Friday, June 16, 2017

Those Terrorists Aren't Islamic.... (Unless You Try To Ban Them From Entering The Country, That Is)


Did you ever notice that when you talk about the violence that is inherent in Islam, when you see the killings of innocents at the hands of violent Muslim extremists, when you see the reports of unspeakable horrors committed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, etc., the Muslim community, politically correct politicians, and the left in general begin screaming “That's not Islam. Those people committing those acts, even if they do quote the Quran and scream “Alahu Ackbar”, they're not Islamic. Islam is a religion of peace. Don't lump all of Islam into the same category with these groups.”

And yet, when the President of the United States issues a travel ban from six countries known worldwide to harbor and promote Islamic terrorism; a means of preventing at least some members of these violent groups from entering the United States without an extreme vetting process in place to protect American citizens from the dangers that terrorists will bring into the country, suddenly all of those same people stand in solidarity and say “You are trying to ban all Muslims from entering the country!”

According to what I've read, there are about 100 Muslim majority countries in the world today. (In 2010 there were only 62.) That leaves 94 Muslim countries from which travel to the United States will still be allowed. So for my left-leaning friends who call it a Muslim ban, could you try to explain how 6% actually equals 100%? Perhaps it's Common Core math but I'd really like to understand.

Wednesday was the one year anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, Florida, by an apparently radicalized Muslim named Omar Mateen. There is no mention in any of the news articles I've read about the incident, not even Fox, that says anything about Mateen other than he was the shooter. It's as if his statements, his ties to Islam, his visits to radical Muslim web pages on the internet, no longer exist. Today he is but “the gunman.”

Political correctness under the Obama administration has caused many Americans to simply overlook the Muslim connection when it comes to terrorism. Whether or not Obama believes radical Islam to be Islamic, the terrorists believe it. And they use it to justify the senseless and brutal murders of tens of thousands of innocent people a year. (The growth of ISIS has greatly raised that number.)

We have Muslim clerics going on international television calling for the overthrow of the Western world. There are places in Europe that have become “No Go” areas – places within cities that police do not enter because of Islam and Sharia control of the areas. And Dearborn, Michigan, is close to having one of those.

Thank God we finally have a President who refuses to coddle Islam, refuses to bow to political correctness, and refuses to bow to the will of the left - who calls Muslim terrorism what it is.

There is a story in the “Clarion Project” that says one of the perpetrators of the recent bridge attack in London was radicalized by listening to the hate filled, radical rants of Ahmad Musa Jibril, a Muslim cleric right here in the good ol' USA. Jibril lives and preaches in Michigan but puts his radical ideas online. Radicalized mosques in the United States, once identified, should be closed.

Political correctness will be the death of the United States of America. If one takes a good, hard look at Europe with open eyes they will see what will one day happen here if we continue to coddle Islam in the name of political correctness.

Democrats Remorseful Following Wednesday's Shooting.... Not


When Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at a public event in Tucson several years ago the left-wing media, Democrats, President Obama, and the left in general blamed right-wing rhetoric, even singling out Sarah Palin for her comment about reloading instead of retreating if things got tough. Obama addressed the nation and said we needed to "tone down the rhetoric," meaning the shooting was the fault of the Republicans because of their statements.

Fast forward to 2016. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate said during the campaign that Democrats need to "fight Republicans in the streets." So far in 2017 we've had a 'comedian' pretend to behead President Trump,  a rap  star pretending to shoot the President, a play in New York showing Trump being killed by his own staff, and countless celebrities denouncing Trump - some saying he should be taken out and one saying she wanted to "blow up the White House."

So on Wednesday, when a crazed Democrat, armed with a rifle and looking for Republican House members, went on a Republican shooting spree it was nice to see the leadership on the left take responsibility and tell their constituents to tone down their rhetoric that could be fueling the violent acts being committed.

Yeah right... in a perfect world. In reality, leaders on the left blame Donald Trump and the Republicans for the violence the left is wreaking on the right. Nancy Pelosi is apparently outraged by the fact that Republicans are, in part, blaming Democrats for the violent rhetoric coming from the left that certainly could be a factor for the shooter on Wednesday.

So when a Democrat gets shot (by a registered Democrat) the left blames "right-wing violent rhetoric." And when a Republican gets shot by a Democrat, who has voiced his hatred for Trump and the Republican Party very clearly, the Democrats blame Trump and Republicans for the left-wing violent rhetoric.

Sure, that makes sense, right?

Yesterday, CBS anchor Scott Pelley blamed Donald Trump's tweets about the main stream media for the violence. Pelley cited one tweet in particular.

"The FAKE NEWS media (failing , , , , ) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!"

How Pelley decided that this tweet made a crazed Bernie supporter want to shoot Republicans is beyond my grasp.

Disgraced former South Carolina governor turned U.S. Representative, Mark Sanford, also blamed Trump. He cited a statement by Trump during his campaign when Trump said he'd like to punch a protester in the face. Sanford, who suffered through a rocky governorship when it was discovered he had a mistress, also said Trump's statement about paying a supporter's legal bills if one of them punched the protester in the face. Again - how did that influence the shooter in any way?

More likely the shooter was influenced by the rhetoric from the left and by some of the internet groups he followed.

