role, including front-line-combat and submarine service? For insight, ponder the pregnancy rate aboard navy vessels, often dubbed “love boats.”

Then there’s how females are sometimes allowed entry into males’ sports; ex-golfer Annika Sorenstam receiving a sponsor’s exemption (i.e., she didn’t earn her spot) to play in the 2003 Colonial PGA tournament is an example. Yet that this is considered fair even though males traditionally aren’t allowed in females’ athletics (“transgender” issue aside) not only violates the “equal opportunity” pseudo-principle, but reflects a tacit acknowledgment of inequality. To wit: Boys and men are better at sports — ergo, this New Chivalry double standard.

Unequal opportunity’s legitimacy becomes clearer when further considering the private/social sphere and its social laws and economic imperatives. Would it be odd if men didn’t have equal opportunities to become daycare workers? What if West Indian, Japanese and German restaurants only wanted, respectively, black, Asian and white employees because they lend business-buttressing authenticity? There’s also how bars only hire male bouncers and countless other examples.

Yet the equality lie is best illustrated by its proponents. Consider: Despite sanctimonious talk about “glass ceilings” disadvantaging females, within “the feminist grievance narrative, there is no whining about women being ‘excluded’ from working-class male-dominated professions,” American Thinker’s Katie El-Diwany wrote last month. “There is more than plenty of talk about the dearth of women in science, in engineering, in upper management positions, and as CEOs. But there is no one asking: where are all the female garbage-collectors, the female elevator technicians, the female landscape laborers, the female oil rig workers?”

That their rarity approaches unicorn status is why men constitute 92 percent of workplace deaths, another unequal outcome seldom addressed. There’s also the intersex wage-gap controversy, which persists despite conclusive evidence that women earn less because of their different career choices, not discrimination. Nonetheless, while we hear incessant complaints about women’s lower pay in sports, acting or elsewhere — a market-forces-driven phenomenon — there’s nary a word regarding how female fashion models greatly outearn their male counterparts.

As El-Diwany concludes,

“All of this reveals that feminist clamoring for ‘equal representation’ is not about equality at all. It is about power and prestige.”

In truth, “equality’” today has the same kind of meaning “peace,” “freedom” and “strength” did in Orwell’s 1984 dystopia. It’s ploy not principle, self-righteously deployed as rallying cry to gain advantage and further a politically correct brand of inequality.

Equality dogma has also invited statist hell. For if all groups are equal in worldly capacities, as the dogma holds, then inter-group performance differences must result from discrimination. This justifies social engineering as “remedy”; ergo, quotas, affirmative action, set-asides and disparate-impact rulings that destroy relevant merit-based standards.

Yet it gets worse. One reason equality-based groups — the “Reign of Terror” French revolutionaries and mass-murdering Marxists — have bled the ground red is simple:

Equality is unnatural

Does it exist in nature? Some species are more dominant within the same environment or survive more readily within a given one. Within the same species, some members are larger, hardier, stronger or faster. Moreover, hierarchies reign. Examples: one lion rules the pride and one silverback gorilla the troop — and chickens really do have a pecking order.

Is man this rule’s one exception? In reality, human conception involves essentially an infinite number of possible combinations, individual talents and gifts vary greatly, and even groups have characteristic strengths and weaknesses.

Thus, equality-obsessed movements are contrary to nature — they fight and must try to defeat it (e.g., Lysenkoism). Imagine the intrusive, perverted control required to (vainly) try to achieve equality in a lion pride or gorilla troop. In man’s civilization such schemes beget bizarre social engineering, meritocracy’s destruction, suppression of the successful, oppression and, when applied zealously enough, the Khmer Rouge killing fields.

Yet seeing no option, people can’t imagine shedding equality dogma. “Without equality as guide,” the thinking goes, “how is unjust discrimination avoidable?” First note that this occurs in “equality’s” name, too (e.g., quotas). But this gets at why equality is a faux virtue: We’ve forgotten the real ones.

“Virtues” are morality’s elements; defined long ago, examples are charity, honesty, diligence, courage, humility and temperance. Equality tells us nothing relevant about, let’s say, why blacks but not women should be on navy submarines or illegal-alien caravans should be denied entry; equality dogma, per se, is insufficient for drawing distinctions. But the virtues — in particular, justice and prudence in the latter case and those two along with chastity in the former — do thus help inform. Of course, all the virtues must be accepted and applied because they balance each other out.

To cement the point, consider equality arguments’ fruits: boys in girls’ bathrooms, women in formerly men’s institutions (VMI) and men in women’s sports (“transgenders”), the sexual-devolutionary agenda in schools, LGBTQ “rights” and Drag Queen Story Hour, claims that Muslim immigrants can’t be denied entry, the 1965 immigration act-born demographic upheaval, same-sex “marriage,” the Boy Scouts becoming “Gender-neutral” scouts, coercing businessmen into servicing homosexual events, Satanic “Christmas” displays and countless other trespasses. In Sweden, a multiple-sclerosis patient was even denied possibly restorative drug treatment — that he was willing to finance himself — because it would violate the “equal access to medicine” principle.

How’s that “equality” workin’ for ya’?

None of these outrages would or could occur in a virtue-oriented civilization. Just as accepting scientific principles renders impossible pseudo-science such as alchemy, trephination and bloodletting, knowing and accepting moral principles (virtues) render impossible the pseudo-morality called political correctness — and all its manifestations.

There’s a reason equality was never defined a virtue. A modern mistake, its emphasis was born of the so-called “Enlightenment,” thus named, mind you, by those within the movement (hmm, people fancying themselves more “enlightened” than everyone else. Remind you of anyone?). The radical leftist French revolutionaries had their cry, “Liberté, égalité, stupidité” (okay, that’s a paraphrase). Our Founding Fathers also emphasized equality; of course, they’d recoil at its current perverse manifestations. Yet they nonetheless erred, a result of a (very human) overreaction to European classism. Far better, and truer, than “All men are created equal…” would be “All men are created sacred.” Then, subsequently, the 19th-century socialists picked up and ran with the equality ball — and the rest is dark history.

