LIBERAL UTOPIA (but you're racist if you say anything)

President Trump has recently been excoriated in the mainstream media for telling representative Elijah Cummings that, instead of grandstanding and screaming at the people of Border Control, he should be in his own district trying to clean it up.  Trump called it "rat and rodent infested," and said that nobody wants to live there.  For this statement, presumably because Cummings is a black man, President Trump has once again been painted by the left as a racist.  Before I continue, I'd like to ask a quick question.  Russell Wilson, the quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks, is a black man.  If he were to have a bad game and I said to someone, "Man, Wilson played terribly yesterday," am I a racist for saying so?  It seems the new standard for being called a racist by Democrats is speaking truth.  But, I digress.
It seems that President Trump may have watched a segment on Fox and Friends alerting people to the horrid conditions in Cummings' district.  That "racist" video was produced after Cummings' tirade at hearings about border control, and was produced by a racist black woman.  (Wait a minute...the racist was a black woman???).  At any rate, her video shows terrible conditions in Baltimore, way worse conditions than illegal immigrants are experiencing at the border.  Here's a fun fact:  there are over 17,000 abandoned buildings in the city!  This got me to wondering about the conditions in other Democrat controlled cities, and after doing about five minutes of research, I came away appalled at all the liberal utopias which are out there.
It's not just trash residents in these cesspools have to deal with.  In all these liberal utopias, there are boarded up buildings used as crack houses, severe crime, drug addicts leaving needles everywhere, homeless tent cities, and in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco, human excrement all over the streets and sidewalks.  I say to Elijah Cummings, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats what he, Cummings, screamed at the border patrol people:  "These are people, man!  COME ON!!"  While Cummings may not want to take responsibility for the conditions in his district, he's been serving it in one form or another for 33 years, and he's represented the district in Congress for 23 years--since 1996.  I'd say almost a quarter century in charge gives one ownership of the problem.

Trash strewn Baltimore neighborhood

The murder rates in all these Democrat cities are inexcusable, and the list of cities controlled by Democrats includes such places as Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, DC, Baltimore, and San Francisco, but that is a small minority of the destroyed cities which Democrats have run into the ground.  Federal money has poured into these cities for decades, but the problem has only gotten worse.  As President Trump asked, where did the money go?  These cities also have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet gun violence and murder is rampant.  Just a couple of examples:  As of June 24th, 150 people have been murdered year to date in Baltimore.  There have been 113 murders year to date in St. Louis, and, from a CBS article, "According to recent crime statistics released to CBS Chicago, 1,229 people have been shot in Chicago."  (236 have died year to date).  Since the cities all have stringent gun control laws, the vast majority of these murders are being perpetrated by people with illegal weapons.  Yet Democrats won't attempt to disarm the drug dealers and murderers.  They constantly call for new gun control laws to try and disarm law abiding gun owners.  
The numbers are similar for all the liberal "utopias" out there, but in some places there are other major problems.  Take, for instance, Speaker Pelosi's San Francisco district, which she has represented for 32 years.  I lived in California decades ago, when Ronald Reagan was governor.  It has changed since Democrats took control.  Now California is #1 in the country in homelessness, as well as having the distinction of being #1 in poverty rates.  This while a liberal elite lives in multi-million dollar mansions on hills overlooking the cities which look so beautiful from afar but which are actually vermin ridden, drug infested hellholes usually seen only in third world countries.  Ms. Pelosi's San Francisco is riddled with homeless people in tent cities, used needles laying everywhere, trash, blight, and worst of all perhaps, human excrement polluting the streets and sidewalks.  (They actually have employed a "poop patrol" that has to go clean it all up every day).

San Francisco homeless tent city

We have another election coming up in a little over a year.  Remember before you pull the lever that, whether the Democrat candidate is for Socialism, higher taxes, aborting babies up until the day of birth, or some other idea which has been propagated by Democrats, all of them want to do for America what they've done for areas they control.