James Hodgkinson's choice of Facebook Groups are telling. He followed:

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans
Join The Resistance Worldwide!!
Rachel Maddow For President 2020
The Democrats

He was also a member of the group "Terminate The Republican Party" and "I Hate Donald Trump."

I'd say that's enough reason to believe he was influenced by his own kind rather than the Republicans.

Twitter erupted with left-wing hatred following the shooting, with many liberals not only supporting Hodgkins' actions but praising him and voicing their wishes that he could have wounded or killed more Republicans. Tweets such as these below went on throughout the day.

The Only Good Fascist is a Dead One.”

“That’s a Shame but babies blown to bits at Sandy Hook was worse and Scalise takes money from the @NRA”

“If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP leadership considered self defense?”

“If KKK support Steve Scalise dies, the shooter deserves a holiday, true leadership. Now the trumps, kush, & miller need to be transitioned.”

One Republican representative has even received death threats via letter.

Hey liberals... hate much?

It seems the Democrats in Washington have backed off of the rhetoric for now. But I have yet to see them call for their constituents nationwide to do the same. They just don't have it in them to say "The violent rhetoric on our side may have influenced the shootings on Wednesday and we need to stop it and return to civility. We are all Americans."

Not going to hold my breath for that...



Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Big Brother Is Watching In Canada



Ontario Province in Canada recently passed a law that gives the state the authority to remove a child from the household if parents refuse to acknowledge and/or accommodate the child's gender identity or gender expression.

Let that sink in. If a 2 year old boy decides he wants to wear his sister's clothing and act like a girl, parents in Ontario must allow and encourage it or the child can be taken from them by the government.

The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017, also know as Bill 89, was passed in Ontario by a vote of 63 to 23, The Christian Times reported.

“I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently” said Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau. Coteau introduced the bill.

“If it’s abuse, and if it’s within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops.”

If you're a parent in Ontario and your child says he or she identifies as the opposite gender, you can't even consult a mental health professional since that would be showing disagreement and lack of support for your child's expression. I wonder if mental health professionals are now bound to report any parents who present their child for mental health evaluation following an expression of different gender...? It seems logical that the state would go that far if they passed this law.

Under the old law parents were encouraged to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.”
The new law greatly restricts the actions of parents as it emphasizes a “child’s identity and allows parents only to “direct the child or young person’s education and upbringing, in accordance with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and cultural identity.”

In other words, the child now gets to tell the parents how they will raise him/her.

Not everyone agrees.

“With the passage of Bill 89, we’ve entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada’s history, says Jack Fonseca, political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition. “Make no mistake - Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption.”

And talk about Big Brother. In April, child services in Ontario, Canada, got made headlines when they removed to young girls from their foster home because the Christian foster parents refused to lie to the girls and tell them that the Easter Bunny was real.

Derek Baars, one of the foster parents, said they were told by the agency that they must lie to the girls, ages three and four, because the Easter Bunny is part of Canadian culture. When the Baars refused to comply the girls were removed from the home.

I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before these types of things happen here. It won't happen under the current administration but if liberals ever take control of the government it's inevitable. After all –it's Hillary Clinton who believes it takes a village to raise a child.


https://heatst.com/culture-wars/canadas-new-law-lets-government-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-their-gender-identity/


Thursday, May 18, 2017

Sologamy... What If It Doesn't Work Out?


I may lose friends over this, or perhaps they'll simply allow me my opinion and either agree or disagree. Either way – I feel compelled to say something about the latest ridiculous trend in the US (and the world?).

That new “trend,” as they call it, is called Sologamy. That's a manufactured term for a manufactured situation in which a person marries.... himself or herself.

How stupid is that, you ask? I can't begin to describe it.

The United States of America (and the world in general) has become a place where self-pleasure and self-gratification have become the objective of the majority of people. We are so rapidly moving away from Biblical principles, morals and decency that it's difficult to remember how different things were just 40 years ago.

Mental illness is embraced today. Embraced and encouraged. Allowing preschool children to decide their gender and encouraging them in their grossly immature and irrational choices is parental mental illness. Gender dysphoria, once treated as a mental disorder, has now been declared by some as a normal medical issue – to the point where the government has stepped in to say you can be whatever gender you wish to be at any given time. And we have psychologists saying that pedophilia is a sexual orientation rather than a mental illness and a crime.

So now we come back to marrying oneself. One person recently in the news said she married herself because she got tired of people asking her why she was still single. I've got news for her. No matter what ceremony she had or whether or not she donned a wedding ring – she's still single!

The acceptance of sologamy as normal is just one more example of people living out a mental illness. Sure, this one is probably harmless – at least to others. But the harm one inflicts on themselves when they believe something to be real that is not can be devastating in the future.

I don't have a psychology degree. I don't know the innermost workings of the human psyche – although I do have experience working with the mentally ill. But I do know enough to know that pedophilia is sick behavior and enough to know that if you decide to marry yourself and think that's really marriage you're missing a few screws.

The definition of marriage has been changed by the liberal progressives of the world but even today the accepted definition of the term is: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife. : a similar relationship between people of the same sex. : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other.

Either definition involves two people. If you walk down the aisle to express your vows and you are the only one standing there to hear them, and giving yourself a ring, you're not meeting even the latest, most liberal definition of marriage. And whether or not you're happy being alone, it's truly sad that you believe you must participate in a “marriage” ceremony to secure that for you.