Exalting equality is another example of conservatives conserving yesterday’s liberals’ liberalism, playing the caboose to their engine of entropic end-times change. But what once was “progressives’” mistake is now ours, and, if the West is to survive, we must stop preventing that mistake from being corrected.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Note: This article is the first in a series on exposing modern (liberal) lies, explaining the disordered leftist mind and restoring civilization.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Proper Monitoring of Florida’s Highways a Matter of Life and Death

/in , , , , , /by

With its growing population and traffic congestion, Florida is dealing with a critical problem: securing the safety of its roads and highways.  Yes, the state has been spending a sizable amount in road improvement projects; a simple drive up I-75 is all that is needed to see the evidence of that.

But better roads and improved surface technology is only the tip of the asphalt.  Equally as important to ensuring road safety are the men and women responsible for monitoring our roadways and enforcing our traffic laws.

Between 2010 and 2017 the number of highway patrol officers (troopers) plummeted by 993, nearly half of the number of the 1,974 troopers the state allots to the Florida Highway Patrol.  These workforce challenges have mirrored the plummeting number of traffic citations generated during the same time period. Between 2011 and 2016, the number of speeding tickets generated by the Florida Highway Patrol dropped from 317,000 to 258,000, or a drop of 19%.  At the same time, the number of licensed drivers has increased from 15,374,230 to 16,568,874, with a commensurate increase in the number of registered vehicles at 16,682,411 in 2016 compared to 14,795,836 in 2011.  More tragically, between 2011 and 2016, the number of vehicular deaths has similarly increased from 2,403 deaths in 2011 to 3,176 deaths in 2016, a 32% increase.

Unquestionably, the causes of these trends are multiple. For one, Florida continues to grapple with one of the more robust growth rates in the country, a trend that has taken its population to 20.6 million inhabitants without any signs of slowing down. Moreover, Florida has 122,736 miles of road with 14,298 of those miles belonging to state and federal agencies.  More roads with more cars and more drivers generally amount to more accidents, with drug and alcohol use, and distractions such as texting while driving, playing integral roles in influencing these statistics.  Additionally, the shared jurisdictional responsibilities between state and municipality law enforcement agencies have led to confusion, frustration, and redundancy in costs.

So, although factors such as congestion and carelessness certainly drive the number of vehicular fatalities up in any given year, so do fewer numbers of troopers.

And one of the big causes of attrition among troopers is pay.

Perhaps the most straightforward concept for improving the FHP’s funding situation is simply to increase the amount of money the legislature allocates to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV) for the FHP.  However, with the legislature’s competing funding priorities, it has been difficult to adequately fund highway enforcement

Another solution would be to simply do away with the FHP and allow the monitoring of Florida’s highways to be undertaken by Florida’s sheriffs.  The FHP workforce could then be transferred to the various sheriffs’ departments to handle the extra load along with some extra state funding.

However, a pilot program of this sort died in the State House of Representatives in 2017, and it does not appear there is any more appetite for such a program in 2019. Another possibility is transferring the FHP out of the auspices of the FDHSMV and placing under the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).  Such a move, in theory, could save millions in administrative costs while streamlining law enforcement responsibilities within the state.  But FDLE is not eager to absorb the FHP and its associated responsibilities.

Whichever alternative is chosen, it is clear that adequately patrolling Florida’s highways will continue to be a challenge that if left unresolved will cost Floridians’ lives.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Sid Verma on Unsplash.

Baby, It’s Politically Correct Outside

/in , , , , /by

Tis the season, not for Christmas or any other religious holiday, but for political correctness. It appears the holidays have triggered a wave of criticism over audio/video classics as heard and seen for years over our airwaves. This is just another example of political correctness running amok.

First there was the TV special, “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving,” which originally aired in 1973 and won an Emmy Award. For 45 years, it was a beloved holiday classic, but not in 2018 when it was accused of racism. It was recently pointed out that at the dinner-table scene, Franklin, the lone black character, sat on one side of the table alone in a lawn chair, while the other white characters were on the opposite side sitting in regular chairs. Critics today claim this is a very racist scene. To his credit, Charles M. Schulz, created Franklin in 1968, making him one of the first cartoonists to incorporate a black character in his strip. Schulz later claimed he created Franklin after being inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. So instead of applauding Schulz’s efforts, he is criticized by the PC police in 2018.

Next, we have the 1964 Christmas Classic, “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” narrated by the late great Burl Ives. For 54 years, this film was cherished by children, but not in 2018 where critics today declare it “disturbing.” Santa is accused of racism for not accepting Rudolph due to his red nose, Hermey the Elf is described as a “Sadistic Psychopath,” the elves are accused of inbreeding, and Yukon Cornelius is considered “Mentally Unstable.” I wonder how we overlooked all of this for over 50 years?

In 1969, “Frosty the Snowman” was brought to television and narrated by the late Jimmy Durante with his marvelous gravelly voice. It was inspired by the popular song sung in 1950 by the legendary cowboy-singer Gene Autry. For 49 years the show was enjoyed by millions of children, but again, as with the others, it is not acceptable in 2018. Frosty’s melting scene is now said to give children nightmares as he is “viciously murdered” by an evil magician who wants Frosty’s magic hat. Santa returns to bring Frosty back to life, but it is now being claimed this scene traumatizes young people. Having grown up in the north, and made many a snowman in my day, we all knew they were not real and what would happen when the Spring thaw came, but to be traumatized by this in 2018, it makes you wonder what they are putting in kid’s cereals these days.