Human excrement littering San Francisco sidewalk

Propaganda in the American Media

Watching the media coverage of this year's election makes me want to pull my hair out.  This year, because the powers that be are so scared of a Trump presidency, the media has dropped its façade of objectiveness and crossed over into advocacy for Hillary Clinton.  There are so many instances of this, but in the interest of time, I'll only point out a couple.
The first instance I'd like to highlight is the difference in coverage between the "Khan" story and the "Mateen" story.  Everyone knows that Mr. Trump denigrated a Muslim soldier killed in action in Iraq, thus dishonoring both his memory and the military at the same time.  TOO BAD THIS IS FALSE.  Mr. Khan attacked Mr. Trump first and implied, when he waved the Constitution metaphorically in Mr. Trump's face, that Mr. Trump is un-American.  Mr. Trump then merely questioned why Mrs. Khan stood by silently during his tirade, and questioned whether she was allowed to speak, probably to make the point the Muslims regularly, as a matter of course, subjugate their women.  The press, of course, portrayed it as an attack on the family, a "gold star" family, and questioned why Mr. Trump would insult the military, etc., etc.  The story got 24/7 coverage for days.  It turns out that Mr. Khan was paid thousands of dollars by the Hillary campaign to attack Trump at the convention, and that Mr. Khan has written articles suggesting that Sharia law "trumps" the Constitution of the United States--the very Constitution he waved at the convention, but of course that wasn't reported by the vast majority of the media.
Now, compare that coverage with the coverage of Mr. Mateen. 

This man is the father of the radical Islamist who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub, and who was pictured sitting in the front row of a Hillary Clinton rally. He also endorsed Hillary for president.  Now, if this had been a Trump rally, the media would have been going on for days about how Trump was supported by an Islamic murderer's father and how letting him come to a rally and sit in the front row not only showed that he condoned the actions of his son but actually approved.  There would be countless editorials questioning his judgement, and by the end of the new cycle a couple of weeks later, half the country would think Mr. Trump himself was a radical jihadist.
There are many other examples of the media being in bed with the Clinton campaign, but perhaps the most insidious and dangerous way is through the use of "push" polls.  These are polls that purposefully over-sample Democrats to show Hillary winning, after which the same papers that run the dishonest polls crow about how Hillary is pulling away and Trump is flailing.  It is the most pernicious type of media trickery, and the ensuing coverage of the poll is a type of propaganda with which Mr. Goebbels or Mr. Stalin would be proud.

The evidence of these dishonest polls is readily available to anyone who looks for it.  Polling firms must disclose their methodologies, and you can usually find their sampling at the end of the poll.  For instance, in the latest CBS poll putting Clinton up by 5, they over-sampled Democrats by 5 points!  The Monmouth poll that came out a couple of weeks ago over sampled Democrats by 35% to 26%!  The NBC Marist poll has a similar over-sampling.  The few polls which do honest demographic sampling show the race a statistical tie.  These include the LA Times and Rasmussen.  However, even these polls are incorrect. First of all, most of these polls only call a few hundred people, thereby making the extrapolation of the numbers suspect.  Also, Mr. Trump has by all accounts pulled millions of new voters into the party.  It is evident he is pulling blue collar Democrats.  Therefore, all the polls should over-sample REPUBLICANS to get a true picture of election day.  One interesting poll which just came out is the Arizona Freedom Alliance poll.  This poll actually polled 1,000 people in every state--50,000 people nationwide (or 57,000 if you're Barack Obama), and the results were so astonishing that you won't see them in the media.  Mr. Trump pulled 67% to 19% for Mrs. Clinton!  The demographic sampling was 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 34% independent.
So we have the media actively supporting Mrs. Clinton.  Despite overwhelming evidence of a pay to play scheme between her foundation donors and access while she was Secretary of State, the media hasn't looked into it.  (If it was Trump, they'd be looking at it with an electron microscope).  However, if Mr. Trump has done nothing else this year, he's awakened people to the fact that we have a dishonest media, and the people aren't buying it this year.  Their plans will not dampen voter turnout for Mr. Trump.  It actually could repress voter turnout for Clinton, since many Democrats may say that she's got it in the bag so there's no need to go vote. 
Donald Trump may not be the most eloquent candidate ever, but if you listen to him speak rather than listen to cherry-picked soundbites, he makes sense.  His policies are commons sense policies.  We want a secure border while still welcoming LEGAL immigrants.  We want economic growth, something Mrs. Clinton's plan will not bring with its additional regulations and government control of the economy.  We want to destroy radical Islamists, even though Hillary can't bring herself to utter the words.  We want the 2nd amendment to stay a pillar of our Constitution, giving every American the right to protect themselves and their families.  We don't want to "fire" whole industries, thereby putting millions out of work in the name of "green" energy.  We don't want crippling regulations (Obama's cost about $100 billion per year--imagine what we could do with that money!). 
One last thing to say about the disparate media treatment of the two candidates.  Mrs. Clinton's last press conference was almost nine months ago.   Imagine if Mr. Trump went that long without a press conference.  They would be going crazy.  Have you heard anything about Mrs. Clinton's lack of press conferences in 95% of the media?  No, neither have I.  When it comes to that, when it comes to the questions about her foundation, when it comes to her contradictory economic ideas, when it comes to letting the father of a murdering jihadist sit in the front row of her rally, all I hear from the media is crickets.