If you love yourself for who you are, why do you need a wedding ceremony to prove it? Get over yourself. You've resigned yourself to be alone. Why do you need to make it official?

I am curious about the concept of self-marriage. If you one day meet that special someone and decide you want to marry an actual partner will you need to get a legal divorce from yourself first? Suppose you get angry at yourself and decide you no longer want to be married. Who has to move out and who gets custody of the personal property and/or any children produced by the marriage? And what happens to life insurance policies and/or pensions following the divorce? Just things to think about before entering into this unholy agreement....

Trump Obstructs Justice? Comey's Memo Says Otherwise...


For those Trump haters who are chomping at the bit to see President Trump impeached for “obstruction of Justice,” here is something you might want consider a little more closely.

According to all sources I've seen, including the New York Times and Washington Post, what Comey alleges the President said to him was "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

I don't have a law degree. I don't even have a college degree. But I worked in law enforcement long enough to know that language, wording and comprehension matter.

Expressing a hope that something happens does not add up to telling someone to stop an investigation. “I hope you can let this go” is not the same as “I hope you can let this go or your job is on the line,” or “I need you to let this go,” or “I want you to let this go,” or even “Let this Flynn investigation go.” It's that simple. Saying “I hope” is a wish, not an order.

If someone says “I hope you die,” that's not a threat. It might be crude, or perhaps evil, but it's not a threat. Not legally.

If Trump did express his hope that the Flynn investigation could be dropped it's just that – a hope... unless, of course, Comey can prove that he was threatened or felt threatened by the words “I hope.” Feelings are subjective. But if the Director of the FBI felt threatened by the words “I hope” then he really didn't need to remain in his position. And since Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe has said no investigations have been stopped or even interrupted by events that have occurred (Comey's firing) there is no case for obstruction of justice.

As I said – I'm no lawyer or judge and I may one day be proven wrong. But in this day where every word people say is under scrutiny, the word hope is just that – hope, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the feeling of wanting something to happen and thinking that it could happen.”

I hope Hillary Clinton never runs for public office again. That's a desire that I cannot control. And it's not illegal. And neither was Trump's alleged statement. Of course, only Trump and Comey know what was really said that evening... unless Trump has a recording...

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Cultural Worse Than Academic Failure?

This article was written by my father-in-law. I thought I'd share.

The total of one’s experience is education, especially the part that is remembered.

It is general knowledge that American students lag at least 30 other of the most ‘advanced’ nations in academic achievement, while ahead of all others in self-esteem (we like ourselves dumb?). I would caution all, that academics is not necessarily education’s greatest failure. America once had cultural and institutional teaching of patriotism, morality, honor, self-reliance, personal accountability, economics and the total meaning of our founding documents (Declaration of Independence and the Constitution). In addition, boys were taught how to be men and girls were taught how to be women. We had an admirable American culture.

If you find any of our children today who exhibit proficiency in the above subjects, it is because their parents took the place of all other previous sources, bent over backwards, and jammed it into their heads. Schools, churches and (wholesome) entertainment no longer are getting the job done. Most homes are also failing.

This is not another attempt to finger black culture: read Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 – 2010” to decide how far downhill we’ve come.

In the 60’s, 86% of married women polled believed that it was wrong to have sexual relations with one’s fiancĂ©. Today, comparative numbers of white people under age 50 that are no longer living in former marriages has more than doubled to 27%.

The ‘greatest generation’ grew up storming Normandy Beach and fighting the Japanese across the Pacific, while today’s millennials of the same age feel “unsafe” if someone they disagree with speaks at an event they don’t have to attend on their campus. There went freedom of speech and the ordinary tolerance of it, especially in seats of education.

We formerly declared and taught that an act was absolutely either right or wrong, good or evil, moral or immoral, either based upon the nature and result of the action, and/or based upon a stated code of behavior as a moral order. This required judgment on the part of the individual. This presented a challenge to the contemporary politics that depend upon those who would prefer not to be told that their choices are bad and that their lives are not virtuous.

How can millennials not lean to the left when liberalism is constantly shoved down their throats by their schools, their favorite musicians, (rappers are not singers, but are entertainers) and Hollywood? We should not be surprised that at least 51% of them (millennials) do not support capitalism when their professors are known to be communists extolling socialist gutters like Cuba and Venezuela? Everything liberals teach to our kids is backward from reality.

Liberalism punishes the good or virtuous accused of some unfair advantage while rewarding the evil and/or lazy who claim to be victims of forces out of their control. Instead of trying to build rocket ships and going to the moon, their professors have them trying to figure out their gender and which bathroom they should be using. The victimhood snowflakes think they are entitled to whatever they want for the gratitude we should have for their very existence.

Conservatives must challenge the victim mentality liberals push onto our kids. Never feel sorry for yourself, or seek pity or play the victim. The wait for someone else to solve your problem will always be too long; and if you do get help, you won’t like it, because it will be on the terms of the helper. Cut off funding to institutions that discriminate against conservatism; Support all action for freedom of speech and the first ten Constitutional amendments; Support capitalism, patriotism and morality; these built America and the original American culture.