Finally, we come to WDOK-FM 102.1 (aka, Star 102) in Cleveland who recently banned the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” as it could be construed as promoting male predatory tactics of women, something of keen interest to the #MeToo movement (anyone remember the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings?). Although it is not a true Christmas song, it was written in 1944 and played around the holidays. It is primarily sung as a duet between a man and a women. In its 74 year history, there have been dozens of renditions by a variety of artists, including: Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Jordan, Esther Williams and Ricardo Montalbán, Vanessa Williams and Bobby Caldwell, Lee Ann Womack and Harry Connick Jr., Anne Murray and Michael Bublé, Martina McBride and Dean Martin, and many others. Great music, but you won’t hear it anytime soon in Cleveland.

WDOK-FM ran a poll on their Facebook page asking listeners what holiday song should be omitted from their playlist, and out of 600 responses, 94% (564 votes) were in favor of it, but only 6% (36 votes) were against it. So, thanks to a meager 36 people, the radio station dumped the tune. Who-da-thunk-it?

All of these shows and music range in age from 49 to 74 years old, and introduced in the 1940’s, 50’s, the turbulent 60’s, and early 70’s. One cannot help but wonder where was the outrage back then? Were we really so naive and clueless not to see the hidden meanings? Is it possible we were socially mal-adjusted or is there something wrong with today’s sense of right and wrong? Frankly, I think there is something in the water causing this distortion of reality. These classics may not have been the most brilliant artistically, but I do not believe they were deliberately designed to embarrass anyone.

The criticisms of the old television classics appear to be coming from Millennial writers who seem to be making mountains out of mole hills. They either want to create something controversial to boost their readership, or they honestly believe the nonsense they write. Unfortunately, their badgering will likely cause the mainstream media to abandon these holiday classics. I just wonder what they propose to replace them with, perhaps titles such as, “A Charlie Brown LGBT Thanksgiving,” “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Wussy,” “Frosty the Snowflake,” and “Baby, Get Your Ass Out of Here, Can’t You See I’m Texting?”

The far left is confounded by President Trump who is an ardent proponent of Christmas. The fact he likes to say “Merry Christmas” this time of year, as opposed to “Happy Holidays” or “Season Greetings,” drives them crazy. Since there appears to be a resurgence in Christmas, the left is attacking the peripheral aspects of the holidays, hence the attacks on Rudolph, Frosty, et al. They will not be happy until organized religion, particularly Christianity, is removed from our culture. The reality though is this will never happen.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Mandatory Social Issues Literacy Quiz for Millennials

/in , /by

Are you an outraged millennial? Are you outraged about the right things? Are you expressing your unique and personal convictions according to acceptable protocol?

This quiz will help you discover if you’re qualified to speak out on public policy or if you’re in need of the free reeducation resources and free meals made possible through public education.

Ready? Let’s go!

If airplanes and box cutters are used to commit mass murder, independent thinkers like you will blame __.

a) George W. Bush (he was the worst president we’ve ever had before Trump)
b) America
c) Islamophobia
d) Jihadists

If bombs are detonated at a Boston Marathon, sensitive and passionate people like you will blame __.

a) Department stores that flaunt their wealth in the face of vulnerable Chechen immigrants
b) Competitive sporting events that distinguish between “winners” and “losers”
c) Prager University
d) Jihadists

If a truck is used to run over people at a Christmas event in Germany, thoughtful and reflective young people like you will blame __.

a) Offensive displays of Christian themed holidays
b) Trucks
c) Europeans who want to protect their borders
d) Jihadists

If a firearm is used in a mass murder event, young, articulate, far-seeing social justice warriors like you will blame __.

a) Guns
b) Firearms
c) Assault rifles with black things on them
d) The guiltless party who was driven by the NRA to commit acts of senseless murder

How did you do? Did you answer either a, b, or c to all of the above questions? Great! That means you’re thinking laudable, appropriate, and correct thoughts. You think for yourself, and you won’t rest until you demand that somebody else do something to make you feel good. Treat yourself to a well deserved Tide pod.

Wait a minute, did you answer d to any of the above questions? Then you’re not thinking for yourself like everybody else, and you need reeducation to help you independently arrive at acceptable opinions. Report yourself immediately to the nearest Karl Marx Treatment Center.

If you’re not sure you have the courage to admit yourself, don’t worry, your public school principal will. Your principal cares, and that’s why you can’t spell principal without pal. It may be a little scary at first, but in the end you’ll be a better, well adjusted, free thinking progressive like all your correct thinking peers.

Millennials2.jpg

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Komissar al-Blogunov originally appeared on The Peoples Cube. The featured photo is by ShareGrid on Unsplash.

The Word “Mean” is the Leftists’ Lethal Weapon

/in , , , , , , , /by

Founded upon Christian principles, Americans have always eventually done the right thing – freed the slaves, gave women the right to vote and so on. While we are an extremely compassionate people, throughout our history we have made adult commonsense decisions to preserve our homeland; good stewards of God’s gift of America.

Today, leftists’ (Democrats, Hollywood and Fake news) most powerful weapon to overrule commonsense and further their anti-America agenda is the word “mean.” Far too many Republicans and conservatives regard being declared mean by leftists an immediate stop sign; preventing the enforcement of our laws and blocking the implementation of commonsense solutions good for America.

Fully supported by American leftists, illegals are saying screw you America. We are invading your country whether you like it or not; arrogantly breaking our immigration laws. They demand to feed on our welfare safety-net set up for Americans. Outrageously, Obama gave illegals freebies unavailable to Americans; free attorneys and more. Obama used taxpayers’ money to spend over 60 grand per illegal to settle them in America. We spend $11 to $22 billion each year on freebies for illegals. 

Obama spread illegals around the country, irresponsibly putting medically untested children of illegals into our schools infecting our kids with strange diseases. That was mean. Leftists like Obama are consistently mean to Americans.

Can you believe illegal students in our schools are allowed to demand that U.S. students not wear clothing to school that features the U.S. Flag on Mexican holidays? Illegals claim wearing U.S. gear on a Mexican holiday is racist, insensitive and mean. Incredibly, leftist school administrators agree and send U.S. students home for wearing t-shirts which feature our flag. 