Thank God for Donald Trump

This election year looked like it would be like any other.  I looked forward desultorily to the coming ascendancy of Jeb Bush, knowing in my heart that it would lead to another crushing defeat for Republicans in a presidential election.  A Bush candidacy was going to be similar to Romney and John McCain and Bob Dole and every other weak Republican candidate that's been foisted on us over the past thirty years by the establishment.  (I don't put Bush 41 in this list because a.) I think he was a very good president and b.) Ross Perot is the reason Bill Clinton won the election, not anything Bush did).  Then, in steps this guy Donald Trump.  Well known, face recognition, rich, flamboyant.  Everyone thought his candidacy would die in a few weeks.  Then he struck a nerve.  He mentioned that the hordes of people coming across our southern border included rapists, drug dealers and murderers, and we therefore need to seal our southern border and tell anyone here illegally to leave.  He immediately got my attention.  It's something I've been waiting to hear for years. The left went crazy, as did the Republican establishment.  Mr. Trump was immediately branded a racist.  Companies started pulling out of deals with him.  People started vilifying him.  Even Great Britain had a petition circulating to ban him from the country.  But I just went back and found what he actually said.  Here it is:  “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best.  They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
First of all, Mr. Trump acknowledges in the statement that there are good people among the illegals pouring across our border, but he also states there are murderers, rapists, and drug dealers among them.  That has since proven to be true, as thousands of crimes have been committed in America by illegal immigrants.  Second, where does he say anything racist?  Since when does speaking truth make someone a bigot?  And this brings me to the point of this article.
It has become apparent to me that the majority in this country has been cowed and intimidated and suppressed by a small elite bent on determining how everyone will act, speak, and even think.  Don't agree with the gay agenda?  You're a bigot whose career and reputation must be ruined.  You think Bruce Jenner dressing like a woman is weird?  You're a hater and there is something wrong with you.  You think "all lives matter?"  You're a racist.  You think that abortion is the murder of a human being?  You're anti-women.  The way the left has directed the national conversation on all these issues has been done purposefully to shame and ruin anyone who doesn't go along with their agenda.  Then in steps Donald Trump.  He says what he thinks.  While the left pretends to be horrified by his words, calling him "racist" and his followers "brownshirts," in fact what they are horrified by is that he is breaking down in weeks the machinery of suppression the left has spent decades building.  He is undoing what was to be the framework of a 1984-like state.  Donald Trump is the only one on the stage talking about beginning national security at the border.  He's the only one on the stage with the economic know-how to get the economy humming again.  However, while I support him because of those issues, my number one reason for supporting him is that he is the man who is going to save free speech in this country.  The left has been trying to set up a Stalinist state, where even a wrongly spoken word can ruin a person.  Mr. Trump, through his words and actions, is quickly destroying that, and while the left is aghast at what he is doing and is trying every ploy they can to bring him down, he continues to just shrug them off.  So, while he is speaking of things which I support, such as sealing our border, it is because he is speaking of these things that I support him.  After all, do we want a president who will unlock the manacles of suppression the left has created, or do we want a president who will act like Joseph Stalin, the man who made certain speech and thought crimes punishable by the state?  The choice couldn't be more clear.

The Hypocrisy of the Left

I get so frustrated when I look at the papers, watch TV, or listen to the radio.  Liberals are constantly spewing hypocrisy yet are never called on it.  So, this morning as I sat here in the wee hours, I decided to come up with a list of hypocritical actions.  I found it was easy!  Let me share with you:

1.  They will paint every gun owner as dangerous when one nut shoots someone, but they go to great lengths to make sure Muslims aren't called dangerous when one of them blows up a bunch of people.

2.  They want severe penalties for anybody who kills an endangered animal or destroys the nest of an eagle, but they will defend tooth and nail the "right" to kill an unborn human.