JIM N. TAYLOR 

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

White Girls Told Wearing Hoop Earrings Is "Cultural Appropriation"


White female students at Pitzer College in Los Angeles have been told by women of color (African-American and Latinas) to stop wearing hoop earrings because to do so is cultural appropriation. According to a Latina group on campus, white girls wearing hoop earrings exploits black and brown cultures. Really.

When questioned about [the art work above] by one confused student, Alegria Martinez, Jacquelyn Aguilera, and Stefania Gallo-Gonzalez addressed the school in emails explaining the problem.

“The black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings, (and other accessories like winged eyeliner, gold name plate necklaces, etc) are typically viewed as ghetto, and are not taken seriously by others in their daily lives, Martinez wrote. White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” she added.

Martinez, who is a member of Latinx Student Union, sent an email to the entire student body of Pitzer College explaining why she feels only women of color should be allowed to wear hoop earrings.

“The art (photo above) was created by myself and a few other women of color after being tired and annoyed with the reoccurring theme of white women appropriating styles...that belong to the black and brown folks who created the culture.

“The culture actually comes from a historical background of oppression and exclusion.

“The black and brown bodies who typically wear hooped earrings, (and other accessories like winged eyeliner, gold name plate necklaces, etc) are typically viewed as ghetto, and are not taken seriously by others in their daily lives.

Because of this, I see our winged eyeliner, lined lips, and big hoop earrings serving as symbols as an everyday act of resistance, especially here at the Claremont Colleges.

“Meanwhile we wonder, why should white girls be able to take part in this culture (wearing hoop earrings just being one case of it) and be seen as cute/aesthetic/ethnic.

“White people have actually exploited the culture and made it into fashion,” she explained.

I guess it makes sense to her.

One cannot help but wonder if Martinez and her fellow activists wear jeans to school. Perhaps that's a practice that she should cease since their creator, Jacob Davis, and his partner, Levi Strauss, were white guys. Or is cultural appropriation another of those things only white people can do?

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

NYC Council Woman Compares Enforcement of Immigration Laws To Ethnic Cleansing


In a statement that shows not only her far-left disillusionment but also her ignorance, New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito recently compared the enforcement of immigration laws to ethnic cleansing.

“I think you said something that’s very powerful here about ethnic cleansing,” Mark-Viverito said at a recent hearing. “I think in the last couple of weeks we’ve seen very, very, very clearly what the ultimate goal is of this administration. There clearly is a sense of purging… of implementing policies to purge certain groups of people from this country.”

Asked about the use of the very strong phrase “ethnic cleansing” Mark-Viverito defended her position.

“When we’re looking at the policies and what’s clearly being verbalized and articulated by this administration unapologetically.. there seems to be a real clear intent that certain types of people are being focused on with the express intent of getting them and removing them from this country,” she told reporters.

“It’s very very strong language, but really there is clear intent in what it is that they’re trying to do,” Mark-Viverito added. “And we’re going to push back against that.”

She is correct that there are certain types of people who are being targeted for removal from the country. They would be people who are here illegally, in violation of our decades old immigration laws. I'm not sure what part of that would be considered ethnic cleansing since there is no particular ethnicity mentioned in the immigration laws as written nor in the recently renewed enforcement of them.

What she doesn't seem to understand is that the Trump administration has written no new immigration laws. They are merely allowing ICE and the Border Patrol to effectively enforce current laws. Does she really believe our current immigration laws are tantamount to “ethnic cleansing?” Really?

I'm thinking not. She's making a bold public (albeit ignorant) statement to gain attention. New York has declared itself a sanctuary city and left-wing politicians are going nuts because Trump simply doesn't care what they say. He's enforcing immigration laws anyway – even in The Big Apple.

People like this woman are grossly exaggerating statements in an effort to force federal authorities to stop enforcing the law as written. The problem with immigration is not the laws themselves but the fact that for decades our government has refused to enforce them stringently. And now that a particular President is doing just that, a Republican President that is, the left is unable to deal with it. Their attitude of “Let anyone in and let everyone stay” is one of the things that will eventually destroy this great nation. And they hate it that Trump and the Republicans are fighting them on it.

The logic (or lack thereof) of some elected officials is baffling. Even more baffling, however, is the fact that they keep getting re-elected.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Columbia Professors: Student Suicides Increase Because Of Trump


Two professors at Columbia University recently penned a letter to the university president saying that faculty and students are “chronically and deeply depressed” over Donald Trump's election and his election is the cause of the recent rise in student suicides.

Really. They said that.

“We know no one at Columbia who is not upset, chronically and deeply, since the election. We know this is true of the administration,” professors Robert Pollack and Letty Moss-Salentijn wrote. “We know this true of the students, and the cluster of suicides this month can have no other meaning."

“But what of ourselves, and what of our colleagues; that is, what of the faculty? So, Mr. President, we are asking you how we, the faculty, may embody what the university values, with a sense of full obligation and with the assurance of full recognition.

Faculty do not have places, times, or administrative permission to acknowledge our own fears to each other,” the letter laments, noting that “venues for such quiet, difficult conversations are very hard to find on our campus.”

The letter goes on...

“Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451 comes close to where we are today. In this vision of the near future, firemen and state agents are ordered to set fires, ordered to burn remaining caches of hidden books wherever they are found.”

I can't help but wonder if they understand the irony of what that last paragraph says...?