We welcome people who had a burning desire to become Americans and entered our country legally. For years, I witnessed the character and passion of such migrants when I performed my original song, “Celebrate America” at Immigration Naturalization Ceremonies in Maryland. Many wept after taking their oath of allegiance.

The illegals invading our country today have no desire to become Americans; no desire to assimilate. Quite the opposite. Illegals give learning English, embracing our culture and honoring our flag their middle fingers. Fake news hides the fact that many of the thousands of young men illegally invading our country are known gang members. 

Irresponsible foreign parents send their children unaccompanied to make the extremely dangerous journey to the American border armed with abortion pills because the chances of being raped are high. Fake news hides the truth that illegals are committing horrendous crimes on Americans including decapitating a 13 year old girl in Alabama. Leftists attempt to silence anyone who states these truths by calling them mean racists.

Leftists hide the truth that the illegals invading our country are defiant; demanding rights while disrespecting our homeland. Fake news media and Hollywood flood the airwaves with images and lies portraying the invaders as good people simply seeking a better life. Therefore, it is mean and racist to attempt to stop them. Republicans, Conservatives and Trump voters who understand that without borders we do not have a country are branded mean racist haters by the American left.

Leftists strategically use the word mean to block the enforcement of immigration law. However, leftists have no problem being mean to Americans. For example: Leftists hide and financially support illegal felons who murder, rob and rape Americans in their sanctuary cities; extremely mean to Americans.

Thirty-two year old Kate Steinle was shot and killed by Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, an illegal with numerous felons, deported numerous times. Sanctuary city San Francisco kept welcoming Zarate back and outrageously acquitted Zarate of Kate’s murder. 

Republicans and conservatives sought to pass Kate’s Law which would give mandatory jail-time to deported illegal felons who keep coming back. Democrats fought Kate’s Law tooth and nail, in essence, saying screw you to protecting U.S. Citizens.

Imagine returning home from vacation. To your shock and horror, your backyard has been transformed into a ghetto tent city with women, children and a large number of young men. Gang symbols are spray painted on your house siding. There are piles of trash. Invaders have broken into your home. Valuables have been stolen. The invaders run a massive number of extension cords from inside and outside your home to power their electrical needs. Your wife and daughter are sexually threatened. Your middle school son has developed a strange cough.

Upon contacting law enforcement and your Democrat mayor to remove the invaders from your property, you are excoriated; called a mean racist. Your mayor demands that you purchase more homeowners insurance, upgrade your electrical power and make various other concessions to accommodate your poor guests who are only seeking a better life.

Local fake news TV shows up. Keeping the mob of tattooed young men flashing gang signs off camera, the leftist reporter interviews a women holding a child. Overwhelmingly sympathetic to the invaders, the reporter airs a news story portraying the invaders as good people who are simply seeking a better life. You are branded the villainous mean white racist homeowner who refuses to share your stuff. More illegals arrive daily invading other homesteads throughout your community.

My fellow Americans this is exactly what is happening to our country. Fake news media is attempting 24/7 to brand president Trump the mean bad guy for not opening our border to the free-flow of illegals. Democrats, Hollywood, social media and fake news media are doing their part to convince Americans that attempting to stop the invasion of our home is mean and racist.

Thank God president Trump is not deterred or intimated by leftists’ never-ending campaign to brand him mean and racist. Trump continues to make adult commonsense decisions in the best interest of Americans.

RELATED ARTICLE: Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant Households Are on Welfare

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Giorgio Encinas on Unsplash.

The Paris Riots Are Really About Macrón’s Globalism

/in , , , , , , /by

Yesterday, I watched an incredibly insightful interview by Christianne Amanpour with the Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, a link to which I have posted in our new and growing Library.  Szijjarto demonstrated incredible composure as he warded off repeated assaults from Amanpour on Hungarian nationalism and the country’s immigration policies.  And I also noticed one other thing; no one is rioting in Budapest.

As previously reported in “The Federalist Pages,” the Paris, gilet jaunes riots, so called because of the yellow vests worn by demonstrators, are a direct result of President Emmanuel Macrón’s decision to raise fuel taxes by the equivalent of 0.25¢ per gallon on gasoline that already costs the equivalent of $6.00 per gallon. Macrón’s decision is openly based on his perceived need to cut down on gas consumption in order to fight off global warming.  The reality is that France accounts for about 2% of the world’s oil consumption, and it is already second only to the United States in nuclear power production.  So, to say that Macrón’s fuel tax is going to make any difference in the world’s carbon footprint defies reality.

There must be another reason that drives Macrón to raising fuel taxes.

Macrón is a globalist.  More importantly, Macrón is strongly pro-European Union.  It is very possible that his policy positions on global warming and carbon footprints are overtures designed to appease the interests of the members of the European Union in an effort to strengthen his position there in anticipation of a post-presidential position.

But Macrón has been too eager to abandon the interests of his own constituency.  Macrón is viewed as the president of the rich, and his green tax incentives are not seen by the French as altruistic efforts for the betterment of the world order, but rather as a self-indulgent effort by the President of the rich.  French citizens appropriately view his fuel taxes as disproportionately impacting the poor and middle classes, a perception confirmed by the New York Times in its recent report on the French’s reaction to the fuel tax.  In fact in a poll conducted on Saturday, after the initiation of the French riots, gilet jaunes carried a 72% approval rating among the French.  Scenes of the French police and firemen removing their covers in solidarity with the demonstrators that have been flowing through social media validate that impression.

It is interesting that these events should come in the heels of Macrón’s harsh criticisms of President Trump and his strongly “nationalistic” views.  In his zeal to criticize the American President, Macrón has actually revealed a much more threatening truth about his priorities to the French people, Macrón does not value the importance of representing the interests of France in the world stage.  In fact, he would rather have France suffer through painful measures such as exorbitant green taxes to appease the needs of others over the needs of the French.