3.  They want Americans to welcome to our country and pay for tens of thousands of refugees, but then somehow forget that we have tens of thousands of homeless veterans right here.

4.  They preach against intolerance, but when anybody speaks out in a conservative manner, they are called "racist," "hater," and the like.

5.  They call the Republican party the party of big money that is beholden to Wall Street and doesn't care about the little guy, but the majority of the "rich" in Congress are Democrats and their own presidential candidate has made tens of millions from Wall Street.

6.  They want to call people like Bruce Jenner "heroes" but people like Chris Kyle lots of names other than "hero," such as "killer" and "coward."

7.  They rail against the use of fossil fuels at rallies to which they pull up in their BMWs.

8.  Once again, they claim to be the most open-minded people, but polls show they favor silencing skeptics of "climate change."

9.  They constantly want to cut defense spending, but any other program threatened with termination is suddenly critical and will result in the death of grandma and the kids.

10.  They will wreck your life, career, etc., if you make fun of someone who is gay or transgender, but they have no problem making fun of poor, white, southern conservatives.

11.  They are all for free speech, but refer to conservative blacks as "white acting," or "Uncle Tom."

12.  They will require a student to have parental permission to take an aspirin at school, but they constantly fight against parental notification before an abortion.

13.  They descry the politics of division right after calling their opponents names.

14.  They feel that "Black Lives Matter," but if anyone says something such as "All Lives Matter," that person is labeled racist.

15.  They push and push for alternative energy, but then won't acknowledge that wind power is killing migratory birds by the thousands and, in fact, President Obama just signed a waiver allowing wind power farms to kill Eagles with no penalty. 

16.  They love living in a free country defended by a powerful military, but then they denigrate the military and its mission, and they themselves, as a general rule, don't serve--the military is vastly conservative.

17.  After every terror attack committed by Muslim extremists, they invariably issue a statement calling Islam a "religion of peace."

18.  They want our kids to have recess at school, but they, over time, have had all the jungle gym equipment and other fun stuff removed from playgrounds for safety reasons.  In some places they've even outlawed dodge ball and tag.

19.  They go to church and take communion but, once again, support the killing of the unborn.

20.  They send their kids to private schools but fight against school vouchers which would allow poor people to do the same. 

 

I could keep typing for hours, but you get the point.

Gender Fluid?

I just read this morning that a well known reporter in Ireland has coined a new phrase.  He wants to be referred to now as "gender fluid" meaning that he sometimes identifies as male and sometimes as female.  This doesn't make sense to me if, as the left claims, sometimes people are born into a body which doesn't fit who they truly are, which would imply that you have to be one or the other.  His name is Jonathan Clynch, but now he wants to be referred to as Jonathan Rachel Clynch since his gender is "fluid."  Okay, call me a bigot if you want, but this is nuts.  What next?  I'll tell you what next.  Here's an article I came across:

Attorney Calls for New Legislation to Protect TS Against Discrimination

     (AP)  An attorney for one of the plaintiffs in an ongoing discrimination suit has called for new legislation to protect others from the type of discrimination he says his client is facing.  "Nobody should have to face the kind of discrimination that my client faces on a daily basis," said DC attorney John Simpson.  "He feels he is a dog born into a human body and is undergoing TS (Trans-species) change.  He should be given equal treatment under the law, but the problem is that current law doesn't protect those who are trans-species."

     Simpson's client, an unnamed 27 year old from Bowie, Maryland, has been undergoing trans-species surgeries since last year.  He's already had his teeth sharpened, undergone hair growth therapy, and his rear leg bones altered to prevent him from standing on two feet.  Simpson told the paper that next week his client will have his voice box removed, and he wanted to discuss this issue while he still can.  "After next week, all he will be able to do is bark, so he wanted to tell me everything he wants now while he still can," Simpson said.
     Simpson says his client started experiencing discrimination when he went to the dog pound one day and wanted to enter the dogs' runs but was refused access.  He says his client was told that unless he was there to pay the fees to take a dog out of the lock-up, he could not go into the runs.  When he told the personnel at the pound that he wanted to go in the runs because he felt he really wasn't human but was, in fact, a dog, the people at the facility called the police.  "All my client wants," Simpson says, "is to be allowed to be what he feels he was supposed to be born as--a dog."