Here's my letter to the damaged professors and their depressed student body.

Dear “Depressed,”

I can't help but wonder if at some point in your lives you were told that you should never have to be disappointed and you will always get your way.

That seems to be the only valid explanation for your “chronic and deep” depression over the recent Presidential election. And while the learned professors have no real evidence to support their claim of increased student suicides because of Trump's election, if their claim is true it means your parents and your teachers have failed you.

They have failed to teach you that life is always going to have setbacks and disappointments and that you simply overcome them and move on.

They have failed to teach you that you have absolutely no right to not be disappointed, offended, hurt, or ridiculed.

They have failed to teach you that you cannot and will not be protected from life. Sometimes life is great. Sometimes it sucks but then it gets better. Apparently you didn't learn that.

They have failed to teach you that taking your own life is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

In other words, they have failed to teach you to be adults, ready for the real world.
The real world doesn't have safe spaces to protect your precious feelings. The real world doesn't offer you free counseling, hot chocolate, crayons and puppies when you're disappointed and your feelings get hurt. Honestly – the real world doesn't care. We expect you to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and forge ahead.

Life doesn't stop because you're unhappy.

The real world doesn't play a scoreless game lest one side feel badly about themselves. The real world doesn't hand out participation trophies. You're either going to win or lose – the choice is yours. But nobody (except perhaps the government) is going to hand you everything you want just so you don't feel badly about yourselves.

It' real life. Get over it and grow up.

Sincerely,


Grownups everywhere

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Disgraceful: Grieving Military Widow Slammed By The Left


Carryn Owens, the wife of Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, who was killed in a raid in Yemen, is being vilified by the left. She is being called a pawn of President Trump because of her presence at his address last night. President Trump praised her husband and his sacrifice, as well has hers.
To those attacking her - has it ever occurred to you that the grieving widow would actually be happy that her husband's service and sacrifice for his country is being publicly honored by the President of the United States and most of the elected officials in attendance? Has it occurred to you that in the pain of her grief, she has been given something by the President that she and her children will remember forever?
You want to pretend that Ryan Owens shouldn't have died because the raid never should have taken place. Do you know anything about Navy SEALS? They do what they're told and they volunteer for special missions. They live for them. They put themselves in harm's way intentionally. It's something inside them that is part of them and part of the way they live their lives.
And unless you have inside information into the mission, its purpose, and all of the intelligence that led to it, you who are saying it shouldn't have happened are speaking out of ignorance.
Before you criticise the President and the military for things they do you should at least have some knowledge of which you speak. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Before you criticise a grieving military widow for the choices her husband made try a little of that compassion and tolerance you're always preaching about. Carryn Owens was the wife of a Navy SEAL. She knew the risks. She knew her husband was going to be in danger on a regular basis and she knew he volunteered for it. You don't see her slamming the President, do you?
Wake up.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Did The Liberal Media Miss A Cheap Shot At President Trump??


Dear liberal media -

The other evening it was reported that President Trump had dinner with family and friends at his Washington International Hotel. It was reported that he picked up the tabs not only for his party but also for Secretary of State Tillerson and his wife, who happened to be having dinner at the same restaurant that evening.

At the end of the article I was reading it said that the President gave his waiter a $100 bill as a tip. I did some research (for you) and can't help but wonder if that $100 bill was enough.

According to the article, there were six people at President Trump's table, including him. It said they started off with three shrimp cocktails, divided by all. According to the online restaurant menu, those shrimp cocktails are $24 apiece.

The President apparently had a New York Strip Steak, with ketchup. The steaks are $54 each. I have no idea what sides he had but sides average $12 each with one being $13 and the highest being $16. Let's say he had two sides. That's at least $24 for sides. There were probably dessert and beverage charges as well, depending on what he drank. Desserts average about $12. So far we're up to $150.00 just for Trump's meal and the appetizers.

It's likely that the other five meals at his table were close to $100 apiece since the least expensive entree is $32 and the most expensive is $64. And I doubt anyone was deliberately getting the least expensive thing.

The total bill was most likely over $500, easily. The average tip these days has gone up to 20% for good wait service. Twenty percent of $500 is $100 exactly. If the bill was more than $500 then Trump's tip should have been more.

I recommend you do some research into this to see exactly how much that meal cost. Imaging being able to post the headline “Donald Trump Proves He's A Cheapskate!”

I'm somewhat amazed you haven't thought of this yourselves. I mean - if I can come up with this on my own I can't believe you didn't! After all, you're the experts at making stuff up.

I guess it's been a bad week for you, what with the President biting you on a regular basis.

You're welcome.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

He's "Not My President!" Uh... Wrong


To all who attended the “Not My President” rallies yesterday – I truly hope you enjoyed yourselves and were happy with the day's events. I hope that joy of self worth and accomplishment carried on through the evening and even into this morning. Because I've got a big dose of reality for you today.

If you are in this country illegally and marched yesterday then you accurately represented yourself. If you're an illegal alien in the United States then Trump is not your President – because this is not your country.

Now comes the difficult part. If you are a citizen of the United States, whether natural born or naturalized, Donald Trump is your President. It matters not whether or not you're happy about it. We have Presidential elections every four years. Only one side can win. If your side wins then your candidate is President over all. If your side doesn't win then the other candidate is President over all. And that includes you. You can deny it, denounce him, protest, be angry, be furious, and fill yourselves with hatred for the President and his supporters but the reality is he's your President. Period.