Indeed, in making his case, Macrón openly conflated the context in which President Trump uses the word “nationalism.” President Trump’s “nationalism” is philosophy upholding the societal benefits of the nation-state in international and domestic policies.  Macrón’s contention that that the term “nationalism” even as used by Trump, denoted the arrogant, ethnocentric view of believing in the superiority one’s race even if it means the eradication of all others.

It is clear, that Trump’s call for a healthy sense of nationalism and patriotism is inconsistent with the false charge made by President Macrón at the 100 years anniversary of the Armistice ending World War I.

After having failed to make the case against President Trump, the implication of Macrón’s globalist philosophies and the lack of regional representation they beget played themselves out in a hostile and painful manner in the City of Lights, which has lately become the City of Bonfires.

Yes, the gilet jaunesriots are about abusive tax policies.  They are also about ramming a green agenda down the throats of the people when they can ill afford to comply despite the futility of the actions they are being asked to undertake.  But they are also an anti-antinationalist movement that recognizes the precarious position in which a population is placed when its leader does not uphold his or her nation’s priorities.

It is evident that Hungary recognizes this truth, much to Christiane Amanpour’s chagrin.  And France has not, much to the chagrin of its own citizenry.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Dorian Hurst on Unsplash.

Michigan Lawmakers Urge Fast-Food Chains to Stop Offering ‘Gender-Classified’ Toys

/in , , , , , , /by

More than a dozen Michigan lawmakers support a resolution in the state’s House of Representatives pressuring fast-food chains like McDonald’s to eliminate “gender-classified” toys from their children’s meals.

State Rep. Leslie Love, D-Detroit, who introduced House Resolution No. 49 on Wednesday, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview that the purpose of her resolution is to stop fast-food chains from reinforcing gender stereotypes.

“I would visit fast-food restaurants and when you go through the drive-thru they always ask if you want a girl’s toy or a boy’s toy, which was really annoying. Just offer people a toy … and move on with it,” she said. “How do we get caught up in gender identity with a toy?”

“We’re telling them [children] in advance … that this toy equals a boy and this toy equals a girl,” Love said. “We’re setting up this prejudice in our children unconsciously, unknowingly. It has become so ingrained that this dysfunction is almost normal.”

The resolution states, “If a customer desires a toy, it should be one of his or her choice without classification by gender. Customers should simply be offered the choice of toy.” Lawmakers even included a written example of how to offer the toy: “Would you like a Transformer or a My Little Pony?”

It goes on to list the negative effects of offering gender-codified fast-food toys—including damage to the imagination and aspirations of children—which it says “numerous studies have highlighted,” warning:

This is a significant issue as billions of these meals are sold every year and this practice can influence and limit children’s imaginations and interests by promoting some toys as only suitable for girls and others only for boys.

“Boys are more likely to play with toys that develop spatial intelligence and reasoning than girls,” the resolution continues, citing a 2015 study by Association for Psychological Science. “These skills are especially important for success in academic and professional domains, including science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).”

But not everyone sees the issue as a legislative priority in the state:

Others expressed concern that the move represents an increasing encroachment of political correctness into everyday life:

For her part, Love said she has received positive feedback from her constituents on her Facebook page, and that this resolution hasn’t prevented her from being an effective lawmaker.

“It’s not an either/or situation, it’s an and/with situation,” she told The Daily Signal.

Love said she has already tackled many quality-of-life issues, such as pay equity, increasing minimum wage, and improving water quality.

“If not, I would feel bad working on this resolution,” she said.

Love also downplayed concerns about the intrusiveness of her legislation. She said the resolution was meant to give fast-food companies “an opportunity on their own to agree, take a look at their culture, and see how they can do better,” comparing her resolution to resolutions asking companies to put a greater emphasis on recycling.

Love pointed to companies that have already recognized the need to shift away from gender classification.

“Target has said they would stop using that kind of language and stop painting the girl’s section pink and the boy’s section blue.”

The resolution, which currently has 13 Democrat co-sponsors and one Republican co-sponsor, is not legally binding, and would merely constitute a suggestion for fast-food chains to change their current practices. It specifies that copies of its text should be sent to the CEOs of major fast-food chains in the state upon passage.

Love indicated the resolution was assigned to the Commerce Committee, and does not yet know when a vote will take place.

Additionally, Love said she was motivated by the circumstances surrounding this year’s midterm elections, which saw a record number of women elected to Congress.

“Women were really breaking glass ceilings in Detroit,” she said. “Michigan just elected its first female governor, its first openly lesbian attorney general, and it’s first female Democratic secretary of state.”

She also noted that in the wake of the #TimesUp and #MeToo movements, the country has seen more women than ever “having a voice” and “breaking barriers.”

“People are noticing things that we haven’t noticed before. Consciousness has moved forward during this time.“

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

COLUMN BY

Troy Worden

Troy Worden is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Bart Ah You/Zuma Press/Newscom.

Concerning The Pipe-Bomb Maker! Food for thought…

/in , , , /by

The average guy thinks about this stuff:

1. A guy builds 13 bombs, none of which work.
2. Mails them to 13 people, none of whom open their own mail.
3. Leaves fingerprints and DNA, even though his fingerprints and DNA are in the FBI system…he’s not concerned about being caught.
4. Misspelled FLORIDA on ALL 13 envelopes. He LIVES in Florida!
5. Mails envelopes within 10 miles of his home…again, not a bit concerned about being caught!
6. Has NEW pro-Trump signs and anti-Hillary signs plastered all over his van in a predominantly LIBERAL area, but the van has no visible damage to it.(miraculous?!!)
7. None of the envelopes have USPS cancellation on stamp.
8. Two more envelopes get delivered in California while the guy is in custody…somehow the envelopes make it miraculously through numerous security check points from east coast to west.
9. Guy somehow gets VIP home addresses that are UNKNOWN to 99.999% of the world.

And the mainstream media is not even curious…to call the mainstream media a media is a bad joke on America.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by jesse ramirez on Unsplash.