Okay, I made this up.  But for those who say, "This is ridiculous and far-fetched" I say this.  Ten years ago, would you have considered "gender fluid" far-fetched?  Think about it.  And then think about this.  According to the left, if you don't accede to this guy's wishes, or any of these other confused people's, you are a bigot and should be ruined.

Here is a picture of Simpson's client, who still enjoys human activity: 

 

Stop Promising the World!

I read the news every morning and sometimes get depressed, sometimes angry, and sometimes there are stories that actually make me feel good, although they are rare.  Sometimes, though, for some reason, a story makes me indignant.  Today's news falls into this category.  Today Hillary Clinton proposed, if she is elected president, a $350 BILLION dollar program to relieve college loan debt and to make loans themselves more affordable.  First of all, I think it's fairly apparent that this is yet another scheme by a pandering politician to get votes using my (and your) tax money.  This has been going on for years and, while Republicans do it too (George Bush's drug program for seniors comes to mind), Democrats are masters at it.  When he signed legislation creating Welfare, LBJ is rumored to have said, "That will keep the n*****s voting Democrat for 200 years."  Since then we've added all kinds of things such as food stamps and "Obama" phones and Medicaid and Social Security Disability to keep people voting Democrat.  Don't get me wrong.  There are plenty of people who are truly in need and for whom these programs are a lifeline.  However, everyone knows that these programs are rife with fraud and abuse.  Mr. Obama himself said he'd pay for much of "Obamacare" with "$500 billion in fraud and waste from Medicare."  Once Obamacare got enacted, however, we didn't see much work on the huge waste problem in Medicare.
At any rate, so I start reading online news today and I see this story about Hillary and the $350 BILLION she's going to spend to help out people who have student loans, which is a lot of people and which could equate to a lot of votes, because that's what Democrats do as well--they're experts at demagoguing these types of issues.  Now all she has to do is go up against a Republican who says they want to balance the budget and that we can't afford these types of expensive programs, and she will portray it as Republicans are against helping students in general.  Any time there is talk of budget cutting all the Democrats have to do is say, "See, they will cut off your check," and they get votes. 
I'm tired of it.  I want a president who will be serious about balancing the budget.  I don't want a president who will pander for votes using my tax money.  I want to start paying down our national debt.  We can do it; I've talked about how in many of my other posts.  But before we can do that, we've got to stop promising billions in taxpayer and borrowed dollars for programs designed to win votes.

Follow The Money (Or Try To)

An IG report released yesterday discloses the fact that during the tenure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, $6 billion dollars went missing.  As the report states:  “The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions.”

 While I understand that Mrs. Clinton was not personally involved in every contract, nonetheless she was in charge of the department during this period, and the blame must ultimately fall on her.  A larger issue, in my mind, is that if we can just lose this kind of money, then government is way too big.  Those who constantly refuse to cut anything in government use the argument that poor people or children will be hurt, yet there is fraud, waste and mismanagement throughout the whole government.  See my post on balancing the budget.  We're spending almost $4 Trillion per year, and I truly believe, based on all the reading I do, that there is at least 15% waste and fat in that figure.  This alone would trim almost $600 billion from our spending.
Going back to the IG report about State, it continues by stating that the situation “creates conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file.”  So it is being implied here that the missing money might be missing not by mistake, but by design.  Mrs. Clinton has been asked about this and has no idea where the money went. 
Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.  Her resume now includes a lot of missing money and the fiasco that is Benghazi.  When asked about that episode, during which two diplomats and two true heroes were murdered, her answer was (to paraphrase), "Oh, what the heck does it matter now anyway?"  Mrs. Clinton, at a women's forum on April 3rd, when asked about some of her successes while Secretary of State, could not provide any.  In fact, here is her answer:  “Well, I really see — that was good — that’s why he wins prizes. Look, I really see my role as Secretary, in fact leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race. When you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished, so when President Obama asked me to be Secretary of State I agreed.”  To that answer I can only say, "Huh?"
The United States is much bigger than just the State Department.  Yet I feel it's clear that not only have billions gone missing, but Mrs. Clinton herself can't name anything of note she's accomplished.  I certainly can't think of anything, although I can name several places that are now imploding that were relatively stable before the Obama presidency.  Egypt and Libya come to mind for starters.  In fact, I can't think of anything Mrs. Clinton did as a senator either.  So this leaves me with two questions.  First, why does anyone think Mrs. Clinton is ready to be president?  Second, where are the missing billions?