Let me put it in a way that Trump haters might understand. In the words of his predecessor, Barack Obama.... “Elections have consequences.”

The consequences of the most recent election are that Donald Trump is the legally elected President of the United States and will be for at least the next four years. You don't have to like it. But you can't change it.

You think your protests are somehow going to change the fact that Trump won. They're not. What you are accomplishing is showing the country and the world how immature adults behave when they don't get their way.

Remember in 2008 and 2012, when Obama won, and a large number of Republicans and conservatives rioted in the streets, vandalized cars and buildings, set fires, blocked streets and highways, and assaulted anyone who voted Democrat? Remember when that happened?

Of course you don't – because it didn't. We didn't like Obama winning. But we dealt with it like adults.

Keep protesting if you wish. That is your constitutional right. But keep an eye on the TV coverage of the protests and the aftermaths. The Trump administration has given the go-ahead to law enforcement agencies to deal with violent protesters as necessary and prosecute them when caught.

I've read that many of those arrested on Inauguration Day are facing ten years in prison. You might want to rethink the violence. Ten years would keep you in prison until well after Trump finishes his second term.

Just a thought.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

"A Day Without Immigrants" - Misguided Or Deliberate Indifference?


So today some people are holding "A Day Without Immigrants," another misguided left-wing show. No one has banned immigrants from coming to the United States. The President has placed a temporary travel ban on 7 countries deemed a security risk until more in-depth vetting can be accomplished. Immigration has not been banned. The President is also enforcing our immigration laws and causing people who are here illegally to be returned to their native countries. Also perfectly legal. And that doesn't ban immigration either. It simply enforces the already-in-place laws that say you must follow certain procedures if you want to immigrate to this country.
The whole "A Day Without Immigrants" stunt ignores the word "illegal." These people believe the United States shouldn't have borders - that anyone should be allowed to enter the United States at any time for any reason. When that happens there will no longer be a United States of America. A country without laws cannot survive.
The sad thing is that the new President of the United States had to immigration laws after the last four Presidents did little to nothing about illegal entry by foreign nationals. Illegal aliens flooded our borders in 2014. Those who were caught were bussed, by the Obama administration, to various places around the country, given court summons, and released.
There was another large influx of people entering the country illegally between the time Trump was elected and the day he took office. ICE agents say the influx was even worse than in 2014.
So for all participating in "A Day Without Immigrants" I would say have a good time. It's not effecting my life that you're demonstrating your ignorance of, or blatantly ignoring, what's actually going on. Trump is right on these issues and is abiding by written federal law. Your protests are not going to change his mind or change the laws.
If you want to change the laws write to your elected representatives. You should have time to do it since you didn't go to work today. And good luck with that.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Is Real


Liberals have been going crazy since Trump's election but it's gotten worse since he took office. From rioting in the streets to completely unsupported calls for his impeachment, and even calls for his assassination, the left is losing its collective mind.

Recently, liberal hypocrite Michael Moore and CNN talk show host Sally Kohn have stated that Trump needs to resign or be impeached so that Hillary Clinton can take over as President. They prove to the American people that A) they don't understand what legally happens when a President is removed or cannot fulfill the duties of the office, or B) they are so overzealous in their hatred of Trump and their love of Clinton that they wish to simply ignore the Constitution and install their queen in the White House by any means necessary. I suspect the latter.

It is now looking like Trump's former NSA chief, Mike Flynn, was sabotaged by Obama leftovers in the intelligence community. Questions need to be answered. Who was monitoring his phone calls and why? And who leaked the information to the media? People in the intelligence community who are working against the President of the United States, working to sabotage his administration, are committing treason. It's that simple.

Liberal heads are exploding nationwide because of Trump's “Muslim ban,” which really isn't. The travel ban from specific countries, identified by the last administration, is in no way, shape or form a Muslim ban. But facts no longer matter to those with Trump Derangement Syndrome. The only thing that matters is their hatred.

Liberals are also going crazy because President Trump is deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes here in the United States. Why this is a problem for anyone is beyond me. After 8 years of lax border enforcement and illegals flowing across the border in waves, Trump is actually doing something about it. And no - he is not breaking up families. Families are more than welcome to go with their parent(s) back to their native country. The ones who enter illegally are at fault here - not Trump.

Then there is California. Governor Jerry Brown basically declared war on Trump and his immigration policies, making California a sanctuary state for illegals. It is estimated that Brown spends over $25 billion on illegals each year. He is also building, at taxpayers' expense, a high speed railway that Californians don't really need. The cost of that is about $100 billion.

Brown has his priorities, it seems. But now he wants the federal government to give him money to fix the failing Oroville dam. He spends state money on things they either don't need or that they should not be funding and asks you and me to pay to repair the dam. (I read this morning that Trump has approved the funding because people's lives are in danger. Personally, I think Trump should have said “Make some changes to your spending and pay for it yourself.” But that's me.)

The liberals like to compare Trump to Hitler and his administration to the Nazis - yet he's done nothing even remotely similar to that regime. It's Trump Derangement Syndrome at it's finest. And it's a real disorder.