No End in Sight: Cohen, Manafort Developments Seen as Keeping Mueller Probe Going Into 2019

/in , , , , /by

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation isn’t likely to wrap up anytime soon, as once expected, based on events this week, former federal prosecutors say.

President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to the Mueller team to lying to Congress about the timing of a proposed Trump building project in Moscow.

Mueller is also considering additional charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for allegedly violating an earlier plea deal.

“Mueller’s charge was to uncover crimes and indict people, not write a report,” former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told The Daily Signal, expressing skepticism of reports the probe would wrap up before the end of 2018.

For weeks, pundits and news reports asserted that Mueller was close to wrapping up the probe—possibly even by the end of the year—with a report detailing his legal team’s findings.

The Cohen plea also comes after Trump’s legal team provided written responses to prosecutors’ questions.

“This week’s events have given Mueller a better vehicle to continue his investigation at a time when some in the public were feeling investigation fatigue,” Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, told The Daily Signal.

A Trump Tower in Moscow was never built, but the negotiation—which Cohen now says continued to June 2016—seems more significant than a meeting at the Trump Tower in New York that same month between a Russian lawyer and Trump campaign officials, Coffey added.

“Mueller benefits from a personal lawyer for Trump trying to make a deal in Russia in 2016,” said Akerman, who served on the teams of special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski during the Watergate investigation in the early 1970s. “That is more suggestive of a direct connection than a isolated meeting to look at suggested opposition research.”

Still, aside from the probe’s capacity to generate headlines, former prosecutors differ on how serious the new developments are on a legal spectrum.

Of Cohen’s guilty plea, Akerman—now in private practice in New York—said, “On a scale of one to 10, this is a 20.”

“Why would he plead guilty to additional charges after he’s already pleaded guilty in the campaign finance violation?” he continued. “Prosecutors prefer to get guilty pleas lined up with what they’re investigating, and Cohen is a major witness to the American side of the conspiracy with Russians.”

Akerman anticipates that Cohen holds what has been the elusive information linking Trump’s business dealings with the timeline of Russians hacking the Democratic National Committee computers. He laid out his theory in an op-ed in the New York Daily News.

Cohen told Congress that negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow wound down in January 2016. He now tells prosecutors negotiations were going on until June 2016, well into the presidential campaign.

Hacked DNC emails were leaked online in June and July of 2016, most notably to WikiLeaks. Also, Trump campaign officials met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York in June.

Thus far, Mueller has released no public evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russians. The president, who has repeatedly denied collusion, called Cohen “a weak person” on Thursday and accused him of trying to get a reduced sentence.

Trump administration and campaign officials have also denied collusion with Russians.

Meanwhile, Trump on Thursday canceled a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, citing recent Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Cohen previously pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws for paying off two women before the election who claim to have had affairs with Trump. Prosecutors counted the payment to the two women as an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

While a June 2016 timeline may seem to connect several events, there is still scant known evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, said Coffey, the former federal prosecutor from Florida.

“This puts a sizable dose of Russian dressing on the overall picture, but legally, this is not a game-changer,” Coffey said.

Many of Mueller’s prosecutions have been for lying to investigators or lying on official forms, Coffey noted, which he called “process crimes.”

“The special counsel has continued bringing process crimes, but has not established an underlying crime that separate charges against the Russian operatives involved with the Google ads, Facebook ads, and hacking were connected to the Trump campaign.”

Coffey stressed there’s still much the special counsel’s office knows that the public doesn’t know yet.

However, he noted the email between Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and their meeting in the Trump Tower in New York mentioned nothing about the Moscow development. Further, Coffey said, Cohen didn’t attend the meeting.

“It’s hard to conclude Cohen’s very preliminary exploration of a Moscow development resulted in a systematic hacking of the DNC,” Coffey said. “Also, there is no connection of Cohen with the Trump Tower meeting in New York. It seems almost certain that if these things were connected, he would be there.”

Regarding the Trump Tower meeting, Donald Trump Jr. said Veselnitskaya promised opposition research on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but only talked about Russian adoption policy and the 2012 Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law in response to Russian corruption.

The Mueller investigation is another example of a federal prosecutor piling up charges to present as damaging an assessment as possible, said Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor who was chief of the appellate divisions in the Western and Northern districts of Texas.

“This is standard operating procedure for prosecutorial terrorist tactics,” Powell told The Daily Signal.

Powell, now a defense appeals lawyer, became skeptical of federal prosecutions during her time with the Justice Department and wrote the 2014 book “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Justice Department.”

She anticipates Mueller will drag the case out to show that he can, but doubts the Cohen case will amount to much.

“I can’t see anything in Cohen’s guilty plea that he would have actually been convicted of if he had not pleaded,” Powell said. “He’s trying to make this easy on himself. He’s under massive pressure.”

A 2007 Quinnipiac University Law Review study found only six convictions for lying to Congress since the 1940s.

Akerman called it “an irrelevant fact” that few people are charged with lying to Congress, noting that in the Watergate and Iran-Contra cases, people were prosecuted for lying to Congress.

Powell said high-level federal officials, such as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey, have also made highly questionable statements under oath to Congress on various matters as well, but were not prosecuted.

“I don’t have a problem with seeing this applied,” Powell said. “But this should be equally applied.”

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter:@FredLucasWH.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Erik Thomas/NY Post/MEGA/Newscom.

Relax Trump Has the Goods

/in , , , , /by

I will keep this commentary and analysis brief and I encourage you to embark upon perhaps some additional research and sources on your own. Many people I meet with as I presently speak throughout  the state of Florida to Republican groups and patriot groups supportive of President Trump, seem to feel we are not winning. Well we are. Besides the obvious incredible accomplishments by our amazing President, we  must come to understand that the many criminal democrats, the shadow government and the deep state, are in fact shaking in their shorts. They are on the run as Trump narrows in on them laying cheese in mouse traps planted all over the place and soon, very soon, they shall be caught. Trump’s 3 D chess will eventually lead to the ultimate check mate. The deep state is on the run, relax, Trump has the goods. Can you say FISA docs?

Relax Trump Has the Goods

Some believe that Q (QANON) is a conspiracy. I for one do not believe that President Trump would have called attention to Q at the Tampa rally (of which I attended), if it were conspiracy. And the fact that the very next day CNN and the rest of the MSM controlled purveyors of propaganda and lies, claimed Q to be a conspiracy, which tells you it probably isn’t.  So I encourage you to go to YouTube and explore the world of Q, QANON. And if Q is not “your thing”, then tune into former high lever CIA officer, Kevin Shipp. Listen to what former CIA intel officer Robert David Steele has to say about the arrests and indictments that are taking place as I write.

You see my friends, there are well over 63,000 sealed indictments ready to go against the Deep State and its many operatives that span across this globe. There is a plan. Come to know it, as it is unfolding before our very eyes its just that perhaps you may be looking in the wrong direction. Explore the many articles on this website and the scores of links I have provided. You too will begin to connect the dots. Read this post please which is based upon two executive orders  titled, “Martial Law and Military Tribunals – Trump Takes on the Deep State”.  Then listen to this spot on analysis by Mike Adams. Stay safe. Spread the word. Fight the fight. Stay the course, and God Bless.

RELATED ARTICLE: Special Counsel Mueller is building a report, not a case.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

On The Passing Of President George H. W. Bush.

/in , , /by

He stood at the White House steps on January 20, 1989, flanked by his wife, Barbara.  He was dressed impeccably, of course, as the occasion of the peaceful transition of power in the most powerful nation of the world calls for a certain degree of regality. He was bidding goodbye to arguably the most colorful couple to have inhabited the White House, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, and with that, acknowledging that an era had ended and that a new one would begin.

That is my most vivid image of George H. W. Bush. Undoubtedly, there were others, like when I read his lips saying that there would be no new taxes and when he proclaimed his disdain for broccoli.  But that moment when he accepted the helm of the greatest vessel ever assembled was particularly poignant.  Even then, we all knew that Reagan was going to be a monumental twentieth-century figure, but as we watched the outgoing couple bid adieux to the new we felt reassured because of the steadfastness and decency exuded by the incoming president.

Last night, just short of thirty years later, the man who led us through life after Reagan, the man who acted against the oppressive actions of tyrannical regimes, the man who helped decrease the nation’s deficit despite having to break his word to the American people, passed away.  And sadness consumed me.

George H. W. Bush had all the makings of a great president.  Armed with the experience of having served as a naval officer in World War II, having been the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, United States Ambassador to the United Nations and a member of the House of Representatives, there appeared to be no battle he could not handle.  He was humble, mild-mannered, and respectful, all qualities that America would want in its President.  Most characteristic of his reverential and reserved style was when he refused to “spike the football” on the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the falling of the Berlin Wall.  The negotiations were amongst the most delicate in history, but Bush, despite criticisms from both of his domestic flanks, maneuvered the process to a successful conclusion.  His actions with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev brought about the unification of Germany and signaled the end of the Cold War.

And when Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian dictator, was using his platform to traffic drugs into the United States, it was H.W. who put a stop to it.  Bush sent 26,000 American troops to topple and capture Noriega, ultimately forcing the maligned dictator to stand trial in the United States.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in what many perceived to be a local skirmish.  Herbert Walker Bush led the nation again.  Bush would not let Iraq’s aggressive posture stand unchallenged.  He would singlehandedly assemble a coalition of 35 nations to stampede into Kuwait and oust Saddam Hussein from the boundaries of its oil-producing neighbor.  It was also Bush who made the decision, despite the undefended state of the road to Baghdad, not to chase the retreating Iraqi forces to their capital and send the region into a sea of uncertainty.

This is when we got to know President H. W. Bush, as his presidency was the first to be scrutinized by the unyielding eye of 24-7 media coverage.  It was also at this time that I had my closest, yet incredibly removed association with H.W.  He was my Commander in Chief when we mobilized into war for the first time since Vietnam.

It somehow defies reality that President Bush would have only served one term.  Despite his great judgment on foreign matters and even some success in the domestic front with the Americans With Disabilities Act, Bush would come face to face with a political firestorm that would ultimately lead to his downfall.

If Donald Trump was revolutionary in the twenty-first century, Bill Clinton was equally so at the end of the twentieth.  Unquestionably, H.W., who at one time saw an 89% approval rating, opened the door to distrust and a presidential challenge when he reneged on his emphatic promise not to raise taxes.  Although historical analysis and retrospect acknowledge that the decision made in the face of a mounting deficit was not unwarranted, the political consequences were devastating.  Rightly or wrongly, Bush was viewed with mistrust, and the nation’s right wing flirted with the possibility of another Republican candidate.  Of course, a lackluster economy with a high unemployment rate would not help his cause.  And the morally challenged, saxophone playing, sunglass-bespectacled, youthful, and hip Bill Clinton received a great uplift from the rogue business tycoon, Ross Perot, who once again proved that the presence of a third party candidate in a presidential race will only serve to harm the candidate he is most like. Bush earned a mere 37.5 of the vote in his 1992 reelection bid, the least for any major party candidate in recent history.

Many say that adding to his woes was a poorly selected plank of family values as the centerpiece of his campaign when Americans were concerned about jobs.  That may be so.  But as we moved across the Clinton presidency with its sex scandals and witnessed the nation’s continued moral decay, many of us reflecting upon that message recognize that H. W. Bush was right.

Of course, H.W.’s legacies would not be limited to his contributions in international relations and politics.  He and his wife Barbara raised another president and a governor, and their grandchildren may accomplish even more.

Picture

But perhaps the greatest single testament to H.W.’s character and the standards he upheld was a holographic letter he penned to incoming President Bill Clinton, the man who painfully unseated him. Within it is this sentence:

“There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair.  I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.”