Liberals like to say Trump is a liar. Yet their presidential candidate was called a liar by none other than the Director of the FBI and they didn't care. And how about all those celebrities who promised to leave the country if Trump was elected - only to renege on those promises when reality hit them in the face?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is dissolving friendships, causing family members to stop talking to each other, and has even got college kids saying they will cut off their genitals... which could do wonders for reducing the numbers of next-generation liberals.

As I watch the daily drama of the TDS sufferers I don't know whether to make popcorn and enjoy the show or sadly shake my head in wonder. Some days it's both.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Sarah Jessica Parker: "I'm Afraid Some Trump Supporter Will Shoot Me"


Liberals truly are baffling sometimes. Case in point – actress Sarah Jessica Parker said recently that since Donald Trump got elected President she lives in fear that she and her husband, Matthew Broderick, might be assaulted or shot by a Trump supporter.

Really, Sarah? May I call you Sarah?

Just so you feel better let me point out some truths to you. Have you paid attention to all of the demonstrations against President Trump going on across the nation? Have you paid attention to the violence? Those aren't Trump supporters. Those are liberal anarchists who align their political views with yours, for the most part.

Have you paid attention to some of your fellow celebrities who call for President Trump to be assassinated? Have you figured out that those aren't Trump supporters either?

The only people in the country who are advocating and/or participating in violence are liberals. To my knowledge, the only violence advocated by Trump supporters is a threat to stand up to the anarchists who are rioting in the streets. So unless you're one of those anarchists who is out there destroying things, setting fires, and assaulting innocent citizens, I'm pretty sure you're in no danger.

You can live in your cocoon of irrational fear if you wish. It's a free country. But until someone wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat comes up to you and actually does something it would be better if you don't generalize. You should fear the liberal anarchists most of all. Based on their recent actions (vandalizing businesses that supported Hillary, assaulting some of their own, assaulting people who wear red hats – regardless of what the hat actually has on it, etc.) you're in far more danger among those with whom you align. 

Have an insightful day.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Dear Liberal Trump Haters....


Remember back in 2008 when Barack Obama was first elected President and people who opposed him began saying “He's not my President?” Remember how angry that made you? Remember how you insisted that he was everyone's President regardless of political persuasion because he was the duly, legally elected President?

How things change when your candidate doesn't win, huh?

Remember back in 2008 when a group of Republicans and conservatives, many famous, publicly stated that if Barack Obama was elected President they would leave the country?

Yeah... me neither.

Remember in January of 2009, as the inauguration of the first black President loomed, Republicans and conservatives talked about disrupting the inauguration and preventing Obama supporters from attending by creating havoc in Washington DC? Remember how we threatened to disrupt all of the celebratory activities as the day went on?

Yeah... me neither.

Remember all of those angry Republican politicians who announced they were boycotting the inauguration because their candidate didn't win?

Yeah... me neither.

Remember how Republican and conservative celebrities went on TV and talked trash about Barack Obama just days before the election? Remember how they asked the Electoral College to ignore the vote and the rules and make John McCain President? Remember how those celebrities hosted anti-Obama events on Inauguration Day in an attempt to distract people from the actual ceremony?

Yeah... me neither.

Remember that one Republican celebrity who took to the internet and demanded martial law be put into effect to prevent Obama from assuming office?

Yeah... me neither.

What I remember was the peaceful transition of power from George W. Bush to Barack Obama in a centuries-old tradition, the way it's supposed to be. No riots, no threats, no disruption of events.

That's because we're adults and know how to deal appropriately with our disappointment.

I find it rather sad that, should you go through with your plans to disrupt the inauguration, January 20, 2017, will be remembered by the world as the day billionaire business man Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, and the day that many liberals in the United States proved how childish and socially inept they really are.

Grow up.

Liberalism vs Nazism...


Many liberal Democrats, including some Democrat politicians, like to compare Donald Trump and his followers to Hitler and the Nazis. What they either don't realize or simply choose to ignore is the fact that liberalism channels Nazism in many, many ways.

Trump has called for removal of illegal immigrants, something liberals compare to Hitler. But Hitler removed all foreigners, legal or not. And as much as certain celebrities and liberal pundits are saying it, Trump has not called for removing all foreigners. Perhaps liberals should look up the word "illegal."

Let's look at a few examples of Liberalism mirroring Nazism:

1. Nazism: "We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."

Liberalism: The stripping away of land from private owners. Liberalism today demands "eminent domain" on property. The Bureau of Land Management is taking ranches in the West and the Obama administration has claimed more land for "national monuments" than any other administration in history.

2. Nazism: "We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."

Liberalism: The points raised in the Nazi platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes. Obama himself suggested, during his 2008 campaign, that a national security force be instituted.

3. Nazism: "That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."

Liberalism: Demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.

4. Nazism: "We demand the nationalization of all trusts."

Liberalism: Central control of the financial system.

5. Nazism: "In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "

Liberalism: Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things their way in our schools (although Hitler probably would have exterminated students who displayed symptoms of being snowflakes.)

6. Nazism: Took over control of health care and made it a national system.

Liberalism: Passed Obamacare with the intention of it becoming a single-payer, national system.

7. Nazism: Instituted national gun control and confiscated guns.

Liberalism: Constantly screaming for increased gun control and would confiscate guns if they could.

8. Nazism: Hitler gave everyone a free radio. Then he nationalized the radio. Citizens were warned if they listened to anything other than Nazi radio, they would be put to death.

Liberalism: Demands Fox News and other conservative media outlets be censored and/or destroyed.

9. Nazism: Everyone got a guaranteed income from the government. The equal rights amendment was designed in two components, equality, economics and social. Economics was designed to equalize the country's wealth because everyone was entitled to equal income. To achieve that, they had to raise taxes to 70%.

Liberalism: Pushes wealth redistribution, a $15 minimum wage for everyone, higher taxes on the wealthy, and now has attained 47% of the population on some form of government assistance.

From the political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920:

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

Who does that sound like – conservatives or liberals?

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Liberals, Political Correctness and Anarchy....


I watch the actions of Americans who are on the left side of the political spectrum and sadly shake my head. What has happened to pride and respect for our country and our system of government?

When Barack Obama won the Presidential elections in 2008 and 2012, those of us on the right who opposed his visions and ideology were sad and dejected. We didn't want him to win. We predicted many of the problems he would create, i.e., larger national debt, a really bad health care policy that would create problems, a lower status in the world because of his lack of  foreign policies, higher unemployment (regardless of the lies his administration tells.) We knew it would be bad.

We were called racists and haters - even though we didn't protest, didn't demand a recount, didn't threaten to disrupt his inauguration, nor threaten to leave the country in disgust.

When Republicans said they were going to work against Obama's policies that we knew were bad for the country as a whole they were called "obstructionists." Anytime they opposed Obama verbally (they mostly didn't follow up and actually stop him) they were labeled racist obstructionists. That lasted through most of Obama's Presidency.

Political correctness has become one of the most important left-wing ideologies in the last eight years - to the point of being ridiculous.

Gender and sexual preference rule this craziness. Last year the President of the United States declared that bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools will now be gender neutral and/or coed because it's wrong to force a child who identifies as the opposite sex to use a bathroom with others of the same biological gender regardless of their anatomy. This rule even applies to grade school children and schools that refuse to comply (because it's morally disgusting) have been threatened with the loss of federal funding.no

This newest liberal trend has now spread across the country with liberal leaning businesses declaring their bathrooms gender neutral and some states making the policy a state standard.

I've even heard some liberals say that people should give their babies and their pets gender neutral names because babies and pets can't tell you the gender with which they identify and it's not anyone's right to "force a gender" on them.


And finally, Hollywood elite have gotten together in an attempt to first, sway the election to the left and now, to undermine the new President's administration and even disrupt the inauguration. These famous liberal idiots are flat out calling for obstruction of the Trump administration by the Democrats in Washington. "Obstruction" was a bad word during the Obama regime. Today it's a demand from the left. And Trump hasn't even taken office yet.

Liberalism has long been about hypocrisy but we're seeing it right out in the open after this election.

The American people, the workers, the farmers, the small business owners, grew weary of the political left and political correctness and rallied around the one candidate who campaigned against it. Trump won the Electoral College with decisive numbers.

The left is saying, very correctly I might add, that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That's right - she did. But our electoral process doesn't revolve solely around the popular vote, and for good reason. 


On October 19, 2016, after candidate Donald Trump was asked if he would accept the results of the election no matter who won and he answered he would as long as the election was fair, candidate Hillary Clinton said “He (Trump) became the first person, Republican or Democrat, who refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. Now, that is a direct threat to our democracy,”

(Apparently Mrs. Clinton's memory has blocked out Al Gore's challenge to the 2000 election...)


When Green Party candidate Jill Stein called for a recount in several states following the election the Clinton campaign and her followers backed the recount. So what Hillary meant on October 19th was "If I win and Trump challenges it he's a threat to democracy. But if he wins and I challenge it well...  that's completely different."

Bruce Springsteen recently said 
“When you let that genie out of the bottle — bigotry, racism, intolerance… they don’t go back in the bottle that easily, if they go back in at all. Whether it’s a rise in hate crimes, people feeling they have license to speak and behave in ways that previously were considered un-American and are un-American. That’s what he’s appealing to. My fears are that those things find a place in ordinary, civil society.”

The interesting thing about Springsteen's comments are that bigotry, racism and intolerance have all increased under the Obama administration. Black Lives Matter is pushing racism every day. Hate speech and intolerance from the left are rampant, particularly now that Trump won the election. Trump supporters are being assaulted in the streets. Our police are under attack by people on the left - their rage fueled by the President himself. So who is Springsteen really talking about?


The plans by radical liberals to disrupt Trump's inauguration ceremony is pure anarchy. They (the demonstrators) will call it "free speech" but they cross the line when they deliberately attempt to interrupt the process of swearing in the legally elected new President.

Liberal activist (and resident idiot) Michael Moore is pushing for the demonstration saying "
If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over."

So Moore is saying "Let's disrupt the proceedings and force Trump to be inaugurated in a secure, private place and that will show everyone who Trump really is." Yeah... that's liberal logic 101 at its finest.


The left says Trump's election shows how bigoted and intolerant the right really is. But I submit that the truth is just the opposite. The intolerance and hatred on the left is being fully demonstrated to the nation and the world. It's what got Trump elected and what could ultimately be the death of the Democrat Party. And that will be OK.