Sage advice, not just for an incoming President, but also for every one of us.

Thank you for your service, Mr. President, and may God keep you close.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission.

Bohemian Rhapsody: A Case Study Of The Destructive Gay Lifestyle

/in , , /by

I went to see Bohemian Rhapsody a 20th Century Fox film about the British rock band Queen from its formation in the 1970s to its 1985 Live Aid performance.

I came away with a feeling of deep sadness watching the tragedy of the life of Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury, played brilliantly by Rami Malek. If anything Bohemian Rhapsody is a case study of the decline, fall and untimely death of a bi-sexual individual because of his promiscuous gay lifestyle.

The acting was excellent. The script and images depicted in great detail the path of Freddie from a heterosexual male into the darkest and deepest world of homosexuality.

If anything the lesson of Bohemian Rhapsody is about temptation and the weakness of the flesh.

From fame and fortune to alcohol and drug abuse to homosexuality. From rejection of a homosexual relationship with one of his employees to his full participation is the promiscuous gay lifestyle that leads to the breakup of the band Queen. We witness the tragic loss of Freddie’s reputation, the loss of his family (the band), the breakup with his fiancee and finally the shortening of his life when Freddie learns that he has contracted HIV/AIDS.

This is not a film for the faint of heart but it is a must see to understand how one person can be groomed by another homosexual to truly become something that he is not – a bi-sexual gay man. It is clear in the film that homosexuality is a choice, not something one is born with. For in the end Freddie disengages from his homosexuality and returns to what really drove him, to make great music.

I found it refreshing that Hollywood showed the darkest side of being gay. But is also showed how many of Freddie’s friends and his former fiance, played by Lucy Boynton, could still love him. For a Christian watching this film it is useful to understand that while they hate the sin, they love the sinner.

What is truly tragic is that there were many opportunities to save Freddie from his ultimate fate and certain death. We can only hope and pray that Freddie was redeemed and forgiven for his sins. We can only pray that he is in Heaven singing his songs.

Bohemian Rhapsody trailer.

RELATED DATA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – HIV by Group

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bafta: Queen director Singer suspended from nomination

Pope Francis ‘worried’ about homosexuality in the priesthood

Ironic: President of LBGT Dating App Grindr Says Marriage Is ‘Between Man And Woman’

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image and video are courtesy of  20th Century Fox, New Regency, GK Films, and Queen Films.

Mr. Trump, Shut Down That Government!

/in , , , , , , /by

Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of a political game of chicken between competing views for the future of our country.  And once again, the ones who are stuck in the middle are the American people.

This time, the battle of wills is over the funding of the wall to our southern border.  President Trump wants $5 billion allocated to the wall’s construction.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have said they are wiling to commit $1.6 billion to the wall, and not a penny more.

In the meantime, the nation is being exposed to the reality of an immigration crisis Democrats and the mainstream media said did not exist and now vainly argue is due to the President’s new policies on immigration.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear; the only reason we find ourselves in the midst of an immigration crisis of this magnitude is because of the decades of ineptitude and incompetence by Congress in not providing the resources and personnel needed to definitively seal the border.

Enter President Donald J. Trump.  President Trump has been one of the few ferocious advocates for border control.  One of his central and most important planks to his platform is the building of the border wall and the definitive eradication of illegal immigration.  In fact, a Harvard/Harris poll from August 1, 2018, showed that 76% of the American people want border security, and with the impact of the images and goings-on related to the Central American caravan, that number has likely crept up even higher.

Amazingly, the Republican members of Congress who are now entering the waning days of their control of all three steeples of power do not seem to have the resolve to push a $5 billion allocation for border wall funding to the president’s desk. The purported reasons are as varied as they are hollow.  We can’t afford it they say.  Walls are a terrible way to maintain security, and there are other, more effective ways of securing our border.

No one is saying that the border wall should be built at the expense of not funding other complementary measures of promoting border security.  Quite the opposite, Congress should be funding every possible avenue designed to help ensure the security and safety of America’s borders.  Why the Republican-led Congress cannot get a bill to the president’s desk designing and funding a permanent, virtually impenetrable solution for our border security inclusive of the construction of an effective wall against southern migrants defies reality.

In the meantime, President Trump, who is one of the few who understands the gravity of this situation, has demonstrated his resolve to see the implementation of effective border security policy by expressing his willingness shutdown the government if the wall is not funded.  The response by some has been to dare him to do it.

Just like during the Obama administration, opponents and members of the swamp have predicted that the earth will end and the skies will rain down fire and fury if the federal government is allowed to go unfunded even for ten minutes. Unfortunately for the doomsayers, we have already seen that the negative effects of shutting down the federal government are not that terrible.  As a matter of fact, about the most visible consequence of the last shutdown was President Obama’s vengeful closure of the World War II memorial in Washington, D.C., at the same time that a group of Honor Flight participants arrived to be honored for their incredible, patriotic service during World War II.

Recognizing that the consequences of a government shutdown are not as harrowing as the swamp and the mainstream media would like us to believe, the next fear-mongering argument to be made is the threat of a political meltdown.  Here again, the doomsayers are wrong.

First, let us recall that the one who closed the government during the Obama era was the Republican Congress.  If anything, even if we were to accept the doomsayers’ political fallout prediction, it was Congress that lost against the President, a fact that actually favors President Trump.

Moreover, as opposed to the shutdown during the Obama administration where the issue was spending, the overwhelming majority of the American public side with the President on immigration reform, and enthusiastically so.  No reasonable observer can cast aspersions to the President’s position on immigration and the urgency with which the issue needs to be definitively resolved.  If a confrontation were to take place, it is the President who is in the position of strength on this issue and positioned to gain.

President Trump is right on immigration, and he should demand cooperation from the Congress, even if enforcing his demand results in a government shutdown.  In the end, he will win, and more importantly, so will the American people.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash.